>>16864752
Becoming livestock is a very successful evolutionary strategy.

>>16864752
Turns out being able to force food to appear when and where you want it instead of relying on being lucky enough to just find it randomly is a game changer

>>16864752
>5% buffalo
kind of impressive given that buffalo tastes like shit, it's dry and lean and nasty and inferior to beef in every way, only ever eaten ground up at which point its barely disgustable from turkey which is also just chewy gray protein when ground.

>>16864752
Darwinian evolution is impossible
>b-but I can make big dog into small dog
Call me when you make dog into cat

It is just ideology designed to lead people away from Christ into atheism, nihilism and ultimately coomer pods

Look up how darwin invented his theory in order to back up "Anglo supremacy", and it only got steam because of the Bri'ish Royal Society wanting an ideology that fits their Satanic world view

>>16864810
Sorry buddy, I'm not going to worship the jewish son of the jewish god of jews that proclaimed all non-jews as animals. I don't like jews as much as you do.

>>16864814
Noah was not a Jew and he was righteous before God.
Abraham also was not a Jew before the covenant.
Good Jews became Christians, bad Jews did not and created the Talmud slandering Christ and the nations

>>16864754
>evolutionary strategy
Evolution has no goals thus that combination of words makes no sense
No goals --> no strategy
If you play a game of chess and remove all the rules, it makes no difference if your queen takes a rook or your throw you queen off the board, neither option is a "successful strategy" because there is no goal.

Becoming livestock would be a good gene propagation strategy. Evolution does not care if you propagate your genes or if you die.

>>16864819
>t. can't understand anthropomorphisms

>>16864810
>>16864816
>>16864814
>idiotic claims about evolution almost no Christian says
>lies about Bible and frames it as a jewish supremacist book
>a priori asserts the classic trick of "good jews vs bad jews" so you must pick a side... instead of realizing all were always bad
Above is a well poisoning jew pretending to be a Christian, and arguing with itself to help make the consensus crack more believable

Go back to /pol/

>>16864828
If you believe in evolution you aren't a Christian and won't ever be, you don't even believe in Genesis

>>16864819
The goal is life, Anon. Did someone hurt you?

>>16864829
He never said a thing about either of those things. Neither of them.

>>16864752
where chicken??

>>16864913
Not a mammal.

>>16864762
It's water buffalo.

>>16864752
What about pappals?

>>16864762
You're thinking of bison.

>>16864825
Wow you are a fucking idiot lek.

>>16864830
You're not very sharp are you? Like, don't even know the difference between evolution and replication?

>>16864752
The meat industry ruining our lives, as usual.

>>16864752
>Asses <1%
Mammary gland fetishists need to pay for this.

>>16864762
>buffalo tastes like shit
Bison =/= Buffalo, moron.

>>16864810
> Call me when you make dog into cat
You are dumb. Literally nobody has ever claimed that evolution can turn a dog into a cat.

>>16865197
>nobody has ever claimed that evolution can turn a dog into a cat.
It only claims fish can turn into humans. :^)

>>16865086
You want me to spell it out?
Yes, everyone knows evolution doesn't actually have a goal and evolving is not a conscious decision. But describing adaptive behaviors and traits as "strategies" makes complex ideas easier to communicate.

Take this statement:
>Becoming livestock is a very successful evolutionary strategy.
It could be made more accurate by emphasizing that no animal chooses to become livestock and that an animal's usefulness to humans has essentially become the most important trait a species can exhibit in terms of survivability so long as humans continue to be the dominant selection pressure in most environments on Earth. But do you see how I ended up expanding on things you, yourself, already understand? I just lectured you on a bunch of shit you already know in a frivolous attempt to make a simple statement more technically correct.

Alternatively, I can stick with the short version and assume everyone in the room is smart enough to fill in the gaps their own damn self. This is how people who aren't up their own ass communicate.

>>16865204
>everyone knows evolution doesn't actually have a goal
By what means did "everyone" (even including sub-130-IQ midwits like you) attain such knowledge?

>>16865208
Attending 5th grade science class.

File: pixel-npc2.png (10 KB, 1200x1200)

10 KB PNG

>>16865211
And by what means did your 95 IQ American public school teacher attain this knowledge? I don't know why I bother asking... just to watch you play out the predictable infinite regress of "educated" retards who don't know anything about anything.

