Why evolution didn't get rid of lungs

Oxygen is very reactive so we use it up faster than food, which is more stable. So chemically, the rate at which oxygen is consumed will be faster than food.

Cry more. You want a place that protects your feelings? Go literally ANYWHERE else.

Now fuck off. You don't belong here.

Get the fuck out of here carebears.

youre tone dosent reflect our culture on Veeky Forums
complaining about degeneracy to be specific

This isn't a /pol/ idea this is a scientific fact

Natural selection isn't really happening anymore - incompetent morons have tons of kids. In fact they have more than intelligent people

This is a BIG issue and I suspect genetic engineering in the future will be required to fix widespread genetic defects spread by retards reproducing.

because it's not an omniscient mind that plans things you retard it's just some a collection of processes in DNA and reproduction that causes changes in organisms.

>Natural selection isn't really happening anymore
Wrong. You think everyone is of equal health, equal opportunity, equal status and equal offspring production?

sieg heil comrade fuck the birbs lets save the white race amrite?

If you think we will see an end to human evolution because of incompetent morons breeding more then it should be apparent where the real dead end is.

Fuck off. Veeky Forums is for science and mathematics discussion and learning. Not shilling ideology or being edgy. You're the only ones complaining and crying, so fuck up pathetic cunts. The others were short dismissals.

But consider this: Your lungs take up a huge volume inside your chest cavity and yet most people cannot hold their breath for longer than a couple minutes. How large would your sac have to be to hold enough oxygen for a week? We'd have to evolve some sort of organ to basically act as a very powerful air compressor to be able to hold that much gas. Beyond that, the pressure you'd have in your chest at anytime would be enough to ensure that one puncture detonates the whole organ. It's a great idea in mammals large enough to swing it, such as whales (really they're just very powerful lungs), but just not tenable for a smaller species like us.

>Stupid people reproduce at a faster rate than smart people
>Smart people reproduce at a slower rate than stupid people

>Over time the ratio of offspring coming from stupid people increases
>Over time the ratio of offspring coming from smart people decreases

If you don't think this is statistically guaranteed to have effects on the gene pool you're denying reality. You are the one turning this into an ideological discussion - I'm merely pointing out the uncomfortable truth regarding the situation

Point out the flaw in my reasoning or don't bother replying, but implying that I'm a "dead end of evolution" isn't exactly a valid argument

Because your argument hinges on the belief that stupid parents always make stupid children. I'm sure if we were to trace your genetic history back six hundred years we would find that your ancestors were not exactly emeritus professors, yet here you are, capable enough to...

Oh, wait. Never mind.

The white race is a plague.

lololololololololol

>Because your argument hinges on the belief that stupid parents always make stupid children.
Heredity of IQ is 0.6-0.8. Not even a /pol/tard but these guys are right. The collective IQ WILL be brought down if stupid people reproduce faster than smart people.

Who gives a fuck about the collective iq. Theres over 7.5 billion humans, the collective iq will never be good. The anomaly spergs and autists will always be popping into existence and bringing us further and further up the ladder.

>Am I correct in assuming that the human race will no longer evolve in the next couple of millennia?

Absolutely incorrect.
What amazes me is how many people don't understand this. Evolution is happening constantly, always. There is no end goal, there is no event that starts evolution or ends evolution. Evolution is always present.

Lots of dumb people breeding in the current environment? That doesn't mean evolution stopped. That means their adaptations are superior for the current environment. Perhaps if resources became scarce once again, the higher IQ humans would have an edge and outcompete the rest.

I wish that were true but it isn't. Look at Africa, the middle east and Indonesia.

First of all:
>thinking IQ is a usable metric

However, that raises the question of 'ok, so what do we do?' I don't want to devolve the thread this far, and I've given the OP as dignified a response as I can, but seriously what do we do? Like is the suggestion that we now just engage in a eugenics campaign to weed out the idiots? Remove their right to have kids? Pay smart people to fuck? The solution to the problem is proper investment in education at all levels to ensure an expansive academic curriculum to ensure our species success. However, the retards who originally cast this bait have no interest in endeavors as useful as that. They'd rather live in hysterics, as a dim specter of reason, rather than as someone invested in a solution.

