What advantage does this give that makes it better than eyelids?

What advantage does this give that makes it better than eyelids?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Being unable to close its eyes, forcing acceptance in the face of worldly horrors.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    My guess: infection. Eyelid geckos like leos seem to live in lower humidity environments

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    What a stupid question. Look at the size of that eye, no eyelid can make that blink. The lizard found a better solution.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution always produces the optimal solution
    I fear you may be stupid. What advantage does your stupidity confer over not being stupid, do you think?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >your stupidity confer over not being stupid
      seems to work well enough for koalas; human level intelligence is an evolutionary dead end, because it eats up way too many calories, and the only reason why we have able to survive is because we invented ways to bypass the problems, animal husbandry, farming, c sections, medicine, an animal only has to be smart enough, anything else, like having the ability to ponder abstracts ideas and philosophy, isnt practical to being alive and would never develop this level on "purpose"

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it eats up way too many calories
        dumb people consume more calories than smart ones.

        people are actually paying a price to remain dumb. It has higher costs than being smart.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >evolution always produces the optimal solution
      Generally yeah. Evolution strikes a fine line between “optimal solution for surviving this environment and its pressures” and “good enough”. If the solution is inadequate then the species dies or those individuals with traits better suited live on and breed while the others die. If the traits evolved aren’t really a massive advantage but also don’t harm the species’ chances for survival as there aren’t specific pressures weeding them out then evolution shrugs its shoulders and goes “good enough”.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        read Gould

        and every other evolutionary biologist since the 1970's. Even if you agree with strict adaptationists you should at least be familiar with the enormous volume of work disagreeing with you. Dismissing something because you've never heard of it is also scientific illiteracy.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Instead of appealing to authority maybe explain where I’ve made a misstep. Near I’ve seen life has a whole generally swings between those two principles. If you need to adapt then you do and the most optimal adaptation is what survives, if you don’t then you don’t.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's not an appeal to anything. Gould isn't an authority, he's a guy whose ideas you are unfamiliar with.

            this is not about you, nothing you say about a topic you know nothing about matters. You're not arguing, you're not even learning. Stop trying to teach people and go learn something yourself.

            >the most optimal adaptation is what survives,
            unless the most optimal adaptation never evolves
            or cannot evolve
            or evolves along with some horrible side effects
            or isn't preferred by potential mates
            or is only optimal in some circumstances and those circumstances change
            etc.
            ad infinitum
            ad nauseum

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              That’s a lot of projection to unpack. I’m not arguing, I’m stating my understanding of evolution on a Chinese cartoon forum like you. The difference is I didn’t say “read Gould” and talking about volumes of work that disagree with me. Appeal to authority. If a solution has a horrible side effect or acts as a detriment then it’s not the optimal solution. You appear to be mistaking an optimal solution with “the best thing for the job no matter the cost”. The optimal solution isn’t necessarily that when it comes to survival. It should help to improve survival and propagation, else it’s nothing more than a side grade at best and a double edged sword at worst. If the better trait doesn’t evolve then that means the current solution is good enough for the population to maintain its numbers. You’ll see some with the new mutation that would lead to evolution sure but by and large nothing will change in the main population unless the trait holders get separated and allowed to breed in an environment where those traits are more advantageous.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                reminds me of sickle cell anemia, a great example of "good enough" evolution, if you got both recessive genes, youre fricked, but having half means youre still likely to die of sickle cell anemia related problems, but thatll happen after not dying of malaria

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            also take a minute to read about appeals to authority so you don't make stupid mistakes like that one all the time.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              it's not an appeal to anything. Gould isn't an authority, he's a guy whose ideas you are unfamiliar with.

              this is not about you, nothing you say about a topic you know nothing about matters. You're not arguing, you're not even learning. Stop trying to teach people and go learn something yourself.

              >the most optimal adaptation is what survives,
              unless the most optimal adaptation never evolves
              or cannot evolve
              or evolves along with some horrible side effects
              or isn't preferred by potential mates
              or is only optimal in some circumstances and those circumstances change
              etc.
              ad infinitum
              ad nauseum

              >read about appeals to authority
              >read Gould
              >and every other evolutionary biologist since the 1970's
              thats literally an appeal to authority, moron, which is even more moronic because this is science and science is based on objective realities not peoples papers and their opinions.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                god jesus in heaven you're stupid.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          GOOLD?

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Less energy spent on developing and maintaining giant comically oversized eyelids for your giant comically oversized eyes.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eyelids need to form somehow and if an animal doesn't have them that's one less thing it needs. It's a benefit the same way cars without four wheel driver benefit from being cheaper.

      >meanwhile, snakes evolved a transparent scale over their eyes

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        4 wheel drive cars and cars without 4 wheel drive both exist, anon.
        There are benefits to simpler biology and benefits to more complicated biology. Both can potentially find a niche, survive, and reproduce.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          This analogy is shit because car sales depend on marketing budget, trends and economics.
          Also cars are made, they did not evolve.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >analogies must be alike in all respects
            weapons-grade autism

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              If you are imprecise you get idiots like creationists who take an analogy and literally stop there and take off with it. So yeah analogies are pretty shit these days. Just say what you need to say. If you need analogies that badly you clearly don't know the subject well enough to comment or talk about it. Use relevant material or not at all. Popsci shit and constant analogies and dumbing things down has been a disaster.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think you're in some epic battle to convert the cretins?

                One day you'll realize if they were smart enough to come around to your way of thinking they'd already have arrived at that conclusion without you. You're not some great biology buddha educating the ignorant. You're trying to teach algebra to termites

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you think you're in some epic battle to convert the cretins?
                Epic? No. But something does need to be done. You can only fill a society up with idiots for so long before a society that quite literally relies on being scientifically literate just can't sustain itself. I guess I could just say frick it and not bother. But I don't see apathy to society's inevitable corruption and decay helping any better.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's literally because you don't understand this

                >evolution always produces the optimal solution
                I fear you may be stupid. What advantage does your stupidity confer over not being stupid, do you think?

                There's no advantage to all people being smart when you get the same results from just a few

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >come on bro just dont care as the literate ones become fewer and fewer in number leading to slowly decaying infrastructure until we're praying to totems trying to figure out how electricity works
                That's a great idea. Just dumb down everyone as much as possible until they can't even be called human anymore and are essentially just cattle. That'll do a great job.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                You seem to think it hasn't always been this way

                Do you suppose history immortalized a representative fraction of morons?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                the do realize that dictatorships have been the norm for all of human history, democracy is the outlier thats only really lasted for the past 200 years and its kind of a frick u; the greatest philosophers, aristole, plato, socrates, were part of the people who invented it and they said it was shit

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Who said anything about democracy? I'm talking about being literate in at least basic aspects of science. I'm against democracy personally for the very reasons I listed. Who the frick would give anyone power if they're this dumb? The only blessing is we don't have a real democracy, and voting doesn't matter. If we did then we'd be fricked more than we already are.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                then intelligence literally doesnt matter for the population, its only important if you have a democracy

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Snakes have notoriously shit vision, and that scale doesn't help at all. They are primarily scent-oriented and their eyesight relies more on infrared signatures than human-visible light.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The advantage is the nocturnal lifestyle these gigantic eyes afford the gecko. Not being able to blink is a trade off. Licking the eye is a workaround.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Eyelids need to form somehow and if an animal doesn't have them that's one less thing it needs. It's a benefit the same way cars without four wheel driver benefit from being cheaper.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *