/sci/ - Science & Math

MFW you rage over semantics.

>>2258869
op is a more evolved lover of same sex sexual intercourse of the male variety

>>2258873
I have a degree in molecular genetics, it's my job to rage over semantics

Calm down OP. Not all of people care about evolution as much as you do. 90% people think that evolution is simply "monkey to men".

OP, I agree completely, I at least try to point it out to people, when it's appropriate, or when I know they'd actually care.

>>2258876
Don't you rage more when people inevitably go 'well if evolution is true, why are there monkeys?' or 'well if evolution is true, where did life come from firstly?'

>>2258876
OP how can you believe in molecular genetics when it's just a theory (a geuss)

>>2258890
Yes, then I'll change the subject so I don't have to pull my hair out

>>2258891
Jesus told me when we had the conversation about how things can't be more evolved than one another

i'm more evolved than you OP umad?

>>2258908
>implying a tripfag can be more evolved than an anon

I feel your pain OP. I was watching a Justin.tv stream of Stargate SG1 when Season 10 came on, and it has this episode about some sort of genetically engineered human. The characters said he was "more evolved", and so I laughed about it into the chat.

Then people started saying shit like "OF COURSE THERE IS, HUMANS ARE MORE EVOLVED THAN DOGS". So I corrected them pretty calmly, but persisted.

I get banned for 72 hours for "intolerance of other peoples beliefs".

Does not the emergence of more complex organisms constitute "more evolved"?

Maybe I misunderstand OP. I'm thinking of how evolution isn't a one-way street heaping one advantadge upon the other but a process of adapting to the environment.

I totally understand you OP, some firend of mine said that we (humans) can't be the product of natural selection because we have an special cuality: we can give our lives for a bigger cause.

At that moment i couldn't laugh at his face, but sure I loled in my bedroom, alone.

Hey OP, explain to me, as I am one to say things like that. Is the thought that all things at time x are equally evolved?

>>2258967
it actually makes sense in the stargate universe, since they all want to evolve toward ascension, so the closer someone gets to ascension, the more evolved one becomes.

>>2258999
Yeah remember the acention-meter they hooked up to Anubis' clone... Loled

Econ major here. I've taken anthropology and I know what you guys are saying, I even agreed for a while the the term "more evolved" has no place.

But you know what, i'll say it all I fucking want. There are people who no longer develop wisdom teeth at all, and I consider them "more evolved" than those who still get wisdom teeth. In regards to evolution of the mouth.

I dunno, i'm not a biology kind of guy, but if you don't like it you can suck my fat dick okay?

Well, they clearly mean 'more refined'.

Well, if you're comparing a stem group to a crown group, "more evolved" is not necessarily inappropriate. A mockingbird is "more evolved" than an Archaeopteryx.

man is more evolved than dinosaurs

>>2258989
Was me. Pay attention!

While the goal or purpose (metaphors, such as they are) of evolution is to adapt to the environment, greater complexity can arise from the process. Look at humans compared to bacteria.

>>2259006
>people without wisdom teeth are more evolved

>>2259006
You idiot. Evolution is a deterministic process that acts on populations under selective pressure over generations. What the fuck is pressuring humans to favour the survival of people without wisdom teeth? Not having them is a freak mutation in their makeup, not evolution.
8/10.

>>2259006
If you're not a "biology kind of guy" then rather than abuse biological terminology, why not just drop the pretension and say what you mean? Not having wisdom teeth is simply better than having them, because they're nothing but trouble. There, see? There was no need for any allusion to biology at all.

>>2259060
It'd be a subtle pressure. Doesn't seem very likely, but not impossible either. Evolution doesn't happen over hundreds of thousands of years as was once thought but in swift leaps. Is this process even understood?