>>16865214
You are not as smart as you think you are. These things you understand that make you think you're smarter than others are already well understood by the majority of the population. All those times you think you corrected someone's misunderstanding of something, they were deliberately oversimplifying for the sake of effective communication. That's why their responses to your "corrections" have always been brief wave-alongs because they were just looking for the quickest means to get your dumb ass to stop talking to them.

To answer your question: teachers teach future teachers about how to effectively teach future students. They also have a textbook written by people more educated than you are that's designed as a teaching aide to make these ideas easy for a child to understand.

File: pixel-npc.png (676 B, 336x336)

676 B PNG

>>16865222
>teachers teach future teachers
>they also have a textbook
>people more educated
See >>16865214
>I don't know why I bother asking... just to watch you play out the predictable infinite regress of "educated" retards who don't know anything about anything.

>>16865223
Sure thing buddy. You sure are smart.

>>16865229
Maybe someone smarter than you (setting the bar at basic sentience) can explain how anyone could possibly determine that evolution doesn't have a goal, despite all empirical evidence indicating that it does.

>>16865231
Are you genuinely retarded?
Evolution is a process. Saying it has a goal is like saying "wrenching" wants a bolt to be torqued down. It's a fucking category error.

>>16865265
You're a process (albeit a cancerous one). Does that process have a goal?

>>16865266
>You're a process
No u

>>16865267
>public-schooled imbecile falls apart immediately when faced with an unfamiliar combination of words
Thanks for helping my demonstration.

>>16865271
You're very dumb. Like not even in a "You're kinda bright but you overestimate your intelligence" sort of way. You are seldom not the dumbest person in any room you walk into.

The sooner you accept this fact, the sooner you will stop being insufferable. This is genuine advice.

>>16865280
>retard loops over projecting his own insecurities
Don't care. Point still stands. Most of the things you conventionally ascribe goals to are processes, so to say evolution is a process does nothing for your case.

>>16865283
>Most of the things you conventionally ascribe goals to are processes
False.
If it has a goal, it is a subject, not a process.

Feel free to keep playing though. I love humbling retards like you.

>>16865283
>>16865285
>If it has a goal, it is a subject
Agent.*
But I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I meant.

File: brainlet-cube.png (185 KB, 567x502)

185 KB PNG

>>16865285
>f-f-false!!
>[slight rephrasing of moronic opinion being questioned]
This is what American public school retards take for reasoning.

>>16865266
>You're a process
you're dropping it casually like it's obvious but most normies get completely filtered by this. golems are extremely object-oriented

>>16865293
>>16865296
Most people understand the 2deep4u argument. You think that the processes of sensation and interpretation are indistinguishable from the concept of the self and that agency is an emergent property (or illusion) brought about by these processes.
The problem with this is that it's retarded.

In common parlance, we make a distinction between a process being executed and the thing which is executing said process.

You are not filtering anyone. You are redefining terms in a useless manner.

File: redditsoi.png (33 KB, 584x841)

33 KB PNG

>>16865315
Your post reads like you just spent 40 minutes having some chatbot try to explain the concept to you and ended up with a bunch of irrelevant delusions.

>In common parlance
>we
Go back.

>You are redefining terms
No, I'm not. Any living thing is a process by the normal understanding of 'process'.

>>16865296
I wasn't expecting the retard to have a perspective shift, just to notice that the word does apply.

>>16864752

>>16864752

>>16865316
>Your post reads like you just spent 40 minutes having some chatbot try to explain the concept to you and ended up with a bunch of irrelevant delusions
Your impression is incorrect. These are not complex ideas. It's on the same level as Zeno's paradox.

>Any living thing is a process by the normal understanding of 'process'.
Repeating yourself does not make it true.

>>16865336
It's a simple idea but you're so hopelessly moronic that it keeps going over your head somehow. Probably just goes back to:
>>16865271
>>public-schooled imbecile falls apart immediately when faced with an unfamiliar combination of words

>>16865336
>It's on the same level as Zeno's paradox.
Speaking of Zeno's paradox, 100% guaranteed a public school retard like you has no idea what that's about, either. Your 98 IQ high school teacher probably told you it's solved by limits and that's what you unironically believe now.

