no they’re not. by definition if you don’t have what you need you don’t survive. we definitively don’t need it. or at least haven’t for millions of years. that’s different from saying we wouldn’t benefit from it.
although that’s not a guarantee either. more information isn’t always better.
Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as “If vertebrae don’t have it, it means it wouldn’t improve their fitness” it would be wrong. I’ll admit that the comment as worded is true, but it does depend on a very literal interpretation of what “needs” means. Why even post that? In my opinion, that makes it low-quality content, so worth a downvote.
disagree. again, we don’t even know if such a change would be beneficial.
also, more importantly, the post is entirely stupid.
suboptimal by what measure? became disadvantageous how? against what? last time i checked ve**rtebrates were still dominating. now even more than they did during the ages of dinosaurs.
evolution was too late to correct it… what? first of all, is it even a mistake to correct? where’s the evidence of that? second of all, did evolution stop? too late how? it’s complete bullshit, and if anything the original comment wasn’t harsh enough on it.
I’m not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I’m claiming that the following does not hold generally: “Doesn’t have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness.”
yeah but that’s not part of the original comment, not even by implication. the opposite is also not true so it doesn’t factor in at all. even though you’re not claiming it would be an improvement the original post clearly does and that’s what the top level comment is countering.
Yes, but the top level comment is countering it using an incorrect application of the theory of evolution. If top-level-comment really meant “needs,” then it would not be a counter to the original post. If by “needs” they meant more colloquially “would be an improvement,” then it may counter the original comment, but it’s not actually a valid argument.
no they’re not. by definition if you don’t have what you need you don’t survive. we definitively don’t need it. or at least haven’t for millions of years. that’s different from saying we wouldn’t benefit from it.
although that’s not a guarantee either. more information isn’t always better.
Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as “If vertebrae don’t have it, it means it wouldn’t improve their fitness” it would be wrong. I’ll admit that the comment as worded is true, but it does depend on a very literal interpretation of what “needs” means. Why even post that? In my opinion, that makes it low-quality content, so worth a downvote.
disagree. again, we don’t even know if such a change would be beneficial.
also, more importantly, the post is entirely stupid.
suboptimal by what measure? became disadvantageous how? against what? last time i checked ve**rtebrates were still dominating. now even more than they did during the ages of dinosaurs.
evolution was too late to correct it… what? first of all, is it even a mistake to correct? where’s the evidence of that? second of all, did evolution stop? too late how? it’s complete bullshit, and if anything the original comment wasn’t harsh enough on it.
I’m not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I’m claiming that the following does not hold generally: “Doesn’t have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness.”
yeah but that’s not part of the original comment, not even by implication. the opposite is also not true so it doesn’t factor in at all. even though you’re not claiming it would be an improvement the original post clearly does and that’s what the top level comment is countering.
Yes, but the top level comment is countering it using an incorrect application of the theory of evolution. If top-level-comment really meant “needs,” then it would not be a counter to the original post. If by “needs” they meant more colloquially “would be an improvement,” then it may counter the original comment, but it’s not actually a valid argument.