Evolution

[Anonymous No.14769249]

So what's the evolutionary advantage of a babirusa's upside down canine teeth growing through the roof of their mouths, non-stop throughout their lives, and occasionally blinding itself by poking its own eyes out?

[Anonymous No.14769265]

>>14769249
Nothing, they are dickheads. I got chased up a tree by one of those bastards when I was a kid. They deserve every affliction God has cursed them with.

[Anonymous No.14769272]

>>14769249
Evolutionary success =/= perfect design in every conceivable way
You also got an appendix despite it having any function whatsoever in your evolutionary success

[Anonymous No.14769336]

>>14769249
W*men. Roasties won't let you breed unless you have a giga chad horn. She can't imagine a small horned man mounting her. They killed the irish elk and various other species and almost killed peacockwith this femoidery. That's why when female sexual selection becomes tyrannical, rape become a moral and obligatory duty of every male.

[Anonymous No.14770221]

>>14769249
>evolutionary advantage
evolution does not have goals so there is no such thing as "evolutionary advantage." That is a meaningless e-science combination of words
Most likely there are simple recessive/damaged genes that don't properly code for a growth-stopping protein anymore like their original design intended, so the teeth have runaway growth. Gigantism works somewhat the same way in humans but that is a whole-body issue and might not exclusively be simple recessive genes

>>14769272
>You also got an appendix despite it having any function whatsoever in your evolutionary success
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17936308/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm
"Appendix Isn't Useless At All: It's A Safe House For Good Bacteria"
Source:Duke University Medical Center

Also, evolution does not have goals so there is no such thing as "evolutionary success." That is a meaningless e-science combination of words.

[Anonymous No.14770233]

>>14770221
>there is no such thing as "evolutionary advantage."
>>>/r/socialscience

[Anonymous No.14770301]

>>14770233
You're quite the massive retard I see. Let me educate you:

Evolution has no goals:
>"Most importantly, evolution does not progress toward an ultimate or proximate goal (Gould 1989). Evolution is not "going somewhere"; it just describes changes in inherited traits over time"
>"Evolution describes changes to the inherited traits of organisms across generations. Evolutionary change is not directed towards a goal, nor is it solely dependent on natural selection to shape its path."
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evolution-is-change-in-the-inherited-traits-15164254/
>Evolution is not teleological and has no final goal, endgame, or telos
https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2018/07/13-Misunderstandings-About-Natural-Selection.pdf

Without goals there can be no advantage. Erosion is also a natural process that changes or creates things and it also has a natural guidance: weather. Yet there are no goals of erosion, just like there are no goals of evolution, hence there is no such thing as an "erosional advantage" or "evolutionary advantage"

Happy to educate you.

[Anonymous No.14770316]

>>14770221
>>14770301
a trait is advantageous if it produces more copies of itself in the next generation. the goal is making more copies of itself in the next generation

[Anonymous No.14770319]

>>14770301
>Without goals there can be no advantage.
>>>/r/sociology

[Anonymous No.14770352]

>>14770316
>the goal is making more copies of itself in the next generation
That is (usually) an individual organism's goal, not "evolution's" goal. Worker ant's don't even have this goal since they don't reproduce. Their goal is to propagate the queen's and patriarch's genes, not their own. If they had a gain of function mutation that creates an advantageous trait it would be lost when they die because they don't have the goal of making more copies of that gene in the next generation.
Evolution does not progress towards goals as you can verbatim read in the links I gave, that includes making more copies of genes in the next generation.

[Anonymous No.14770354]

>>14770352
You're so imbecilic and dronelike it hurts.

[Anonymous No.14770357]

>>14770319
Go back to /pol/ and stay in your containment zone with your other retards where you belong you ignorant tourist

[Anonymous No.14770358]

>>14770357
You are outright mentally ill. What education do you have? (Post proof)

[Anonymous No.14770360]

>>14770354
See >>14770357

[Anonymous No.14770368]

>>14770360
See >>14770358

[Anonymous No.14770375]

>>14769249
maybe they don't usually live long enough for their tusks to start digging into their skulls

[Anonymous No.14770377]

>>14770352
>Worker ant's don't even have this goal since they don't reproduce.
they do have this goal because they share 75% the same genome as their siblings instead of just 50%, so helping the queen actually spreads more of their genome than if they were to make offspring themselves.

[Anonymous No.14770386]

>>14770352
also there is no patriarch male ant. male ants are drones who just have sex and then die. ants are entirely matriarchal, eusocial creatures are matriarchy to the extreme

[Anonymous No.14770391]

>>14770352
i think we're just misunderstanding, in that you're arguing about evolution as a simple algorithm "not having a goal", which is true in that the evolutionary algorithm itself has no goal, it's just the framework that the various agents inside it are competing within. but those agents are competing to make more copies of themselves over time vs. the other agents, in some sense that's the "goal" of the agents and the evolutionary framework.

[Anonymous No.14770397]

>>14770391
>in some sense that's the "goal" of the agents and the evolutionary framework.
Fuck off back to /pol/, schizo. You're fucking ignorant and stupid. Evolution has no goal b-b-because I read that on reddit and it sounded profound.

[Anonymous No.14770424]

>>14769249
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

[Anonymous No.14770441]

>>14770301
>Without goals there can be no advantage.
What? There's no goals, but traits that provide an advantage will tend to be passed on, traits that don't will tend to disappear.

[Anonymous No.14770445]

>>14770441
FUCK OFF BACK TO /pol/!!!!!!!!!!!! There can be no advantage without goal b-b-b-because reddit university said so and it's true by definition, okay?

