𓁟 host1.bitchan.one

I don't really get evolution. I mean I read this book, very interesting, but I don't really understand why every animal isn't intelligent. It seems like the most useful trait by far and one that would be easily selected for since smarter creatures would have a better survival rate. Random mutations of things like air-breathing lungs and wings would be way harder to select for. Let's talk wings for a second. Birds come from reptiles, I can buy that. But an animal can only fly if it has a lot goi…

⧖expiring ~15d0/23 kept2w ago

𓀐 @Eo+ugShR

⏱ 2w 👍 0

⬆ upvote 0

[⇥] sort oldest ⏱

⬆[⏱]₿⚠

👍👎✔

𓀐↩⛓⚠

[⇥] flip, oldest first

filter [-]
𓀐 @jnJ?-Kcq: >>25582683 You've demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the mechanism at play. There is no agent thinking "wow, it would be great if we developed intelligence". The only pathway is if one generation has more and less intelligent members and the more intelligent ones have a survival/reproduction edge. And as others have mentioned, most species go through periods of time when food is scarce, and having a complex brain is resource intensive, meaning you starve to death quicker if you have…+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @fTq4PkFK: >>25582834 >You've demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the mechanism at play. Natural selection is an imaginary abstraction that is tautological by the nature of its inception, so you tell me.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @YcqTQU7Z: >>25582906 > Intelligence is incredibly energetically expensive Can it be quantified somehow, how expensive it is? Why is it more expensive than a pair of wings or whatever?+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @dJChMtaS: >>25582923 >Can it be quantified somehow, how expensive it is? Yeah, we literally quantify it in calories. Nervous tissue is fucking expensive to upkeep, and it's working 24/7, even when you're sleeping. Bigger brains are made up of more nervous tissue, and more complex brains require more calories to feed them. A pair of wings however aren't burning very much energy when you're not using them, because wings are just muscle tissue connected to bone. Studies have been done on selecting for intel…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @B8ooG53W: What's so great about being alive?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @YMrAi9PJ: high school drop outs should not be allowed to read books more complicated than of mice and men+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @yJE?bttU: >>25584239 Read the Bibble you godless heathen. Evolution is the science of Satan. I'll pray for you.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @PFb8yXWp: >>25584957 Debunked. That was easy+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @QV2=*-EF: >>25585063 You're exactly like Christians who think the Shroud of Turin is irrefutable proof of Jesus Christ's revival, dinosaurfag.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @5h-_suiq: >>25585192 >The bones of sauropods are proof that sauropods existed Counterargument: The "bones" don't exist since a sauropod wouldn't be able to survive its own anatomy by all of our understanding of biomechanics if such a creature did exist. Hope this helps!+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @U8AV?qy*: Every animal *is* intelligent.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @PBF6PyE~: >>25585260 >natural selection is a brutal and insidious killer >unless you're this abomination+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @VZgMtRDR: >>25582683 This book is fundamentally flawed because it’s trying to assign human like traits to evolution. It’s not intelligent, the best don’t magically survive even though humans want to believe these things. The hard truth is nobody is in control, thousands of random factors determine who/what survives. 99.9% of everything has gone extinct because life is an incredibly complex system of millions of species that are constantly changing in a constantly changing environment. There is no simple…+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @5pWSJbRc: >>25585309 Ie dinosaurs didn’t just evolve back after the meteor made them extinct, tons of animals alive today are just idiotic like koala bears but they exist. Sexual selection is retarded ie female birds just choosing males with colourful tails. If you ran earth again from the start you would get an entirely different selection of life. The list goes on and on. Anyone trying to give you some black and white 5 dot point list of how it works is pants on head retarded.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @2bAyoHhW: >>25582683 >why every animal isn't intelligent Intelligence is not particularly conductive to survival even in most humans. What do you suppose a pufferfish or a deer gain from it? Start making tools with their fins and hooves? Build Wile E Coyote traps against predators? They can already learn from things such as predator behavior, and communicate the very limited set of survival relevant signals to other members of their species. Abstract thought and complex language would be just a (massive)…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @LLo3EWB2: >>25582683 It's mostly random bullshit, don't worry about it.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @nvcg8AJt: >>25586204 >The only way to refute natural selection is to refute the idea that traits are passed on through the generations, which is again just obviously true. The problem is that there is no sexual selection mechanism that can actually account for deleterious mutations that lie dormant throughout entire generations, until it suddenly becomes a huge problem later on down the road. Knowing species can adapt and thrive in their environments in the short term does not explain how this process is…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @ysn9oD_d: Evolution is a jewish freemasonic lie. Kys+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @j*H8neFb: >>25582683 There clearly has to be more to it than just darwinism. Everyone knows the Fisherian runaway theory with peacocks, but there are tons of birds that have these elaborate colors and feathers that clearly do not confer any survival advantage, and sometimes even impede it. Saying it started as a beneficial survival trait seems unsatisfactory to me, if that were the case every bird in the jungle would just have some camo pattern. It's interesting because unlike mammals birds can't reprodu…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @CRvDncM7: >>25594433 >Can you explain this more? Simple: Genetics don't actually function as blueprints that dictate morphology, they're really just protein factories cells interact with. This metaphor is outdated and will likely be abandoned entirely within future paradigm shifts. >And also what do you think of ideas like mutation load? Doesn't reject the notion that DNA is still interacting with more fundamental systems of higher organizing principles in biology. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @XcPxBCDW: >>25584575 It's what the fosil record lends credence to, without the bones showing it happening for millions of years we would be stuck in theory. >>25586808 >How does an animal like this not collapse under its own weight? literally just an argument from ignorance. Nobody is going around making fake dinosaur bones anymore, if you're so interested about hydrostatic pressure in evutionary biology go study it. The ideas you've been posting in the thread and others aren't new. >>25591005 >change ov…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @LYpskShM: >>25582683 Evolution never happened. Biologist never answered the math question in the sixties. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is and has ever been a fictional story.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0