Why, I don't understand. They exist to produce slave labor and resources for civilized societies.

I think what's stupider is that we eat and breath through the same hole. God I want people to have another hole...

>Natural selection isn't really happening anymore - incompetent morons have tons of kids. In fact they have more than intelligent people

That *IS* natural selection.
There is no resource scarcity. When there is no resource scarcity and you don't need to be capable, strong, powerful, intelligent, creative, or anything else in order to survive, the winning evolutionary strategy is to basically shit out as many babies as possible and don't even bother to look after them because they'll be able to survive no matter how incapable.

If you don't like this, then you need to create or select an environment that doesn't cater to such stupidity and ineptitude.

Do you ever wonder why white people are so intelligent and successful? It's because they've evolved and adapted to harsh climates with limited resources that require preparation, long-term planning, creativity, and intelligence to survive and prosper. These kinds of environments demand resource investment into children, families, and communities - because those are more successful in the harsh realities of a cold-gripped Eurasian steppe.

In absolutely no way is evolution or natural selection not taking place anymore. It's just that the modern environment is so replete with resources that it caters to human races better adapted for it - which entails rapid breeding, large broods, and little long-term planning or family/community investment.

If, for example, you wanted to see self-sufficient populations dominate the world once again, you would only need to introduce worldwide food scarcity and political/economic anarchy. As soon as food aid to Africa ends, for example, you'd have a billion people dying from the largest famine in human history.

Yes IQ is a usable and useful metric. I don't know how to solve the problem since I'm just a brainlet, but I figure "stop giving niggers more money for having more children" would be a good start.

I wish we could adopt some of the better evolutionary aspects of birds.

Eyes, for example.

Birds have so much better eyesight than people do, and why the hell did we lose our nictating membranes for that matter

Kinda makes sense. There's a pretty obvious selective pressure for birds to have good vision. Humans actually have pretty good vision when it comes to land animals. I believe birds are one of the only category of animal to beat us in terms of vision.

One of the things that just flabbergasts me about human vision is that we've got all the neuron wires for our rod and cone cells, on the side that's absorbing light, rather than behind...

How the fuck did that even evolve

Here, to draw a diagram

Light literally goes through our blood vessels, nerves, whatever other tissue, and THEN hits the light-sensitive rods/cones

That explains why I saw blood vessel patterns when my ophthalmologist was checking out my eyes. Makes you wonder how much our subjective experience is influenced by them. Like, do the vessels and tissue cause significant distortion?

If I could I would totally modify myself to have some of the abilities animals have. I'd breathe through a dedicated hole and give myself turkey vision as a start. I want to be able to see at night and regrow teeth too. I wouldn't go as far as giving myself wings or anything because I still want to look like a human, but I'd do anything that wouldn't change my appearance too much.

A viable mutation for more efficient lungs in mammals never occurred? Subsistence on the ground was more than enough to fuel the tiny amount of calories the lungs use?

I'd give myself wings in a heartbeat.

Poisoned fangs.

>Because your argument hinges on the belief that stupid parents always make stupid children
No it only hinges on even a subtle genetic aspect of intelligence, and I guarantee you there is a correlation

Okay your post is irrelevant

Clearly from the context we're talking about "forward evolution in our current direction towards higher and higher intelligence" and that is not what is going to be happening, I suspect greater political tension will become the norm and smart people will just be completely oppressed in the future

You occasionally get something like little blue/white fireflies in our vision; this is simply you becoming aware of the white blood cells in the vessels. The only other effect is your blind spot; which only affects anything if you you lose an eye (or have one closed).

>its ok to modify your genitals into something useless to fulfill fantasy
>its immoral to modify yourself so fix some shit aspects of biology.

>Natural selection isn't really happening anymore - incompetent morons have tons of kids. In fact they have more than intelligent people
That doesn't mean Natural selection isn't happening anymore, it is just that we live in an environment that favors dumb people. Nature doesn't care which is better, things just happen. That's the point of calling it "Natural".

>Clearly from the context we're talking about "forward evolution in our current direction towards higher and higher intelligence"
That's not what evolution is, this isn't pokemon or something.