[Anonymous No.14770527]

>>14770377
>they share 75% the same genome as their siblings
Ok this is more semantics then. Individual workers don't have the goal to pass on their own genome is more precise. This acknowledgement does not change my overall point that evolution has no goals hence theres no thing as "evolutionary advantages"
>also there is no patriarch male ant
Queens only mate once, preferably with another colony, and most colonies only have one queen, so there is often a definitive patriarch male for each colony. In case it wasn't clear I meant genetic patriarch, I know he's a "drone" that dies quickly and serves no other purpose, it's not like he's ruling the colony lol.
>in that you're arguing about evolution as a simple algorithm "not having a goal
It's fact not an argument. I've quoted literature affirming this. There is no reason to qualify it as an algorithm either, that is redundant.
>which is true in that the evolutionary algorithm itself has no goal
Redundant. Evolution itself has no goal.
>the framework that the various agents inside it are competing within
?? Organisms compete bc they have goals. Nothing within/inside evolution competes bc evolution does not have goals. Evolution is the rulebook and organisms are the players. The book has no goal, it just describes how the game works. Like the game tetris. The rulebook has no goal, players cant win, it just says how the game works. I'd say a chess rulebook, where players can win, also doesn't have a goal. It just describes the game.
>but those agents are competing to make more copies of themselves
It seems you're using "agent" to both mean individual organisms and facets of evolution. If anything, it only means the former.
>in some sense that's the "goal" of the agents
Yes I said individual organisms have goals
>and the evolutionary framework
>[keyword AND]
Non sequitur. You're borrowing the fact the individual organisms or "agents" have goals and illogically applying it to evolution. It doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.14770531]

>>14770368
>>14770397
>>14770445

[Anonymous No.14770542]

>>14770527
I pretty much agree with you. DNA wants to make copies of itself, that's it's goal, and evolution is just the system of all the different strands of DNA fighting to make more copies of themselves over the other. There's no goal to evolution itself, it's basically just the name of that process.

[Anonymous No.14770546]

>>14769249
If "evolution" only produced advantageous characteristics then genetic dead ends wouldn't exist. Fortunately for you, Darwin's theory of natural selection states that new characteristics develop first and then nature kills off the bad adaptations through competition and allows the good ones to survive.
In your version of "evolution" there is some sort of intelligent designer who is selecting good adaptations and giving them to creatures somehow or other, always just before the conditions arise which make the adaptation advantageous.

[Anonymous No.14770599]

>>14770441
>traits that provide an advantage will tend to be passed on
Those are called reproductive advantages, not "evolutionary advantages."
Reproduction has goals so it can have advantages. Evolution does not have goals so it cannot have advantages.
OP quite literally should have asked "what's the reproductive advantage of a babirusa's upside down canine teeth growing through the roof of their mouths" because that question makes sense. It assumes the teeth create a reproductive success differential, however they probably don't.

[Anonymous No.14770612]

>>14770391
You are right anon. The problem with the story of evolution is that scientists mix up the story used to point or manage, with the story managed, with the story of those in the story, and their training makes them paradox out any factor of individual choice, leaving them with no way to manage what they destroyed with their bad story making management, and no way to see with their bad story making management how they messed up and what they left out. So they are left with a management story that, as you say, "[the] algorithm itself having no goal" that they then use to dismiss any other story that could show how individual choice changes the species story.

In their zeal to say there is no intelligence behind evolution, they fail to account for how the intelligence behind each individual changes the story of the species, as well as how that species restricts the choices the individuals can choose. They equivocate the stories, then wrap everything up in statistics and write off all variation as random, when the variation is, while not directed by outside of the species, nor by the species itself, nor by the bad management story they make, is still directed by the choices of the individuals in the group living in their environment.
It is ironic in their bias to make a guiding story unintelligent, they commit the very faith and belief mistakes as the religious do in trying to place intelligence “in the algorithm.”
You are starting to see the situation, anon. Most can't. Unfortunately, you will never get scientists to see what they have trained themselves not to see.

[Anonymous No.14770781]

>>14769249
That's not how natural selection works. If every development was advantageous there would be no evolution. The mutations are blind. One that equals reproductive success, say an animal developing a lighter coat in a snowy environment, is advantageous. Having a darker coat would not be.

[Anonymous No.14771176]

>>14770599
>Reproduction has goals so it can have advantages. Evolution does not have goals so it cannot have advantages.
You don't need a goal to gain an advantage. If I'm born into wealth, I didn't try to obtain that wealth, but it's still an advantage to me. Evolution is nothing more than traits that are passed on via success of survival and procreation/reproduction. An evolutionary advantage is gained if the offspring retain the traits that allowed the parents to survive and mate, which increases their odds of surviving and mating, and so on.

[Anonymous No.14771202]

>>14770301
>Erosion is also a natural process that changes or creates things and it also has a natural guidance: weather. Yet there are no goals of erosion, just like there are no goals of evolution
Erosion is not breeding and passing on traits, so this is not a good example. "Evolutionary advantage" does not imply that there's any goals. Per the definition you've provided:

"Evolution describes changes to the inherited traits of organisms across generations."

Those inherited traits are the evolutionary advantage, and the traits that died off instead of being carried across generations were an evolutionary disadvantage. No goals, just survival and sexual selection making the final determination.

[Anonymous No.14771444]

>>14770375
>maybe they don't usually live long enough for their tusks to start digging into their skulls

But they do.

[Anonymous No.14771452]

>>14770397
/thread

[Anonymous No.14771590]

>>14771176
>You don't need a goal to gain an advantage
Yes an entity or concept does
>I didn't try to obtain that wealth, but it's still an advantage to me
It's an advantage because you have goals.
If you just jumped off a bridge bc you hate life as you are falling you have zero goals left, all your wealth at that point is no advantage to you because you have no goals the wealth can (disproportionately compared to others) assist you with bc you have no goals at all.
If you want to argue wealth *can't* help you since there's no turning back once you jump then replace the death method with a slow acting reversible suicide pod and you just hit the start button.
>An evolutionary advantage
Evolution has no goals thus no advantages. Nothing you've said up to now changes this
>if the offspring retain the traits that allowed the parents to survive and mate, which increases their odds of surviving and mating, and so on.
This is a reproductive advantage, not an "evolutionary advantage" which does not exist. You literally spelled out why it's a reproductive advantage via going into details about mating.
>>14771202
>Erosion is not breeding and passing on traits, so this is not a good example
Its a great example as an analogy to evolution bc neither has goals or can have advantages. Unlike breeding and passing on traits, which has goals and thus breeding advantages can be had as well.
>"Evolutionary advantage" does not imply that there's any goals
It absolutely does because there cannot be advantages without goals.
>Those inherited traits are the evolutionary advantage
False. They are a reproductive advantage bc reproduction has goals and advantages help achieve those goals.
>No goals, just survival and sexual selection making the final determination
ROFL the organisms spreading those genes absolutely had goals. Sexual selection is the one of the most goal-oriented phenomena in biology. Survival is a goal as well. You're living in opposite land to even type that sentence.

