So I keep evolving perfectly, and all the feminine are attracted to me? Why?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But that is what it was called: "more evolution". No wisdom teeth was called "more evolution".

There is no such thing as 'more evolution'. Evolution isn't something that can be quantified like that.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no such thing as 'more evolution'. Evolution isn't something that can be quantified like that.

Ok I will grant you can't see the difference of what news has reported is new evolution.

Say I was more attractive than you, my parents were more attractive than your parents and so on and so forth, you would still not vouch for my Evolution, if I was trying to win over a partner?

You say you acknowledge Evolution, but then you wouldn't?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok I will grant you can't see the difference of what news has reported is new evolution.

Say I was more attractive than you, my parents were more attractive than your parents and so on and so forth, you would still not vouch for my Evolution, if I was trying to win over a partner?

You say you acknowledge Evolution, but then you wouldn't?

Except that we find that's not the case. It's often only one attractive parent that really determines the looks of the child, and most often, it's the daughter not the son.

Also, your understanding of genetics is rubbish.

 

[Gottservant]

Except that we find that's not the case. It's often only one attractive parent that really determines the looks of the child, and most often, it's the daughter not the son.

Also, your understanding of genetics is rubbish.

You are confusing necessary and sufficient - I did not say two parents were necessary.

But let's put this on the other foot: say you were more evolved than me, and your parents than my parents and so on and so forth, you would expect me to vouch for you?

And if I vouched for you, nothing would take place intrinsically that would make me, more like you? You would simply move on as if I did not exist?

You can see how facile that is, correct?

Say I saved your life, even though you were technically more evolved than me, that wouldn't count for anything as far as your Evolution is concerned?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are confusing necessary and sufficient - I did not say two parents were necessary.

But let's put this on the other foot: say you were more evolved than me, and your parents than my parents and so on and so forth, you would expect me to vouch for you?

And if I vouched for you, nothing would take place intrinsically that would make me, more like you? You would simply move on as if I did not exist?

You can see how facile that is, correct?

Say I saved your life, even though you were technically more evolved than me, that wouldn't count for anything as far as your Evolution is concerned?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORE EVOLVED!!

 

[Mr Laurier]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORE EVOLVED!!

Thankyou.

 

[Gottservant]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORE EVOLVED!!

but two is more than one.

??

 

[Shemjaza]

but two is more than one.

??

Irrelevant.

Evolution is an ongoing process that applies to populations over generations.

Two members of the same population can't meaningfully be considered to be more evolved than each other.

Individuals don't have some "level of evolution", even having some very beneficial traits doesn't make them more evolved.


You have had this explained to you many times... please, please try to remember it and even if you can't understand it, stop repeating false statements.

 

[Gottservant]

Irrelevant.

Evolution is an ongoing process that applies to populations over generations.

Two members of the same population can't meaningfully be considered to be more evolved than each other.

Individuals don't have some "level of evolution", even having some very beneficial traits doesn't make them more evolved.


You have had this explained to you many times... please, please try to remember it and even if you can't understand it, stop repeating false statements.

Yeah but the news was clearly, that lack of wisdom teeth was "new".

You don't think "newness" is relevant? On what grounds?

You realise reporting back and saying "what's new will evolve into what's old", is simply shifting the cart before the horse.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yeah but the news was clearly, that lack of wisdom teeth was "new".

You don't think "newness" is relevant? On what grounds?

Because the newness of a trait isn't relevant to whether it is beneficial or not.

If it's particularly beneficial it's likely to spread through a population quickly... the lack of wisdom teeth isn't likely to be particularly beneficial to modern humans, so it'll spread slowly if at all.

You realise reporting back and saying "what's new will evolve into what's old", is simply shifting the cart before the horse.

That isn't what I or anyone else said, because that sentence doesn't make any sense.

 

[Gottservant]

Because the newness of a trait isn't relevant to whether it is beneficial or not.

If it's particularly beneficial it's likely to spread through a population quickly... the lack of wisdom teeth isn't likely to be particularly beneficial to modern humans, so it'll spread slowly if at all.



That isn't what I or anyone else said, because that sentence doesn't make any sense.

So if I said "hey my wisdom teeth are more evolved" to a potential mate, you would speak up and say "he's lying: choose me, because I know wisdom teeth are irrelevant"

 

[Shemjaza]

So if I said "hey my wisdom teeth are more evolved" to a potential mate, you would speak up and say "he's lying: choose me, because I know wisdom teeth are irrelevant"

Being born without wisdom teeth might be an advantage, but that does not make you more evolved, it just means you have a potentially beneficial trait.

Being more attractive, smarter, stronger and longer lived also doesn't make you more evolved... but you are probably more likely to successfully reproduce.

And I very much doubt anyone selects partners to start a family with based on their wisdom teeth.


Even people who are selecting from a list of sperm doners for future children are going to be more interested in height, IQ, education level and basic physical appearance traits than they are about wisdom teeth.

 

[Gottservant]

Being born without wisdom teeth might be an advantage, but that does not make you more evolved, it just means you have a potentially beneficial trait.

Being more attractive, smarter, stronger and longer lived also doesn't make you more evolved... but you are probably more likely to successfully reproduce.

And I very much doubt anyone selects partners to start a family with based on their wisdom teeth.


Even people who are selecting from a list of sperm doners for future children are going to be more interested in height, IQ, education level and basic physical appearance traits than they are about wisdom teeth.

Yeah but an evolved trait, points to a more general p factor - of evolutionability.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yeah but an evolved trait, points to a more general p factor - of evolutionability.

That isn't a thing.

Evolution isn't a metric you can apply to an individual.

 

[Gottservant]

That isn't a thing.

Evolution isn't a metric you can apply to an individual.

Yet the degree to which an individual is mutated, directly speaks of its chances to survive.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yet the degree to which an individual is mutated, directly speaks of its chances to survive.

Only statistically and only in the specific environment it is in.

An individual's chance of survival is an aspect of the evolution of the species... not evolution of the individual.

 

[Gottservant]

That isn't a thing.

It is for intelligence, why should Evolution be any different?

Evolution isn't a metric you can apply to an individual.

"You can't manage what you can't measure" (I got that from Nine News just a few minutes ago).

Are you saying Evolution is something that you don't need to manage?

 

[Gottservant]

Only statistically and only in the specific environment it is in.

Which is it: the statistic or the whole, that affects adaptation? I don't think you've specified either?

An individual's chance of survival is an aspect of the evolution of the species... not evolution of the individual.

Again, is the individual a member of the species, or is the species a number of individuals? The lack of subtext in Evolution, is making this hard to determine?

 

[Homeowner]

So if I said "hey my wisdom teeth are more evolved" to a potential mate, you would speak up and say "he's lying: choose me, because I know wisdom teeth are irrelevant"

That would certainly guarantee that both of you would drop out of that potential mate status which would certain have positive evolutionary results down the line when it came to retaining intelligence in the species.

 

[Shemjaza]

It is for intelligence, why should Evolution be any different?

Because intelligence is a measurable attribute of an individual and evolution is not.

"You can't manage what you can't measure" (I got that from Nine News just a few minutes ago).

Exactly. It isn't measured or managed meaningfully on an individual level.

Are you saying Evolution is something that you don't need to manage?

Yes. It doesn't apply to an individual scale or timescale.