[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 621 KB, 320x243, 1293922227436.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2292271 No.2292271 [Reply] [Original]

Is the Human design perfect, in the way that sharks and crocodiles are perfect.


If you dont know what i mean, sharks and crocs have changed very little since they came ago so long ago, this means their design is pretty much successful perfected, because it doesnt need to change.

>> No.2292282

I sure did butcher that sentence.

>> No.2292289

>>2292271
Read what you've posted, and find the flaw yourself before posting this.

>> No.2292307

All creatures are suited for their environments. If they weren't well suited, they would die out or evolve to be suited. Creatures that don't change much over a long span of time haven't needed to change. It doesn't make them perfect.

>> No.2292314
File: 113 KB, 500x425, Coyote on Bus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2292314

>>2292271

Granted, given the ability to change our environment to suite ourselves, there isn't much selective influence to change. However, I believe some less noticeable things, such as more brown fat cells in our fat ass society to burn the extra calories, will be selected for (you aren't having kids if you're dying of heart disease).

So, I don't see morphological changes in the future, but I'm betting we'll continue to adapt biochemically. Naturally, natural selection is only part of human evolution. I believe modern medicine combined with genetic drift will result in a very diverse gene pool (i.e. medicines saves those that would have not passed on their genes). I suspect we'll see a widening standard deviation of things like height and weight.

>> No.2292316

>>2292307
They are a pretty perfected design, that was my general reason, they still have flaws which need to be worked out and probably will.

>> No.2292360
File: 29 KB, 470x324, African Painted Dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2292360

>>2292316
Actually, no.
The way biology works, one of the key differences between living organisms and, say, a machine designed to do one task is that living organism must balance many different needs and design constraints. Some constraints are left in from earlier designs and are horribly inefficient (see: recurrent laryngeal nerve). Others represent a balance between two advantages (for example, crocodiles may benefit from being larger because they can take down larger prey [they're were HUGE crocodilians in the past] but that same large size is a disadvantage is prey is scarce because it can't be sustained).

>> No.2292368
File: 43 KB, 400x332, Hoatzin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2292368

>>2292360
*there

Blah. Sometimes my brain stops working.

>> No.2292385

>>2292360
yea, but they are very nearly perfect, they have stayed the same for so long it must be a good design, if it wasnt, it would of died out or evolved

>> No.2292439

>>2292314
>So, I don't see morphological changes in the future

Thank fuck. There are some people on this board...

Biochemical changes would make a lot of sense. Probably pretty strong selective pressures working against /r9k/ disease.