>What did evolution mean by this?
All you have to do is reproduce.
If you then die because you grow a stupid big tooth through the middle of your face or your brain, that just doesn't matter. You have already passed on your stupid genes.
If these dumb pigs died from their stupid teeth before they could reproduce, they would have been extinct long ago.
The fact that they still exist and still have their stupid teeth shows that they have actually won the game (for now, at least). There are millions of extinct species. These guys still live.
>All you have to do is reproduce.
I should add that there are loads of animals that die immediately after reproducing or even just after having sex, like some salmon and probably other fish and spiders and insects and things.
It's all just about reproducing, and then you die.
It is what it is.
>Or the female just eats the male after reproduction. >Gotta reuse those nutrients, once the male has accomplished its objective in life
Yep, all us males is is sperm factories. We're otherwise pretty useless in the biological sense. There are exceptions, but relatively few worthy of note.
If you're not paying your child support your baby momma should have just killed and barbecued you while she had the chance.
also, for species that don't take care of its offspring, it's wasteful to stay alive after you passed your genes ahead, dying right after is an advantage because it leaves more resources for the new generation
reproduction is copying yourself, if there's a copy of you alive why keep living?
It's like Sickle Cell Anemia. SCA will kill you in your late 20's, but it cures Malaria, which kills you before you turn 10. SCA gives you plenty of time to frick and make kids before you die, even if it will kill you way younger than you could have lived.
I like to think of the cultural practices these animals would've had if they had been the ones to evolve sapience.
I bet they'd have dedicated tusk trimmers and tusk trimming would be seen as a very important role in society since it's literally a type of health care.
>NEET boars commit suicide by not trimming their tusks >A form of psychological torture is measuring your hostages tusks and telling him he doesn't have long before it pierces his brain >Sexy bob and vagene boars get their tusks removed and replaced with false tusks to trick male boars into thinking they have good genetics for mating
>Evolve gene to grow horns/tusks longer and faster >Breed sooner and BTFO your competition >Your gene wins and is passed on >Horns/tusks continue spiraling towards your brain >Die >Frick you
>devolved into a schizo argument
ah, you can't spot the obvious schizo bait in the OP? The premise is so obviously shitty it can't devolve. OP is a schizo, his post a siren song to other schizos.
evolution doesn't mean anything, that's a human meme
what humans mean when evolution does this is called a spandrel. If you haven't read Gould you aren't qualified to understand anything about evolution even if someone wants to explain it to you. Which clearly a few anons do. What's the meaning of explaining nature to a literal moron? Meaning escapes you by definition. You are a beast incapable of grasping meaning. Much like the animal in your picture, you go through life responding to stimuli but never thinking, never understanding.
>using teeth too much >Develop teeth that always grow >Teeth grow through brain when you get old >Had sex before that happens cuz my teeth were strong and growing >Evolve to be a species with stupid teeth
yes but theorerically the boar that doesn't get spiked in the brain can breed for 2-3 plus generations compared to the one that gets spiked in the brain
If the boar is breeding it's also fighting and grinding/breaking its tusks. They only let their tusks grow once they're no longer competing for females.
Like a fair amount of other seemingly moronic adaptations, "Do you live long enough to make more of yourself? Then I dont give a shit. Maybe something will change if it starts fricking up your dick or whatever but until then suck it up homosexual go frick more sows."
Lobsters are a good example. They're gentically immortal, but they just keep fricking growing until they starve to death or experience some other weird complication that is the result of them simply being too big, it's just that if they live that long it basically guarantees they've already mated several times so it doesn't matter for shit.
God made the kill-switch for a reason other than encourage mating. Reminder: pre-flood people used to live for many hundreds of years, some lived to 800-900. After the flood, God shortened the human lifespan. Now, I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand God, but I was taught by an Orthodox priest that people who live that long end up committing so many sins that they become incapable of repentance similar to demons. Like, why don't demons just repent since God will forgive them? Because they literally can't, they've been committing sin for so long it has become their nature and they can no longer change their mind (repentance = change of the mind, not just regret).
That's what the killswitch is for and mortal men who dream of extended lifetimes do not understand this.
so you think god made the pige in OP's pic die after a few years because he commits too many sins and becomes incapable of repentance? Like a demon?
are you fricking moronic?
7 months ago
Anonymous
I'm talking strictly about humans, because the poster I replied to was talking about a human being as well. The nature of animal souls and whether they even have is still a topic of theological debate, because God specifically does not give us answers to many questions for whatever reasons He deems necessary, but we know for certain that animal souls, if they exist, are not like ours. So no, what I described does not apply to animals at all.
Regarding the topic of anatomical abnormalities and genetics in general, we must remember that even though God made this world perfect, the world fell along with man when man fell to sin. This means that the nature of the world was changed to evil and this was reflected in the behavior of animals as well as their overall physical being. In other words, as Robert Gurney puts it: "All the evils in the world today, both moral and physical, came into the world as a consequence of man’s sin." The animal in question suffering from its own twisted physiology is doing so because its initial perfect physical state was twisted by the fall of the world caused by the fall of man.
If you are serious in researching this question, I suggest you read:
https://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals
7 months ago
Anonymous
>If you are serious in researching this question, I suggest you read:
no, I know you're deluded.
