LogFAQs > #891848542

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

You also need to see that evolution is blind and doesn't just decide "aha! These little dudes need wings. Poof! Wings!"

that is what I am arguing
you were arguing "but no, we have to weigh the costs"
if it is blind, costs aren't weighed

The results of competition weigh the costs. (roll two boulders down a natural hill)

Like I said earlier, humans now move at the speed of technology. Not evolution.

We've probably taken the wing analogy beyond it's usefulness.

Notti posted...

Think of it over 100s of thousands of years, and each change is a step up and trade off with another feature (and/or a cost increase)

see, there is no such thing as a step up

there is no ultimate goal to be the ultimate creature

the point is just to be able to survive in the current environment

you can't say humans are more evolved than cockroaches and vice versa

rather, when one stops existing and the other continues you just say one got selected

A step up could be stated as "this change gets this species more resources/food overall"

Video game analogy: Like, if a species has +10 armor skin, but +9 armor skin is much cheaper, and still does ok. Then the species will stay at +9 armor skin.

Is that a gradual enough video game analogy?

Anyways, here:

Competition.

The guys with wings need to spend a lot of time eating for those wings, taking care of those delicate wings, growing those wings.

You could better allocate that luxurious spending into making new humans, or surviving a famine.

(think of it as running an efficient company. Adding more features isn't necessarily efficient overall if it goes to waste on most people. You could give every employee 3000 dollar chairs, but why bother when 300 dollar ones are fine)

You say it isn't that simple, but it pretty much is.
---

http://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8 http://DemocraticUnderground.com/?com=latest_threads
TrumpNews http://reddit.com/r/esist/new http://reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/new