the ability to build completely authentic looking fake spiders out of various objects and PUPPETEER them with silk threads for some weird reason to make them appear like large living spiders all without god's involvement!
>>16928452If you're trying to understand how something complex evolved you first ask "could a super shitty and simple version of this still be useful" and then "could that super shitty and simple version have become more complex over time"in this case a super shitty simple version of just wiggiling around an arbitrary large object to spook predators is useful so that works. And it could have slowly gotten more complex as the spiders that started glueing random shit to the scare ball were more successful and then the spiders whose random shit they glued happened to look more like something that predators are scared of lived even better.
>>16928452They make webs like cosmic webs, waiting for small new life forms to move through it.In a vision it gave me a huge head rush when I ate there life forms as a spider. Royal spiders on another world, I was there for so long as a spider and kept being reborn, time being still to a soul, I eventually split from my body and flew off into space to another world.
>oh no life can't evolve on its own it needs a higher dimensional overseeing omnipotent being Next you are telling me that this God wants me to cut my foreskin?
because in reality the puppet looks more like this and the emergent behavior arose because spiders that collected junk occasionally created a heap of junk that vaguely looked like a blob with multiple legs that maybe resembled a spider if you're drunk or retarded
>>16928452>the hamburger in the ad>>16928480>the hamburger you get
>>16928463>if you are trying to understand evolution>think about it>make up a storyNot science retard.
>>16928508It's just an intuitive way of understanding how it can happen, not everything needs to be rigorous autismo
>>16928508I don't make up stories. I quantum jump. The pressure of living so long can encapsulate time on the individual, they are forcibly released into space.
>>16928452>completely authentic looking fake spidersMaybe if you’re a wasp or a bat>>16928480This. OP should be barred from ever posting threads like this again for his inability to recognise AI and for being so gullible
>>16928528then what the fuck are we doing here?People like you are why grants are being killed
>>16928579He did give a method for deriving how it could have happened. Which means he fits in with the mathheads. The scientist is not concerned with what could happen in all possible universe, but what actually happened in this universe. He makes a type 1 theory, or that is to say theorizing. So it is technically science as part of analyzing data to try and draw a hypothesis. It might be a process which could answer the question in theory, just not scientifically>>16928480Here is an example of his process. I guess what I don't like about it is that they aren't classifying the kind of universe they are discussing. In a thread like this where the unironic thing in question is evolution, assuming evolution in the universe is bad optics; however, this assumption unironically exploits the ironic character of OP, cocksucker as he is. So in earnest, he satires himself. I wonder what kind of evolutionary advantage will emerge from this madness.
>>16928479tell me, then what is the final evolution? when will it stop and whats next, evo 2.0? devolution? you weak man.>>16928591as to you i say: he is more like a crime scene investigator, isnt he? just running around like a retard and putting pieces together.
>>16928480That and it doesn't puppeteer the fake spider's legs. It merely hides within the crude fake spider and shakes, to give the impression that the whole thing is alive. It's the spider equivalent of holding your jacket open and trying to look bigger, to scare away a predator. Not very sophisticated
>>16928480>>16928463Irreducible complexity, nigger!that pic is clearly abandoned or in the process of being built, it doesn't work if it's built half way.here's a lasso spider that swings and throws a sticky droplet onto flying insects. you don't randomly evolve this behavior and these physical traits. it won't work at all unless it's perfect.
>>16928452>we can't explain this complex process>let's introduce a hyper complex being that appeared out of nowhere which set this process in motionlollmao even
>>16928452Who said it was random?
>>16928636Exactly! There is no random it's all god's doing.
>>16928635>>we can't explain this complex processThen why do you believe babby's first theory of evolution accounts for it?>>let's introduce a hyper complex beingNo one is doing that, though.
>>16928452Next time you try to pass off an AI picture as real, make sure it's not immediately obvious that it was generated by an entity that had no contact with the physical world.
>>16928633you do know they don't actually *throw* it, right?they just put a little droplet of pheromones on the end of the web and just sort of let it dangle. the moth investigates and splats into the little strand of web. it's no more elaborate than net-casting spiders that make a little mini-web in between their legs and slap their prey with it to entangle them.
>>16928452The fake puppet spider isn't half as impressive as the antigravity spider doing the puppetering while free-floating in the air.
>>16928711OP pic is real
>>16928720Did God stick an antigrav device up the spider's ass too?