[Anonymous No.14771626]

>>14769249
there is no advantage. and there is no advantage in preventing this either because by the time it becomes a problem the hog already had children

[Anonymous No.14771635]

>>14769249
read this, anon

[Anonymous No.14771638]

>>14771626
there are advantages like a larger pack that can protect itself better

[Anonymous No.14771648]

>>14771638
male babirusas are almost always solitary, in cases where they are not, the groups are composed of 1 to 3 other males of the same age

[Anonymous No.14772051]

>>14771635
>read this notorious jewish fraudster, anon

[Anonymous No.14772423]

>>14772051
If you think the jewish shilling on 4chan is bad now, just wait until they get their next army of shills fully trained and operational

[Anonymous No.14773652]

>>14771590
>Evolution has no goals thus no advantages. Nothing you've said up to now changes this
Evolution has no goals, but many advantages and disadvantages. Nothing you've made up to create your own definition changes this, I can find plenty of scientific papers using the phrase that do not conform to your claims. Even the sources you quoted, while making a point that evolution doesn't have a goal (I agree) didn't argue directly against evolutionary advantage or disadvantage.

>It absolutely does because there cannot be advantages without goals.
Person born into wealth with no goals sits on couch and lives comfortably, poor person with no goals is forced to work and live uncomfortably. Boom, advantage of wealth with no goals.

>ROFL the organisms spreading those genes absolutely had goals.
ROFL? Jesus.

>Sexual selection is the one of the most goal-oriented phenomena in biology.
Evolutionary advantage is determined in part by sexual selection, but sexual selection is not the only phenomena that drives evolution. :-)

[Anonymous No.14773662]

lmao if evolution was real then why hasnt my rock grown spider legs yet
yall are dumb af fr fr no cap

[Anonymous No.14773692]

>>14770301
>gould
discarded

[Anonymous No.14773874]

>>14773652
>Evolution has no goals, but many advantages and disadvantages
Wrong. This isn't even grammatically relevant in context. What is a disadvantage of evolution itself? That is what you're implying
>Nothing you've made up to create your own definition changes this
Adorable how you started out with "examples" of advantages but now you're just stonewalling instead of making counterpoints after I destroyed that example. And I have not made up a new definition anywhere. I'm merely showing a combination of two words is illogical. I started out saying there's no such thing as an "erosional advantage" Do you think there are "erosional advantages" too?
>I can find plenty of scientific papers using the phrase that do not conform to your claims
Oooh appeal to authority and consensus fallacy. Your desperation continues. They're wrong too.
>Even the sources you quoted, while making a point that evolution doesn't have a goal (I agree) didn't argue directly against evolutionary advantage or disadvantage
So what?
>Person born into wealth with no goals sits on couch and lives comfortably
Living is a goal. Does this person not eat? Eating cereal is a goal. You don't need a brain to have goals btw. A paramecium has goals. A virus has goals.
>Boom, advantage of wealth with no goals.
Boom not even close. Why do you attempt to make an example instead of find fault with my example? Can you not find fault with it perhaps?
>ROFL?
Please tell me you aren't stupid enough to think organisms trying to reproduce and maintain homeostasis do not have the goals of reproducing and maintaining homeostasis.
>Evolutionary advantage is determined in part by sexual selection
I have no idea what this invalid combination of words means. What evolutionary goals do these advantages assist with??
>but sexual selection is not the only phenomena that drives evolution
Drives evolution towards what goal? You're making this sentence with the requisite premise that evolution has a goal, so what is it?

[Anonymous No.14773882]

>>14773652
>Evolution has no goals, but many advantages and disadvantages
This isn't even grammatically relevant in context. What is a disadvantage of evolution itself? That is what you're implying
>Nothing you've made up to create your own definition changes this
Adorable how you started out with "examples" of advantages but now you're just stonewalling instead of making counterpoints after I destroyed that example. And I have not made up a new definition anywhere. I'm merely showing a combination of two words is illogical. I started out saying there's no such thing as an "erosional advantage" Do you think there are "erosional advantages" too?
>I can find plenty of scientific papers using the phrase that do not conform to your claims
Oooh appeal to authority and consensus fallacy. Your desperation continues. They're wrong too.
>Even the sources you quoted, while making a point that evolution doesn't have a goal (I agree) didn't argue directly against evolutionary advantage or disadvantage
So what?
>Person born into wealth with no goals sits on couch and lives comfortably
Living is a goal. Does this person not eat? Eating cereal is a goal. You don't need a brain to have goals btw. A paramecium has goals. A virus has goals.
>Boom, advantage of wealth with no goals.
Boom not even close. Why do you attempt to make an example instead of find fault with my example? Can you not find fault with it perhaps?
>ROFL?
Please tell me you aren't stupid enough to think organisms trying to reproduce and maintain homeostasis do not have the goals of reproducing and maintaining homeostasis.
>Evolutionary advantage is determined in part by sexual selection
I have no idea what this invalid combination of words means. What evolutionary goals do these advantages assist with??
>but sexual selection is not the only phenomena that drives evolution
Drives evolution towards what goal? You're making this sentence with the requisite premise that evolution has a goal, so what is it?

[Anonymous No.14774387]

>>14769336
The only correct answer in this thread no cap

[Anonymous No.14774594]

>>14770781
/thread

[Anonymous No.14776043]

>>14773882
>What is a disadvantage of evolution itself?
Evolving into something that is unable to survive or propagate is a disadvantage to the animal or plant.