>>16865341
If the definition you insist upon blurs distinctions which everyone intuitively understands, then your definition is useless and to be disregarded.

>>16865344
Limits "solve" it in the sense the we have language to skirt around the logical problem being proposed. It's tautilogical.

Nice of you to verify that you are, in fact, one of those retards that will rattle on about how motion and time aren't real to an audience that has heard it all before.

File: smart_brainlet.jpg (30 KB, 700x567)

30 KB JPG

>>16865349
You're a mentally ill retard who, for some reason, can't comprehend how the common idea of a process describes living things. There's really nothing more to it than:
>>16865271
>>public-schooled imbecile falls apart immediately when faced with an unfamiliar combination of words

>>16865349
>Limits "solve" it in the sense the we have language to skirt around the logical problem being proposed.
>It's tautilogical.
Tautilogical... right. Thanks for taking the bait and demonstrating that you're really just a fucking cretin in general and the problem here isn't just a disagreement about a specific question.

>>16865355
>common idea of a process describes living things.
Fuck it. Enlighten me. This oughta be good.

>>16865356
Explain, in your own words, what you think characterizes a process (in an organic context).

>>16865360
A set of actions being performed.

>>16864752
>despite being 34% of the mammal bio mass..

>>16865364
>A set of actions being performed
Even this garbage attempt legitimately applies to biological life. Look at biology on any level and see a complex orchestration of "actions being performed".

>>16865371
"Living" is a process. It's a thing I do. You presumably do it as well. A mosquito does it.
That's not the subject of debate.

>>16865372
Biological life is a process even according to your retard-tier definition. Its description falls under what you told me you think a process is. But I can see you're truly in the 70s and are still confused by this because:
>>16865271
>>public-schooled imbecile falls apart immediately when faced with an unfamiliar combination of words
This is especially obvious in your attempts to mutate the statement into a more familiar combination of words that you erroneously think changes the meaning.

>>16865375
You're just repeating yourself because you can't comprehend the distinction between a living thing and that act of living.
Sorry you got filtered, bro.

>>16865376
You're a mentally ill retard with zero self-awareness and I accept your full concession. >>16865371 will remain unrefuted and effectively undisputed since you did nothing to address it except mindlessly repeating your initial error.

Closing this dumbshit thread now, but your subhuman automatonism will force you to reply again. :^)

>>16865380
Running away while declaring himself the victor. The last resort of every moron who cannot accept his limitations.

>>16865376
>comprehend the distinction between a living thing and that act of living.
it's a false distinction and you basically helped him demonstrate that. the explanation of what a living thing is ends up being an explanation of the "acts" that support it. you got brutally filtered again

File: Screenshot_20251207_15032(...).jpg (460 KB, 983x723)

460 KB JPG

>be me
>smoke DMT
>see circles in water "ripple" into hexagon flower of life and metatron hypercube
>see lotus tiling expand infinitely until they form a web of bubbles
>end up babbling about surface area vs volume and electrostatic dipoles in subject object autism
>end up hunting what was to be labeled Stoke's theorem and projection vectors
Whoa shapes

Our species always had shapes as we were sub caveman apes. Music made the man at the camp fire. Whoa to the shapes. Man is only as manly as Platonically shape-pilled. We are shape rotators in a wordcel's world.

>>16865388
This is trivially false by the fact that there is still a "you" we can describe as "no longer living" after you die.

>>16865392
>there is still a "you" ... after you die
>we can describe as "no longer living"
lol. word thinkers get confused by their own poor use of language to the point of incoherence

File: tumblr_oi1u0pkEqs1v78wfjo3_400.gif (1.49 MB, 400x294)

1.49 MB GIF

>>16865390
LONG AGO
BEFORE THE WAR OLDER THAN MANKIND'S MEMORY
A RACE OF SUBMAN HAD A MONGREL WAGE WAR ON ALL HIS FOREFATHERS AND THERE WAS MUCH VIOLENCE AND DEFECATION

>>16865395
No. The whole problem is you not being able to understand the distinction here.
This comes down to categorization so of course linguistics plays a role.
When we categorize things as living or not, we check if they engage in the process we have defined as "living." To claim that the object in question *is* those processes is your operating definition which only serves to blur distinctions and is therefore useless.

