Is evolution... deteriorating...?

This. You don't understand evolution.
Neither do you.

t. brainlet

Shouldn't abhorrent threads like this be reported and deleted?

Actually I'd argue yes or no, dependent on the content of the threads.

If they are early in conception, or have no valuable discussion like this one, then absolutely yes.

If they spark actual discussion wherein anons try to educate their non bio peers on the processes of selection and genetic drift which drive evolution, and clear up the common misconceptions behind seeing evolution as necessarily "bigger&better" instead of what gives greatest reproductive success incidentally and relative to an environment, then I think this kind of thread can exist in a healthy format.

That being said, sage and report this fucking awful thread as it currently stands.

...

This, also, evolution? Machines will evolve thousands of times more efficiently along side our turtle speed pinky toe-removal type of evolution.
youtube.com/watch?v=RPZ-uWirIN4

>deteriorating
The andean condor is the biggest flying bird, it's proof New World species are better.

Amerindian humans are better than european "humans".

no, don't you have a stackexchange to fuck around on instead of ruining Veeky Forums

La creatura

This.

Yes, Veeky Forums should have a different culture desu and have mods that delete brain dead threads from the get go.

>american birb looks like american citizens

kek

Back to neogaf you phedophile cuck I'll fukin bass your fuckin face you doppey cunt

People can give their theories on this but you would have to studied a few generations of life for a positive answer... Giving our population is so high and going up naaaa

Bro think before you speak evolution will continue regardless

that discredits environments where pressures lessen or survival becomes easier

I'd say an animal moving from a high pressure environment to the land of milk and honey would by all accounts be "devolving" compared to earlier versions of the animal.

El pajarraco...

>Evolution is traveling towards better designs or some goal

>Amerindian humans are better than european "humans"
elaborate. I'm not a /pol/tard btw.

...

Are you guys actually retarded? Evolution does go towards better organisms. This statement has certain probabilism in it, for example, a meteor may still destroy all megafauna and evolving defenses against unexpected events isnt considered in the scope of "better".

Plankton is better than bacteria. Ant is better than plankton. Rat is better than ant. Dog is better than rat. Human is better than dog. Some humans are better than most of the humans.

Le epic xD

>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 10500 years (21000BC-10500BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 4000 years (10500BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 3700 years (3000BC-700 AD)

Amerindians had a higher development rate than europeans.

it was my point, but I do not think devolving is a good phrase in a first place. Both of theese are evolution related processes of adaptation

Yes. An example is that Amerindians are superior to europeans.

cringe

Are you retarded? Actually figure out what the definition of "evolution by natural selection" is.
>Plankton is better than bacteria. Ant is better than plankton. Rat is better than ant. Dog is better than rat. Human is better than dog. Some humans are better than most of the humans
These aren't scientific statements.

>Are you guys actually retarded? Evolution does go towards better organisms.
This is categorically incorrect, it selects for reproductive fitness.
>Plankton is better than bacteria.
Not scientific, there is no metric of "better" in biology, only "fitness". If we want to define better as one organism's metabolism is more active than another bacteria win because they can do much more taxing metabolic processes, if we want to define better as one organism is more survivable than the other bacteria still win because they are simply so numerous and diverse in strategies, if we want to define it by numbers bacteria STILL win because there are countless bacteria on Earth and they live everywhere, and finally if we want to say its how long their domain has survived bacteria absolutely demolish plankton because they have existed for over 2 billion years. This is why better is not a metric that works for comparing animals, there are conditions where the other always wins and outperforms.

>plankton is better than bacteria
What the fuck
No

>tfw worse than bacteria
JUST!

I would argue that there are more chickens alive today than the number of T-rex that ever existed in nature. That is a categorical success as far as the drive behind evolution is concerned.

You are arguing that complexity is "better" but those bacteria that you scoff at will probably survive the next E.L.E meteoric impact, whereas your humans who are better than other humans will be left behind by the humans who have more money than other humans in the final hours before impact.

This is great bait

if by better you mean towards those that are better at surviving/reproducing then yeah