LemmeAtEm

@LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Before times.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  *Just to be fully accurate, there is intent involved when people do selective breeding. Such as with pets or other domesticated animals. But usually that’s separated out and not considered evolution, though ironically enough, it actually still is evolution.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Before times.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I posted this as a reply to another comment from a user on another instance, but your instance doesn’t allow you to see hexbear, so I’ll reply here too.

  Yeah, it’s a bit unfortunate using the word design that way. However, it’s not completely wrong, it’s almost more a problem of the baggage that the word design carries, obviously “intelligent design” as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can’t separate the concept of “design” from intent then you’re still just as wrong. All that said, I think it’s fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any “thought” at all from the designer. A species is “designed” entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Before times.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Making this comment because I’m seeing some of these issues crop up in the comments, and in comments from different instances that can’t see each other, so rather than reply individually, I’ll just make a separate standalone comment.

  It bugs me a little whenever people talk about how old a species is. There are different levels to how wrong it is possible to be about this. The worst level is where people think that it’s the individuals that are somehow ancient. No. The individuals from those times are as long gone as all the other individuals from that time. Most people don’t think that, but it happens. Another level is a bit less wrong, but still is. That the species itself is ancient because it somehow avoided evolution. Nah, it’s just retained a lot of characteristics. Theses species still underwent evolution, it’s literally unavoidable. It’s just that the way they adapted to an ancient environment still works as adaptation to the current (and intervening) environments. They haven’t gone through as many drastic visible changes because the way their ancestors lived still works for their modern iterations.

  So it is definitely fair to say a species is old, but it’s important to realize that that doesn’t mean it’s literally old in that it hasn’t evolved. If they are impressed by species that haven’t gone through a lot of apparent changes over the eons, they should check out stromatolites.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Before times.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, it’s a bit unfortunate. However, it’s not completely wrong to use the word design, it’s almost more a problem of the baggage that the word “design” carries. obviously “intelligent design” as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can’t separate the concept of “design” from intent then you’re still just as wrong. All that said, I think it’s fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any “thought” at all from the designer. A species is “designed” entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.