this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43404 readers
1620 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It would seem the design that can survive the most extinctions would be the clear winner in the end.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This makes me wonder, why are there no 100% albino species considering albinos can be found in every species and can only produce other albino offspring when paired with other albinos?

[–] IonAddis@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Aren't there, in blind cave species where there's no pressure to select for coloring to protect from the sun or to camouflage or display for mates?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If they can only albino offspring when paired with other albinos that indicates it’s a recessive gene.

Recessive genes don’t take over gene pools unless they confer some survival advantage.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And usually albinos are at a distinct disadvantage. Their camouflage doesn't work, or their mating colors aren't present, or they get burned up by the sun, or a hundred other disadvantages depending on the species and environment.