>>14122044>In the context of the given environment an organism exists in it's not random you fucking pedantIn the context of the given environment an organism exists in it's random you fucking pedant.
You are just saying I'm wrong. You made no argument.
>Reread everything you just wrote and you'll realize you're saying that it's just environmentally contextualWhatever nature randomly selects as beneficial is of course environmentally contextual? Still not an argument since you have not eliminated randomness from the equation.
>It fucking doesn't thoughThey absolutely can but that is not necessary for my argument so it doesn't matter that you brought up this invalid statement
>Organisms exist in the environment they exist in.could not be more of a non argument why did you even write this idiotic redundancy?
>the environments they live in might as well be randomweasel words. They literally are random. You think the upper north American environment "50k" years ago was under hundreds of feet of ice. Environments change very randomly/unpredictably from your perspective.
>optimizing Optimization has nothing to do with which traits are selected randomly
>a defined set of randomly generated parameters So the parameters nature selects to "optimize" are random just like I said. You are fully admitting I'm right. WHat an embarrassing post.
>and potential outcomes of that optimization are reasonably predictableAfter observation. You can't predict shit before you've observed it. Re-read the Galton Board example
>>14122179The trait of speed itself being a selection pressure is random. Plenty of environments don't select for speed. Dodos birds on Madagascar didn't need to run fast for instance. Virus resevoirs dont' select for motive speed. Environments where very slow sloths live don't select for speed. If the environment randomly selects speed as a beneficial trait, then sure the slower species will have more negative reproductive success differentials
