Serious Question about Evolution

>Something that is beneficial but not obviously so?

No, dipshit, I meant exactly what I said: Something that is not obviously beneficial.

This could either be:
>Something that is beneficial, but not obviously so
>Something that is not obviously beneficial, because it in fact is not beneficial

>We just don't know what.
I'm pretty sure evolution just favored those who slept at night. It's dark out so jackshit's going to get done, the organism that rested at night beat out the organism that tried to continue normal function.

pensees.pascallisch.net/?p=1116

It's a great article by a scientifically minded person on why sleep and it's need developed.

One major reason is that being awake burns far more calories. So a large period where one can aggregate storing memory (sleep is when your brain looks over everything you did that day and days prior and organizes what you learned) and quickly healing up the body also serves a double function as a large block of time where people won't be burning calories. They couldn't burn calories efficiently, either. We can't see in the dark!

So why try to stay up and expend energy and move around at night when there's far more efficient maintenance our body could be performing on itself.

"Not obviously beneficial" is extremely different from "nonobviously beneficial". In the former, the negation modifies the adjective phrase, while in the latter, the negation modifies the adverb.

Excuse me for reading your sentence correctly.

Except there are plenty of animals that are active ONLY at night. Plus, by your reasoning we should be just as likely to see animals that rest at night but don't go unconscious. The fact we see almost no animals that are active, or at least conscious, 24/7 implies sleep is a vital function.

No one really knows the reason behind sleep. There's a lot of advantages to sleeping but no one can say why sleeping is evolutionary good.

Also
>horses don't sleep
What are you like 5? Of course horses sleep. Fucking sharks sleep but they find a current to do so.

>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0096.x/full

Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Normative data for several states were described and probable benign variants identified. This information will serve as control data for sedative and anesthetic studies in this species. The sleep patterns observed during this study are those of horses removed from their usual surroundings, and thus may represent those encountered in a clinical environment.

> Literally what is google, you utter dipshit.

Fucking kill yourself, you autistic faggot, that paper is not about
> Conscious thought releases a particular acid in your brain

You must have been retarded to assume I was talking about horses

So you literally think that, while horses naturally sleep when removed from their usual surroundings, they don't sleep in their natural environment.

Jesus christ.

You literally think horses don't sleep during their normal lives.

Wow.

Nocturnal animals evolved in response to diurnal animals, at first to avoid predators

I actually had this line in my original post but removed it because it felt out of place contextually

Maybe to rest more efficiently?

>horses don't really sleep

This is my first post in this thread.

You come across as completely fucking retarded.

is obviously . There might've been some ambiguity in the last post I quoted if you assume that he's completely retarded and thinks that horses don't sleep. In every other case, his 'fucking bullshit' comment will obviously be interpreted as a reaction to the statement that >Conscious thought releases a particular acid in your brain (I'm forgetting the name). Your brain is constantly working to process this chemical, however when you're awake the rate of production is greater than the rate at which your brain can break it down. When you go to sleep, production levels go down and your brain can catch up.

He even fucking later spells out () that he is asking for information about said acid release.

Jesus fucking christ, learn to read.

I wonder if the simple fact that sleep forces an organism to be inactive and likely hidden during a large portion of the day (generally the part of the day that animal is not adapted for activity in) is in itself advantageous.

Even if sleep served to biological purpose a diurnal organism that is forced into hidden inactivity during the night might be more likely to survive than an a member of its species who kept wandering around half blind

because it's easier to repair neurons when they're not as active.

no shit, honestly some of this stuff is so obvious I thought Veeky Forums was supposed to be smart

>dreaming
>not as active

Not really, you are quite wrong. One easy example, sharks swim in their sleep. Sharks sleep while using energy comparable to a waking state. applied his logic well and came up with an interesting idea without the prerequisite information to back it up. He is intelligent. You piggy backed off of an "I wonder if" without even the reality check, especially with the other answers in this thread.

Not that guy but your example is incorrect because sharks hardly rely on vision, which means whether or not the sun is up doesn't matter, also underwater the sun has even less of an effect.

I'd guess sleeping 1/3-1/4 of the day makes us more alert the remaining time, basically making us more alert the time we're awake than if we didn't sleep at all. Stupid analogy but I think it applies: Instead of designing a device to live its entire life on one battery charge, its way more efficient to have a short battery life and charge it often.

OP is asking something like: why wouldn't our eyes just evolve to be better, rather than evolving the need for sleep?

I'll let him figure the answer out himself. Because it should be pretty obvious for anyone who understands what the word "evolution" even means.

Interesting idea, reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS