/sci/ - Science & Math

evolution is a process unique to life

>>2266808

>evolution is a process unique to life
You don't believe in progress?
Are you a proponent of slavery by chance?

you can't call increased value evolution

evolution doesnt happen 'just because' or for things to get better
it happens if some of the things (organisms) that exist arent adequate for survival, compared to the others and are under pressure to survive

Not in the same sense that species evolve.

Even when the 'evolution' of arts, designs and culture is operating on something similar to natural selection (not everything works, whatever doesn't work gets thrown out and never used again), it's not running on the same mechanisms (biological reproduction) because they are all things designed and produced by the hands of man. Until, of course, we design and build something to which the principal of natural selection can be applied without direct interference from humans.

>better
>evolution

jesus its amazing how dumb atheists are. better is an opinion, evolution is just a process. there is no good or bad in evolution you nigger, unless youre religious then you can claim its all according to gods will or something.

I believe that love gets better. In my experience as sweet and nice as "love at first sight" may be, it holds not a single candle to the comfort of a love tempered by time and the trauma of shared experience.

>>2266826
Uh... where did atheism enter this discussion?
We were addressing the common theistic misunderstanding that evolution isn't "getting better".

>>2266806

I also think you guys are missing the purpose of this thread. I don't know that it's supposed to be scientific, strictly speaking, but more of a philosophical thought on the minds interpretation of love, beauty, emotion, etc. and that being said I believe this is something that we should address in a kind respectful manner because it really is something that we, as scientists and lovers of science, could genuinely benefit from growing an understanding of.

> Does everything evolve (get better)?
Biological evolution is not "getting better". "better" or "worse" are not universal categories. It's a common misconception. If you are a retard.

The word "evolution" means simply development over time, so cultures and societies can be said to "evolve". That does not mean "getting better", either.

>>2266826
>completely non-sequitur atheist rant
What the flying fuck? OP might be the fucking Pope Benedict for all we know.

>I don't know that it's supposed to be scientific, strictly speaking, but more of a philosophical thought on the minds interpretation of love, beauty, emotion, etc.
So what the fuck are you looking for on the Science & Math board?

>>>/lit/
There. Enjoy.

>>2266838

>Biological evolution is not "getting better"
Wrong.
Evolution is the process by which things become BETTER adapted to their environments. The more evolved (suited to one's environment) something is, the better it is.

Natty Selection only promotes the survival of the species via reproduction. You could draw an analogue to the survival of art, but it'd be an almost tautological assertion.

>>2266857

>but it'd be an almost tautological assertion.
Everthing is memetic. From genes to art.
Calling repruduction the core of evolution is missing the trees for the moon.

>>2266853
But you forget that some that is adapted spectacularly well to one environment may very well be doomed in another one, such as a polar bear in the middle of a desert. The polar bear is well adapted to the frozen wastes of the north, but it'll die out there in the burning sands.

Evolution does not have a particular goal or direction it's working towards. It just does whatever works.

>>2266857
>You could draw an analogue to the survival of art, but it'd be an almost tautological assertion.
>survival of art
>art

>implying that rationality allows for such a bullshit notion as "art"

>>2266853
No you idiot, evolution is change in allele frequencies while adaptation is becoming better suited to an environment

>>2266853
Semantics. Wrong semantics, at that. If "getting better by any criterion" means "getting better, period", by that logic a burning house is better than a regular house because it is more efficient at producing heat and smoke and roasting people alive.

Yes, evolution includes getting better at something specific. My statement was (as can be clearly seen from the context) that evolution does not mean getting universally better, as if there is some "betterness" scale that organisms grade higher on with every generation. Which, sadly, is quite a widespread misconception.

>>2266886

You mean better suited to procreate and have young survive to fucking age.

>>2266890
Yes, more fucking fit in a particular fucking enviroment

The reality of it is that evolution does not make things better, in a strict one > other sense. It only makes things more fit to a specific environment. I think we can all agree that humans are more evolved than jellyfish, but if you dropped both of us in the middle of the Indian Ocean which one is better fit for survival in that given environment.

>>2266886
>evolution is a change in allele frequencies
Nope. "Evolution" is change, gradual change, or development.
Even if you take that the word "evolution" is sufficiently colloquially accepted as "biological evolution", you are still fucking wrong, because "biological evolution" is DEFINED ROCK SOLID as the "change in inherited traits over successive generations", not the genetic or biochemical mechanisms that underline said change.
If you insist on being a grammar (or in this case, semantics) Nazi you really need to follow through and, you know, not spout bullshit.