I'm just curious how you rationalize your delusions. The idea that every animal dies, but humans die because of accumulated sin while all other animals die because of human sin is a fabulous rationalization. Utter bullshit, but fun because it makes you feel important.
what is the evolutionary advantage of midwits feeling important? I think it's because you can't rationally justify reproducing or taking up enormous resources without some pretend sky spirit to encourage you. You are not ok enough with yourself to simply be you without a reason. In that case the pig there is in better shape than you are. He doesn't need to invent a god to give him permission to eat or frick. He just does it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Bla bla bla. >>>/x/
You have nothing to say that isn’t said better by buddhists, hindus, jains, greek pagans, gnostics, etc. take your hebrew fire djinn cult and shove it.
I want to be better and live for as long until I'm called back, but I don't want to live forever just to be lazy even if that sounds nice, It's just so I can actually live, I'm a paranoid who's been scared of death since as long as childhood. I did wish I could live long and strong so I wouldn't be scared of people or animals and could help them if needed, sorta like a superhero, but It's mostly so I can make art and replicate my mind ad æternam. Imo surely with good care you could shape your mind to be better and still repent until judgement day or your centuries passed.
>muh hebrew mythology said
Why are you even capitalizing “god” rather than correctly saying “my god” or his name, “yehova”? Your god is not “God”, Brahma is. Your god is just an aspect of Brahma you are allowed to see so through a lifetime or many you may learn something about human nature, fear of heaven and man’s ability to join divinity of his own volition, man’s ability to bring others closer to divinity, and mortally evil acts such as lying and murder done with good intentions.
But by that logic, since God created Man, He also made humanity have the predisposition to sin. God is the Creator, and thus everything in creation was specifically designed by Him. He could have made Man physically and mentally incapable of sin. He could have made it so the Fruit had no effect, but He didn't. So why would God make humans capable of sin if He didn't want us too? He's the omnipotent creator, nothing can happen in existence without His permission.
Nothing to worry about anon, one or another factor stops them from growing to big. Nobody ever even see gigantic lobsters. Anyway I could imagine even if lobsters could become really big we would not be a problem either. There is absolutely nothing scary in lobsters, it is not that they can hatch out some evil plans or something.
>How big could a lobster theoretically be?
Not *all* that big. Circulation, digestion and especially their mode of breathing will presumably limit their maximum size.
Are we forcing an artificially abundant environment? Heavily oxygenate the air to help with breathing at large size, force feeding to maintain body, etc?
I bet lobster can get damn big. Largest in history ( but with lost evidence) was 51 lbs, the largest with official measuring is around 44 lbs.
Take care of a lobster in a special tank for a hundred years or so and I bet you could get a 75 lbs lobster.
if you give artificial abundance to an environment all that happens is the animals that evolved to thrive in resource-poor environments will be displaced by those that thrive in abundance. Basically if you give them more oxygen they just move deeper into the ocean to find places with less oxygen because they're chased out by organisms that like the extra oxygen. Same goes for food or light or any other resource they've evolved to thrive with as a limit.
if an environment becomes too rich, animals don't become larger, they leave the environment. This doesn't work with land animals and oxygen or CO2, but in the ocean the enrichment isn't universal. You can't enrich the entire ocean with gasses.
>by those that thrive in abundance.
Why would you introduce things that will compete with the creatur you are trying to sizemaxx? >they just move deeper into the ocean
How did they get out of the tank?
[...]
if you're talking about enriching a captive environment, that would probably work. But oxygen isn't usually the limiting factor on growing captive lobsters. Food and water quality are much bigger problems.
>Food and water quality are much bigger problems.
And are also easy to fix.
I don't get why the mere co sideration if a hypothetical makes you guys froth and actually so hard.
Go ahead and describe what YOU would do to get the largest lobster you can.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Why would you introduce things that will compete with the creatur you are trying to sizemaxx?
you didn't make it clear you meant captive environments >And are also easy to fix.
You'll make billions of dollars if you can do it, so far nobody has. >I don't get why the mere co sideration if a hypothetical makes you guys froth and actually so hard.
Humanity doesn't have the technology to accomplish your hypothetical, and it's funny when people suggest ideas without realizing they're currently impossible.
Like saying we should clone the dodo without realizing we can't even clone chickens. Or saying we should raise giant lobsters without knowing we can't even raise normal size ones.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>you didn't make it clear you meant captive environments
So you thought >forcing an artificially abundant environment
Meant just having it in the wild. That is stupid.
7 months ago
Anonymous
It's mostly just the hubris
Like you have thousands of people that have literally spent their entire lives studying the problem without success and some poor idiot on Wauf thinks they can solve it with a "has anybody tried more oxygen?"
it's funny and it's sad at the same time. One of life's little comedies.
7 months ago
Anonymous
It's not even just the experts being disrespected.
Most people that keep any sort of saltwater animal use equipment to test oxygen and increase it. Skimmers are designed to increase oxygen, so are wavemakers. A lot of us also dose oxygen in the form of ozone pumped into a pressure vessel with water to increase oxygen.
it's one of the very first things everyone considers when raising marine animals. To think it hasn't been tried in any of our failed attempts at captive lobster farming is beyond absurd.
Be like if your car blew an engine and the toddler in the back seat asks if we've tried fixing it with glue. Sure thing kid, we'll try that. Now shut up.
7 months ago
Anonymous
But there was no hubris, and no pretense of being the only one to think of this. All I did was say I think you could get a 75 lbs lobster with an artificially abundant environment, and mused on which resources would be needed to counteract the issues of size.