>Adorable how you started out with "examples" of advantages but now you're just stonewalling instead of making counterpoints after I destroyed that example.
You literally made up a definition that no one else uses, and then created an example that was irrelevant using inanimate objects.

>I'm merely showing a combination of two words is illogical.
English is filled with those issues, that doesn't change the scientific context in which the phrase is used. "Evolutionary advantage" is an accepted phrase with a known meaning that is littered throughout scientific literature. Feel free to drop it into google scholar and then write all of those authors.

>Oooh appeal to authority and consensus fallacy.
In language, the meaning of a word or phrase is up to a consensus, that's how we communicate. You can't just randomly decide "horse" means "cow" and then get upset when people when they stick with the consensus.

>So what?
No one agrees with you, that's what, not even sources you were trying to prove your point with.

>Please tell me you aren't stupid enough
I think anyone who uses ROFL is a child or mentally handicapped.

>Drives evolution towards what goal?
Propagation and survival.

>You're making this sentence with the requisite premise that evolution has a goal
If I have a financial advantage, would you said that's invalid because finances have no goals, or do I have the advantage due to my finances? If I have a height advantage, is that invalid because height is a measurement from bottom to top and without goals? I have a financial advantage because I'm wealthier than you, I have a height advantage because I'm taller than you, I have an evolutionary advantage because I'm genetically superior to you.

[Anonymous No.14776230]

>>14769272
>You also got an appendix despite it having any function whatsoever
that's the Illuminati bio-antenna

[Anonymous No.14776295]

>>14769249
>So what's the evolutionary advantage
This is the wrong question. It doesn't need to have an advantage, all that matters is that it doesn't confer a significant enough disadvantage that it gets filtered.

>>14770386
>eusocial creatures are matriarchy to the extreme
They aren't. The only reason ants are eusocial is because they have a completely different mode of reproduction. Matriarchy in combination with the more typical mode of reproduction found in most other sexual species tends to promote competition over cooperation. For example meerkats tend to be more matriarchal than most other social mammals, and they also have by far the highest rate of death to intraspecies violence of any mammal. Over 20% of all meerkat deaths are due to direct violence from other meerkats (ie not including indirect deaths like starving due to being violently expelled from the group etc). Even humans at their worst don't kill each other at these rates. For comparison, only around 3% of humans died in WW2. Matriarchal societies tend to be violent because the female impetus is to use competition as a means to divide males into fit and unfit, then breed with the fit. This impetus cannot be separated from intraspecies competition. Males on the other hand just want to survive, which can be accomplished through intraspecies competition, but doesn't need to be. If a male can find a way to breed without needing to compete, he will take it.

[Anonymous No.14776349]

>>14776043
>Evolving into something that is unable to survive or propagate is a disadvantage to the animal or plant.
No, mutating into something that is unable to yada yada is what you meant to say. Please answer the question : what is a disadvantage of evolution ITSELF. At least you finally tried to answer a q instead of dodging them tho, good job. I had to bait you really hard into that one.
>You literally made up a definition
Why do you lie? A rock has no goals, is there anything that is advantageous TO a rock moving through a desert? No? Welp then we both use the same definition. A rock has no goals thus it can't acquire any advantages.
>then created an example that was irrelevant using inanimate objects
Oh so the definition does not allow inanimate objects? Please quote a dictionary that says it doesn't allow inanimate objects. Otherwise, I'm freely allowed to point out the fact that an advantage requires goals.
>Evolutionary advantage" is an accepted phrase with a known meaning that is littered throughout scientific literature
Why do you continue with an appeal to consensus fallacy? You realize this is invalid right?
>In language, the meaning of a word or phrase is up to a consensus, that's how we communicate
I'm not stupid. I know you randomly decide that "evolutionary advantage" means reproductive advantage. I'm just pointing out that anyone who mistakenly pretends it's a valid to ascribe that meaning to that phrase is mentally handicapped.
>No one agrees with you,
Ok so your only argument is a fallacy, gotcha.
>I think anyone who uses ROFL is a child or mentally handicapped.
aaaaand you're back to dodging questions ROFL
Please tell me you aren't stupid enough to think organisms trying to reproduce and maintain homeostasis do not have the goals of reproducing and maintaining homeostasis.
>Propagation and survival.
So propagation and survival is the goal of evolution?
I don't even know why I ask you questions. 9/10 times you'll just run away from them.

[Anonymous No.14776383]

>>14776043
ah crap sorry I didn't respond to this in one post I didn't scroll far enough to see it. I hate splitting up posts and hate when others do it. But destroying this will be short
>finances have no goals
Of course finances have goals
>If I have a height advantage
Height is a noun so it's not grammatically analogous to "evolutionary" which is an adjective. Having an evolution advantage implies a population evolves faster and some individual has the goal of faster evolution. Like blasting corn with radiation would give it an evolution advantage bc it would evolve faster and that is your goal. We literally do this to corn to try and force beneficial mutations, it's called radiation mutation breeding.
>I have an evolutionary advantage because I'm genetically superior to you
This sentence does not logically make sense and also includes false claims :-)

[Anonymous No.14776399]

>>14769249
It looks rad.

[Anonymous No.14776466]

>>14776349
ok let' start, I'm another guy but i'll try to shine some light on this matter, I'll start by saying english isn't my first language so I'm sorry for any error
>what is a disadvantage of evolution itself?
None really, if taken by itself, there are evolutionary advantages only in relation to an environment full of creatures competing one another which poses goals to achieve.
Nothing and i mean NOTHING if taken by itself has advantages or disadvantages, It's obviously always in relation with something. So this is a rethorical question. The goal of evolution is choosing the best genetic mutations to create the best version of something for a specific environment, in short, adaptation.
>is there anything that is advantageous TO a rock moving through a desert?
congratulations, you played yourself.
if the goal is to move through the desert as you stated an advantage could be the flat surface, another example could be a rock thumbling down a hill, It's advantage is to be round instead of cubic.

