Is the degradation of chicken wings used in and wasted?

First of all, the use of advance and retreat is an important point of view put forward in "The Origin of Species", but this view is different from the modern theory of evolution in which "natural selection dominates the direction of evolution", and it can indeed be said that advance, waste and retreat are wrong.

The degradation of domestic chicken wings is still natural selection. The example given in On the Origin of Species is the ostrich, "due to genetic and mutation." They are gaining weight and are now unable to fly with wings to escape danger even in the event ......of an emergencyThis kind of significant change in nature is the effect of the wings when they are not in use."

This is Darwin's explanation, but according to modern evolutionary theory, the explanation is that by natural selection, chickens that can adapt to captivity survive, and those who can't either be eliminated or continue to be pheasants.

Although it is kept in captivity, there is still natural selection for chickens. To adapt to captivity, most of the food ** comes from the ground, so you don't need to fly, and those who don't adapt to it continue to jump up and down to hunt, and still retain the ability to fly. This is also a natural selection.

In other words, even if it has the ability to fly, even if it is kept in captivity, if it is given enough food, it will fly away, and it is impossible to become a domestic chicken. If you shut it down, then it's a change in the natural environment, albeit man-made. The result is a domestic chicken.

So in the end, it's natural selection, because the environment has changed.

That's my opinion.

Here is Darwin's view, but not necessarily in line with the current view: "....For example, racehorses, hunting dogs, guide dogs, carrier pigeons, meat pigeons, etc., we will find that their characteristics are in the interests of people: either they are used by people, or they are to meet people's preferences, as if they were not generated in their own interests, which is one of the most striking characteristics of the domestic family.

There are some mutations that are beneficial to human beings, there are cases that occur suddenly, but not all of them are perfect and useful, and the vast majority of mutations are obtained by means of conscious accumulation and selection of human beings—nature gives species continuous variation, and human beings accumulate those variations that are beneficial to themselves. In a sense, useful species are made by humans themselves. ......

In other words, the degradation of domestic chicken wings is the result of artificial selection. It can be explained that the artificial selection is the meat quality and fast growing chicken. The pheasants were just caught, raised, and found that there was a type that did not grow meat, and a type that grew faster (people are like this), and then left the kind that grew meat quickly.

As the number of hunts increases, there are more and more pheasants, and the number of pheasants that grow quickly among them also increases. These have the same genes (long meat genes???) Breeding the next generation, the gene is more stable and single, and the characteristics of the next generation are that the meat grows quickly, and then the meat that does not grow meat is eliminated.

Chickens are cultivated in this way. Because it is bred in captivity, it does not have to fly around to hunt, and it does not encounter danger (it hangs up once you encounter it), so you don't need wings. Or that the chicken itself becomes heavier, and it doesn't ** after it can't fly, and its wings don't need it.

Then according to Darwin's use, the wings degenerate.

As to whether this method of farming is valid, Darwin's note is that "the natives of southern Africa were able to determine which cattle could be used for mating according to their color." It can be seen that this artificial choice exists and is valid.

Personally, I think this question requires knowing exactly how the chickens came from.

If the domestic chicken is domesticated as a result of a bird giving up its ability to fly, then the degradation of its wings is natural selection, according to the prevailing view today. However, the essence of natural selection is that the environment provides pressure, and species as a whole evolve to adapt to the pressures (or that the environment weeds out unevolved species or individuals).In this way, chickens face such a problem:

Why do they gain weight? What kind of environment can you adapt to by gaining weight and giving up the ability to fly? If yes"As the chicken's food is concentrated on land"So, what kind of environmental pressure does a flying chicken face (wouldn't it be faster to find food if it can fly?).

Also, sparrows' main food is basically the same as that of chickens, and they are all on land, so why do they still retain the ability to fly? I don't think it's clear that this problem can be explained by natural selection alone.

So I guess the domestication of the chicken should have happened before it couldn't fly, and it was artificially selected to breed and expand the new species of the chicken. And is the choice of human participation still natural selection?

It is also related to the living habits and body shape of chickens, because the food of chickens is concentrated on land, and because the chickens are getting bigger and bigger in evolution, the wings can no longer bear its weight, so they gradually degenerate, and it has nothing to do with human breeding! Or natural selection! Thank you!

Personally, I think that the main factor why domestic chickens can't fly is not the wings, but the size, so the wings have not degraded much, so they are not used in waste. (Under the drive of people, the chicken will also flutter and flutter, although it does not fly far, but it can be seen that its wings are still useful).

Since domestic chickens are raised by humans, there should be no natural selection to speak of, and humans do not seem to deliberately choose chickens with poor flying ability to stay.

This perception is wrong.

This is how the pheasants are selected during the domestication process of getting up early.

The long ugly, more ordered, and longer meat chickens were retained.

Those who have good flying ability, less meat, and are good at flying are eliminated.

It's hard for you to say that Lamarck's doctrine is wrong, just as it's hard for you to say that God exists, and I think the giraffe doctrine of those days made a lot of sense, and if Darwin were still alive, I would ask him, how many short-necked giraffes were there back then? Could it be that if one in 1 million heads has a genetic mutation, its offspring must have a long neck? Even if they are all long-necked, how many years does it take to develop from one head to the number of individuals that can sustain the population, and the shrubs are all eaten up, and the others are dead, so how many can survive until now?

Inbreeding has long been sick and died, if it is said that thousands of them are mutated at once, then according to the normal probability how many giraffes were there at that time?

Can you say that Darwin's doctrine explains this problem with few loopholes?

If you don't use your legs for many years, and your offspring don't walk with your legs, and you keep them for thousands of generations, is the final result caused by genetic mutations?

Therefore, the degradation of chickens is the result of long-term non-use, not that someone raised a flyless chicken ancestor, are the chickens we eat now all the descendants of this chicken?

Isn't that ridiculous? Are the chickens raised by the Chinese and the chickens raised by the Americans also descendants of this chicken? Could it be that it is such a coincidence that the chickens raised by the races that have never been seen in the world have mutated and cannot fly?

What is it that is not used in and out?

It is not the result of natural selection, the result of the directional change of the gene frequency that controls the wings of the chicken in the process of domestication of pheasants by primitive humans.

Degradation is so that you can eat it.

The traits of organisms are affected by both innate genetic factors and acquired environmental factors.

Innate: Humans choose fat chickens, and chickens that don't fly away.

The day after tomorrow: the chickens are well-fed, getting lazier and fatter.

To be honest, the ancestor of chickens, the original chicken, will not be able to fly anywhere. That's why they were picked and domesticated.

This should be a directional choice.

The chicken originally had a pair of wings that could fly high, and it flew freely between heaven and earth.

Once, a chicken was accidentally caught. People take the chickens home, put them in a cage, and put the goodies in the chicken's mouth. The chicken didn't care about the three-seven-twenty-one, and ate it in a big gulp, thinking while eating:

Now you can eat food comfortably! Why bother looking for it all day long? So, when the chickens were released from the cages, they didn't want to run away, so they stayed in front of people's doors all day and night waiting for food.

Over time, due to the long-term non-use of wings, the chicken's wings gradually degenerate and can no longer fly.

This story tells us not to be covetous, no matter what kind of environment we are in, we must not give up our expertise, and we must keep learning.