Internet being what it is, you and other anons decided "nuh uh" was more engaging than contribution.
Which I still see you didn't add anything to the hypothetical.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I explained why that won't work
if you add resources, the animals move away
you were imagining a captive environment which gets rid of the problem of animals leaving it,
but has the much larger problem that it hasn't been invented yet.
a problem you seem blissfully unaware of.
back here in the real world, if you keep lobsters in a tank you HAVE TO elevate oxygen levels or they die. It doesn't make them bigger, because they don't usually eat in captivity. We don't raise them in captivity because they don't survive.
In your hypothetical fantasy world where we know how to raise lobsters in tanks, you'd still be wrong because we already add as much oxygen as we can to any marine tank. It's standard practice. Basically you're spitballing about something you've never looked into. Cute when children do it, but a bit concerning if you're over 18 and still doing that.
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, you just said it wouldn't.
You would feel better and be less of a Black person if you simply engaged instead of being forced to and lying about not wanting to talk about it.
But you can b***h all day and I'll be having fun with the musing. >you HAVE TO elevate oxygen levels
First thing talked about, moron. In fact, you got pissy about it being brought up. And here you are saying it's the first thing.
Lol.
you're basically asking >how do we breed bigger unicorns?
well first you need to invent the unicorn.
>how do we raise bigger lobsters?
first you need to figure out how to raise lobsters.
>Lobsters are mythical creatures.
So go ahead - how would you raise lobsters? Despite previous anon getting so upset at others mentioning oxygen, they said the first thing is raise oxygen levels.
Do you agree?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>explaining why it hasn't been done yet isn't engaging
ah, you're the paleoschizo.
7 months ago
Anonymous
So you still can't contribute.
Well now that the fools agree with what I originally said about raising oxygen levels, we've also established food to be an issue. I doubt there's a good way to force feed a lobster, but would you need to?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>now that the fools agree with what I originally said about raising oxygen levels,
moron
raising oxygen levels won't produce bigger lobsters when you need to raise oxygen levels to even keep a tiny lobster alive.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Cool, so we need to directly infuse the lobster to make sure it stays nice.
Guess that solves the food issue, too.
This is easy, why haven't any of you done this yet?
7 months ago
Anonymous
If lobsters do fine in the ocean with very little oxygen and then die in captivity with lots of oxygen,
oxygen isn't the limiting factor in captive growth
same for food.
the simple fact is lobsters don't do well in captivity, regardless of how you feed and oxygenate them.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Good job, now you're engaging. So is it the tank size? What if we give a lobster ten acre-feet with alo the trimmings?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Good job, now you're engaging.
I was always engaging, you just failed to understand what I was saying and why I was saying it. >So is it the tank size? What if we give a lobster ten acre-feet with alo the trimmings?
never been tried without a direct connection to ocean water, you should do it next time you have a few million dollars to spend on the world's largest lobster.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Whatever eases your sperging. >never been tried
So it could work. And you still aren't engaging. Unless that is literally all your intellect can muster on the musings of the tank size.
And if that's true then thanks for your contribution, people with imagination will take it from here.
7 months ago
Anonymous
again, if you place a lobster in a better oxygenated part of the ocean they'll just wander away until they find a less oxygenated area to settle in.
if you give your captive lobster acres of water to roam, they're going to leave the oxygenated areas and head for the dead water. But in a captive environment the dead water will have far less oxygen than it does in the ocean.
so your hypothetical has all the same problems of oxygenating wild lobsters, and none of the advantages of just leaving them in the ocean.
7 months ago
Anonymous
We're past oxygen, keep up. you were probably the one to move past it. Make up your mind.
Is there something in your brain that makes you incapable of forward thought?
7 months ago
Anonymous
ah, you can't understand more than one interdependent variable at a time.
it's cool, autists are often moronic like that
see, the oxygen levels vary over distance in large enclosures.
so discussing size leads us right back to oxygen.
you're welcome for the explanation. But if you don't understand this innately, you're never going to be keeping a cold water lobster tank. There's dozens of such interdependent variables to keep track of, and often it's more than just 2 simple ones like O2 over distance.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Whatever it takes to force thoughts out of your brain.
You keep trying to suck your own wiener about explanations, but missing the explanation. No cold water. Got it. So large, warm, lots of oxygen.
And yes, there is no limit to funds. That's why it's called a hypothetical. Look up the word when you get the chance.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>There's dozens of such interdependent variables to keep track of,
And yet you are incapable of mentioning them. Doing so would be...
Can you guess what that would be?
Do you need a list of options?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>And yet you are incapable of mentioning them.
ah, you can't understand more than one interdependent variable at a time.
it's cool, autists are often moronic like that
see, the oxygen levels vary over distance in large enclosures.
so discussing size leads us right back to oxygen.
you're welcome for the explanation. But if you don't understand this innately, you're never going to be keeping a cold water lobster tank. There's dozens of such interdependent variables to keep track of, and often it's more than just 2 simple ones like O2 over distance.
>discussing size leads us right back to oxygen
you're so disappointing to talk to. I'd rather talk to anyone but you.
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, little tsundere b***h, you want this SO bad. So much you are quoting where I already showed how dumb you are for saying exactly what I already did.