>It only makes things more fit to a specific environment

Exactly
White people aren't better than blacks in some universal sense. Rather, white people are 'better' in cities. Black people may be said to be inferior in cities, but they are clearly superior in jungles. These things need to be qualified.

>>2266912

Your cuntishness is unparalleled. I applaud you.

>>2266912
Sure is /new/ in here.

Seriously. If you had said that whites were better off in the medium to far northern hemisphere while blacks were better off around the equator, not only would've that been acceptable, but it would have been true.

Fucking racistfags.

>>2266912
You, sir, win this thread.

>2266902
> I think we can all agree that humans are more evolved than jellyfish
I was just waiting when you (obviously the OP samefag) will complete this parade of ignorant bullshit by also making the SECOND most frequent misconception about organic evolution.

Humans are not "more evolved" than jellyfish. They are more complex. More intelligent. Sure. That's not the same fucking thing as "more evolved". What's your criterion for "more evolved?"

Humans have ~3.8bn years of evolution behind them. THE EXACT SAME NUMBER AS THE FUCKING JELLYFISH. Both are currently equally alive.

>>2266912
cities are an invention of intelligent beings (non-blacks) to circumvent any environmental limitations. negros are slaves to the environment, intelligent beings have surpassed this and thus there is no need to be "superior in jungles" (nevermind the fact that blacks are the biggest failures compared to every other ethnic group or race no matter what environment we are talking about)

the creation of such cities immediately calls into question the idea of relativity. clearly any sentient intelligent being would strive for the greatest technological progress. thus, superiority can be measured in this sense. atheist liberals such as yourself would claim negros are part of the same species as other humans, therefore you would have to agree they are inferior due to having almost zero technological progress compared to others who are "genetically equal to them" as you would claim.

Evolution doesn't equal the human concept of improvement.

If the entire world was plunged into a biological catastrophe which only simple, unintelligent organisms survived, this could be called evolution despite the fact that no conceivable progress has been made.

>>2266931
>cities are an invention of intelligent beings (non-blacks)
I have no heart to tell you that the first cities were built by what you would refer to as sandniggers.

>>2266931
Wow. That's more retarded than a gay atheist named Ted Haggard.

>>2266931
Mesopotamia/Ancient Egypt/Empire of Mali

Ah also, we 'liberal atheists' look upon you as a nigger. A religionnigger.

>>2266936
and? arabs and niggers are not part of the same race. nice try, nigger lover.

>>2266940
So you admit sandniggers are different from niggers?
Would you equate sandniggers with whites in intelligence?

Social evolution exists.
Ideas are brought up and phased out.

It's more erratic and subject to opinion though.

I am not the OP, but by more evolved I simply mean that we are beings of far more complexity. I do apologize if I minced terms there. But the reality of it is humans as we are today are the result of much more changes in species and adaptations than your common jellyfish would be.

Hey, theistfag. Where do you go to church? I want to show this to your religious leader as a fine example of theist intellect and compassion in the name of ... whoever you think you're doing this for.

>>2266941
>derppp duh egyptianz were blak we built da pyramidz mannn

>>2266944
i already said niggers and arabs are vastly different. and arabs as we know them today are a mix of different races, so its pointless to talk about them.

>>2266953
If all you ever want to talk about is race and religion, why aren't you on /new/? That's the best board for discussing race and religion.

>>2266953
There are no significant differences between races other than skin color, body type and facial characteristics which could have evolved in the 60000 yrs since we left Africa.

>>2266956
i do go on /new/ but race is more suited to /sci/

>>2266958
>my tenured feminist professor said it, i believe it, that settles it

>>2266963
> AtheismIsGay said it, he's always wrong about everything, that settles it.

>>2266963
Rofl'd when you believe that RGM's and crossing over can produce large changes in populations with similar selection pressures in less than 200000 years

>>2266963
>he actually believes anyone on /sci/ gives a shit what you say
Go home kid.

>>2266949
>by more evolved I simply mean that we are beings of far more complexity. I do apologize if I minced terms there.
Since you replied politely I will take off my obnoxious faggot hat now and I apologize for insulting you.