Lets go back to what started this whole argument: I said that the notion that evolution has any goals is a category error since evolution is a process and processes don't have goals.
Dumbfuck responded by saying living things are a process because he's too stupid to grasp the distinction between the act of living and the thing which is living.

With that in mind: "you" are capable of having goals. But the act of "living" is not.

>>16865204
Lol didn't read

>>16864752
>instantly ends
Proof?

>>16865222
You're way too emotionally invested in this argument lol.

>>16865415
Not really. Calling pseuds retarded is a nice way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon.
I appreciate the concern though.

>>16865403
sorry, i'm not reading any of this shit. you're delusional and incoherent

>a whole hour later
>the public schooled retard is still getting owned and mumbling about other people not understanding a "distinction" 70 IQs make

File: Cat pushing watermelon ou(...).jpg (54 KB, 499x485)

54 KB JPG

Damn this is some of the most autistic pedantic arguing I've seen in a while. I can't tell who is who without reading too many walls of text.
Anyway humanity has actually accelerated the process of evolution. And the single celled lifeforms in the ocean that started to pollute the earth with oxygen as waste made a much bigger impact than humans anyway.

>>16865448
For most of my walls of text you can pretty much skip to the last paragraph. The first part of most of them is just me shitting out insults.
Hope that helps.

>>16865453
absolutely obsessed. lol

>>16865454
Idk man. Is there a better thread to shit up right now?
I got nothing better to do.

>>16864825
>>t. can't understand anthropomorphisms
Saying something has/does not have a goal isn't an anthropomorphism because goals are not unique to humans but I'll play along..
Erosion has no goals (just like evolution)
Nesting has many goals
Processes, even ones that are not inherently anthropic, can have goals.
It's a simple idea
I just pointed out it's wrong in all contexts to imply, or rely on the false idea that, evolution has goals
That poster did.

>>16864830
>The goal is life, Anon
Evolution does not have that goal.
>Did someone hurt you?
Reading that persons terrible comment did mentally hurt me, yes.

I corrected it so it would not hurt others....

>>16865204
>Yes, everyone knows evolution doesn't actually have a goal
No, "not having goals" is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of evolution. It is so widely perpetuated because so many people keep using invalid phrases like "evolutionary strategy" or "evolutionary advantage"

>>16865517
>Nesting has many goals
No it does not.
Things that nest have goals. The act of nesting does not.

>>16865528
The post you're responding to refutes your claim.

>>16865529
>>Nesting has many goals
>No it does not.
-good strength of nest
-good location of nest
-good longevity of nest
-good camouflage of nest
This might be an ESL issue because nesting definitely has goals. I just listed several of the goals of nesting. You can contrast them with the goal of foraging for instance, which is
-finding food

You can develop strategies to assist in that goal, such as conserving energy via not foraging in the mid day's heat.

If someone asks, "what is the goal of foraging" do you honestly think that question makes no sense and cannot be answered?

>Things that nest have goals.
Such as completing the goals of nesting

>>16865529
>The post you're responding to refutes your claim.
My claim refutes the post I responded to

>>16864752
>1/4 of these humans are jeets
Grim

File: dicapriokek.png (799 KB, 848x805)

799 KB PNG

ITT: token-stringing meatbots can't grasp that natural processes, including evolution, all have goals. Imagine being raised on soulless pop-sci and thinking nature is dumb and blind. I bet these mongs even believe in the random mutation+natural selection pseudoscience fairytale despite all the modern research that refutes it.

>>16865198
Wrong. They just share a common ancestor :^).

File: brainlet-team.png (276 KB, 1066x600)

276 KB PNG

>>16865766
>Wrong. They just share a common ancestor :^).

File: 1750417973642237.png (10 KB, 708x800)

10 KB PNG

>>16865767
oh nooo is a le basedjak
the christfaggot was correct all along!

>>16864810
Retard. Why the fuck would anyone think you know anything. Kys

>>16864829
Why would anyone think you are an authority on anything?
Kys too

>>16865768
I like how your ilk has gotten so fucking dumb you're straight up denying your own gospel at this point.

>>16864752
Ants practice livestock farming longer than mammals exist - exempli gratia: Oecophylla Smaragdina.

What do you mean by "ends x years of evolution"? Evolution works always - maybe not the way you expect - but evolution has had no plan and no designer, until planners and designers evolutionary emerged, who formed their environment and their genes intentionally.

