Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:06:13 UTC No. 16211561

>>16211555
>what's the evolutionary advantage of being fucking DEAD?
It makes space for your offspring. If nothing died, then parents would eventually, inevitably, be competing with their own progeny.
What is the point of reproduction if there is no death?
What is the point of mutation + evolution if there is no death?
What is the point of living if you don't die?

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:18:50 UTC No. 16211583

>>16211561
>evolution has a driving purpose with a high level understanding of overpopulation
cope: the post

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:35:30 UTC No. 16211620

>>16211583
I never said that. Stop being dishonest.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:45:02 UTC No. 16211656

>>16211620
>What is the point x3
>I never said that
you literally did lol

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:55:11 UTC No. 16211730

>>16211555
Your cells undergo apoptosis to protect yourself from cancer since those who developed cancer from the lact of apoptosis were removed from the gene pool. Apoptosis is also needed to form your fingers during prenatal development.
Some cells have to die so most can live and continue to work in order to pass on your genes.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:02:32 UTC No. 16211783

>>16211730
that doesn't explain anything, what's in it for the cell that kills itself? how does it reproduce if it's dead?
evolution is survival of the fittest but all of the sudden when it's convenient ACKSHULLY cell based altruism is based
joke of a theory

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:04:48 UTC No. 16211795

>>16211561
>>16211555
obviously apoptosis wasnt meant to kill an entire person but only a few cells because its necessary to renew some tissues from time to time

however this feature went haywire somewhere in between a giant land turtle and a human being

so now land turtle lives 300 years (this is an acceptable lifespan) and a human lices 100 years (too short)

something went wrong with humans, obviously

but dogs got even shorter stick, they live only 15 years

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:16:29 UTC No. 16211844

>>16211783
>joke
That's what you are. You think that you're acting in your self-interest but ackshually that's what your genes want you to think. Did you even read the selfish gene you singular braincell?
>I'mma catch these bullet for ma kids
>ackshually yo genes forced you to kill yoself to protect their copies
What part of altruism = selfish gene do you not understand muddertrucker?

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:24:23 UTC No. 16211870

>>16211783
>he thinks things evolve by consciously surviving as long as possible, as if Pokémon wasn't fictional.
Genetic code survives when it propogates, and dies off when it can't. Whatever happens to the organism carrying the DNA is irrelevant so long as the DNA itself is able to replicate.
"Evolution" isn't an intentional process - it's merely the byproduct of a world wherein organic machines replicate imperfectly.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:26:19 UTC No. 16211882

>>16211844
>cells know if they've reproduced and have the all clear to kill themselves
lol

>>16211870
>kills itself
>this somehow propagates its genetic code
lol???

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:30:50 UTC No. 16211893

>>16211870
>"Evolution" isn't an intentional process
Just because teleology is false does not mean that there's no intention in nature. Did you intent to write your post or not? Yes you did so clearly organic machines have intentions (goals & strategies to achieve these goals) embedded in their physiology. Just because an organic machine like a virus or a plant doesn't have thoughts and emotions doesn't mean that it's not an intentional process. This is where Dawkins is wrong and the Weinstein brothers are right.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:37:23 UTC No. 16211908

>>16211882
>hiding behind le microbiology isn't conscious
It doesn't have to: countless organisms got cancer and died but some organisms got cancer and the cancer triggered non-cancerous cells to be like ''kill yourself redditor'' and that's how a group of surviving and reproducing organisms with build-in anons who hate redditors were selected. Any questions?

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:04:21 UTC No. 16212030

>>16211555
>>16211783
Why did cells evolve to kill themselves? Because cells that were more likely to kill themselves were more likely to be part of an organism that reproduced, creating more suicidal cells. It's that simple of an equation.
>what's in it for the cell that kills itself?
Nothing. The cell doesn't have feelings. It doesn't understand incentives. It just does what it is genetically programmed to do and dies.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:39:23 UTC No. 16212075

>>16211583
Evolution doesn't have driving purpose or high level understanding of overpopulation, overpopulation as itself is driving evolution.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:56:33 UTC No. 16212108

>>16211561
>JUST BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, GOYIM!!!
Your reply doesn't make any sense. If the parent has superior genes, it would behoove the genetic code to allow the parent to keep reproducing until a stronger genetic code is produced that can overthrow the parent. Death SHOULD have been eliminated by evolution by now, if evolution weren't total bullshit.
Daily reminder that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile evolution theory with the fossil record. The massive sudden jumps seen cannot be a product of "gradual change," not even if it could somehow be "stored up but not implemented." Evolution is a dead theory, but the fags who support it won't give it up.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 19:23:58 UTC No. 16212214

>>16212108
The fossil record is fine even though it has a few gaps. 1,...,3,4,5,6,...,8 you can still see the pattern even though some things are missing right?

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 19:33:54 UTC No. 16212223

>>16212108
What a sloppy goalpost shift. Not subtle at all. /sci/ will still take the bait thoughever.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 20:27:47 UTC No. 16212321

>>16211555
You are a complete moron. The individual is always sacrificed so the species can survive.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:19:10 UTC No. 16212441

>>16211561
The opposite is also true, what is the point of anything if it's all going to be destroyed anyway

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:30:16 UTC No. 16212474

>>16211555
>Science will never be able to explain
Then it's philosophy and you're off-topic. Sorry anon.
Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 00:27:40 UTC No. 16212735

>>16212108
Utility is always about genes in a specific environment.
Genes that give you immunity to AIDS and the cost of expressing have a net negative utility to you if the environment you live in has developed to become an ebola-infested cesspit (unless the mechanism of immunity also happens to protect you from ebola). And none of this implies a "drive" or "intention" of organisms to develop any utility in an environment, just like glass having no intention to be translucent.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 03:47:02 UTC No. 16213016

>>16211795
>human lices 100 years (too short)
That's a humongous amount of time for a lice what do you mean too short kek

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:06:46 UTC No. 16216467

>>16211893
>Just because teleology is false does not mean that there's no intention in nature.
He didn't say or imply this.

> Did you intent to write your post or not? Yes you did so clearly organic machines have intentions (goals & strategies to achieve these goals) embedded in their physiology.
This is irrelevant to the point he was making.

>Just because an organic machine like a virus or a plant doesn't have thoughts and emotions doesn't mean that it's not an intentional process. This is where Dawkins is wrong and the Weinstein brothers are right.
I mean technically this is true, but there is no scientific evidence indicating that evolution has an intentional purpose. The belief that there is a intention behind evolution seems to be a purely philosophical belief.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:21:05 UTC No. 16216539

>>16211561
>What is the point of living if you don't die?
Does not follow at all from what you said. You're shifting perspective from evolution to an individual and the previous points become much less irrelevant.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:31:28 UTC No. 16216562

>>16216539
It fits in perfectly with what he said. Inevitably death comes with life as a package deal. So what is the point of one without the other? Biologically speaking, we are only here to reproduce. If we do the only thing we are here to do, then we need to move out of the way once that task is completed. It's just the way it goes.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 16:35:51 UTC No. 16216933

>>16216562
You completely missed my point holy shit. The average IQ of this board feels like 90 these days.