But you did t want to talk about that,so we moved past. You want to go back to oxygen, babe? We can do that, I don't mind you getting all flustered and calling me baka.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You: >we should give captive lobsters more oxygen so they get huge
Me: >we already give captive lobsters more oxygen and they just die
if you think I'm agreeing with you, you really are a fricking moron. I don't think you're a woman though. You've gone well past female levels of moronation.
7 months ago
Anonymous
See it's weird you KNOW you aren't saying anything new but you keep saying it. This is why I know you just want someone - ME specifically - to do this.
But we've been over oxygen,and you already solved it once you understood you were being small and unimaginative with the tank.
But this is for you, babe. Take however long you need to get to the point where you're thinking. I'm here for you. You want.to talk about oxygen for the dozenth time, you go right ahead.
What's wrong with the oxygen?
7 months ago
Anonymous
I don't want you to do anything, you're an idiot.
Does oxygen:
A. increase
B. decrease
C. stay the same
1. in a larger tank
2. further away from the source of agitation
3. in a deeper tank
4. in the presence of more food
5. in lower salinity
6. in deeper water
7. in colder water
this is basic knowledge for keeping lobsters alive in tanks, and you should know it if by heart you want to talk about lobster farming.
7 months ago
Anonymous
So basic you took days to be able to say it. Good job, we are all so proud of your effort.
Except, you didn't really explain anything. Want to try again?
I thought we solved this. You said you had already given the answer, but now you are asking questions again.
see,
[...]
if making the tank bigger or adding more food just reduces the oxygen,
you're still talking about oxygen when you suggest making the tank bigger or giving more food
you're just too stupid to know it.
Ooh yeah, babe, that's it, that's the oxygen talk you want to give. Keep going.
Get all that oxygen out. We all love your O face.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>So basic you took days to be able to say it
I assumed you knew it. I was shocked you didn't. >you didn't really explain anything.
I was testing the bounds of your ignorance, not reducing it. >I thought we solved this
yep. You're like a child.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You assumed I knew what you were lamenting wasn't being talked about?
This is why they have that saying about assumptions.
Well now that your fragile system has recovered from shock...still no talk?
C'mon babe, we all know you want to. You don't have to play hard to get when you're over there tweaking your nipples.
But glad we got past the oxygen. Now we can move onto food and other living arrangements required. Unless you got more to say? Or will you go ahead and repeat the only bits of info you have?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>glad we got past the oxygen. Now we can move onto food and other living arrangements required
I told you
food and living arrangements are both oxygen discussions.
7 months ago
Anonymous
see,
I don't want you to do anything, you're an idiot.
Does oxygen:
A. increase
B. decrease
C. stay the same
1. in a larger tank
2. further away from the source of agitation
3. in a deeper tank
4. in the presence of more food
5. in lower salinity
6. in deeper water
7. in colder water
this is basic knowledge for keeping lobsters alive in tanks, and you should know it if by heart you want to talk about lobster farming.
if making the tank bigger or adding more food just reduces the oxygen,
you're still talking about oxygen when you suggest making the tank bigger or giving more food
you're just too stupid to know it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
you're basically asking >how do we breed bigger unicorns?
well first you need to invent the unicorn.
>how do we raise bigger lobsters?
first you need to figure out how to raise lobsters.
if you give artificial abundance to an environment all that happens is the animals that evolved to thrive in resource-poor environments will be displaced by those that thrive in abundance. Basically if you give them more oxygen they just move deeper into the ocean to find places with less oxygen because they're chased out by organisms that like the extra oxygen. Same goes for food or light or any other resource they've evolved to thrive with as a limit.
if an environment becomes too rich, animals don't become larger, they leave the environment. This doesn't work with land animals and oxygen or CO2, but in the ocean the enrichment isn't universal. You can't enrich the entire ocean with gasses.
if you're talking about enriching a captive environment, that would probably work. But oxygen isn't usually the limiting factor on growing captive lobsters. Food and water quality are much bigger problems.
Why do primates have such a slow growth rate and long life spans despite their small sizes then?
Wouldn’t it be more efficient for pushing genetic drift to just live long enough to reproduce then just die, like insects and rodents?
7 months ago
Anonymous
Because evolution by natural selection has no "reason" behind. It's not >which feature should I evolve next to make this species even stronger
but instead >does this new random feature make the species significantly worse at having offsprings? No? Then it stays.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>despite their small sizes
Big primates are actually pretty big.
The smaller ones grow at a faster rate.
>Evolution doesn't care once your dick is shooting blanks.
kind of but not quiet. the tendency to have a nice day with horns at an old age would also mean that any pig that mutated accellerated tooth growth now also dies of that same fate as well as several others like say a deformed skull that accellerates the speed at which you die to this kind of thing, making the stupid anatomy less viable overall. same reason that your heart deteriorating rapidly past mating age would also make the species more voulnerable for all kinds of heart disease. resiliancy is genrally rewarded. this thing is evolutionarly punished, just not harshly enough for it to not occur.
>But shouldn't you evolve so
there's no conscious drive behind the evolution of anything besides humans, anything that doesn't prevent an individual from reproducing gets passed ahead, all the genes present get passed down even the shittiest ones like suicidal tusks
reproduction is copying yourself, can't change anything after it happens
The most natural version of frick around and find out
Survival of the Fittest is a meme, it's survival of whatever the frick happens to survive.
fitness is a biological term for ability to survive dumbass
that's like saying 'a right angle isn't actually right'
right and my point was ability to survive is irrelevant
fitness is a meme
>my point was
that's not actually a point
true, but I made it anyway
I posted my shit on the internet
it's there now
it just is.
