/sci/ - Science & Math

what

You seem to think evolution has a consciousness and is actively making decisions based on what it wants.

What actually happened was that over time the giraffe lucked out and happened to develop a trait that makes eating fruit from high up branches easier. Then because this trait was beneficial, it got carried on because the species with it tended to survive.

They eat from high branches because they have long necks, they dont have long necks because they need to eat from high branches.

Your question is pretty much retarded. The only evolution pressure on the tree is to have its fruit as accessible as possible to at least one sufficiently widespread species. For instance, as long as its fruits are easy to be spot by birds, there's no reason a small height should be an evolutionary drawback. The giraffe, however, need to feed itself, evolution-wise, the options are numerous, but the most obvious ones are shifting your diet (which is not easy) or growing taller (which is a nit easier). And I don't really see why it would be easier for the tree to grow smaller than for the giraffe to grow higher.

>>5595882
>>5595874
It still proves that there is an intelligent creator though, because something without consciousness can't act intelligently like this.

>>5595870
there's a name for the theory you're referring to..Lamarckian Evolution?

Its been pretty much rejected for awhile now
the others in this thread have the right idea

>>5595870
OP is a lamarckist

(thank me later for that hint_

>>5595894
>Its been pretty much rejected for awhile now

How retarded are you? Never heard of epigenetics?

>>5595894
another anon was faster by a minute, oh well

>>5595893
But it's not acting intelligently. You know what happens to the species that develop bad or stupid traits that dont work? They die.

You guys have the cause and effect all mixed up. Species are alive today because of their developed traits, they aren't just developing them on a whim because of a need in their environment. As I said before, the ones that luck out and develop these beneficial traits survive, the ones that get the shitty end of the stick eventually die out.

There is no intelligent anything, it just is.

>>5595893
I'm >>5595882 and I wasn't meaning things as an intelligent and conscious behaviour but merely a statisical phenomenon. Evolutionary pressure simply means that over a great enough number of generations the disadvantaging traits will disappear. No conscious process needed, simple understanding of logic.

ITT: OP not knowing how evolution works and spamming these retarted evolution threads daily.

*retarded

That's not a bad geuss, OP

I know I'm responding to a troll but goddammit fuck you got me. Giraffes with longer necks get better access to their primary diet than those with shorter necks. They are more likely to survive and procreate, and are therefore "selected" by nature to pass on their long-neck genes. The giraffes with shorter necks are less likely to survive and procreate, and will not pass on their short-neck genes. That's it. That's how fucking simply it works.

This is OP and I'm not a troll nor do I post threads daily this is my first venture onto /sci/ actually because I was wondering the answer to this.

A lot of answers on me just lead me to believe that since evolution is designed so intelligently, the designer mustve been intelligent and powerful too, so if anything this proves ID.

1) It wasn't fruit
2) It was leaves
3) The trees want to keep their leaves the fuck away from the giraffes.

Stupid Neo-Darwinists Fail To Explain The Gaps In The Fossil Record. Where Are The Missing Links? Where Are The Transitionary Fossils? If Mutations Are So Common As Claimed By Evolutionists Then Surely The Fossil Record Should Be Littered With Mutated Specimens Yet This Is Not The Case. There Are No Missing Links As The Theory Of Random Mutations Is Incorrect. Punctuated Equilibria Is Illogical.

EvoluTionIsts Are DeLuded

>>5595898
Epigenetics does not resemble Lamarckian evolution in the least. Lamarck thought if he cut off the tail of a rat, that the rat's offspring would be born without tails. Epigenetics is simply the changes in inheritable gene expression.

>>5595940
This. Giraffes didn't evolve in an environment of trees with leaves they couldn't reach, they forced the trees to become taller, and herbivore and plant evolved in exactly the same way as predator and prey.

>>5595937
You being a complete idiot makes you more likely to be brutally murdered by me. You will not be able to pass on your retard genes. That's not intelligent design, that's cause and effect.

>>5595940
This and the fact that more than one evolutionary factor can influence the height of trees, e.g. competition with other plants

>>5595943
Our fossil records are littered with mutated specimens.