>>2259060
a person without wisdom teeth does not experience the discomfort and does need to spend resources to get them removed, this gives them a slight advantage over others which would lead to slightly greater reproductive success

obviously it's not a huge difference, but those slight advantages add up especially in evolution

>>2259083
>>2259074
>does not need to spend resources to get them removed
Evolution to cause a change on a population with a generation time like us doesn't work over just 1000 years if you want to imply that dentists have existed for that many years. And do find me proof of how many people die during root canal surgery. If you do not know how something works, learn about it instead of coming up and pushing your half ignorant theories.

But isn't the exclusion of wisdom teeth evolution? Just because you don't think it's possible you shouldn't deny the evidence.

>>2259090
like I said, it provides a slight advantage to the person

if you have two people who are pretty much the same except one person starts out with a few hundred more dollars and doesn't have to deal with tooth pain, which one is more likely to reproduce? obviously the second one

it's not so straightforward as what can kill you on the spot

>>2259083
From an evolutionary perspective, being richer makes one less fit, because rich people choose to have fewer children, whereas poor people have a whole lot of them. Any biological feature that would make you poorer, everything else being the same, would be selected *for* not against. Being very intelligent is also evolutionarily disadvantageous for similar reasons.

Does that seem counterintuitive? Bear in mind that evolutionary fitness has *nothing* to do with worthiness, desirability, morality, superiority or any other attribute than propagating one's genes.

Fortunately, being intelligent beings, we're not slaves to the desires of our genes and we can even have our own goals that conflict with them, like minimizing suffering and increasing aggregate prosperity. We just can't count on evolution to help us with those goals.

>>2259114
ok but the costs of wisdom tooth removal aren't enough to bump you into a different income bracket

number of children is linked to social class more than strictly how much money you have, for instance, a homeless dude won't be having a lot of sex

>>2259110
Once again, understand that evolution works on entire populations and not individuals.
Also, refer to
>>2259114
We have gone very much beyond the point where slight evolutionary forces shape our species' future.

>>2259130
Any evolutionary force, not matter how slight, as long as it exists, will influence the future. If you were to go back in time millions of years and stomp on a single butterfly, you can be sure that it would radically change things, at least for butterflies.

>>2259140
That doesn't make people with and without wisdom teeth different populations.

>>2259128
First you argued that the cost was an impediment to fitness, then I countered that it could be actually a benefit, but now you say it's inconsequential. It may be, but the point was more to refute the initial hypothesis. I've noticed an unfortunate trend on /sci/, especially in discussions of evolutionary biology, where arguments proceed by dueling hypotheses without any evidence at all.

Just because you can come up with a plausible-sounding rationale for why not having wisdom teeth *might* be a selective advantage doesn't mean that it is in fact the case. In fact, as I demonstrated, there may be other factors you haven't thought of that lead to completely contradictory hypotheses.

>>2259146
No, but they don't need to be. People without wisdom teeth have a clear advantage, so they're going to come out on top.

>>2258967
I hate it when people equate "belief" with being wrong. What is so horrible about admitting you're wrong and growing a little in your collective knowledge!?

Not every culture I meet is like that but a great number of people would rather be eternally ignorant then research the truth as we know it now.

>>2259140
Nope.
inb4 butterfly effect pseudo-science

And notice your own
>millions of years
That is the scale that evolution would work on for our species. Not the few hundred of years we've had dentists/etc.
I don't want to argue with you. You're stubborn and unwilling to learn/accept that you might be wrong.
Before you repeat the same argument, think about everyday things like if selective pressure favoured everything, why is it that women with small boobs still exist, or why short men still exist.

>>2259140
I would love to do that to butterfly's. Step on a colony of them.

>>2259147
It's not inconsequential. I didn't say that. I said it wasn't enough to bump you into a different income bracket, but it will still give you an advantage over someone in the same income bracket.

>>2259130
Evolution works -through- individuals though. Emergent traits must originate in individual aberrations.

It's pure conjecture on your part that subtle pressures have no effect. You don't know, yet you paint the world in black and white.

>>2259157
>why is it that women with small boobs still exist, or why short men still exist.
obv. because they haven't been selected out yet

I personally think that getting wisdom teeth removed is disgusting and bloody, and i would rather make babies with someone who is more evolved than having to have your teeth ripped out.