>>16928720No, it's really not.
>>16928482kek
>>16928716that's yet another irreducibly complex example proving god's creation. and even if you insist on randomness which doesn't explain anything you're really saying that it could or could not have happened but it did happen so evidently it was meant to happen because things were set up in this way and the god deniers never want explain this fact.
>>16928711Or simply rotated.
>>16928737>let's just ignore the web making perfect right angle bends in mid-air or the legs of the spider clipping through each other
>>16928744the threads continue up you just don't see them because of the focus but yes they use molted spider husks if they can find some and OP pic is an example on one.
>>16928737there is no orientation of OP's pic where the physics make any kind of sense.>>16928747>the threads continue upno, they don't, and they also shouldn't be kinking at right angles mid thread like on the bottom left.
>>16928464>WARNING: INCOMING GAME
>>16928633>that pic is clearly abandoned or in the process of being built, it doesn't work if it's built half way.Look up "trashline spider." I literally have these where I live. They pile up their prey's corpses in a line and camo themselves in that. The trash line isn't even vaguely spider shaped and acts solely to obfuscate the spider's position on the web.
>>16928728these behaviors aren't THAT complex desu it's just very easy for our human bias to takeover because we see the final product
originally everyone was blind then one day a baby was born with fully developed human eyeballs and then that baby grew up to have more babies than all the blind babies
>>16928452>random
>>16928452>some weird reasonyeah, spiders are wild. check out portiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portia_(spider)
>>16928720No it isn’t. Where is the top of the web supposed to be anchored?
>>16928633>>16928728>irreducible complexity>if I can’t immediately think of a way it could have evolved, then it couldn’t have evolved!I can’t imagine being so small minded
Yes, god personally got off his ass and reached down to Earth just to teach some spiders how to make fake spiders because he thought it would be funny
>>16929311>I reject miracle1 but I fully believe miracle2!Normie niggers and god denyers always use "random" in place of "god" which to them is the same thing, the same "explanation" of last resort they just swapped the word without realizing that they're still god believers because that'd take some brain cells and they don't have any.
>>16929386>Observe people playing Monopoly>Player One is on Boardwalk. They own it, Illinois Avenue, and the Electric Company.>The other players are all at Go and have nothing.>The other players are all crying 'foul', and saying there is no way that this could have occurred naturally.>Upon your inspection of the game, you find the dice are correctly weighted and the cards are well-shuffled.>Explanation A - Player One rolled three twelves in a row and then drew the "Take a Walk on the Boardwalk" card. This is highly unlikely, the odds are 1:746,496 against, but it is still consistent with the known rules of the game.>Explanation B - Rich Uncle Pennybags, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, chose Player One above all others to start at this different position on the board with a pronounced advantage over the other players. It was for this reason that Pennybags sent unto the other players his most beloved of tokens, the Scottie Dog, to die for their sins.
>>16929416>1:746,496I'm pretty sure monopoly has been played more than 746,496 times since it was invented
>>16929427>this is how probability worksYou’re the kind of person who thinks a slot machine is “due” to pay out
>>16928463>it could have slowly gotten more complexyou are conveniently leaving out that evolving happens in the first place because of selective pressure. The keyword here being "pressure." If spiders are under pressure from predators it is quite convenient you think that pressure is so minimal they have 1000's to millions of years to adapt behaviors this complex before going extinct. Not to mention most humans arent even smart enough to build a decoy trap yet ONE spider in the far past apparently had an epiphany, from its single molecule sized brain to build a decoy model of itself HOPING (not knowing) it would do accomplish whatever task it is trying to accomplish with this decoy. The level of complex thought involved for this spider thomas edision is unfathomable to the same level of rocketry and traveling to the moon. Not only did it conceive of this plan, it then had to test it to see if it works. The amount of resources time and effort required would require grants in the human world to achieve because this would be an inventors entire life's work. All of this had to happen in the short life span of this spider THEN passed down to its offspring without words or any language to speak of (pun intended). What you are implying here is ludicrous you make the magic zombie jew worshipers look like reasonable giga brains in comparison
>>16929349this is not the implication you are just stupid. if brains and behaviors come from thoughts which supposedly come form your mind then where does instinct come from? Even the most scientifically illiterate people in the world cant deny DNA is literally source code. But who is doing the programming? (of the forms - thanks Plato)
>>16929514>Even the most scientifically illiterate people in the world cant deny DNA is literally source code.And people who are actually scientifically literate know it's not.