>>16865812
>What do you mean by "ends x years of evolution"?
He means dysgenic artificial selection by humans now outweighs natural selection - a very simple point that naturally eludes a pop-sci token stringer like (You).

>>16865823
"Outweighs" in mass, but not in genetic information. Since when would the body mass of an entity monotonically increase their genetic fitness or propability of procreation?

Or in simpler terms: Monocultures are only successful in mass (bc we farm them), not in information.

A fact that any 1st-year bio sci student grasps...Jazz That, d00dette.

I'm obviously no native speaker, but I know that "to end" and "to outweigh" are distict concepts in all indo-european languages.

>>16865835
Man. This board is teeming with actual imbeciles. Why are you even here?

>>16865841
Just for phun

>>16865847
Why is it so fun for you to be publicly retarded?

>>16865753
citation needed

>>16865851
You literally could not understand that, IMAO.

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39 KB, 460x663)

39 KB JPG

>citation needed
Imagine being so bad at thinking for yourself that you don't even know the right context to spew this dumb reddit line.

>>16865851
Are you OP?

>>16865855
You're right. What it's like to be brown like you and lack basic language skills and reading comprehension is beyond me.

>>16865856
*Laughs at you futile attempts to guess others mental state*

Art though an A.I.?

>>16865835
>"Outweighs" in mass, but not in genetic information
>Monocultures are only successful in mass (bc we farm them), not in information.
This is meaningless because it's subjective
You'd have to say the ratio of "genetic diversity to biomass" in livestock is far less than the ratio we'd find in nature. And of course that's due to humans culling a lot of genetic lineages and only allowing certain lineages to proliferate.
Then, you also have to say that this ratio is what defines success.
Nobody defines biological success that way; it's almost universally defined as proliferation of genes themselves, even if the genes are just clones with nearly zero genetic diversity.

If that was your point then it would be an interesting point that could be useful in some contexts. But the way you articulated it was garbage.

>>16864810
Nice faggy religious speculation. Maybe go observe something and write a paper about it, homo.

>>16865942
Shame on you for responding to that shameful retard seriously. And with a bunch of irrelevant tripe to boot. The situation is that instead of natural selection deciding what life forms proliferate, humanity is slowly killing off everything and replacing it with its selectively bred, deformed cattle. Since natural selection is no longer the filter, whatever evolution can be said to be occurring is non-Darwinian. In that sense, the chart may indeed reflect the end of "evolution", but more likely it reflects a temporary hiatus until this cancerous species ends itself.

>>16864829
>pentecostal retard thinks his seizure having, magic believing cult gets to say what truth is
Go back to speaking tongues into your pastor's asshole, Jethro.

>>16865951
>i'm a heckin' christian, i just don't believe in the bible
lel. at least that guy is honest and somewhat consistent. makes him infinitely less obnoxious

>>16865947
>Shame on you for responding to that shameful retard seriously
Don't imply I'm leaning toward your side with such prissy tripe. Both people in the convo I replied to are idiots and you're probably one of them, but at least the ESL has the excuse of blaming his bad post on a language barrier. You can only blame your bad post on your stupidity.

>In that sense, the chart may indeed reflect the end of "evolution",
>whatever evolution can be said to be occurring is non-Darwinian
No and NO. Evolution among livestock is continuing by modern definition..which is just Darwinian evolution + genetics as the hereditary mechanism
Moreover, [your completely misunderstood idea of] "Darwinian" evolution does not require that selection be natural. Darwin talked about artificial selection and said its the same idea he was developing with a different type of selection. Thus livestock breeding/husbandry is Darwinian evolution via artificial selection.

>>16864819
>Evolution has no goals
^Shit soientists arbitrarily assert but don't actually dwell the greater implications on.

>>16865204
>Yes, everyone knows evolution doesn't actually have a goal and evolving is not a conscious decision.
Well that's just bullshit because the Universe was 100% a creation of a conscious prime mover of some sort, but I noticed evolutionary biologists tend to be very myopic outside of their immediate field of inquiry anyways.

>>16864819
you are retarded
goal of evolution is spread of a species within its and to other enviromental niches

>>16864754
We should become livestock then.

>>16866143
Guess whose low IQ post no one is going to read. :^)