/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13894468

106KiB, 600x487, Gray355.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 26 Nov 23:48:57 2021 No.13894468 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13894486 >>13895034 >>13895728 >>13895760 >>13896109 >>13898197 >>13898359

>the dorsal cuneocuboid ligament offered such a huge evolutionary advantage bro
>this mutation totally enabled one single primate to totally outfuck every other male in the region, thus leading the entire population to develop a dorsal cuneocuboid ligament
>now you just have to repeat this scenario for every single biological mechanism in every single animal in history
>a few hundred million years is totally enough time to reach the diversity we now see in nature bro

Evolution might be real, but the current accepted theories are total bullshit when you actually bother to critique them. And no I'm not a creationist, that shit is even more retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Nov 2021 23:57:52 No.13894486 Report

Quoted By: >>13898112

>>13894468
I don't see what's the problem with what you wrote... That is how evolution works it takes a long time.

It was not like a monkey stood up on two legs and that's it. Monkey probably started to walk upright more and more and those ligaments strenghtened with time.

Look at chimps they can walk on two legs, but aren't good at it. In the same way some monkey got better and better at it an they turned out to be humans eventually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 02:34:43 No.13894933 Report

Quoted By:

Human speech begins about 50 to 100 thousand years ago. This is an interesting development, perhaps THE most interesting development. Was there some change in the structure of vocal cords and their link to the brains that allowed this?

Perhaps it is useful to start by making a case that the vocal tract did indeed undergo selection related to vocal communication. First of all, the human vocal tract is different from that of other primates: not just is the larynx lower, but humans also have a much bigger gap between the larynx and the velum than do other primates, and even than do other mammals with permanently lowered larynges (increasing the risk of choking on one’s food; e.g., Heimlich, 1975). Moreover, the human vocal tract may be optimized for vocalization Furthermore, as compared to other apes, we lack air sacs. In summary, humans have a higher risk of choking while eating but are better at producing carefully controlled vocalizations. Therefore, following Parker and Maynard Smith (1990), who observed that optimization for a function often indicates selective pressure related to that function, it seems likely that humans have undergone selective pressure related to speech.

How long ago did adaptations for speech evolve?

To what extent did speech and language evolve independently?

Is anatomy or cognition primary?

Lieberman and Crelin (1971) reconstructed the Neanderthal vocal tract on the basis of observations of fossils and of the infant modern human vocal tract. They then used a computer model to calculate the acoustic properties of articulations that could be made with the reconstructed vocal tract. They concluded that Neanderthals were not able to produce the complete range of sounds that modern humans can make.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO but the people are retarded.jpg, 63KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 03:13:53 No.13895034 Report

Quoted By:

>>13894468
>but the current accepted theories are total bullshit when you actually bother to critique them
Why are they total bullshit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 07:40:58 No.13895728 Report

Quoted By:

>>13894468
mutations can arise spontaniously to many organisms, it doesn't have to be one animal that fucks everyone. it was many animals fuking with the same trait and their descendants with same trait. if the trait was favorable it survived and dominated.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1588203165122.jpg, 5KiB, 250x227

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 07:51:34 No.13895760 Report

Quoted By: >>13898197

>>13894468
>Every trait humans have is the direct result of specific selection for that trait
Apply yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 10:00:35 No.13896109 Report

Quoted By:

>>13894468
Can someone translate this from schizo into human?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 22:25:56 No.13898112 Report

Quoted By: >>13898411

>>13894486
>That is how evolution works it takes a long time.
You completely didn't get his point.
It takes a long time to build a skyscraper but that does not mean a bunch of down syndrome retards can build a skyscraper if they simply have a lot of time but no guidance.
Mainstream evolutionary theory hypothesizes the only guidance needed for things to evolve with such diversity and complexity in the accepted time frame is guidance via natural selection. OP is saying that hypothesis is unsupported and he is correct. There is nothing showing that natural selection by itself can provide an adequate amount of guidance for the complexity and diversity of life. That is one giant unproven assumption and it's universally ignored.