The world would be a very different place if Hitler kept his mission on just
maintaining a race
reproducing the best of them
getting out of the country the unwanted ones
instead that retard started fucking killing everyone
and now Eugenics is deeply connected to killing indiscriminately because of him

samefag

Educate yourself

>Am I correct in assuming that the human race will no longer evolve in the next couple of millennia?
no, that's fucking retarded.
there's a very clear selection for intelligence going on.

Nah, birb eyes are fucking shit, compared to Mantis Shrip eyes, every other creature falls behind.

google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-09-mantis-shrimp-world-eyesbut.amp

It is if you're wearing concrete slippers

Probably why said aquatic mammals can stay so long without breathing.
Did you think evolution happened in 1 generation where they would suddenly be able to live 4 days without breathing ?

Give it some time.

we need lungs to process oxygen, we need oxygen to live user, hence why we have lungs

I finally get the brainlet meme now, you literally must have a chicken nugget for a brain user

It doesn't matter if these aren't equal (except for the latter, which I will get to). Whilst variation is a requirement for natural selection, it does not mean that it is occuring. If those possessing better health and intelligence were reproducing more than the rest of the population, then you could say that natural selection is occuring. However, this is not the case, the studies have shown that members of society with lower intelligence and success have disproportional reproduction rates (being higher than their 'superior' counterparts).

genetic modification is going to be so much fun once it kicks off, I'm getting shrimp eyes and a horse cock

Evolutionary success is measured in numbers of surviving offspring, not numbers on bank accounts, value of cars and houses or "intelligence".

Once globalized infrastructure breaks down, we'll be in for a new game of survival.

/pol/tards screaming about safe spaces every time they try to shit up a thread to use as their safe space

8/8 b8 m8

>Why didn't evolution do X?
Why would evolution "do" anything?

However stupid you are you have a point.
Medicine makes sure we won't ever evolve because most diseases and shit will always get treated and people will live artificially to continue their bloodlines.
We're stuck and will probably devolve further and further until we are too weak to do anything.

>accidentally breath oxygen
>stomach ruptures.

If genetic manipulation for humans ever becomes a thing that will be our evolution.

Thermal pits nigger.

Thermal

Pits

low IQ paranoid redneck preppers will survive while world class mathematicians and scientists will die out.

WHO'S LAUGHING AT WHOSE AG DEGREE NOW!!!!! MWWUHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!

most of the reason for breathing constantly is getting rid of built up CO2

We evolve under certain conditions that favor dumb non white people, natural selection is happening. In a way you can say that our bad societal choices lead us to dissapear. That is natural selection.

If the collapse doesn't happen, the human of the future will be separated into two species over time : a slave racemixed low iq one and a jewish one, probanly transhuman.

>evolution doesn't care if it's the best

?????

I dunno if thats relevant. Animals dont seem to evolve to overcome diseases. The niche is what stops us evolving
We have complete control

I think the big missumption is that people hink we will evolve as a species. Theres too many of us. Big population. It will be speciation or some of us dying off.

Same reasons land animals got rid of gills. They weren't needed and caused more problems than good. And maintaining pressures is quite a complex process.

It doesn't matter wheter a solution is optimal for something, just that it works and beats other available alternatives.

>why don't we have sacs of air that hold oxygen for a long time

We do, they're called lungs

>but they only hold oxygen for like four minutes! I want a week!

Lets do the math. The average lung capacity of a human is about 6 liters (That's total capacity by the way, most breaths are only 0.5 liters).

Now this may come as a shock, but on average, most people can only hold their breath for about one minute, at least before their body starts signaling for oxygen and attempting involuntary breaths and convulsions.

So, lets say five liters gives you a minute. That's actually pretty generous.

To have a whole weeks worth of oxygen, you would have to have a lung capacity of....wait for it...

50,400 liters (=13314.271 gallons)

You see, the atmosphere of Earth is only around 21%, so you actually need a lot more air to sustain life than you think. Even if you were only breathing pure oxygen, you would still need 10,584 liters or 2795.997 gallons of oxygen to survive for a week.