>>16929514>if brains and behaviors come from thoughts which supposedly come form your mind then where does instinct come from?I've lost 10 IQ points merely trying to understand your "question".
>>16929532we already established you are stupid, no need to keep repeating it.>>16929528you obviously know nothing about programming. you should keep it to yourself and try reading some books. DNA is literally OOP. Go look up OOP now before saying more stupid shit
>>16929571DNA is not "programming" in any sense of the word. Code is just a useful analogy for people's first introduction to DNA. DNA is *literally* a polymer of amino acids which RNA polymerase transcribes into corresponding chunks of RNA.
>>16929579>DNA is *literally* a polymer of amino acids which RNA polymerase transcribes into corresponding chunks of RNA.that programs every attribute of a biological entity. just stop, seriously, just stop now
>>16929583>that programs every attribute of a biological entityCounter-example: epigenetics alters gene expression without actually changing the "code." I put "code" in quotes here to emphasize that you are, in fact, conflating analogy with reality. Repeatedly banging your head against this filter isn't gonna help you pass it. Understand and accept the limitations of the convenient fictions we tell grade schoolers. Then you can begin to actually understand biology.
talmudic god/abrahamic god is not reallife doesn't randomly evolvehumans, including you reading this, are vessels puppetered by spirits that resemble the Olympic gods the closestdon't ask me for source, it's the alchemy of countless information I processed>>16929532>>16929571DNA is only a protein blueprint, nothing morethe real spirit/intelligence lies in the electric current/plasma that runs through every cell and keeps this lump of dead material together my hand was literally cured a week ago by radial nerve palsy because whatever intelligence guids biological processes it knows exactly what to on how to guide protein building in a peripheral axon, but it's not the cell nucleus guiding thatwatch any video from this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0D4FdJ4K3g
>>16929590didnt I tell you to stop? I wasnt doing it for my health. I was trying to protect you from your own ignorancehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NkFemtrRZsa fool's errand indeed, trying to protect a fool from themselves
>>16929606>no counter argument >posts YouTube video of black science man gawking at something irrelevant to the discussion at hand.Look, dude. You can bury your head in the sand and persist living in a world of delusion. Or you can drop your ego and maybe learn a thing or two. Your choice.Just know that the latter will result in you continuously embarrassing yourself as you have been on this board.
>>16929579it's system programming, system engineering, and system hacking of the most insane kind.I say system because it's the closest word people use but you get the gist (I could coin a better term but you gotta be on the same page)>>16929590code is the fitting word for dna because that's what it is. epigenetics is a bullshit concept one should ignore.
If evolution is so smart, how come the spider doesn't design a web with the prey of the creatures that it hunts as a puppet in the web? How does shaking a gigantic fake spider in your web increase preys desire to fly towards that web? Anything large enough to hunt and eat that fake spider puppet, is not going to be dinner for the smaller spider building the web. Think of all the mutations of spiders building shit in the web that did not improve the odds of hunting food and thusly increasing the chances of reproduction to pass on said mutational genes. If the spider designs it to ward off larger prey, why is it standing right next to it? At least hide under a leaf while you shake it. I would beat that spiders ass in a fight bro. Pack a fucking lunch because it is going to be an all day ass whoopin I will beat that spidey slop with so many lefts, it will be begging for a right See if you can shake your puppet with a knuckle sammy in your 8 eyes buglet
>>16929617"System" is actually a good word for biological trait expression. DNA isn't some underlying instruction set that determines every feature of an animal. It is a catalyst which, when combined with numerous other factors (namely, enzymes and methylation) results in various proteins that actually do "work" inside a cell. "Code" is an apt, though limited, analogy to help understand its role in this interconnected system.>epigenetics is a bullshit concept one should ignore.Then why are bone cells and skin cells different? They literally have the same DNA.
