Head binding now and the past

[brewer]

WTF?

You don't cut the tail off, you breed shorter tails thru successive generations. It's about genetics, not what you do to the animal after.

[Mister Agenda]

Elephants that happen to be tuskless won't be killed by poachers, and elephants with shorter tusks are less likely to be killed by poachers, and thus have a better chance to survive to mate. Rats aren't going to develop shorter tails just because you chop them off, as brewer points out.

[highdimensionman]

WTF?

You don't cut the tail off, you breed shorter tails thru successive generations. It's about genetics, not what you do to the animal after.

That depends what you are affecting via chemical or mechanical means before the rat procreates and how many successive generations you cut the tail and say keep breeding the rats with the closest to average tail size. Simply cutting the tail off over successive generations may not have any real effect however there will be some biological workings. you may have to damage the high stem cell areas with enough damage to cause an effect over enough generations. There may well be a good method in biology to maintain stability across generations of a creature but some effects will have a generational impact beyond breeding choice including dietary changes. 
With artificial cranial deformation this was done for 10's of 1000's of years over countless generations. they may have even breed more with those best afflicted by the practice just to confuse issues.
so less than 30 generations of elephant is enough for tuskless elephants to come and you say this had nothing to do with the dna being effected by constant damage to the populations tusks and instead is purely down to breeding and survival.
I think the real answer is more messy and biologically complicated myself.

[The Grand Nudger]

If losing pieces of flesh in your life made creatures progeny stop producing them..we'd have become limbless long ago. We spent a considerable amount of time hacking each other to bits. Far....faaaaar more than 30 generations.

Meanwhile, yes..the fact that poachers will target tusked elephants and not tuskless elephants has a clear and obvious relationship to which elephants remain alive and fucking. Tuskless elephants didn't just appear - poof - after 30 generations at any rate. There is (and was) always the chance that an elephant could fail to develop tusks (or develop smaller tusks). If more of these elephants survive and reproduce (and again and again) due to predation being higher on the others, their condition is expected to become more and more prevalent among the surviving population.

[Anomalocaris]

Elephants that happen to be tuskless won't be killed by poachers, and elephants with shorter tusks are less likely to be killed by poachers, and thus have a better chance to survive to mate. Rats aren't going to develop shorter tails just because you chop them off, as brewer points out.

There is another higher order effect.   If you keep cutting off the tail of every mouse, that means whatever survival benefit tails confer is lost to every mouse.   But every mouse still expanded energy prior to the amputation to develop the tail.  

Since this investment now garner much less return,  evolution will subtlety favor those mouse whose genes cause them to invest less energy in growing and maintaining a tail that will be cut off any way.

So, yes, even cutting off the tail of every mouse, regardless of whether the tail is long or short, will still subtlety cause the mouse to grow smaller tails over many generations.

The beauty of evolution is its principles are so simple and straight forward, and it’s actions and affects are infinitely complex and multilayered.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

WTF?

You don't cut the tail off, you breed shorter tails thru successive generations. It's about genetics, not what you do to the animal after.

That depends what you are affecting via chemical or mechanical means before the rat procreates and how many successive generations you cut the tail and say keep breeding the rats with the closest to average tail size. Simply cutting the tail off over successive generations may not have any real effect however there will be some biological workings. you may have to damage the high stem cell areas with enough damage to cause an effect over enough generations. There may well be a good method in biology to maintain stability across generations of a creature but some effects will have a generational impact beyond breeding choice including dietary changes. 
With artificial cranial deformation this was done for 10's of 1000's of years over countless generations. they may have even breed more with those best afflicted by the practice just to confuse issues.
so less than 30 generations of elephant is enough for tuskless elephants to come and you say this had nothing to do with the dna being effected by constant damage to the populations tusks and instead is purely down to breeding and survival.
I think the real answer is more messy and biologically complicated myself.

The difference being that tusked elephants are killed, leaving a greater percentage of naturally tuskless elephants to breed and pass on the tuskless trait.  Cutting the rails off of rats or artificially squashing the heads of people doesn’t modify their genetics. You can selective breed for shorter tails or longer heads, but body modification won’t work.

That’s like saying tattooed people have a greater chance of having offspring born with tattoos already in place.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Elephants that happen to be tuskless won't be killed by poachers, and elephants with shorter tusks are less likely to be killed by poachers, and thus have a better chance to survive to mate. Rats aren't going to develop shorter tails just because you chop them off, as brewer points out.

There is another higher order effect.   If you keep cutting off the tail of every mouse, that means whatever survival benefit tails confer is lost to every mouse.   But every mouse still expanded energy prior to the amputation to develop the tail.  

Since this investment now garner much less return,  evolution will subtlety favor those mouse whose genes cause them to devote less energy to growing and maintaining a tail that will be cut off any way.

So, yes, even cutting off the tail of every mouse, regardless of whether the tail is long or short, will still subtlety cause the mouse to grow smaller tails over many generations.

The beauty of evolution is its principles are so simple and straight forward, and it’s actions and affects are infinitely complex and multilayered.

Nope.

Boru

[brewer]

WTF?

You don't cut the tail off, you breed shorter tails thru successive generations. It's about genetics, not what you do to the animal after.

That depends what you are affecting via chemical or mechanical means before the rat procreates and how many successive generations you cut the tail and say keep breeding the rats with the closest to average tail size. Simply cutting the tail off over successive generations may not have any real effect however there will be some biological workings. you may have to damage the high stem cell areas with enough damage to cause an effect over enough generations. There may well be a good method in biology to maintain stability across generations of a creature but some effects will have a generational impact beyond breeding choice including dietary changes. 
With artificial cranial deformation this was done for 10's of 1000's of years over countless generations. they may have even breed more with those best afflicted by the practice just to confuse issues.
so less than 30 generations of elephant is enough for tuskless elephants to come and you say this had nothing to do with the dna being effected by constant damage to the populations tusks and instead is purely down to breeding and survival.
I think the real answer is more messy and biologically complicated myself.

You do not understand evolution or genetics at all. You're referring to selective breeding, whether through environment or outside (manipulated) forces.

If outside vectors (tusk hunters) leave only the aberrant (those without tusks) to reproduce (within a small breeding herds) then this will result aberrant's (do some research in fruit flies . That's forced environmental change, which can happen but over many, many generations, and not do to the short tern human effect. How many outside forces breed tail -less rats? Only tails-less rats will become dominant if the environment supports that rats without tails are more successful.

Don't think I'm right? Look at dog breeding. Genetics can be manipulated in a species.

High stem cell? You need to provide more explanation-documentation. Also explain these chemical effects? What the fuck is either of those?

Artificial cranial deformation is a process applied after birth, not genetic breeding for deformation.

[Anomalocaris]

There is another higher order effect.   If you keep cutting off the tail of every mouse, that means whatever survival benefit tails confer is lost to every mouse.   But every mouse still expanded energy prior to the amputation to develop the tail.  

Since this investment now garner much less return,  evolution will subtlety favor those mouse whose genes cause them to devote less energy to growing and maintaining a tail that will be cut off any way.

So, yes, even cutting off the tail of every mouse, regardless of whether the tail is long or short, will still subtlety cause the mouse to grow smaller tails over many generations.

The beauty of evolution is its principles are so simple and straight forward, and it’s actions and affects are infinitely complex and multilayered.

Nope.

Boru

care to contradict in a more educated sounding manner?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nope.

Boru

care to contradict in a more educated sounding manner?

Nope.

Boru