>inb4 prove more guidance is needed beyond guidance via natural selection
It is your burden of proof to demonstrate, and figure out how to demonstrate, it is adequate if you claim it is adequate.

If a piano flies over a wall and we go to the other side of the wall and find a trebuchet ,and it's counterweights have fallen off next to a pile of other counterweights, we might ask how much counterweight was needed to launch the piano? If you claim X counterweight is adequate to launch the piano over a wall, and I say "I have no reason to believe you so what is your proof it's adequate weight?" you can't merely say "well durr proof more weight is needed beyond what I think is adequate duuurrr"... the burden of proof is obviously on you, just like the burden of proof that guidance via natural selection is adequate for the diversity and complexity of life we see in the given time frame.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 800px-Humanchimpchromosomes[1].png, 40KiB, 800x214

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 22:51:09 No.13898197 Report

Quoted By: >>13898227

>>13894468
>>this mutation totally enabled one single primate to totally outfuck every other male in the region, thus leading the entire population to develop a dorsal cuneocuboid ligament
This theme seems even more apparent for the alleged fusion of our chromosome 2 compared to our "apelike ancestor" chromosomes.
Why would this "fused chromosome" spread to every member of a species especially when it's actually disadvantageous (first 23 chromosome pair organism would have nothing to mate with)

>>13895760
>>Every trait humans have is the direct result of specific selection for that trait
IF the trait is present in all human organisms (which is implied by your statement here) then it very very very strongly implies it would have been the result of specific selection if the general macroevolution end of evolution is valid. Why would it remain in every single human since the Mitochondrial Eve / Y-chromosomal Adam? Coincidence? No way. It would be waaaaaaaay too big of a coincidence that a useless trait (ie a trait not the result of selection) stuck around in EVERY human for that long.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 22:59:54 No.13898227 Report

Quoted By: >>13898292

>>13898197
>Why would this "fused chromosome" spread to every member of a species especially when it's actually disadvantageous (first 23 chromosome pair organism would have nothing to mate with)
This seems to BTFO evolution. Usually though, arguments like this seem reasonable only for laymen such as myself. An evolutionary biologist will probably be able to refute this quite easily.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 23:30:53 No.13898292 Report

Quoted By:

>>13898227
>This seems to BTFO evolution
I came up with the question, I didn't read it off a creationist blog or anything like that. I would not say it "BTFO's evolution." It suggests there is some form of guidance beyond natural selection that we have not accounted for yet because as we all know a deleterious trait should not propagate so thoroughly (to the entire species). So either there is some benefit we don't know about the trait (the alleged fusing) that offsets it's heavy downside, or there is some guiding principle behind propagation of traits we are not aware off. That's really it, and neither of those btfo evolution unless you can prove the unaccounted for guidance can't be produced naturally and thus would require intelligent guidance.....
>Usually though, arguments like this seem reasonable only for laymen such as myself
Which is why it's so shocking mainstream evolutionists have never addressed it.
>An evolutionary biologist will probably be able to refute this quite easily.
I've asked it maybe a half dozen times and never got a straight answer. I think you have a little too much faith in them.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1594099032156.jpg, 159KiB, 875x402

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 00:01:22 No.13898359 Report

Quoted By: >>13898602

>>13894468
You don't understand evolution at all. Macroevolution is simply the sum of countless microevolutions happening overtime.

It's not a single primate that fucked all the women, but a bunch of primates with slightly stronger dorsal cuneocuboid ligaments propagating more over time. They coexisted with other primates of their species for thousands of years, until they didn't, because over thousands of years they were more adept at surviving and reproducing than their peers.

It also wasn't some sort of revolutionary leap of a mutation but many small changes over time.