Did you know that if you don't get your wisdom teeth removed they can grow into your brain (because the mouth is getting smaller and the wisdom teeth haven't changed size) and straight up KILL you??

The more you know!

Also, 20yo guy who still has his wisdom teeth here. Also the econ major who got yelled at buy butthurt faggots a bit ago.

Just letting u bitches kno wussup

>>2259164
>MFW when a distant galaxy implodes

You guys are forgetting something in the "wisdom teeth thingy"

It doesn't matter if those who don't have the teeth can save money from visiting the doctor... the desicisve factor is: Will that feature stay in the gene pool? Will that feature be inherited to the comming generation?

>>2259168
It will let you gain the evolutionary advantage of being poorer and therefore having more kids? Perhaps even the large evolutionary advantage of falling to a lower income bracket or being unable to afford education? Both of those are huge advantages.

>>2259153
This is stupid in so many ways.

You think wisdom teeth alone is enough of a pressure to make one person guaranteed to reproduce more than another?

You think wisdom teeth is enough to eventually form two different populations of humans?

Am I being trolled?

>>2259187
No. Just no.

>>2259193
Like I said, a few hundred bucks (or however much it costs) to get your teeth removed isn't "going to college" money. It's "buying condoms and movie theater tickets" money. $200 is money to get laid on.

>>2259197
If everything else is the same EXCEPT wisdom teeth, then yes, there is enough of a difference to increase the likelihood of reproduction.

>>2259187
>buy

>>2259187
Guys, we all have been trolled in this thread :(

>>2259173
Yes, except I happen to know how you can test if a random mutation like the lack of wisdom teeth is below or above the threshold frequency required for it to take hold when considering a population size. Educate yourself through population dynamics and ecology.

>>2259191
Hold on dear cat! I doubt me stepping on a colony of butterfly's would cause a nearby galaxy to implode.

>>2259209
It's "going to college" money if you're $200 short of the money you need to go to college. Your argument is a fallacy of failing to draw the line. No matter where you put that line, and you must put it somewhere, some people will be near enough to it that the sums in question will make a difference.

Not to mention that your whole theory of "income brackets" is completely unproven as far as I can tell. All that has been established is that poorer = more babbies. I can't find any study that establishes some discretization or assortment into tranches as you describe.

>>2259209
When is everything else EVER the same?

Show me identical twins raised by the same parents, given the same opportunities at everything that somehow don't have the same dental conditions and you'll have a point. It's impossible for everything else to be the same, you stubborn retard.

>>2259230
Nobody is $200 short of how much they need to go to college. That's ridiculous. Such people would simply take out a loan for an additional $200 to complete their education.

Furthermore, number of children has been correlated with income level, but by no means is it known that being poor causes a person to have more children. Babies are costly, so it could be that having children early and often causes poverty.

ITT: One idiot trolls several biofags.
I know math/engi fags fall for it easy, but you bio guys too?
Come on.

>>2259205

Hahahaha when people lose pathetically they just say they're getting trolled. Wow you're the worst, don't use the word troll like that..


HHURRRRR WE'RE LOSING AN ARGUMENT WE MUST BE GETTING TROLLED DDDDDURRRRRRRRRRRR

>>2259246
Theoretically, people could be much more than $200 short, but there must be a point at which it would seem like too much to take out a loan and someone could be $200 short of that.

It's not as ridiculous an idea as "but if two people are EXACTLY THE SAME BESIDES WISDOM TEETH HURR..."

>>2259233
You're grasping at straws here. We say that everything is the same as a hypothetical statement to isolate the one feature that we're interested in and determine its effects. Of course nobody is exactly the same. That wasn't the point at all.

>>2259246
You've moved the line back by saying that the person could take out a loan, but then some other people will be just short of the needed amount of money even *with* the loan. Some people will be short of the amount of money needed by within $200 of the maximum credit allowance they can muster.

>>2259252
Again, no one is $200 short of taking out a loan. It's simply not a significant amount of money unless you're trying to date some chicks.

>>2259253
>We say that everything is the same as a hypothetical statement

Such a hypothetical statement is never valid in something as complex as this. In the real world, any two given people will have differences far more significant than wisdom teeth, on the off chance they even have that difference, making your ideas useless and unsupported.

>>2259262
And those people take one extra term to finish their education. That, or they get someone to pay them for sex or drugs. There's a lot of ways around the $200 problem. Being short $200 is not going to stop someone from finishing their education.

>>2259263
You're still committing the same fallacy of failing to draw the line. No matter where you put that line, there will be people within $200 of it but just short. Adding loans doesn't change anything.

>>2259268
Why do you keep saying idiotic things? Are you saying we should consider two wildy different people and draw a conclusion from that? Yes, that's scientific.

Moron.

>>2259263
People have breaking points, even if they're not known or clear cut.

At a certain point, a person will be unable to take out such a large loan. That person could be $200 short of that point.

This shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

>>2259275

It's not about the flat $200. It's about being within $.01 and $200 past the breaking point of even being willing to try.

It's like when people ask a professor to just give them an A because they scored an 89.7

Why shouldn't an A be given to an 89.6? Why should the line be drawn at 89.7 when it was already drawn at 90?

Lines exist, arbitrary or not, and it is possible to be small values below them. Those small values can be extremely significant in certain cases.

>>2259280

I'm saying the very scenario of two people being SO similar that wisdom teeth and wisdom teeth alone makes the difference in who gets laid is ludicrous.

>>2259288
Doesn't matter if it's $10 or $200. If the person absolutely cannot come up with that amount of money, they just take a little longer to earn it.

>>2259292
No, you retard, this is about trends. People without wisdom teeth on average are more likely to reproduce than people with wisdom teeth. That's why we look at two people who are similar. Because we're choosing from the entire goddamn population. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

>>2259302
So entering higher education now or half a year from now isn't a significant difference, but whether or not you have wisdom teeth is?

>>2259302

>this is about trend
>People without wisdom teeth on average are more likely to reproduce than people with wisdom teeth

[citation needed]

>>2259308
Dude, it a difference of less than one term, not a year and a half. Worst case scenario, ONE sequence classes gets delayed an entire year, but only if you're poor AND stupid.

And I was reasserting my claim, not stating a fact. You seem to be okay with my hypothetical comparison now though, so I'm glad we cleared that up.

>>2259314

Your stubbornness in insisting your hypothesis is true despite it's total lack of evidence throughout this entire thread has left me not okay with it, so you're reading me wrong.

I didn't say a year and a half, I said half a year, which was a slight mistake as the typical semester is still shorter than that. Sorry.

My point was that changing the date which you enter higher education by one term should be considered a change at least as significant as whether or not you have wisdom teeth, yet it's okay to disregard that and not the presence of wisdom teeth by your logic. Your logic sucks.

>>2259302
>Doesn't matter if it's $10 or $200. If the person absolutely cannot come up with that amount of money, they just take a little longer to earn it.

There will also be a limit on how long one is willing to take in earning more money to be able to afford it. All this does is move the line once again, by the amount one can earn in that period before deciding it is no longer worth it, but no matter what you do, there will still be a line somewhere. It may be arbitrarily complicated to figure out the exact location of that line if you keep adding complexities, but none of those additional options will eradicate it.

All you're doing is exploring the nuances of the fallacy I initially observed, that of failing to draw the line. The hard threshold between "can afford" and "cannot afford" necessarily creates a line somewhere, to which people can approach very close without crossing, even within $200.

>>2259253
No, they actually are being trolled.
It's abundantly clear from all your arguments you haven't taken anything beyond grade 10 biology. Now you move onto arguing about the $200 loan or what have you for 10 posts, completely diverting the topic. You don't even know what point you're trying to push, but just reply to the last comment you see and refute it.