How huge would you have to be to actually contain such a sack? A liter of pure oxygen takes up 0.861 cubic meters, so you would need a sac 9,112.824 cubic meters in volume (at a maximum, since oxygen is pretty compressible at room temps). Still, 9,000 cubic meters is about the volume of three and a half Olympic swimming pools. Yes, that's approximately the amount of air you would consume in a week assuming you were just continuously holding your breath for a minute at a time breathing pure oxygen. This is not taking into account any exercise, and assumes you continue breathing this way at night.

oxygen transfer to tissues only really works if you saturate the blood with as much oxygen as you physically can, and that depends on keeping your oxygen concentration as high in your source as it can be.

leaving aside the problems of storage that brought up, it's just not biochemically favorable. even if you did have a way to selectively store oxygen in a bladder, gas exchange will quickly pollute your oxygen storage to the point of unusability

Subtle.

Niggers
Go back to"I fucking love science" or whatever the shit

This is science, genius. You are the one that came here to shill your ideology.

>genetics doesn't affect intelligence
That are people that really believe that? Come on

>because of him
You mean because of the Jews, right?
He didn't kill people. Not intentionally. Even German people were starving at the end of the war.

nth post best post

Evolution is inefficient. it's not controlled by anything. you have to wait for a mutation to occur, and hope its the right mutation in the first place, then let that mutation spread throughout a population.

Oxygen causes oxidation which kills

OP wants an organ that can process and store oxygen for later use, you and your replyer think in very small ways. A volume of elemental oxygen for a week using your numbers would be a fifth of 50,000, divided by ~1100 (volume of gaseous air compared to liquid water is actually higher than this), which comes out to 9 liters. Remember, again, the ratio of air to elemental oxygen is higher than the ratio of expanded water vapor to liquid water which is the number I used.

Brainlets tend to blurb a lot of verbal diahrrea without reflecting upon ot first.

>Brainlets tend to blurb a lot of verbal diahrrea without reflecting upon ot first.
not that dude, but maybe try not to post word salad when you're criticizing someone for verbal diarrhea

A salad is a healthy and delicious meal, diahrrea is just shit.

Critisize somewhere else.

>ot
>diarrea
>critisize

You're both stupid

fuck you, i spelled diarrhea correctly

niggerfagot

This. Really no need for storing oxygen.
And if you do need to store oxygen, hey it evolves. See whales.

>First, these animals have mass specific blood volumes that are three to four times those found in terrestrial mammals (i.e., 200 to 250 milliliters of blood per kilogram body mass, in contrast to a human value of 70 milliliters blood per kilogram). Second, the concentration of hemoglobin (the oxygen-transport protein in blood) is also elevated to a level about twice that found in humans. Third, the concentration of myoglobin, the oxygen storage protein in muscle, is extremely elevated in these animals, measuring about 10 times that in human muscle.
They basically are oxygen tanks already.

badb8.jpg

Again, not enough real science contributing and the thread evolves into shit. If you post, first answer the damn question. So;
Birds haven't evolved a "superior" system. Their lung sacs store air, not oxygen, lightening up the body mass. Penguins have the same physical requirements for their bodies but don't have sacs because they don't fly. I could go on but this is an elementary school question that a little bit of study (even google) could answer. Veeky Forums is not school, ask something important!!!

a week's worth of oxygen is 3850 liters of oxygen. that's 12 pounds of oxygen

ya, that sounds like a great idea

How big would that sack need to be? with every breath you take, 5% of the oxygen in the breathed air is taken up into the blood. Meaning that breathing 20 times takes up as much oxygen as is present in the volume of air your lungs contain.

You inhale about 20-30 times a minute. So if you wanted to survive for say 5 minutes, your cavity would have to be 5x the size of your lungs. which is pretty fucking huge.

Furthermore, the lungs expel way more carbon dioxide than they take up oxygen. And in order to do that, you need the constant flux of air over the large surface area of the lungs.

In the case of the hypothetical sack, the cavity would quickly saturate the air to toxic co2 levels and acidosis would occur.

tl;dr: lungs are not as stupid as you think.

just so you know.

glasses are degenerate.

a suspension is degenerate.

degeneracy is just the increase of entropy.

For some reason every sentence I write must be longer.

this, would make for waay better oral sex as well. considering she wouldn't need to stop to breathe.

you could just jam it deep inside and let her suck and lick without ever having to take it out.

please god.

one more hole.