We know for a fact microevolution exists because we have observed it on bacteria and other short lived animals btw.
So it's not a "theory" in the sense you are using the word, it's a proven fact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 00:19:25 No.13898411 Report

Quoted By:

>>13898112
beautifully put, thanks for defending my point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 01:39:30 No.13898602 Report

Quoted By: >>13898629

>>13898359
That pic is such an incredibly braindead blatant strawman of the arguments against macroevolution I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make it. Only morons would actually read it in it's entirety. Macroevolution is NOT mere gradualism from one thing to a categorically identical thing.. ie one color to a color at a different light frequency. You might as well say having hair less hair in a population over time is "macroevolution" (the color blue has lower frequency than red which is analogous to having less hair follicles etc)... complete nonsense.
Macroevolution is the creation of biological entities that have greater benefit, utility, and complexity than the sum of the individual benefits, utilities, and complexities of the individual parts. In no way is it just "adding little micro evolutions" together. This is proven by taking any one of countless systems in an organism and if you remove just a small fraction of the system's components the system undergoes catastrophic failure. It does not proportionately reduce in complexity and benefit for each component you remove. You can add little "micro evolutions" together for eternity and it's possible to to never result in macro-evolution because macro is something more than just mindless, simpleton addition across a spectrum that reaches macro when you randomly feel like there's been enough addition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 01:51:39 No.13898629 Report

Quoted By: >>13898754

>>13898602
>That pic is such an incredibly braindead blatant strawman of the arguments against macroevolution I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make it.
You should just have said "I dun understand", it's a shorter way of outing yourself as a midwit than this wall of text you just spewed.

>Macroevolution is NOT mere gradualism from one thing to a categorically identical thing.. ie one color to a color at a different light frequency.
No, that's microevolution.

>You might as well say having hair less hair in a population over time is "macroevolution"
No, that's not macroevolution, you have trouble grasping the concept.
Macroevolution is the evolutionary leap from one species to another.
Hair alone is probably not enough of a distinction to make two species separate

But let's follow your (shitty) example, let's say these are aquatic animals so losing hair and gaining blubbler would be an advantage. Overtime, you would have different populations, those that gained blubber would be better adapted to living fully in water, whereas those that retained their hair would be adapted to living along coastlines. Alongside that they would also gain other traits, the ones moving into deep waters would lose their feet and replace them with fins, further adapting to that environment, whereas the ones sticking close to the shoreline would specialize to still hunt land animals (say penguins), at some point the genetic divergence between two groups would be so great that they would be clearly identifiable as different species.

>Macroevolution is the creation of biological entities that have greater benefit, utility, and complexity than the sum of the individual benefits, utilities, and complexities of the individual parts.
That doesn't contradict the pic. Microevolutions drive macroevolutions. Nobody said it was limited to a single trait changing at a time.
That's just you being autistic.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1575592758812.jpg, 14KiB, 471x388

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 02:57:27 No.13898754 Report

Quoted By: >>13898775

>>13898629
>You should just have said "I dun understand"
>says someone literally dumb enough to post that ridiculously inaccurate meme
haha thanks for letting me know I don't need to read any further I appreciate it, now take your literal meme level understanding, piss off, and don't post here ever again

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO content.jpg, 46KiB, 375x375

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 03:09:11 No.13898775 Report

Quoted By: >>13898841

>>13898754
>I have no argument to reply back so I'm just gonna post le smug frog maymay
kys

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Nov 2021 03:46:22 No.13898841 Report

Quoted By:

>>13898775
>>I have no argument to reply back
Cope as hard as you need to. Literally your first "argument" stating "No, that's microevolution" was in response to me saying what macroevolution is NOT. In other words, I said X is not macroevolution and you said "no it's microevolution", which is stating the same thing. You mindlessly acknowledge I was right but decided to put "no" in front for some bizarre reason instead of acknowledging I'm correct and then immediately made the same error twice (ROFL) but said I don't undersand the concept. It's simply baffling how little self awareness of the conversation you have.

But anyway I'm not bothering with that garbage post like I said. The only reason I'm even responding now (trust me I wasn't going to) is to know where you got that absolutely ridiculous pic. What blog did you get it from? It's not the mainstream definition of macro-evolution (which I fully admit is not exactly my own, I justifiably tweak that definition to be more meaningful) so I'm extremely intrigued what moron would go to such lengths to make that professional-looking yet hilariously invalid graphic which you hilariously think is correct.
Mainstream definition
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

You probably grabbed it just now from a search engine for the first time to look smart so check your recent browser history. I really want to know where it came from.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches