>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?
>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"
>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”.
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.
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.
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
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.
6 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
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.
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
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.
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.
6 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
6 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.
6 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
6 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.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You seem to think it hasn't always been this way
Do you suppose history immortalized a representative fraction of morons?
6 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
6 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.
6 months ago
Anonymous
then intelligence literally doesnt matter for the population, its only important if you have a democracy
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.
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.
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.
Being unable to close its eyes, forcing acceptance in the face of worldly horrors.
My guess: infection. Eyelid geckos like leos seem to live in lower humidity environments
What a stupid question. Look at the size of that eye, no eyelid can make that blink. The lizard found a better solution.
>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?
>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"
>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.
>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”.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
also take a minute to read about appeals to authority so you don't make stupid mistakes like that one all the time.
>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.
god jesus in heaven you're stupid.
GOOLD?
Less energy spent on developing and maintaining giant comically oversized eyelids for your giant comically oversized eyes.
>meanwhile, snakes evolved a transparent scale over their eyes
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.
This analogy is shit because car sales depend on marketing budget, trends and economics.
Also cars are made, they did not evolve.
>analogies must be alike in all respects
weapons-grade autism
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.
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
>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.
That's literally because you don't understand this
There's no advantage to all people being smart when you get the same results from just a few
>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.
You seem to think it hasn't always been this way
Do you suppose history immortalized a representative fraction of morons?
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
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.
then intelligence literally doesnt matter for the population, its only important if you have a democracy
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.
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.
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.