It is pretty safe to assume that if you see something in a nonsensical website that is nonsensical and absurd and conflicting with current scientific understanding, that is probably because it is nonsense.
That’s fine, but the transitional phase, because freshwater causes a convergence means that they’re clustered in a relatively small area compared to the ocean, making them easy prey for predators (they’re more predictable) and a predator would exploit this to the fullest. So actually it is a matter of game theory. Is it possible for a fish to move from oceans to fresh water through game theory? Someone suggested that all fresh water came from salinated water that slowly diffused with time from rain and allowed for slow adaptation… perhaps, but what about the dead sea? And what allows a fish to even adapt to something it didn’t come from in the first place? Try explaining that through evolution? Supposedly, we’re all common ancestors from salt going creatures. This means that the entire biochemistry of the creature had to change from a trait that didn’t exist. Unless it was a recessive trait from another world. You can’t create something from nothing.
Let’s ponder this idea… microorganisms landed on earth from comets from places where they had adapted to both conditions. The recessive trait triggered when they landed in fresh water from some of it’s species… and then you’re left with fresh water animals. The problem is that even though this should be a recessive trait, the dominant trait should be oceans… which means we’d have much stronger genetics for living around oceans than rivers or lakes… bringing salt inland as we began to colonize and being able to drink ocean water. Why can’t we make our own vitamin C anymore? Most animals can. What possible evolutionary occurance could there be, that has us eating vitamin C when we made our own? These are the types of questions evolution cannot answer sufficiently.
Of course I brought up the old Darwin paradox here in another form, actually I invented it from a motion paradox that puzzled me for years that i also invented: If a new trait emerges, it must have emerged from nothing at all, or already been in the gene pool as a recessive trait, which means it was never a new trait to begin with.
Well if we share similar DNA with other life on Earth, it’s likely a matter of genetic recombination, genetic switches, and mutations that largely determine new traits.
Actually, my paradox is right up James’ alley, but he’s kinda pissed at me now. The paradox gets to the core of the theory of evolution, but it’s one of those existence core paradoxes, so somewhat broader, even though it can be stated in evolutionary terms. Read that paradox again and consider it deeply.
The point amount Zeno’s paradoxes of motion is that they are conceptual problems, but not problems in nature. They rest in the fact that people think in black and white; or what some call binary thinking. For the arrow problem for example people conceive of the arrow in flight in terms of integers of position. the the arrow it happily cotinues to mover regardless of the so-called “paradox”.
I suggest that this “Darwin paradox” only exists in your mind. A “trait” or behaviour is not to be conceive as a history zero proposition. There are no “new” traits without antecedent factors.
Imagine that you are an ape that sometimes forages on the ground when the trees have had all their fruit eaten by other primates.
One day that climate changes (as it always does), making your ground foraging more important. You are but one ape in thousands. some are better, and worse than you are ground foraging. In two or three generations only the ones that are best at this go on to have better ground foraging skills. As most of the surviving apes all have this skill they can only mate with ground foraging specialists, and so for many future generations this skill becomes better, because tree foraging is useless, and those with THAT skill are dead.
As you will have observed each new child is not an exact copy of its parents but has natural variation.
The reason all species show variation is because, like tree foraging example, naturally occurring variation has been advantageous. No species without this can survive, because the environmental conditions always vary, and statically genetic species have a disadvantage to all others that can adapt. With each new generation the “new” trait, is more common, as long as they do well and the trait gives them an advantage in their environment. Humans started to cut the trees for fuel. This was a route of no return, Other traits (they already had) such as co-operation helped them against predators. Arseholes who did not co-operate ending up inside lions. Thus the “new” traits of love and companionship were favoured. Due to natural variation, arseholes still appear in the gene pool, we call these people psychopaths, or politicians. Some of them go unnoticed and have children - others end up shot, or spouseless.
There are one or two species in which this variability is useless: sharks nailed the problem of survival 200 million years ago. Their adaptation is so good that they have managed to carry on with little change. But they are the exception - even they show variation and change
The paradox goes deeper than that… it suggests that we have all traits for survival, something cannot come from nothing, therefor, we should never die, all species should have optimal fitness. In your analogy, the apes had both traits and the environment forced one trait to be more valuable than the other… but with this paradox, all the apes would have the same trait. Trust me on this, I’ve been puzzling over this paradox for years, and I have some answers too… but it’s not as easy to crack as you suggested, though i appreciate you replying to it and considering it on topic to the general idea of what evolution can and can’t explain. Because this paradox is on topic, and I’m not trolling with it either.
The only paradox here is in your head.
Every word you type refutes your own paradox. If you were smarter you would realise that as each post responds to the next, the thread evolves. Where you to apply the paradox to you , you would be struck dumb and unable to respond.
Your paradox relies on a synchronic assumption; reality is diachronic.
Think it through.
What’s absurd about it? Think through the logical steps. In order for a trait that has never existed before to come into being, it had to come from nothing at all, if two particles combined in a way they never did before, that combination, never having existed before, had to come from nothing at all… in order for evolution to not come from nothing at all, all of the traits must already be there, which means every evolutionary creature should have perfect fitness.
Can you refute the logic of the paradox? It’s one thing to say it’s absurd and not say anything else, it’s another to comprehend it and argue intelligently towards it.
Rubbish.
That is the false premise.
Have you ever painted a picture?
Surely that picture has to come from nothing?
Have you ever taken a shit?
Surely that shit has to have come from nothing?