Fitness in evolution means to survive until you created offspring.
women
>the teeth dream
>lower tier god.jpeg
'i'm no longer asking'
sstupid FRICKIBNG pig like abomination. die. suffer.
t. evolution
>What did evolution mean by this?
All you have to do is reproduce.
If you then die because you grow a stupid big tooth through the middle of your face or your brain, that just doesn't matter. You have already passed on your stupid genes.
If these dumb pigs died from their stupid teeth before they could reproduce, they would have been extinct long ago.
The fact that they still exist and still have their stupid teeth shows that they have actually won the game (for now, at least). There are millions of extinct species. These guys still live.
>All you have to do is reproduce.
I should add that there are loads of animals that die immediately after reproducing or even just after having sex, like some salmon and probably other fish and spiders and insects and things.
It's all just about reproducing, and then you die.
It is what it is.
Or the female just eats the male after reproduction.
Gotta reuse those nutrients, once the male has accomplished its objective in life
>Or the female just eats the male after reproduction.
>Gotta reuse those nutrients, once the male has accomplished its objective in life
Yep, all us males is is sperm factories. We're otherwise pretty useless in the biological sense. There are exceptions, but relatively few worthy of note.
If you're not paying your child support your baby momma should have just killed and barbecued you while she had the chance.
also, for species that don't take care of its offspring, it's wasteful to stay alive after you passed your genes ahead, dying right after is an advantage because it leaves more resources for the new generation
reproduction is copying yourself, if there's a copy of you alive why keep living?
It's like Sickle Cell Anemia. SCA will kill you in your late 20's, but it cures Malaria, which kills you before you turn 10. SCA gives you plenty of time to frick and make kids before you die, even if it will kill you way younger than you could have lived.
Fisherian runaway selection sure is a b***h
>Fisherian runaway
now that's something I haven't heard since 1947
I like to think of the cultural practices these animals would've had if they had been the ones to evolve sapience.
I bet they'd have dedicated tusk trimmers and tusk trimming would be seen as a very important role in society since it's literally a type of health care.
>NEET boars commit suicide by not trimming their tusks
>A form of psychological torture is measuring your hostages tusks and telling him he doesn't have long before it pierces his brain
>Sexy bob and vagene boars get their tusks removed and replaced with false tusks to trick male boars into thinking they have good genetics for mating
Contrary to the widespread belief of survival of the fittest, it's survival of the fit enough, even if barely.
>Evolve gene to grow horns/tusks longer and faster
>Breed sooner and BTFO your competition
>Your gene wins and is passed on
>Horns/tusks continue spiraling towards your brain
>Die
>Frick you
cum faster
Of course thread devolved into a schizo argument
>devolved into a schizo argument
ah, you can't spot the obvious schizo bait in the OP? The premise is so obviously shitty it can't devolve. OP is a schizo, his post a siren song to other schizos.
Wierd thing innit?
What do you think your liver is doing right now?
recovering from the weekend
evolution doesn't mean anything, that's a human meme
what humans mean when evolution does this is called a spandrel. If you haven't read Gould you aren't qualified to understand anything about evolution even if someone wants to explain it to you. Which clearly a few anons do. What's the meaning of explaining nature to a literal moron? Meaning escapes you by definition. You are a beast incapable of grasping meaning. Much like the animal in your picture, you go through life responding to stimuli but never thinking, never understanding.
>assigning meaning to something as chaotic as evolution
lol
>using teeth too much
>Develop teeth that always grow
>Teeth grow through brain when you get old
>Had sex before that happens cuz my teeth were strong and growing
>Evolve to be a species with stupid teeth
yes but theorerically the boar that doesn't get spiked in the brain can breed for 2-3 plus generations compared to the one that gets spiked in the brain
breeding over too many generations isn't an advantage for most animals. Results in a lot of inbreeding and not much genetic drift.
give the size of those tusks, that animal has probably already bred through several generations, and the tusks aren't anywhere near the brain.
If the boar is breeding it's also fighting and grinding/breaking its tusks. They only let their tusks grow once they're no longer competing for females.
But enough about britains.
Like a fair amount of other seemingly moronic adaptations, "Do you live long enough to make more of yourself? Then I dont give a shit. Maybe something will change if it starts fricking up your dick or whatever but until then suck it up homosexual go frick more sows."
Lobsters are a good example. They're gentically immortal, but they just keep fricking growing until they starve to death or experience some other weird complication that is the result of them simply being too big, it's just that if they live that long it basically guarantees they've already mated several times so it doesn't matter for shit.
Does this mean I'll live forever if I stay a virgin?
No. It means God has emplaced a pre-programmed kill switch in you so you'd better get someone pregnant asap.
Aw man.
Do you have a sister? Large hips preferred
God made the kill-switch for a reason other than encourage mating. Reminder: pre-flood people used to live for many hundreds of years, some lived to 800-900. After the flood, God shortened the human lifespan. Now, I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand God, but I was taught by an Orthodox priest that people who live that long end up committing so many sins that they become incapable of repentance similar to demons. Like, why don't demons just repent since God will forgive them? Because they literally can't, they've been committing sin for so long it has become their nature and they can no longer change their mind (repentance = change of the mind, not just regret).