Pythons even still have tiny little useless arm bones, we have tail bones, dinosaurs with feathers on them. Also, it can't possibly expected to just find every species and all their variations to ever exist. Intact fossil specimens aren't really super common.

I think you are deluded.

Also, Why Do You Type Like This? Not only is it annoying to read, its annoying to type, why do it? Do you really want to look unique/special that bad?

>If evolution is true then it holds that over time giraffe evolved because they needed their necks to reach the fruit.
>Why didn't the trees just devolve to become short?
You can't possibly be this dense...

>>5595870
Wait, are you suggesting trees WANT TO BE EATEN BY GIRAFFES? Because I'm pretty sure they don't.

>>5595960

Well spotted. I was just pretending. /sci/ is still a decent board after all.

>>5595965
>/sci/ is still a decent board after all.

>>5595950
That's extremely rude and uncalled for.

If blacks evolved into whites? What's stopping them now?

>talking about giraffes
>not whirligig maple tree seeds

step it up senpai

>>5595870
If the small intestine evolved from the stomach, how is it that there could have been acid in my stomach before? Surely it would have eaten away the receptors... or maybe another species became of things that way...

If evolution is true then it would hold true that our feet should be flexible having the need to climb high trees more effectively to get away from predators correct?

My question;

Why didnt predators devolve to have softer teeth? Or humans thicker hide, it would only serve to reason that the species would want to protect itself from such things, or why didnt our collar bones make a protective shell to shield ourselves from the world when need be?

this is my first time on /sci/ and I lament this being the first thread I came across

If evolution is true then I should have my prostrate on my testicles, it only serves to reason that I should have multiple buttons like a female, all things being equal in a species of course

If evolution is true then homosexuallity will become utterly rampant in the 21st century of our existance

owait...

If I can piss 5 meters and John can spit 3 meters are we at evolutionary odds?

If having a vagina mean you can have as many penises as you want then, evolutionarily speaking, shouldnt men be extinct?

>>5595996
Yes Because your father John can't spit the piss you just emptied into his mouth back at you

If my goat has a goat orgy with the rest of the heard then shouldnt they have all evolved to give birth to a litter of each of the mates it had?

If evolution is true then shouldnt women have evolved a way to get pregnant via giving head by now?

If a Jew has sex with an Egyptian, and that Egyptian has sex with a Chinese, wouldnt Mexico be owned by the Soviets?

Why hasnt OP evolved past shit posting? I mean he's been Channing for like 5 minutes now

Rly OP, Rly

...in the year one million and a half

Does promiscuity only exist because hot people like to have sex?
I think this might be proof of evolution

k im out, go fuck yourself OP

You guys are killing me

I once saw a documentary on the physics of skatebording, why havn't degenerates evolved into intelligent people yet?

No but really, if blacks did infact evolve from whites, WHAT'S STOPPING THEM NOW!

The power of Christ must darken their souls for the crimes that had absofuckinglutely to do with them

Also, OP is going to burn for eternity because gods most devine looking bitch & boi wanted to get frisky

>>5595874
This should have been the last reply to this post. The question has been answered.

Evolution is not directional or deliberate. It is passive and reactive.

>>5595870

Haaaahaaa /sci/ is so god damn fucking batshit autistic.

How much more obvious do you have to make a troll before they get it.

>>5595870
Breakthroughs err'day right here on 4chan

Trees don't want to be eaten by giraffes, giraffes want to be eaten by trees.

>>5596046
In the way of the Troll-Feng-Shui must one beget further, lest the troll cycle be broken and all trolls rise up from the underside of their bridges or- as needed on /sci/ with it's Laymans (which is everyone except OP, OP is wise in the ways of what science is)- in laymans terms: 1+1 = + = 0

>>5596046
You are such a fucking new newfag.

Dear all:

Giraffes do not have long necks to reach high branches. This is a myth taught in high school, and nobody knows why.

Giraffes evolved long necks because the longer necks are able to produce more angular momentum and therefore force to fight other giraffes.

>>5596059
...1=0

new here, I know I'm supposed to trust smart people but...

>>5596062
MFG THEY'RE ZYBRAS IN DISGUISE!