>>16929508>Not to mention most humans arent even smart enough to build a decoy trap yet ONE spider in the far past apparently had an epiphany, from its single molecule sized brain to build a decoy model of itself HOPING (not knowing) it would do accomplish whatever task it is trying to accomplish with this decoyConscious thought was not involved. That isn’t how it works and you’re retarded
>>16929621system is a vary overloaded word it's used for everything in basically every field, math, economy, physics, IT, ... and it can be made to mean anything depending on context people are averse to creating new words and language is already a very vague way of communicating ideas.all cells carry the same dna. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiationin short, there are mechanisms that regulate which genes or parts of the dna can be accessible for transcription and protein production, many of which themselves activate or suppress parts of the dna which leads a cell to commit to a specialization path. all of this is genetics. epigenetics is genetics. this idea of separation is distracting and unnecessary. the word epigenetics has been misused by many people to claim that genetics doesn't determine everything which is false. genetics determines everything.
>>16929635>Conscious thought was not involvedOh it was just a cosmic coincidence that looks exactly like a spider and the spider just started puttering it to look alive by another trilliion to one coincidence. There was zero thought it was all just magical miracles that it fell into place. The level of idiocy required to believe this is beyond my level to comprehend. As Hoyle said, it is like a tornado flying through a junkyard and assembling a functional 747. Fuck off back to special ed drooler
>>16929635btw if you are saying it didnt think of it, then you are saying it was programmed to do it, but you are too stupid to realize this fact to understand my point stands ether way
>>16929644Those mechanisms that regulate gene expression you describe are collectively called "epigenetics." What differentiates them from genetics is the fact that they modify how genes are expressed rather than altering the genes themselves. You're arbitrarily redefining terms to make "genetics" less specific just so you can justify disregarding epigenetics as a concept. They are two different aspects of the same system. Epigenetics is just the term we use to describe the parts that aren't literally DNA. More to the point: the argument was about the "DNA = code" analogy. Even if we were to accept your retarded redefinitions of established terms, that doesn't change the fact that code is a very loose analogy for DNA and these other aspects of "genetics" as you define it demonstrate that.This is why your bullshit isn't taken seriously.
>>16929649>that looks exactly like a spiderIt doesn’t. Again that image is AI>the spider just started puttering it to look alive by another trilliion to one coincidencePrey remains and other garbage being held in orb webs is common among Araneids, this is not anything particularly special or complicated that a spider randomly stumbled into doing>There was zero thought it was all just magical miracles that it fell into placeI can see why someone who is retarded and doesn’t know anything about the subject would think its like magic. Maybe if you tried learning for once instead of making strawman arguments you would have your questions answered
>>16929649>looks exactly like a spiderIt doesn't. It vaguely looks like one if you squint maybe. Look at a trashline spider's web. This spider we're talking about is literally from the same genus. It's a slightly more intricate trashline.>the spider just started puttering it to look aliveTons of spiders shake their webs when agitated. It's a very common feature. Poke a cellar spider's web and see how it reacts.It's no miracle. These a behaviors that are common among many spiders and are mundane in their own. This is actually a perfect example of simple behaviors that are slightly beneficial on their own coming together in a synergistic way.
>>16929680dna literally is just molecular code. that shouldn't be hard to grasp unless you're really fucking dumb.>redefinitions of established terms>appeal to authorityyea you're a really dumb one. way to out yourself as cattle without a brain that can think for itself. you won't scare me with authority so get lost.to anyone else reading: epigenetics is genetics and nothing else. it's how genetics works. there is no altering of genes. they're fixed for life, unless deleteriously changed by free radicals or radiation or a virus or a predator's stomach acid.
>>16929724It's not code and I already explained why it's not code. You repeating your own false conclusion without refuting the explanations showing it to be false just outs yourself as a moron.Definitions aren't about authority. Never did I evoke any authority on how words are defined because there isn't one. The word "epigenetics" exists for a reason and it's to differentiate between the genes themselves and factors that modify their expression. I even showed why your headcannon definition that nobody else follows does not make the point you're trying to make.Just take the L.
*Slowly inhales a large quantity of THC*With the advent of digital social engineered dating approval attraction stimulant fix, I cannot determine among modern society, which is the flower, and which is the bee among men and women? Let alone what the bird is doing......The bird has been Xd out....Have we crossed some magnetic polarity threshold of sorts?Instead of men chasing plural women, women are all chasing "man", singular, Chad.... *Exhales the smoke* *Nods at you* .......Perhaps in the end it is all just one big..... Web,puppet andpuppeteer.....https://youtu.be/uPfmlpiBEk8?si=33Dj83nv9Kz31hsE
>>16929651No it doesn't you dumb nigger, the DNA made it evolve and develop certain traits like that because they're the only ones who survive better than anything else. They don't consciously choose whatever fucking shit they wanna do to help them survive, only the genes do.