I feel like everything is rotating around the definition of goal: if you mean intention, purpose, aim then only us humans as far as we know have goals, if you mean in the sense of achieving something or reaching an end result then everything could have a goal and at the same time nothing has (that we know of) the universe is a cluster of atoms rearranging together in almost infinite ways, it doesn't have a purpose and is not trying to achieve anything, it's pathetic to think that in our micro-cosmos that we call earth there is a meaning while in the universe that sorrounds there is none. Maybe it's us that are creating the meaning so the goals and achievements

[Anonymous No.14776553]

>>14776349
>Please quote a dictionary that says it doesn't allow inanimate objects.
Please quote a dictionary that states "evolutionary advantage" must involve goals. If you don't do that, then I'll accept your defeat.

>Of course finances have goals
The fuck? The person managing finances has goals, finance is not a thinking entity.

>Having an evolution advantage implies a population evolves faster and some individual has the goal of faster evolution.
You're making up definitions again. You really need to stop doing that.

>This sentence does not logically make sense and also includes false claims :-)
At this point I think you must be an ESL person.

[Anonymous No.14777631]

>>14769249
Maybe the gene for upside down teeth is somehow linked to the gene for increased gamete fitness or potent pheromones

But ultimately the answer to any such question is “because their parents had the gene”

[Anonymous No.14777648]

>>14770352
Evolution doesn't act on individuals...

[Anonymous No.14777686]

>>14777648
Evolution acts on all systems containing self-propagating subsystems.

[Anonymous No.14777705]

>>14777686
I'm begging you, please, actually study the fundamentals of evolution.

[Anonymous No.14777713]

>>14777648
>>14777686
>>14777705
>being this much of an autistic midwit aspie pseud

[Anonymous No.14777858]

>>14769249
None. It just didn't interfere with them reproducing.

[Anonymous No.14777935]

rofl

[Anonymous No.14779305]

>>14776466
>None really, if taken by itself, there are evolutionary advantages only in relation to an environment full of creatures competing one another which poses goals to achieve.
"evolutionary advantages" do not exist. Please answer the question without resorting to nonsense combinations of words
>The goal of evolution is choosing the best genetic mutations
Evolution has no goals. Read the literature I linked above that verbatim says this, read the other anons who acknowledge it, and take a bio 101 class because you do not understand evolution at all.
>congratulations, you played yourself.
>if the goal is to move through the desert
Rocks won't ever have the goal to move through the desert because rocks don't have goals. That is exactly why I chose the example of a rock moving though a desert. Congratulations, you proved this goes way over your head. An advantage requires goals.
>I feel like everything is rotating around the definition of goal
Not whatsoever. The issue has been when to apply "advantage"
>'ll start by saying english isn't my first language so I'm sorry for any error
I'll finish by saying you made drastic errors

[Anonymous No.14779313]

>>14779305
>"evolutionary advantages" do not exist.
Ok, schizo. >>>/r/socialscience

[Anonymous No.14779360]

>>14776553
>Please quote a dictionary that states "evolutionary advantage" must involve goals. If you don't do that, then I'll accept your defeat
Now you must resort to hypocritical double standards where you can claim a dictionary means something, but you don't have to quote one when I ask you first, but then say I must quote one to prove my position?
Your desperation knows absolutely no limits.
>The fuck? The person managing finances has goals, finance is not a thinking entity.
I've told you that a brain is not required to have a goal, and you mindlessly ignored that fact. I told you that so you would not make such erroneous statements like this. This is so tiresome. Finance has goals, you won't ever admit you're wrong but here's rubbing it in your face anyway:
https://wikifinancepedia.com/finance/features-of-finance
>You're making up definitions again
I haven't done this once, liar. I asked to you to prove I made up a definition by giving a source that says one can't use inanimate objects, and what do you do? Dodge like a coward and deflect back to me.
>At this point I think you must be an ESL person.
You:
-dont/can't invalidate my examples
-ignore at least 4/5 of my examples
-can't defend your examples which were all easily defeated
-openly rely on authority/consensus fallacies
-don't/can't answer more than 1 in 10 of my questions unless I bait you into it
-resort to hypocritical standards
-lie repeatedly
-resorted to indirect ad hominems

Yeah, I've won. This isn't a debate anymore, it's drawing out your unending denial.
There is no such thing as "Evolutionary advantages" because evolution has no goals.
The end

[Anonymous No.14779369]

>>14779313
See >>14770357

[Anonymous No.14779372]

>>14779369
Why are you so obsessed about spouting your mental-illness-tier take for hours on end? Just get some basic education and put yourself out of this misery.

[Anonymous No.14779379]

>>14779360
>Now you must resort to hypocritical double standards where you can claim a dictionary means something, but you don't have to quote one when I ask you first, but then say I must quote one to prove my position?
You made the original claim, and you refused to back it up using your own standards. Kudos, you lose. Game over.

[Anonymous No.14779387]

>>14779360
>I've told you that a brain is not required to have a goal, and you mindlessly ignored that fact.
Goal: 1. the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result. 2. the end toward which effort is directed

Can a rock give effort? Does a rock have ambition?

>I haven't done this once, liar.
You claimed a goal is required for an advantage. So where can I find this definition? :-)

[Anonymous No.14779397]

>>14779360
>Now you must resort to hypocritical double standards where you can claim a dictionary means something
Did that anon say dictionaries mean something? You are the one who placed credibility in dictionaries, surely you're not holding people to a standard that you can't meet? You want others to quote from a dictionary to prove their case, but you're not required to do so? And then you call others hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.14779442]

what the fuck is happening in this thread

[Anonymous No.14779458]

>>14779442
Evolution.

[Anonymous No.14779464]

>>14779458
beavers have iron in their teeth to chew through the trees

[Anonymous No.14779508]

>>14779464
I'll be damned, you're telling the truth.

[Anonymous No.14779512]

>>14779508
i dont lie on this anonymous board, especially about the beavers

[Anonymous No.14779566]

>>14779379
Why do you lie? I never claimed a dictionary establishes my argument. Other retard claimed "by definition" a dictionary defeats my argument bc my argument "makes up" definitions of words as support, so I asked for proof and none could be given.
>>14779387
>Goal
>2. the end toward which effort is directed
A plant directs itself toward sunlight, thus a plant has goals by definition and it has no thoughts, ergo finance does not need to be a thinking entity to have goals. Why do you choose to embarrass yourself?
Obviously finance is intangible and does not have directed effort, but there are other dictionary definitions of "goals" that fit for the goals of finance.
>Can a rock give effort? Does a rock have ambition?
Rocks don't have goals
>You claimed a goal is required for an advantage. So where can I find this definition?
A definition of what? Learn how to speak English Pedro.
>>14779397
>You are the one who placed credibility in dictionaries
yes of course dictionaries have credibility what a stupid thing to say. He said I was making up definitions so I asked for proof and he ran away. However, my argument does not rely on definitions alone, it's a logical argument. There is nothing in a dictionary that says an "erosional purple" is an illogical combination of words huh? No dictionary says erosion can't have purple. But we know that is illogical because color requires emission of photons and erosion doesn't have energy to create photons; it's an intangible natural process that leaves results we can see, just like evolution (which doesn't have goals and consequently can't have advantages in exactly the same way)
>You want others to quote from a dictionary to prove their case
No, you liar. I wanted a quote from the dictionary to validate his lie that I'm making up definitions. His case does not rely on me making up definitions bc I can be wrong despite using correct definitions(I'm not, this argument has been a piece of cake).

[Anonymous No.14779567]

>>14779372
See >>14770357

[Anonymous No.14779593]

>>14779566
>I never claimed a dictionary establishes my argument.
You were the first to request a definition from a dictionary.

>A plant directs itself toward sunlight
A plant is alive, it's not inanimate.

>ergo finance does not need to be a thinking entity to have goals
Finance isn't even tangible, it's a concept and activity. Money itself is tangible, and it does nothing without human intervention. Humans have the goals, not our cash.

>A definition of what?
The definition showing that "evolutionary advantage" requires having goals.

>yes of course dictionaries have credibility what a stupid thing to say
Oh neat.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/evolutionary-advantage

>He said I was making up definitions
You are, no one agrees with you, therefore you're making up your own definition to defend your argument.

>There is nothing in a dictionary that says an "erosional purple" is an illogical combination of words huh? No dictionary says erosion can't have purple.
Is that an agreed upon phrase that has 50k hits in google scholar?

>However, my argument does not rely on definitions alone, it's a logical argument.
It's logical to say you have your head up your ass, and people will know that means you're being oblivious rather than actually having your head up your ass, because it's a phrase with an agreed upon meaning that isn't congruent to what the two words mean independently. That's how language works and "evolves." We're back to my believing you're an ESL, or autistic.

[Anonymous No.14779603]

>>14776349
>Please quote a dictionary that says it doesn't allow inanimate objects.
BTW, what do you want a definition for, because if it involves goals, then per >>14779387 there must be ambition or effort. Inanimate objects are incapable of either.

[Anonymous No.14779606]

>>14769249
Not every trait is optimized to perfection. Why do people get in-grown toenails? Why have we not bred out weak heart valves or appendixes?

The strong fuck the females. If the strongest male continuously has fucked up teeth that go through its skull, then it becomes part of the species. Nothing more need happen.

[Anonymous No.14779650]

>>14779593
>You were the first to request a definition from a dictionary.
Because the other moron said I was making up definitions first
>A plant is alive, it's not inanimate.
???????? Oh so a requisite to a goal is life????????????
A dictionary does not say anything regarding life in your definition of goal you provided. By your standards you are making up definitions HAHAHA!!!!

Funny how it works when I throw your garbage argument right back in your face huh?

>Finance isn't even tangible, it's a concept and activity. Money itself is tangible, and it does nothing without human intervention. Humans have the goals, not our cash.
What are you babbling about? Finance doesn't need to think to have goals.
>The definition showing that "evolutionary advantage"
>Oh neat
There's no definition in that link. Again, learn english.
>You are,
Ok you're a liar too I see
>no one agrees with you, therefore
and you rely on consensus fallacies too. Are you the moron anon I just destroyed pretending to be someone else? You sure follow the same pattern as him.
>you're making up your own definition to defend your argument
By your standard you just made up a definition too
>Is that an agreed upon phrase that has 50k hits in google scholar?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
>It's logical to say you have your head up your ass,
No its not logical at all I'd be dead. What a stupid thing to say. That is an idiom and idioms aren't usually logical and almost always invalid at their face value meaning, like "pushing daisies"
>because it's a phrase with an agreed upon meaning that isn't congruent to what the two words mean independently
HAHA thanks for admitting I'm right. The phrase is NOT congruent and "evolutionary advantage" is NOT an idiom.
>That's how language works and "evolves."
So you're arguing "evolutionary advantage" is an idiom and the words don't logically make sense outside of being an idiom? If not, then there was no point in saying head up ass.

[Anonymous No.14779657]

>>14779650
>A dictionary does not say anything regarding life in your definition of goal you provided.
How can you have ambition and give effort if you're not alive?

>https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
It's appeal to consensus. Again, that's how language works. This is purely a language issue.
You can change the meaning of things to suit your own tastes, but if no one agrees then you're the one using it improperly.

[Anonymous No.14779658]

>>14772051
>I'll label anything that could educate me as some boogeyman made up by foreigners to keep americans stupid

[Anonymous No.14779659]

>>14779650
>So you're arguing "evolutionary advantage" is an idiom and the words don't logically make sense outside of being an idiom?
He's saying there's a defined and agreed upon meaning of "evolutionary advantage" that only you seem to disagree with.

[Anonymous No.14779661]

>>14779650
Still waiting on your proof that there's no advantage without goals. Dictionary? Encyclopedia maybe?

[Anonymous No.14779663]

>>14770221
>evolution does not have goals so there is no such thing as "evolutionary advantage." That is a meaningless e-science combination of words
Good lord.

[Anonymous No.14779665]

>>14779603
It's mind numbing how easy it is to predict where your confusion will lead you to.
I already answered this
>Obviously finance is intangible and does not have directed effort, but there are other dictionary definitions of "goals" that fit for the goals of finance.

1 goal: the end toward which effort is directed : aim
An aim does not require ambition or effort. That is key as to why it's perfectly valid to say there's a goal of an inanimate object in certain cases.

A famous case is the goal of a knife written about by Aristotle
>The goal of a knife, then, would seem to involve cutting. If a goal is a good, then the good of a knife would seem to involve cutting. It is odd, perhaps, to say that something like a knife has a good. But then we might say that if a knife were a living thing, then its good would be to cut. What it would aim to do, the achievement it would most basically seek, would be somehow to engage in cutting.
>Of course, a rusty or broken knife will not cut very well or safely. A knife with a dull blade might not even be able to cut at all. We could hardly tell the function of a broken knife, and it would seem misguided in any case to say that it attains the goal of a knife. We would not look to a broken or rusty knife to see what the point of a knife was. So it seems more appropriate to say that the goal or good of a knife is not simply cutting, but rather cutting well.
>However, to cut is the function of a knife, and, as I have said, something carries out its function well only through its having the “virtues” of that kind of thing. Thus, it would be most appropriate to say that the ultimate goal of a knife is to engage in cutting in the way that a knife cuts when it has the “virtues” of a knife

[Anonymous No.14779666]

>>14779665
>1 goal: the end toward which effort is directed : aim
>An aim does not require ambition or effort.
Aim: have the intention of achieving.

Oops.

[Anonymous No.14779671]

>>14779665
>A famous case is the goal of a knife written about by Aristotle
If you don't understand he was using an analogy, then I really don't know what to tell you. You have a very literal perception of words and I think that's why you can't wrap your head around certain things.

[Anonymous No.14779672]

>>14779657
>How can you have ambition and give effort if you're not alive?
Not engaging your bullshit. You're making a logical argument that there's requirements behind a word used in context but those requirements are not verbatim stated in the dictionary. That is exactly what I'm doing, but you lie and say I'm making up definitions when I do that. Fuck off.

>It's appeal to consensus
I know, I don't think that website has appeal to consensus, that fallacy you made is pretty close to the other fallacy though.

>This is purely a language issue
Nope. It's logically wrong and you are pretending it's not bc of an appeal to consensus fallacy. That isn't how it works. We still acknowledge idioms are illogical, but you deny that "evolutionary advantage" is illogical. It's absolutely not "purely a language issue" it's you denying logic issue.

[Anonymous No.14779679]

>>14769249
The one with the biggest tusks got to fuck the women hog
that's the only reason

[Anonymous No.14779680]

>>14779672
>but you deny that "evolutionary advantage" is illogical
It's not illogical because it's not used in the literal way you tried to define it above as an ability to evolve faster. You're clinging to a definition that no one even defines it as to say it's illogical.

[Anonymous No.14779689]

>>14779650
>"evolutionary advantage" is NOT an idiom.
Says who?

[Anonymous No.14779695]

>>14779661
>He's saying there's a defined and agreed upon meaning of "evolutionary advantage" that only you seem to disagree with.
No, I don't disagree what morons think it means I know they think it means reproductive advantage, you continue to lie
>still awaiting you to satiate my appeal to authority fallacy bc I can't think for myself
I explained it in this thread.
>>14779666
Are you truly stupid enough to think the first google result is the only definition of "aim" therefore you must be right??? HAHAHA!!! wow
>>14779671
He said "the goal of a knife is" yes or no? It's simply too simple of a question to doge this. If you don't answer this question with a yes or no you are admitting defeat.

>>14779663
See >>14770357

[Anonymous No.14779696]

>>14779650
>There's no definition in that link. Again, learn english.
Just example after example of "evolutionary advantage" being used in a manner similar to that used in the OP, almost like there's an agreed upon usage.

[Anonymous No.14779702]

>>14779695
>He said "the goal of a knife is" yes or no? It's simply too simple of a question to doge this. If you don't answer this question with a yes or no you are admitting defeat.
I already won when you chose to "doge" this >>14776553, I'm just enjoying your squirming at this point. :-)

[Anonymous No.14779705]

>>14779680
>It's not illogical
You don't need to repeat your denial after I just said you deny it I already know you deny it's illogical

>it's not used in the literal way you tried to define it above as an ability to evolve faster
HAHAHA!!!!
My definition you refer to was in regards to "evolution advantage" NOT "evolutionary advantage"
They're separate ideas mr ESL. One is a noun and one is an adjective. Ask your incompetent english teacher what they mean or youtube those I guess.
"evolution advantage" absolutely is a logical combination of words in certain contexts, I even gave one. "evolutionary advantage" is not a logical combination of words in any context.
>You're clinging to a definition that no one even defines it as to say it's illogical
Pathetic lie
>>14779689
>>"evolutionary advantage" is NOT an idiom.
>Says who?
Laughable. If you claim it's an idiom then you claim that combination of words is not logical. So everyone in this thread who disagrees with me is saying it's not an idiom by necessity.

[Anonymous No.14779707]

>>14779695
Oh no, you're not appealing to an authority!!!??? Well then, here's 50k for you.

[Anonymous No.14779709]

>>14779705
>If you claim it's an idiom then you claim that combination of words is not logical.
But the meaning of idioms is logical. Your autism is showing.

[Anonymous No.14779710]

>>14779705
>Ask your incompetent english teacher what they mean or youtube those I guess.
English should be capitalized. :-)

[Anonymous No.14779717]

>>14779696
It's a meaningless combination of words. That fact was stated my very first post in this thread. It doesn't matter if tons of people know it secretly means "reproductive advantage"... my claim is still factual.

>>14779702
Thanks for letting me know I won, I knew you would not disappoint :-)
You even resorted to the desperation of pointing out trivial spelling mistakes and didn't hit the d key hard enough.
Wow.
Here's your "d"... you can put it right next to your big fat "L" you also received in this thread ROFL (that's an english language joke you wouldn't get it)

[Anonymous No.14779719]

>>14779695
>Are you truly stupid enough to think the first google result is the only definition of "aim" therefore you must be right???
Unless you're aiming a weapon, then yes.