That's what the killswitch is for and mortal men who dream of extended lifetimes do not understand this.
so you think god made the pige in OP's pic die after a few years because he commits too many sins and becomes incapable of repentance? Like a demon?
are you fricking moronic?
I'm talking strictly about humans, because the poster I replied to was talking about a human being as well. The nature of animal souls and whether they even have is still a topic of theological debate, because God specifically does not give us answers to many questions for whatever reasons He deems necessary, but we know for certain that animal souls, if they exist, are not like ours. So no, what I described does not apply to animals at all.
Regarding the topic of anatomical abnormalities and genetics in general, we must remember that even though God made this world perfect, the world fell along with man when man fell to sin. This means that the nature of the world was changed to evil and this was reflected in the behavior of animals as well as their overall physical being. In other words, as Robert Gurney puts it: "All the evils in the world today, both moral and physical, came into the world as a consequence of man’s sin." The animal in question suffering from its own twisted physiology is doing so because its initial perfect physical state was twisted by the fall of the world caused by the fall of man.
If you are serious in researching this question, I suggest you read:
https://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals
>If you are serious in researching this question, I suggest you read:
no, I know you're deluded.
I'm just curious how you rationalize your delusions. The idea that every animal dies, but humans die because of accumulated sin while all other animals die because of human sin is a fabulous rationalization. Utter bullshit, but fun because it makes you feel important.
what is the evolutionary advantage of midwits feeling important? I think it's because you can't rationally justify reproducing or taking up enormous resources without some pretend sky spirit to encourage you. You are not ok enough with yourself to simply be you without a reason. In that case the pig there is in better shape than you are. He doesn't need to invent a god to give him permission to eat or frick. He just does it.
Bla bla bla. >>>/x/
You have nothing to say that isn’t said better by buddhists, hindus, jains, greek pagans, gnostics, etc. take your hebrew fire djinn cult and shove it.
>>>/x/
I like your beliefs, anon. They are comfy.
He's a Wauf orthodox so yes.
I want to be better and live for as long until I'm called back, but I don't want to live forever just to be lazy even if that sounds nice, It's just so I can actually live, I'm a paranoid who's been scared of death since as long as childhood. I did wish I could live long and strong so I wouldn't be scared of people or animals and could help them if needed, sorta like a superhero, but It's mostly so I can make art and replicate my mind ad æternam. Imo surely with good care you could shape your mind to be better and still repent until judgement day or your centuries passed.
Bullshit but I believe it.
>muh hebrew mythology said
Why are you even capitalizing “god” rather than correctly saying “my god” or his name, “yehova”? Your god is not “God”, Brahma is. Your god is just an aspect of Brahma you are allowed to see so through a lifetime or many you may learn something about human nature, fear of heaven and man’s ability to join divinity of his own volition, man’s ability to bring others closer to divinity, and mortally evil acts such as lying and murder done with good intentions.
But by that logic, since God created Man, He also made humanity have the predisposition to sin. God is the Creator, and thus everything in creation was specifically designed by Him. He could have made Man physically and mentally incapable of sin. He could have made it so the Fruit had no effect, but He didn't. So why would God make humans capable of sin if He didn't want us too? He's the omnipotent creator, nothing can happen in existence without His permission.
Frick off creationschizo
How big could a lobster theoretically be? I’m really high and imagining an enormous lobster dwelling in some undersea cavern.
Nothing to worry about anon, one or another factor stops them from growing to big. Nobody ever even see gigantic lobsters. Anyway I could imagine even if lobsters could become really big we would not be a problem either. There is absolutely nothing scary in lobsters, it is not that they can hatch out some evil plans or something.
>How big could a lobster theoretically be?
Not *all* that big. Circulation, digestion and especially their mode of breathing will presumably limit their maximum size.
Are we forcing an artificially abundant environment? Heavily oxygenate the air to help with breathing at large size, force feeding to maintain body, etc?
I bet lobster can get damn big. Largest in history ( but with lost evidence) was 51 lbs, the largest with official measuring is around 44 lbs.
Take care of a lobster in a special tank for a hundred years or so and I bet you could get a 75 lbs lobster.
if you give artificial abundance to an environment all that happens is the animals that evolved to thrive in resource-poor environments will be displaced by those that thrive in abundance. Basically if you give them more oxygen they just move deeper into the ocean to find places with less oxygen because they're chased out by organisms that like the extra oxygen. Same goes for food or light or any other resource they've evolved to thrive with as a limit.
if an environment becomes too rich, animals don't become larger, they leave the environment. This doesn't work with land animals and oxygen or CO2, but in the ocean the enrichment isn't universal. You can't enrich the entire ocean with gasses.
>by those that thrive in abundance.
Why would you introduce things that will compete with the creatur you are trying to sizemaxx?
>they just move deeper into the ocean
How did they get out of the tank?
>Food and water quality are much bigger problems.
And are also easy to fix.
I don't get why the mere co sideration if a hypothetical makes you guys froth and actually so hard.
Go ahead and describe what YOU would do to get the largest lobster you can.
>Why would you introduce things that will compete with the creatur you are trying to sizemaxx?
you didn't make it clear you meant captive environments
>And are also easy to fix.
You'll make billions of dollars if you can do it, so far nobody has.