Now then. Basically, "more evolved" is a sketchy use of the term "evolution" at best. There is strictly speaking no "more evolved" or "less evolved", the idea that "man is most evolved" and that "higher animals" are more evolved than "lower animals" predates the actual theory of evolution and has roots in Aristotle's ladder of life and was perpetuated by the British and the French in their 19th century science/philosophy.
Anyway, when you say:
>But the reality of it is humans as we are today are the result of much more changes in species and adaptations than your common jellyfish would be.
Why on Earth would you think that?

I will admit there is SOME reason to think that way, since there are life forms which have been present for far longer than humans and changed far less. For example, centipedes have been around for at least 10 times longer than mammals. You could say that the difference between the ancient centipedes and the centipedes of today is much smaller than the change between the amphioxus and the horse, which covers roughly the same timespan. You will also frequently hear bullshit such as the "sharks have remained unchanged for 20 million years".

The fact of the matter is that all these species have evolved and have been evolving, even though the perceptible change in phenotype is smaller in some. Some might have been put through stronger or more numerous selective pressures and differentiated more from their ancestors than others. But if you take THAT road of reasoning, then there are species which have been through a lot more changes than man.

itt butthurt liberal atheists who pretend to "believe in science" but to pretend everyone is equal is to deny evolution and science itself, thus we can conclude they only pretend to "believe in science" for the sake of rebelling against mommy and daddys religion

>>2266992
atheismIsGay said this. Apply logical negation to the argument to find truth. If this holds with 95% confidence, we can use him as an oracle.

>>2266992
>everything that isn't my world view is atheist leftist communazi nigger propaganda
Also, my parents religion is Islam. Oh dear you must be right. ALLAH AKBAR

I like that this turned into a race war, but to get back to the point. Does it look like things are getting better with evolution?

>>2267039
>better we evolution
We just had a huge discussion about this. 'Better' is always relative to a particular environment in terms of biological evolution. We can extrapolate that 'better' in terms of the evolution of artsy stuff is always going to be relative to people's tastes.

This is the only time the "it gets better" campaign has been useful. Ever.

>>2266998

salam wa'alaikum brother

It gets better, but it also gets worse. Around 2030, humanity will reach it's peak and plunge into the Middle Ages, probably due to Islam taking over. 2061 doesn't bring trips to Jupiter in a few weeks; it brings famine and destruction. Also Halley will come around.

>>2266998
>ALLAH AKBAR
>AKBAR

IT'S A TRAP!

>>2266940

on the contrary, arabs and blacks ARE part of the same race - the HUMAN race. There are no different races of humans on this earth. All women have the same gestation period/cycle for procreation. Take your fail comments out of this thread and bite the curb, dipshit.

>>2267074
Oh shut up.

Your argument is invalid!

>>2267076
>>2267076
Man we're going to go back in time due to an intellectual (abit repressive) culture taking over? Damn I was enjoying the 21st century.

>>2267085

why so bitter?

>>2267136
My dime bag ran out yesterday.

Again I may be mincing terms but what I mean to say is that if you track branches on an evolutionary tree you would find that humans arose much later and following far more branching. When I say more evolved I don't mean to imply that we somehow magically spent more time evolving merely that our evolution was the work of a much greater period of time and far more varied adaptations. Studies can be found showing that Cnidarians such as jellyfish have not much changed, genetically or physically, in the many millions of years they've existed. And why would they have to. In their current environment they're more than suited to exist and procreate. At this point, almost any mutations, barring major environmental changes, would either make no difference or be detrimental.

>>2267154
True but there are much more recent branches than homo sapiens. Furthermore does that not imply that our most recent relative, the chimpanzee is equally 'evolved' as we are?

>>2267141

I remind you that the greatest torment is reserved for the apostates.

>>2267154
OK but if we say you can be more or less evolved for a second, surely animals that are 'done' in evolutionary terms, as in they are pretty much perfectly adapted to their environments and have existed unchanged for millions of years, are more evolved than things which required many changes and are still changing.
If humans are getting taller, our appendixes are shrinking etc, then we aren't 'finished' and are still evolving/changing to better suit our environment. Jellyfish, as used in your example, got it spot on millions of years ago. It like comparing a finished product to something still having the kinks worked out.
(I use done and finished for ease of reading)

As for OPs point, art had to evolve after the invention of the camera, certainly painting did.