/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10587998
I'll out myself as the brainlet and ask: what is wrong with that line of questioning? It seems reasonable to me.

>>10588002
There's no force consciously dictating how evolution works, these threads are made by idiots who have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution but are still adamant it's wrong anyway

>>10588002
it is reasonable

>Evolution

>>10588002
>>10588012
it is not
you could ask if X brings an evolutionary advantage, but evolution itself has no purpose and thus yields no purpose

>>10588012
what is the evolutionary purpose of elaborate mating rituals?

>>10588018
organs can have a purpose to the organism, but not in the evolutionary context

>>10588011
you know that no one believes that when they say that phrase, you contrarian pedant

>>10588023
You say that but you'd be wrong. Also stop misusing words you saw some other psuedo-intellectual douche use

>>10588011
>>10588018
I think all they mean is to ask what the evolutionary advantage is. They're not asking "how does this trait serve the design of some creative agent?" They're asking "why was this trait selected for?"

>>10588018
semantics

>>10588028
I'll bite, how did I misuse any word in that sentence?

>>10588030
Based on the portions of the threads I bothered to read, it's more of a thinly veiled "umm atheists if evolution is real then why does X lmao fedoras btfo"

>>10588036
Creationists on /sci/ prefer arguing about the origin of life rather than evolution, it seems.

>>10588042
>creationists on /sci/
Hmmmmmmm

>>10588030
>>10588033
purpose =/= advantage it's not semantics don't be ridiculous

the question is annoying because it indicates lack of understanding of how evolution works, and /sci/tards never want to listen to anyone

>>10588168
when people say "what is the evolutionary purpose of [x]?" they mean to say "what is the specific advantage in [y] species of [x] trait or behaviour"
you're just being anal about words

>>10588172
>when people say what time it is, they actually mean which year is it
no

as a biochemist it's getting really tedious arguing with evolution deniers, the phrasing of the question promotes a wrong way of thinking about evolution and the theory of evolution has already suffered enough misconceptions and brainlet inputs
it's enough
it's a retarded question

>>10588178
>refuses to interpret what someone is saying liberally
>tries to put words in my mouth
1) nice hypocrisy
2) analogies are not arguments

>>10588187
ok retard
looks like we're done here
enjoy being laughed at :^)

>>10587998
What is the evolutionary purpose of your question?

People who ask like this consider the problem backwards. You might see something seemingly unnecessary, like colourful feathers and after a while find out that it gives an evolutionary advantage. That does not mean that every single feature of every single individual yields evolutionary advantage either for that individual, or for the species. Things happen and if they keep happening for many generations, they can have an influence (or not). Evolution does not describe individuals and evolution is not a higher goal that everything leads to.

That's why I hate when someone hurts themselves and Mr Smartass who knows a name comes and says "Darwin at work". Fuck you. Even if you're 1% faster than the rest of your species, you'll still be eaten by a predator who's 3 times faster than any of you. Just on average, after a million years, after a billion chases, the faster runners have a slightly higher chance of survival. Hence, it improves your fitness. If that chance is 3.5% compared to 3.3%, that's already enough.

The next level in retardation is using Darwin as an excuse. "Well, I'm just doing active evolution by being shitty to my surroundings and only letting the strong survive". The timescales are way too short for evolution to have to do anything with it. You're just being an asshole.

>>10588193

> as a X
> X is biochemist

>>10588002
the word "purpose"

>>10587998
nobody phrases it like that moron

>>10588814
If you say so
>>10584811

Just pic related

>>10587998
There is nothing wrong with asking that besides semantics. Being pedantic about this is on the level of being pedantic about speed/velocity or shit like that, when you totally understand what people meant.
When someone asks the evolutionary purpose of human male nipples they mean "Was this somehow a fundamental feature selected as more advantageous at some point in the past? Why? Or was it just randomly kept?
Same thing for opposing thumbs.
I'd argue human male nipples served no evolutionary purpose on that sense, but opposable thumbs served a great purpose, and if you don't understand what I mean by this you're just an idiot.

>>10588959
/thread

>>10588959
What is the evolutionary purpose of dicks having such random sizes and shapes?

>>10588959
What's the evolutionary purpose of having the male g spot inside one's ass?

>>10590283
Isn't is for facilitating pooping?

>>10590487
>is
*it