>My life has come to breeding swastikas.
http://www.mountimprobable.com/
>>28845213
This is pretty neat, but the educational value would be greater if they didn't call the pressure 'artificial and not natural' (because that's bullshit, manmade pressures are perfectly natural), and instead said that in this model, the sole natural pressure is whether you (if they were self-ironic, they would could call you the 'God' of the simulation) like a particular node or not.
Why are you breeding swastikas? Not saying you shouldn't. have you tried implementing refugees and multiculturalism on your charts?
>>28845428
with swastikas there is no need to implement those
only the purest swastikas survive
Now breed black suns.
>>28845379
Can you explain how man-made pressures are natural? Curious, since it does sound contradicting
>>28845595
Maybe, but it isn't in the slightest. There isn't even much to explain. A selective pressure is literally any thing that affects reproduction. A fucking dictatorial decree that only members of a certain political party are allowed to have children is 'natural selection' too. The misconception is thinking that 'natural' refers to things that are green or quadripedal or such. Our cultural decisions are as natural as diseases, disasters, and such.
>swastikas aren't instantly created and stay the same forever
Nice atheist propaganda *tips fedora*
>>28845669
>>28845595
It's just that in the recent centuries, the survival aspect of evolution became overshadowed by the strictly sexual one -- striving to survive into the reproductive one is pretty much granted, sexual preference of (fe)males determines everything nowadays.
>>28845738
>the reproductive one
*the reproductive AGE
>>28845192
My Swastika is better than yours OP
>>28845192
>>28845807
Evolution (namely whose model is going to be saved and reposted) will decide.
>>28845379
>>28845669
You're making a stupid semantic contrarian point. The term artificial selection specifically exists to describe the actions of humans to select for certain factors that aren't selected for by other, more random, factors in the ecosystem.
What you're saying is basically the same as saying "wilderness" is a bullshit term to refer to a forest that hasn't been bulldozed to make human habitat, because humans are 'natural' too. It's completely fucking retarded and absolutely missing the point of why specific language exists.
>>28845969
It's not stupid because it's arbitrary as fuck, and arbitrariness has no place in a learning resource such as that site, whose very point should be to give a clear, abstract notion of evolution.
>>28846005
>>28845969
I mean, arbitrary is the distinction between """"artificial"""" and """"natural"""" selection. When would anyone even need such for?
>>28846005
>>28846027
Because there are different types of selective pressure and a holistic understanding of evolution requires differentiating and identifying them. When humans breed dogs, that's evolution, and it works differently than when wolves in the environment evolve. At the most fundamental level it's the same process, but the selective pressure works completely differently so it's retarded to try and ignore the nuance.
It's not arbitrary. We differentiate between artificial selective pressure and natural selective pressure for good reason-- because they are completely separate concepts that describe different mechanisms.
>>28846105
>a holistic understanding of evolution requires differentiating
I'll let this one slip.
...You're basically saying that manmade pressures are qualitatively different because they are qualitatively different. Provide a non-circular argument why it is so. Why humans coming to value, say, wealth, thus selecting for its genetic causes, are any different from, say, climate cooling selecting for thicker fur?
Damn it, I keep getting backwards swastikas.
How do I get Nazi ones?
>>28846161
It's the exact same thing.
We just call it artificial to refer to humans doing it, because we use words to refer to specific things.
If I ask you how pig livestock evolved, are you going to just tell me "natural selection"? What if I ask you how grizzly bears evolved?
We use the term 'artificial selection' to refer to the fact that the selective pressure in creating modern pigs came from humans.
You're basically arguing that we should call all colors "red" because they are all photons emitted at some wavelength. Well the wavelength fucking matters for communication and identification.
>>28846186
First you must poo in loo.
>>28846186
Pledge your allegiance to our eternal fuhrer Adolf Hitler. That's how I did it.
>>28846262
I have addressed this in >>28846005. That site is clearly extremely abstract, and clearly at a level where 'artificial selection', 'human selection', 'climate selection', 'food temperature selection', 'amount of gravel on the meadow selection', 'amount of mosquitos sitting at you when you sleep selection', and such are not to be mentioned lest they are confused for fundamental.
>>28846343
>>28846262
As a matter of fact, considering how common the 'it's man-caused therefore it's not evolution' error is, the natural/artificial false distinction should probably be explicitly dismissed on that site rather than implicitly stated.
>Thread about breeding swastikas
>Autists arguing about evolution
This is why we can't have nice things.
>>28846381
>>28846343
You're being ridiculous, none of those distinctions exist as categories of selective pressure.
If you think 'artificial selection' as a term shouldn't exist, then why don't you tell me how we should differentiate between evolution of a pig and a wild boar.
"Stupid people might misunderstand it" is not an answer.
>>28846494
Out of respect for other posters ITT I will not restate the point you're ignoring for the third time.
I foresee your attachment to arbitrariness as seriously crippling unless you address it.
>>28846532
Because you're full of shit and you know it. You got caught making a shitty contrarian argument and I called you on it.
Look up in a dictionary what arbitrary means. If we do things for a reason, such as differentiating between the distinctly different selective pressures of pigs and boars, then it's not arbitrary.
>>28845669
>Our cultural decisions are as natural as diseases, disasters, and such.
This is dangerous, nihilistic thinking that could very well cause the death of billions.
>>28846652
IN PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION, arbitrariness is required so to describe the particular relationships.
IN GENERAL DESCRIPTION SUCH AS OP'S SITE, arbitrariness, even as simple as dichotomic manmade/natural, is inacceptable because the model is to be as parsimonious as possible.
You are a cretin.
I believe i have created the perfect swastika. many generations of careful selection has led to this
>>28846695
We must never let a description of a phenomenon be incomplete under the influence of an instance or an application of it. It is the phenomenon of evolution that involves us considering certain outcomes as 'dangerous'; it is the phenomenon of evolution that describes the property of being or not being dangerous as a selective factor with respect to whether the situation is let happen by us or not. My point here is, the phenomenon of evolution is superior to the notion of 'dangerous', it encompasses it. We must recognize it everywhere that it takes place; our recognition of it must be universal.
>>28846725
IT'S SO FUCKING BEAUTIFUL
>>28846725
Neat. Can you save its 'genetic' code? I quit the site.
>>28846702
It doesn't look good trying to use words you don't understand. Parsimonious has a more negative connotation than someone simply trying to be direct/efficient/succinct, it means more excessive/stingy, and a real shitty word for this context.
Again, it's not arbitrary because we differentiate between manmade and natural for good reason. Even on the website, it's artificial selection because we're literally picking on a whim what traits we desire-- the traits have no bearing on fitness or any kind of selective pressure other than what's coming from us.
This thread is /Ubermensch/tier.
Using selective breeding to create a master race of swastikas?
The Fuhrer would be proud.
>>28846857
>it's not arbitrary because we differentiate between manmade and natural for good reason
Okay, I quit. This discussion has abused the other posters' patience for too long.
>It doesn't look good trying to use words you don't understand. Parsimonious has a more negative connotation than someone simply trying to be direct/efficient/succinct, it means more excessive/stingy, and a real shitty word for this context.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/#OntPar
>>28846826
>>28846845
look at this happy swastika family of near-perfect genes
>>28846920
Hey at least the retarded one is half of the SS symbol