>>16928482LOL
>>16929724It isn't quite just molecular code. Because every cell comes from the same parent DNA the developments in the uterus are some kind of cohomology - the relational mapping defines what the structures become. This will never be explained by DNA, that is tiny molecular code cannot cause this. A similar problem exists for any metamorphisis. A binary(or n+) morphism is just another overly complex system that cannot be explained by material mechanisms.
>>16929843>This will never be explained by DNA>cannot be explained by material mechanisms???it's called pleiotropy, look it up
For me, I have filled in most of my own personnel questions regarding the basics and simplicity of galactic mechanics from the smallest to largest, but what I still cannot pencil in is what mechanism is causing the mechanics to engage in an obviously progressing and building methodology involved with evolution. I interpret everything to be color and magnetism at different Planck complexity track layer ratios, it solves pretty much everything regarding simple basic observed motion and structure, but what it does not help to explain is why evolution progresses.I get that the evolutionary progress lends the life form a better ability to gather energy, to compete for resources in a changing environment, to have a better chance to reproduce, etc. All things being equal, natures forces does not seem to care about life being there, it is indifferent from the perspective of force. The forces of magnetism, electro, weak strong nuclear, gravitation, are all indifferent to evolution and only focus on their specific movement of parts ranges....So where in fact does the combination of forces moving parts around in different color ratios through the universe, decide to favor evolution and not devolution?Why do the forces of nature bound to create moving, sometimes sentient and self aware, energy seeking, reproducing, observers?All things being equal, it seems, simply put, more energy efficient, far easier for the universe to be anti evolution, than the complexity of evolution. Why does the Stellar evolution of the universe, create complex elements, which then combine together to make more and more complex life? Where is the force that describes this interaction of these forces leading to life? If the universe is simply combining back together into a singularity after the big bang, why the delayed crossover into life?
>>16929724genes are only relevant because of how they interact with the environment, this is called epigenetics... read Sapolsky
>a bunch of garbage vaguely resembling a spider from certain angles>only god could've designed such perfectionDo creationists even comprehend the level of blasphemy and idolatry they're committing? They're looking at random trash and claiming it's a divine construct. If you went back in time, the type of people who are creationists today would be the ones building shrines to Baal because it rained that one. People who believe in magic over reason. Creationism is the peak of mental retardation and it's shunned by theists and atheists alike for a good reason.
>>16929943gas clouds collapse to form planets, moons and stars. dust gradually collects into uniquely shaped asteroids. homogeneous hydrogen is turned into a whole range of heavy elements with distinct properties, setting up the machinery of life. obviously the universe is designed to inevitably create ever greater complexity. for some reason this complexity is of lower energy - the universe, a loaded spring from the get go, unloads into complexity. the lowest initial complexity, decreed as the highest energy state, collapses into high complexity. whoever defined the low energy states defined with it the shape of the universe and the final state in its evolution.>>16929963I have no problem with words. what I have a problem with is that epigenetics is being used as an argument to state that genes play no role, to reject genetic determinism, when in fact everything that falls under epigenetics relates to genetics no matter how indirect. the concept doesn't help with anything, it's completely unnecessary and only creates misunderstandings and confusion. this is why it has to be ditched.
>>16930001caffeine is deadly to spiders tho
>>16929989>what I have a problem with is that epigenetics is being used as an argument to state that genes play no rolethe truth is somewhere in the middle genes can't be ignored as you say but you're missing out on a ton of nuance reducing everything down to "it's genetic". Genes can be switched on in one population and off in another simply due to environment and life events
>>16930001>*Hits weed vape*
>>16930003Looks like it died before it finished.
>>16928452>RANDOMLYnah thats just what happens when they reach level 17
https://www.sci.news/biology/wombat-square-shaped-feces-09314.htmlBiologists Discover Why Wombat Feces are Square ShapedThe bare-nosed wombat (Vombatus ursinus) is an herbivorous Australian marsupial, renowned for its cubic feces. However, the ability of the wombat’s intestine — which is approximately 10 m long, or 10 times the length of a typical wombat’s body — to sculpt flat faces and sharp corners in feces is poorly understood. In a new experimental and numerical study, published in the journal Soft Matter, biologists discovered that the cross-section of the wombat’s intestine exhibits regions with a two-fold increase in thickness and a four-fold increase in stiffness, which facilitates the formation of corners by contractions of the intestine.“Bare-nosed wombats are renowned for producing distinctive, cube-shaped poos,” said lead author Dr. Scott Carver, a wildlife ecologist in the Department of Biological Science at the University of Tasmania.“This ability to form relatively uniform, clean cut feces is unique in the animal kingdom.”“They place these feces at prominent points in their home range, such as around a rock or a log, to communicate with each other.”“Our research found that these cubes are formed within the last 17% of the intestine.”