>>5596068

>>>/mlp/

>>5596062
> 2013
> treating stuff you heard on QI as a fact

ISHYGDDT

>>5596076

Stuff I learned in Biology 101 m8.

>>5595870
I'm not an atheist but this post is cancerous.

OP here, I'm sorry you guys just can't see the obvious here, which is that intelligent design is the most likely explanation for everything.

Before someone accuses me of being Christian - I'm REALLY not. I am in fact a Hasidic Jew.

>>5596147

Easiest != most likely.

For example, the aquatic ape theory is the easiest theory which explains why we have head hair/subcutaneous fat/bipedalism/tool use/etc but it isn't very likely.

>>5595870
>>5596147
what would have been a better argument for a deity would have been if you had said
>according to darwin's theory of evolution, what was the selection pressure that made humans so intelligent compared to the rest of the species on this planet?

>>5596113
It's false, your school is a dump.

>>5596158
That's also something I've wondered

>>5596159

Tell that to David Attenborough then kid.

>>5596158

That wasn't a selection pressure.

We had innate intelligence due to our brain size, which augmented our opposable thumbs.

This allowed us to develop small scale agriculture (tubors) and fire, which gave us an excess of energy during development.

This extra energy went to developing our brain, which made it bigger, which made us smarter.

If you want a selection pressure - smarter individuals caught more food - but it's not necessary.

>>5596158
Receding forests cause our ancestors to move into grassy savannahs. Walking on two legs allows our ancestors to see over the grass to watch for predators and find food. Happily, this frees our hands. We can now use simple tools (rocks and sticks) to find and acquire food better. A larger and smarter brain means more efficient ways of finding and acquiring food, and also escaping from predators.

The only pressure on developing intelligent brains is that an intelligent brain is a successful brain (up to a point). Some of our cousins didn't evolve intelligent brains. They had no need to. Claws and teeth were all they needed to make it in the nature.

>>5596147
Ring species. Look it up.

Also: the gene that causes sickle cell anemia also helps fight malaria. Explain that.

>>5596199

First year biologist detected.

>>5596193
"Some of our cousins didn't evolve intelligent brains" Asian people?

>>5596209
Whales, dragonflies, sponges, dogs, octopi, falcons, etc.
>>5596205
I took biology in high school three years ago.

>>5596216

Have you ever studied Biology at a higher level than high school?

If so, please explain.

>>5596193

intelligent design is even more moronic than creationism

>>5596222
No.

>>5596182
>We had innate intelligence due to our brain size
sorry, stopped reading there.
larger brain size =/= more intelligence
>>5596193
Our close relatives use tools, they're doing just fine
>A larger and smarter brain means more efficient ways of finding and acquiring food, and also escaping from predators.
This is how natural selection works, yes, but it does not explain the level of intelligence we have.

>>5596182
This is the most retarded thing ever. Of course there were selection pressures which favoured our ancestors with higher intelligence, as those with higher intelligence were able to conceive of and use more sophisticated hunting tools and methods, thereby increasing their rate of survival and thus their ability to pass on their 'intelligent' genes.

Read this >>5596193

In reponse to >>5596249
and continuing from >>5596251

The increase of our species' intelligence did not stop here. Those of our ancestors whose brains were the most capable were able to hunt socially with other males (through primitive communication, including facial recognition), which vastly improved their success. The ability to communicate fluently with a socially intelligent brain, (which generally has strong relationship with IQ, despite what the media tells us), remained one of the most important factors in survival and, both directly and indirectly, reproduction.

>>5595945
You can't be so narrow minded as to say that it doesn't resemble Lamarck's ideas in the least. Lamarck thought choices made in the life of one generation could change the genetics of the offspring. Epigenetics shows the same, albeit through a different mechanism. Not even the same anon.

>>5595945
>>5595945
You can't be so narrow minded as to say that it doesn't resemble Lamarck's ideas in the least. Lamarck thought choices made in the life of one generation could change the genetics of the offspring. Epigenetics shows the same, albeit through a different mechanism. Not even the same anon.

>>5595870
Please gain a basic understanding of modern science before posting on /sci/ again.
Thank you.