>I don't get why the mere co sideration if a hypothetical makes you guys froth and actually so hard.
Humanity doesn't have the technology to accomplish your hypothetical, and it's funny when people suggest ideas without realizing they're currently impossible.
Like saying we should clone the dodo without realizing we can't even clone chickens. Or saying we should raise giant lobsters without knowing we can't even raise normal size ones.
>you didn't make it clear you meant captive environments
So you thought
>forcing an artificially abundant environment
Meant just having it in the wild. That is stupid.
It's mostly just the hubris
Like you have thousands of people that have literally spent their entire lives studying the problem without success and some poor idiot on Wauf thinks they can solve it with a "has anybody tried more oxygen?"
it's funny and it's sad at the same time. One of life's little comedies.
It's not even just the experts being disrespected.
Most people that keep any sort of saltwater animal use equipment to test oxygen and increase it. Skimmers are designed to increase oxygen, so are wavemakers. A lot of us also dose oxygen in the form of ozone pumped into a pressure vessel with water to increase oxygen.
it's one of the very first things everyone considers when raising marine animals. To think it hasn't been tried in any of our failed attempts at captive lobster farming is beyond absurd.
Be like if your car blew an engine and the toddler in the back seat asks if we've tried fixing it with glue. Sure thing kid, we'll try that. Now shut up.
But there was no hubris, and no pretense of being the only one to think of this. All I did was say I think you could get a 75 lbs lobster with an artificially abundant environment, and mused on which resources would be needed to counteract the issues of size.
Internet being what it is, you and other anons decided "nuh uh" was more engaging than contribution.
Which I still see you didn't add anything to the hypothetical.
I explained why that won't work
if you add resources, the animals move away
you were imagining a captive environment which gets rid of the problem of animals leaving it,
but has the much larger problem that it hasn't been invented yet.
a problem you seem blissfully unaware of.
back here in the real world, if you keep lobsters in a tank you HAVE TO elevate oxygen levels or they die. It doesn't make them bigger, because they don't usually eat in captivity. We don't raise them in captivity because they don't survive.
In your hypothetical fantasy world where we know how to raise lobsters in tanks, you'd still be wrong because we already add as much oxygen as we can to any marine tank. It's standard practice. Basically you're spitballing about something you've never looked into. Cute when children do it, but a bit concerning if you're over 18 and still doing that.
No, you just said it wouldn't.
You would feel better and be less of a Black person if you simply engaged instead of being forced to and lying about not wanting to talk about it.
But you can b***h all day and I'll be having fun with the musing.
>you HAVE TO elevate oxygen levels
First thing talked about, moron. In fact, you got pissy about it being brought up. And here you are saying it's the first thing.
Lol.
>Lobsters are mythical creatures.
So go ahead - how would you raise lobsters? Despite previous anon getting so upset at others mentioning oxygen, they said the first thing is raise oxygen levels.
Do you agree?
>explaining why it hasn't been done yet isn't engaging
ah, you're the paleoschizo.
So you still can't contribute.
Well now that the fools agree with what I originally said about raising oxygen levels, we've also established food to be an issue. I doubt there's a good way to force feed a lobster, but would you need to?
>now that the fools agree with what I originally said about raising oxygen levels,
moron
raising oxygen levels won't produce bigger lobsters when you need to raise oxygen levels to even keep a tiny lobster alive.
Cool, so we need to directly infuse the lobster to make sure it stays nice.
Guess that solves the food issue, too.
This is easy, why haven't any of you done this yet?
If lobsters do fine in the ocean with very little oxygen and then die in captivity with lots of oxygen,
oxygen isn't the limiting factor in captive growth
same for food.
the simple fact is lobsters don't do well in captivity, regardless of how you feed and oxygenate them.
Good job, now you're engaging. So is it the tank size? What if we give a lobster ten acre-feet with alo the trimmings?
>Good job, now you're engaging.
I was always engaging, you just failed to understand what I was saying and why I was saying it.
>So is it the tank size? What if we give a lobster ten acre-feet with alo the trimmings?
never been tried without a direct connection to ocean water, you should do it next time you have a few million dollars to spend on the world's largest lobster.
Whatever eases your sperging.
>never been tried
So it could work. And you still aren't engaging. Unless that is literally all your intellect can muster on the musings of the tank size.
And if that's true then thanks for your contribution, people with imagination will take it from here.
again, if you place a lobster in a better oxygenated part of the ocean they'll just wander away until they find a less oxygenated area to settle in.
if you give your captive lobster acres of water to roam, they're going to leave the oxygenated areas and head for the dead water. But in a captive environment the dead water will have far less oxygen than it does in the ocean.
so your hypothetical has all the same problems of oxygenating wild lobsters, and none of the advantages of just leaving them in the ocean.
We're past oxygen, keep up. you were probably the one to move past it. Make up your mind.
Is there something in your brain that makes you incapable of forward thought?
ah, you can't understand more than one interdependent variable at a time.
it's cool, autists are often moronic like that
see, the oxygen levels vary over distance in large enclosures.
so discussing size leads us right back to oxygen.
you're welcome for the explanation. But if you don't understand this innately, you're never going to be keeping a cold water lobster tank. There's dozens of such interdependent variables to keep track of, and often it's more than just 2 simple ones like O2 over distance.
Whatever it takes to force thoughts out of your brain.