Here's others though:
>to strive
>try or intend
>the purpose for which you do something
>what you hope to achieve

[Anonymous No.14779724]

>>14779717
>It doesn't matter if tons of people know it secretly means "reproductive advantage"
>secretly
>tons of people
Some secret...

[Anonymous No.14779735]

>>14779717
>It's a meaningless combination of words.
It's not meaningless, people have applied a meaning to the combination of those words.

[Anonymous No.14779742]

>>14779707
See first 3 sentence here >>14779717

[Anonymous No.14779758]

>>14779719
>>Are you truly stupid enough
>yes
Admitting you are stupid is the first step, good job.
>>14779724
It's called a metaphor. Learn *****E****nglish
>>14779735
>It's not meaningless, people have applied a meaning to the combination of those words.
Not a single anon here as acknowledged it simply means "reproductive advantage" .... it's just using the wrong word in place of the right word. Nothing more. Why would 50k people be that stupid to mix up two words? Are you as stupid as them and confuse "evolution" and "reproduction"?
We both know you are, as you just admitted.

[Anonymous No.14782085]

>>14779742
See >>14779735.

[Anonymous No.14782125]

>>14779758
>Not a single anon here as acknowledged it simply means "reproductive advantage" ....
Because it means more than that, but reproductive advantage is a part of it.

>it's just using the wrong word in place of the right word.
No, it's the right word in the right place. Consensus wins when it comes to language.

>Why would 50k people be that stupid to mix up two words?
Not just people, many are trained scientists.

>Are you as stupid as them and confuse "evolution" and "reproduction"?
No, I understand they're different things, so do 50k other people. But if you feel special being the only one who doesn't agree, then fine.

>It's called a metaphor. Learn *****E****nglish
You apparently don't know what a metaphor is, and you're also getting angry over being corrected it seems.

[Anonymous No.14782137]

>>14782125
Not the anon you're replying to but you're the same incel I was just arguing with in the materialism thread lol
go give the definition for determinism vs non determinism

[Anonymous No.14782152]

>>14779758
>Admitting you are stupid is the first step, good job.
When the "stupid" person is right, then what does that make the person they're debating with?

[Anonymous No.14782160]

what the hell is this thread

[Anonymous No.14782170]

>>14782160
A stupid person arguing with an autistic person, apparently.

[Anonymous No.14782219]

>>14782085
Continue to run away like a coward it's fine I know that's all you can do
>Because it means more than that,
It does not bc evolution has no goals. It can only "mean more" if you ascribe idiomatic meaning to it. Do you still pretend it's an idiom yes or no? I know you'll run away form this question too so I don't really know why I ask.
>many are trained scientists
Why would trained scientists mix up two words? I know you'll run away form this question too so I don't really know why I ask.
>No, I understand they're different things
Then why do you illogically replace one word for another? I know you'll run away form this question too so I don't really know why I ask.
>You apparently don't know what a metaphor is
Says the person who just objectively demonstrated he did not.
>When the "stupid" person is right
Its objective you are not right. However, you're the one who admitted he's stupid so you tell me

[Anonymous No.14782242]

>>14782219
>It does not bc evolution has no goals.
Not needed, been through this ad nauseam and you've never come up with a valid argument for why a goal is needed. Your only sources simply stated that evolution doesn't have a goal, not that a goal is a requirement for anything. That's not a defense of your claims.

>Why would trained scientists mix up two words? I know you'll run away form this question too so I don't really know why I ask.
The simple answer is they're not, they understand how they're using the words, your lack of understanding doesn't negate that.

>Says the person who just objectively demonstrated he did not.
Explain how in the world what you said is a metaphor.

>Its objective you are not right.
Okay, present your proof. And it better be a common usage, if you have to dive into something esoteric then you're making my case.

[Anonymous No.14782374]

>>14782242
You ran from 3 out of 4 questions like a coward I see. Expected.
>Not needed, been through this ad nauseam
The present perfect tense of "be" requires the word "have" in front of it preceded by a pronoun. Learn English :-)
>you've never come up with a valid argument for why a goal is needed
Denial doesn't make your falsehoods true.
>That's not a defense of your claims.
My defense was the half dozen examples where an advantage requires goals coupled with your abject failure to provide even a single example where an advantage can occur when the entity in question has no goals.
>The simple answer is they're not
Weasel words. It's not "simple" or "complicated" or anything of the sort. They're either mixing up words or they are not. Your qualification of an absolute is petty desperation. You genuinely can't commit to anything, which is why you run away from so many questions and why it's so obvious you have lost this argument.
>Okay, present your proof
??? The half dozen examples I've given that you have abjectly failed to refute is the proof I have presented.
>And it better be a common usage
HAHA all of it was/is! The proofs ranged from erosion to plants to rocks to knives to viruses to finance to suicidal people and all used common language. There is no such thing as an entity with no goals that can utilize, bestow, or have an advantage and that includes "evolutionary advantages." Your only argument is that phrase makes sense because it's "common language" but you run away like a coward when asked if it's an idiomatic phrase because you know I will corner you like a trapped animal if you answer that question.

[Anonymous No.14782402]

>>14769249
Most likely there was sexual selection on big horns and this lead to selecting for a gene that causes unlimited growth of the horn.

[Anonymous No.14782733]

>>14769249
1. Maybe other babirusa didn't exist
2. Or they randomly went extinct
3. Or we don't know its evolutionary advantage
4. Or advantage is temporary
5. Or it's tied to another advantage
6. Or it's not as bad as you want to make it sound
7. Or it's not different from any other of over 9000 defects
8. Or doing otherwise is disadvantageous
9. Or is tied to another disadvantage

[Anonymous No.14782771]

>>14770221

[Anonymous No.14783130]

>>14770386
which is interesting to note that as human civilization is getting more and more colonial/eusocial (thanks to industrialization), women assume more and more power and the system favours their side when it comes to sexual selection. We're basically turning into colonial insects