Through a combination of laboratory testing and mathematical models, Dr. Carver and colleagues found that there are two stiff and two more flexible regions around the circumference of the wombat intestine.The combination of drying out of the feces in the distal colon and muscular contractions forms the regular size and corners of the feces.“The discovery highlights an entirely new way of manufacturing cubes — inside a soft tube — and the results could be applied to other fields including manufacturing, clinical pathology and digestive health,” Dr. Carver said.“Cube formation can help us understand the hydration status of wombats, as their feces can appear less cubed in wetter conditions.”“It also shows how intestinal stiffening can produce smooth sides as a feature of pathology.”“Now we understand how these cubes are formed, but there is still much to be learned about wombat behavior to fully understand why they evolved to produce cubes in the first place.”
>>16929989>epigenetics is being used as an argument to state that genes play no roleNot one person ever said that.>to reject genetic determinism,Depends on your definition of "genetic determinism.">everything that falls under epigenetics relates to geneticsYes, that's kinda the point of epigenetics. >it's completely unnecessary and only creates misunderstandings and confusion.Only if you're as dumb as you are.Genetics = genes.Epigenetics = factors that influence gene expression.Environmental influences often play a role in epigenetics but seldom influence genetics.The picture is perfectly coherent, intuitive, and, above all else, useful. You having a problem with it is just you having a problem with reality.
>>16929579 Is this ragebait or are you so inept that you couldn't tell the difference between an amino acid and a nucleic acid? They're literally completely different biomolecules. Read a textbook or go to a middle school bio lecture
>>16930110Nah, I realized the goof immediately after posting but didn't bother correcting it since I figured everyone would know what I meant to say.For the record: proteins are chains of amino acids; nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) are chains of nucleotides. Happy?
>>16930070do you think the scientists doing research on this stuff ever have a moment of reflection about the absurdity that their life's work is the study of wombat crap?
>>16928633The best part about these guys is that they're also poop mimics, the best kind of mimic
>>16929775>No it doesn't you dumb nigger, the DNA made it evolve and develop certain traits like that because they're the only ones who survive better than anything else. >trust my tautological niggerbabble I don't even fully comprehend myself, bro
>>16929416You are literally implying fine-tuning and teleology with this post while also rejecting it. Schizophrenia.
>>16929619>If evolution is so smart, how come the spider doesn't design a web with the prey of the creatures that it hunts as a puppet in the web?Everything is designed for the sake of ecological equilibrium, not individualistic survival. Man is largely an exception to this rule, however.
>>16929989>what I have a problem with is that epigenetics is being used as an argument to state that genes play no role, to reject genetic determinism,>determinist throwing a tantrum because determinism is not popular in the science communitylove to see it.
>>16928463It's complete BS. The first change would have been so minute that it wouldn't affect the spiders survivability. Then that change would have to propagate throughout all of the species for the next infinitesimal change to occur.
>>16930261>The first change would have been so minute that it wouldn't affect the spiders survivabilityNot necessarily. Simple behaviors can have drastic effects. "Shake web when threatened" is practically a personality trait.>Then that change would have to propagate throughout all of the speciesOr a population that happened to have the trait in large numbers somehow got isolated from the rest of the population where the trait was a minority (founder effect).>...for the next infinitesimal change to occur.There can be, and usually is, a broad array of variations within a given population. A subset of the population that likes to pile up corpses in the middle of their web breeding with the web shakers could result in a synergy of independently adopted traits.I'm not saying any of this is how it actually happened. I'm just highlighting that there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to the retardery you're asserting.
>>16928452There no doubt exists something beyond the material world we see. Did they oversee the creation? IDK but a spiritual/interdimensional world exists.
>>16928452I'm more impressed by the web that's just suspended in the air without being attached to anything. We must learn their antigravity secrets.