You keep trying to suck your own wiener about explanations, but missing the explanation. No cold water. Got it. So large, warm, lots of oxygen.
And yes, there is no limit to funds. That's why it's called a hypothetical. Look up the word when you get the chance.
>There's dozens of such interdependent variables to keep track of,
And yet you are incapable of mentioning them. Doing so would be...
Can you guess what that would be?
Do you need a list of options?
>And yet you are incapable of mentioning them.
>discussing size leads us right back to oxygen
you're so disappointing to talk to. I'd rather talk to anyone but you.
No, little tsundere b***h, you want this SO bad. So much you are quoting where I already showed how dumb you are for saying exactly what I already did.
But you did t want to talk about that,so we moved past. You want to go back to oxygen, babe? We can do that, I don't mind you getting all flustered and calling me baka.
You:
>we should give captive lobsters more oxygen so they get huge
Me:
>we already give captive lobsters more oxygen and they just die
if you think I'm agreeing with you, you really are a fricking moron. I don't think you're a woman though. You've gone well past female levels of moronation.
See it's weird you KNOW you aren't saying anything new but you keep saying it. This is why I know you just want someone - ME specifically - to do this.
But we've been over oxygen,and you already solved it once you understood you were being small and unimaginative with the tank.
But this is for you, babe. Take however long you need to get to the point where you're thinking. I'm here for you. You want.to talk about oxygen for the dozenth time, you go right ahead.
What's wrong with the oxygen?
I don't want you to do anything, you're an idiot.
Does oxygen:
A. increase
B. decrease
C. stay the same
1. in a larger tank
2. further away from the source of agitation
3. in a deeper tank
4. in the presence of more food
5. in lower salinity
6. in deeper water
7. in colder water
this is basic knowledge for keeping lobsters alive in tanks, and you should know it if by heart you want to talk about lobster farming.
So basic you took days to be able to say it. Good job, we are all so proud of your effort.
Except, you didn't really explain anything. Want to try again?
I thought we solved this. You said you had already given the answer, but now you are asking questions again.
Ooh yeah, babe, that's it, that's the oxygen talk you want to give. Keep going.
Get all that oxygen out. We all love your O face.
>So basic you took days to be able to say it
I assumed you knew it. I was shocked you didn't.
>you didn't really explain anything.
I was testing the bounds of your ignorance, not reducing it.
>I thought we solved this
yep. You're like a child.
You assumed I knew what you were lamenting wasn't being talked about?
This is why they have that saying about assumptions.
Well now that your fragile system has recovered from shock...still no talk?
C'mon babe, we all know you want to. You don't have to play hard to get when you're over there tweaking your nipples.
But glad we got past the oxygen. Now we can move onto food and other living arrangements required. Unless you got more to say? Or will you go ahead and repeat the only bits of info you have?
>glad we got past the oxygen. Now we can move onto food and other living arrangements required
I told you
food and living arrangements are both oxygen discussions.
see,
if making the tank bigger or adding more food just reduces the oxygen,
you're still talking about oxygen when you suggest making the tank bigger or giving more food
you're just too stupid to know it.
you're basically asking
>how do we breed bigger unicorns?
well first you need to invent the unicorn.
>how do we raise bigger lobsters?
first you need to figure out how to raise lobsters.
if you're talking about enriching a captive environment, that would probably work. But oxygen isn't usually the limiting factor on growing captive lobsters. Food and water quality are much bigger problems.
Quite large since one got big enough to go claw-to-claw with Godzilla.
convinced you get reborn as one of those if you gather enough bad karma.
Dentists get reborn as these
Whether you believe in evolution or divine creation, it should be obvious both are driven by pure insanity.
Reality is just too fricked up.
Explain to me in detail what part of this animals anatomy keeps it from producing offspring
The part where their tusks can grow into their own head and kill them.
Animal already had sex though.
There could be a gene that makes your brain explode at 60, will still pass on to future generations if you reproduce.
But shouldn't you evolve so you don't kill or damage yourself for no reason whatsoever?
We still usually die from cancer or heart disease, don't we?
Evolution doesn't care once your dick is shooting blanks.
Why do primates have such a slow growth rate and long life spans despite their small sizes then?
Wouldn’t it be more efficient for pushing genetic drift to just live long enough to reproduce then just die, like insects and rodents?
Because evolution by natural selection has no "reason" behind. It's not
>which feature should I evolve next to make this species even stronger
but instead
>does this new random feature make the species significantly worse at having offsprings? No? Then it stays.
>despite their small sizes
Big primates are actually pretty big.
The smaller ones grow at a faster rate.
>Evolution doesn't care once your dick is shooting blanks.
kind of but not quiet. the tendency to have a nice day with horns at an old age would also mean that any pig that mutated accellerated tooth growth now also dies of that same fate as well as several others like say a deformed skull that accellerates the speed at which you die to this kind of thing, making the stupid anatomy less viable overall. same reason that your heart deteriorating rapidly past mating age would also make the species more voulnerable for all kinds of heart disease. resiliancy is genrally rewarded. this thing is evolutionarly punished, just not harshly enough for it to not occur.
>But shouldn't you evolve so
there's no conscious drive behind the evolution of anything besides humans, anything that doesn't prevent an individual from reproducing gets passed ahead, all the genes present get passed down even the shittiest ones like suicidal tusks
reproduction is copying yourself, can't change anything after it happens
Why not?