/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9540867]

Is evolution... deteriorating...?

[Anonymous No.9540902]

Your question cannot be sensibly answered without first addressing the profound educational deficit from which it springs.

Please repeat the fifth through fourteenth grades.

[Anonymous No.9541507]

[Anonymous No.9541516]

>>9540902
So that's a "Yes"?

[Anonymous No.9541726]

>>9541516
He doesn't know, hence his first response.

[Anonymous No.9541733]

That can't happen unless we stop time from going forward.

[Anonymous No.9541734]

>>9540867
evolution does not abide by your silly notions of teleology, lowly human.

[Anonymous No.9541737]

>>9540867
Animal and plant life has got significantly smaller and weaker since the bottleneck created by the K–Pg boundary

[Anonymous No.9541775]

>>9540867
>he thinks evolution is about being an objectively better organism
whatever mutations of genes are allowed by the cricumstances to reproduce, they will appear

[Anonymous No.9541798]

>>9541775
>he underestimates the importance of healthy genes

[Anonymous No.9541941]

>>9540902
>>9541733
This. You don't understand evolution.
>>9541726
>>9541798
Neither do you.

[Anonymous No.9541960]

>>9541941
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9541969]

Shouldn't abhorrent threads like this be reported and deleted?

[Anonymous No.9541987]

>>9541969
Actually I'd argue yes or no, dependent on the content of the threads.

If they are early in conception, or have no valuable discussion like this one, then absolutely yes.

If they spark actual discussion wherein anons try to educate their non bio peers on the processes of selection and genetic drift which drive evolution, and clear up the common misconceptions behind seeing evolution as necessarily "bigger&better" instead of what gives greatest reproductive success incidentally and relative to an environment, then I think this kind of thread can exist in a healthy format.

That being said, sage and report this fucking awful thread as it currently stands.

[Anonymous No.9542026]

[Anonymous No.9542060]

>>9541737
This, also, evolution? Machines will evolve thousands of times more efficiently along side our turtle speed pinky toe-removal type of evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPZ-uWirIN4

[Anonymous No.9542826]

>>9540867
>deteriorating
The andean condor is the biggest flying bird, it's proof New World species are better.

Amerindian humans are better than european "humans".

[Anonymous No.9542843]

>>9541969
no, don't you have a stackexchange to fuck around on instead of ruining /sci/

[Anonymous No.9542865]

>>9540867
>>9541507

La creatura

[Anonymous No.9543319]

>>9540902
This.

>>9541969
Yes, /sci/ should have a different culture desu and have mods that delete brain dead threads from the get go.

[Anonymous No.9543405]

>>9540867
>american birb looks like american citizens

kek

[Anonymous No.9543485]

>>9541987
Back to neogaf you phedophile cuck I'll fukin bass your fuckin face you doppey cunt

[Anonymous No.9543773]

>>9540867
People can give their theories on this but you would have to studied a few generations of life for a positive answer... Giving our population is so high and going up naaaa

[Anonymous No.9543776]

>>9541733
Bro think before you speak evolution will continue regardless

[Anonymous No.9543787]

>>9541775

that discredits environments where pressures lessen or survival becomes easier

I'd say an animal moving from a high pressure environment to the land of milk and honey would by all accounts be "devolving" compared to earlier versions of the animal.

[Anonymous No.9544365]

>>9540867
El pajarraco...

[Anonymous No.9544460]

>>9540867
>Evolution is traveling towards better designs or some goal

[Anonymous No.9544475]

>>9542826
>Amerindian humans are better than european "humans"
elaborate. I'm not a /pol/tard btw.

[Anonymous No.9544477]

[Anonymous No.9544505]

Are you guys actually retarded? Evolution does go towards better organisms. This statement has certain probabilism in it, for example, a meteor may still destroy all megafauna and evolving defenses against unexpected events isnt considered in the scope of "better".

Plankton is better than bacteria. Ant is better than plankton. Rat is better than ant. Dog is better than rat. Human is better than dog. Some humans are better than most of the humans.

[Anonymous No.9544542]

>>9542026
Le epic xD

[Anonymous No.9544595]

>>9544475
>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 10500 years (21000BC-10500BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 4000 years (10500BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 3700 years (3000BC-700 AD)

Amerindians had a higher development rate than europeans.

[You No.9544678]

>>9543787
it was my point, but I do not think devolving is a good phrase in a first place. Both of theese are evolution related processes of adaptation

[Anonymous No.9544749]

>>9544505
Yes. An example is that Amerindians are superior to europeans.

[Anonymous No.9544776]

>>9544542
>>9542026
cringe

[Anonymous No.9544782]

>>9544505
Are you retarded? Actually figure out what the definition of "evolution by natural selection" is.
>Plankton is better than bacteria. Ant is better than plankton. Rat is better than ant. Dog is better than rat. Human is better than dog. Some humans are better than most of the humans
These aren't scientific statements.
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9544830]

>>9544505
>Are you guys actually retarded? Evolution does go towards better organisms.
This is categorically incorrect, it selects for reproductive fitness.
>Plankton is better than bacteria.
Not scientific, there is no metric of "better" in biology, only "fitness". If we want to define better as one organism's metabolism is more active than another bacteria win because they can do much more taxing metabolic processes, if we want to define better as one organism is more survivable than the other bacteria still win because they are simply so numerous and diverse in strategies, if we want to define it by numbers bacteria STILL win because there are countless bacteria on Earth and they live everywhere, and finally if we want to say its how long their domain has survived bacteria absolutely demolish plankton because they have existed for over 2 billion years. This is why better is not a metric that works for comparing animals, there are conditions where the other always wins and outperforms.

[Anonymous No.9544851]

>>9544505
>plankton is better than bacteria
What the fuck
No

[Anonymous No.9544870]

>>9544851
>tfw worse than bacteria
JUST!

[Anonymous No.9544887]

>>9541507
I would argue that there are more chickens alive today than the number of T-rex that ever existed in nature. That is a categorical success as far as the drive behind evolution is concerned.

[Anonymous No.9544897]

>>9544505
You are arguing that complexity is "better" but those bacteria that you scoff at will probably survive the next E.L.E meteoric impact, whereas your humans who are better than other humans will be left behind by the humans who have more money than other humans in the final hours before impact.

[Anonymous No.9545988]

>>9544505
This is great bait

[Anonymous No.9546537]

>>9544505
if by better you mean towards those that are better at surviving/reproducing then yeah