>>16930329>>16928718you posted this before but you forgot that you did because you have the brain of a fly lol
>>16930340there are millions of spiders.it stands to reason some of them are pupeteers.evolution made spiders into many paths.be scared when they evolve into bankers. some are to be painters, hoarders, others, simple little ones.such is the way, isnt it?
>>16930271blah blah blah
>>16930271You are nit even remotely as smart as your words would suggest.That benchod Darwin simply gave you a lot of material to work with.You have got no creativity, no divine spark.
>>16930348Let's not worry about how "smart" I am because I don't care. This is a thread about spider evolution.
>>16929858Linking it to a word doesn't change the claim. It isn't even an argument. The configuration space requires arbitrary self-constraint which invalidates DNA premises generally. Whichever trigger you point to, whatever line you draw, i cannot map to DNA. Beyond that DNA has no means to even search this space. If one organism dies from some imbalance, this never informs nany other organism to avoid it.An analogy is like trying to come to some empirical inductive conclusion if the natural world didn't have regularity. In this case, an evolutionary model requires an extreme regularity between life and its interface with so-called nature. So-called here, because the resolution is arguably as small as it can ever possibly get. This manifold has been declared specifically random, but even upward a couple of echelons, say some molecules, the organism must have some unperturbed signal. This is not guaranteed by molecular arrangements across all cells in a body. .
>>16930459This is word salad with no substance. The only part of this that comes close to a coherent argument is that "an animal dying due to a missmatch between DNA and environment doesn't directly inform other species to avoid having that DNA" which is just a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of natural selection."Bad" genes get passed on less as a natural result of those having them not breeding as much. That's it. There's no need for any esoteric nonsense or whatever else your word vomit was attempting to convey.You're less likely to breed if you die young.
>>16930523>There's no need for any esoteric nonsenseJust because you don't want it that way doesn't mean you have the answer.
>>16930525And just because I don't have the answer to everything doesn't mean you can shoehorn whatever woo-woo you wish was the answer.Nothing in your post makes the point you're trying to make. You're obfuscating the weakness of your argument in a mess of word salad.
>>16930529>Nothing in your post makes the point you're trying to make. I'm not him, and its a very coherent point he's making that sexual selection mechanisms alone are not a very useful metric to determine what drives evolution, since deleterious mutations can just as easily exist imperceptibly throughout the course of generations instead. You're describing a literal miracle happening if you assume random mutations + natural selection are primary drivers of anything.
>>16930532>deleterious mutations can just as easily exist imperceptibly throughout the course of generations instead.Yes. This is literally the reason inbreeding is a problem. Most people are carrying recessive alleles for some deleterious trait or another. Inbreeding raises the chances of offspring expressing these traits from ~ 1 in a million to ~ 1 in 16 (very rough calculation but the order of magnitude is what matters here).
>>16928452No
>>16930532>>16930536Sorry for hanmering down this point, but it is a genuinely teachable moment.You made a testable, falsifiable, prediction. That being:>if sexual reproduction were the primary filter for deleterious mutations, then they'd still persist through generations if they were imperceptible.From this, we can extract a hypothesis:>if there are imperceptible deleterious mutations floating around, we should expect to see them become more perceptible through consanguinous pairings.We can investigate this hypothesis by running the following experiment:>observe frequency of congenital disorders among consanguinous and non-consanguinous offspring respectively.Upon doing so we find:>consanguinous pairings result in significantly more disorders than seen in the control group.In this very short discussion, we have used the scientific method to validate sexual reproduction as the primary filter for deleterious mutations in a way which satisfies Popper's falsifiability principle.I obviously don't expect you to concede your entire world view because of this. But I would hope you remember it next time you come across arguments regarding the testability and falsifiability of standard evolutionary model.
>>16928633>Irreducible complexityThis is code for "lack of imagination"
>>16930459>Linking it to a word doesn't change the claim.I was hoping you'd read up on it and realize that people have been explaining this supposedly unexplainable process. Well, not you exactly since I'm not even sure you're capable of conscious thought, but maybe some lurker who felt mystified.>The configuration spaceYou mean the morphospace.>requires arbitrary self-constraintNothing arbitrary about the morphogenetic field.>which invalidates DNA premises generally.It's so "invalidated" people figured this shit out before DNA was actually discovered.>Whichever trigger you point to, whatever line you draw, i cannot map to DNA.I know you can't.
