Does anyone else have a pet peeve when people talk like evolution had an intention or motive, and a lot of the time along with that they seem to think natural selection only culls the weak?
I just don't understand the mentality. Are they uneducated and assuming these things happen for the best? Edgelords that can't quite grasp what they're trying to grip?
>>28901960
People still think we come from monkeys and that at any time if evolution is to be believed a chimp can start quoting Shakespeare.
There's a lot of misconception on what evolution actually is and how it works.
>>28901960
What the fuck are you talking about?
Organisms that fail evolutionarily are weak by definition. Weakness is *defined* as failing to propagate your traits.
(For that particular sense of weakness ofc, muscular/physical strength/force is irrelevant.)
>>28902015
I dunno man, a lot of animals evolve useless shit. Dodos had no real defenses and they'd be considered very weak in the animal kingdom.
>>28902033
Presence of evolutionary (often literal) islands in no way affects the way that dodos were strong enough to thrive while they did. Strength/weakness is defined within the particular system of organisms and pressures. They were weak globally, but strong enough locally. It's only when their locality came to include their eventual predator that they became weak locally as well.
>>28902068
>the way
*the fact
>>28901960
Just mass scale ignorance like >>28902015
>>28902015
Evolution is about how well an organism fits into it's environment, the big picture. It has nothing to do with being strong, weak or superior. Alpha apex predators at the top of their food chain that dominate everything around them get wiped from existence by bacteria introduced into the environment from the shit of creatures on the verge of extinction for no reason other than pure chance.
>>28902101
I don't think that I've ever seen anyone fail to understand a post so thoroughly.
I literally addressed what you said. That it depends on definition of strong/weak -- whether you define it as evolutionary fitness or some humanly conspicuous physical trait like raw size, and that the two shouldn't be confused.
>>28902015
The word you are looking for is fit. Those that aremore adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. This increases their fitness.
>>28902189
Fair point. I'm not a native and didn't remember that that is the word.
>>28901960
It's just the way people are. People are ignorant to a huge degree. That includes you by the way. I'm sure there's a lot of things you don't understand correctly.
>>28902131
The purpose of evolution is not to propagate your traits. That's just a habit of the evolutionary fit. You're implying evolution would only allow the strong to keep going. Natural selection does not work that way. There's no motive about making things better the strongest traits are not necessarily going to get passed on.
For fuck sakes it's like you have half a clue what you're talking about schools ought to teach you this shit if you believe in it.
>>28902227
>implying
I AM A CYBERNETIC ORGANISM, LIVING TISSUE OVER METAL ENDOSKELETON
>>28902242
What the fuck.
Nowhere did I imply that evolution has a 'purpose' or 'motive'.
Evolution only allowing the strong organisms to propagate is, as I explicitly said twice, in agreement with the definition of strength (well, fitness really, thanks to >>28902189's correction, but that's just a choice of a a term) as having the traits ensuing propagation.
I think you should go to bed not even because you're underage, you just seem to be very tired.
>>28901960
Yep, people (edgelords) particularly on 4chan equate evolutionary success or potential with moral worth.
This is of course laughably wrong because evolution is a completely blind, natural process.
>>28902282
There's your (You) kiddo.
>>28902282
By the way, I personally find knee-jerk reactions at the phrase 'the point/motive of evolution is...' funny, because there's nothing stopping you from defining one, as '...resulting in the fittest traits' survival'. Perhaps I should begin to do that just to trigger people.
>>28902360
It appears you are underage too after all.
>>28902374
>hahaha I was just trolling all along!
>>28902508
It's funny because people like you apparently react in a find-match-post manner of 'he said that that evolution is about strength!!!', without waiting to read how said strength is defined.
>>28901960
The only ones truly dumb enough to fall for the evolution meme are the militant atheists, which is extremely ironic but typical because everyone just wants to believe in something
>>28902068
This. Organisms "will" evolve to fit a niche, if there is one to fill. I say "will" because it's up to chance mutation, but usually they do. The dodos were strong in their particular niche, then humans came along and it changed.
>>28902575
It might seem kind of douche'-baggish of me to not need it since I understand what you're trying to convey and already know about "strongest to their environment". I already know you're going to go with a meme talking broadly about strength and weakness without a more defined situation. This isn't my first time on the internet. DO YOU THINK THIS IS SOME KIND OF GAME?!
i didn't start taking evolution seriously until i started studying nano technology.
when you look at plants under a microscope, you can see that they are "engineered" at the nano level to funnel water straight off of the leaves into the cone of the plant, physically.
same thing with duck feathers. engineered to be water proof at the nano level. like if you take a duck feather you cannot make it any more naturally water proof than it already is, it is structurally perfect for repelling water and it is that way because of it's physical structure, that's unbelievable if you think about it.
the best example i can think of is the wheel: there is a structurally perfect way to do everything, you just have to figure it out and somehow nature knows these answers.
>>28902575
Once in a while people don't get my sense of humor right away.
You learned something today. So take this.
>>28901960
>Implying we were not created by our Father in Heaven
>>28902718
True. I mean, this post is probably a heavy-handed theistic post, but it's still true. That's why I say that evolution is basically proto-intelligence. Evolution literally works by trial-and-error, and so learn individual organisms. The sets of conclusions that evolution comes up with ('don't eat rotten carcasses', 'keep out of heights', ...) and that individudals come up with through their reasonings share elements.
>>28902982
>implying God isn't behind evolution
>>28903006
>heavy-handed theistic post
that's not what i meant by "engineered". i think your trial-and-error descriptor fits for what i was trying to convey there.
>>28901960
Only when people think survival of the fittest means actual physical fitness
