The Dialectic of Evolution is absurd

To what extent can trasngenerational environmental selective pressure be the causal agent behind, say, some toothed whales increasing in size if the same alleged selective pressure of the same environment had no effect on other toothed whales' size?

Note that this is not a Creationist contention, just a pitfall in basic Logic. If the quality and the quantity of X can perpetuate across a given amount of time, and the emergence and perpetuation of an X.1 variation does nothing to hinder and/or exceed the perpetuation of X, then the .1 is redundant and/or of negative value; their coexistence suggesting a causal agent antithetic to selection.

>it can't have been an accident may may
>Note that this is not a Creationist contention

Americans should stop.

You're arguing against your own position. If the synthesis of a life form's interactive capacity with its environment and other life forms it shares it with has no greater bearing on its perpetuation than sheer accident, then this is the ultimate argument against selection of any kind, possibly against inheritance too.

>I am uneducated and the theory does not make sense to me, therefore the observed phenomena do not occur despite countless observations of said phenomena
Okay, I'll make this simple enough for even you to understand:

>Whale A, a male, exists
>In the process of making sperm, a mtation occurs in the cell division necessary to make a sperm.
>This mutation would result in the offspring being slightly bigger
>The mutation happening to the sperm is ENTIRELY random. A typo. It has nothing to do with any external factors
>Whale A fucks Whale B
>By chance, the mutared sperm wins the race
>Whale C, who is slightly larger than Whale A and Whale B, is born
Now, does size contribute to Whales having more offspring that survive to breed? That is the ONLY criteria. If size does not help the Whale's offspring then:
>The increase in size hinders the survival of Whale C's offspring, or just Whale C itself. The mutation dies with it.

But! If size DOES help offspring reproduce, then:
>Because Whale C, for whatever reason, has offspring that are more likely to survive and reproduce, the mutation spreads to further generations of whales

The mutation's spread is PURELY linked to the "Fitness" of the animal that has it. That is, how likely its children are to reproduce.

The "Selective Pressures" don't apply the mutation, rather they kill (or prevent the breeding) of the organisms that don't meet those pressures.

you realise if it were a completely efficient system it would have stopped, right? you're basically arguing that since there are inefficiencies, it must not be happening. it happens because of the constant inefficiencies and redundancies. if it were only running the parts necessary to a single possible evolution, nature would be fucked every time there was weather. you're obviously not going to learn how to logic or large systems, but at least learn 3rd grade biology.

>it doesn't fit my logic deduction despite all the empirical evidence, therefore it doesn't exist.

Americans should stop.

Excellent summary

It's worth mentioning that alongside natural selection (which you describe), other selective pressures such as sexual selection (such as peacock tails) can act on an organism seemingly against fitness but with the outcome of greater mating chance.

OP evolution is at its core a very basic process but it has plenty of depth. The Selfish Gene by Dawkins is a really interesting look st how evolution can act on individual genes versus entire organisms or even animal groups.

>To what extent can trasngenerational environmental selective pressure be the causal agent behind, say, some toothed whales increasing in size if the same alleged selective pressure of the same environment had no effect on other toothed whales' size?

Selective pressure isn't applied globally to all species of a certain group. That's just fucking dumb.

Also, you don't understand the concept of ecological niche.

I know. I summed all of that in the original post in less than half the words and sustained the train of thought past empty parroting of its Literary boundaries, to the conclusion that increased size cannot be said to have any advantage since the bigger variation's perpetuation does not exceed nor hinder that of the form it allegedly diverged from. In this particular case being of apparent negative value since many (all?) smaller variations of toothed whales outnumber orcas, both by population and by reproductive rate.

Maybe you should stop sucking Hegel's cock and read what the actual science says

>smaller variations of toothed whales outnumber orcas

Smaller size = higher population density?

Being too far from the carrying capacity of the environment isn't beneficial.

The only difference between selection which produces constant inefficiencies and redundancies and no selection at all is Human good faith. Weather is also an integral part of the environment in strict and exclusive relation to which all life forms are said to be ultimately molded by. Which is redundant to you being wrong but particularly ironic given your mention of me being oblivious to how large systems work.

Does Nature have spooky predictive abilities that it uses to preemptively limit density based on size and other factors? The tragic irony that Materialists are forced to invoke invisible hands aside, this sort of argument maybe works for land-dwelling life forms but whales and many marine vertebrates have a functionally global distribution. This is an even greater problem because it implies Nature has not only predictive capacity, but self-reflective capacity and memory as well, since it essentially plans the economy of life and imposes taxes on certain life forms BEFORE they get out of hand.

Something that I don't buy, by the way.

this is not even a Veeky Forums topic

All topics are ultimately Veeky Forums topics.

you know how you hear some people talk and you just know their parents never told them to just shut the fuck up before?

op is one of those people. op, shut the fuck up. jesus christ.

Had shutting up been advantageous, none of us would be able to speak.

>Does Nature have spooky predictive abilities that it uses to preemptively limit density based on size and other factors?
You'd think Americans of all people would understand that a bigger body would need to find more food.

The theory of evolution is less concerned with efficiency but rather survivability. It goes by the path of least resistance, that is why evolutionary cul-de-sac occurs in some species. You don't get to choose the traits that keeps you alive, if it keeps you alive then there is a higher chance of it being passed on.

less replying more shutting the fuck up. you need a wedgie.

Being big means you have less predators and in most cases, an edge in competition for mates.

Bane?

It has already been explained how this can occur without any predictive capability.

It's no good if you can't find enough prey to grow to your full size or even just sustain yourself, if you're too heavy and slow to catch any, if you're a big enough mammal to kill you mother before you're even born, etc. Mice colonized the world by staying small, quick, using little food, reproducing aplenty and with speed, indeed many die but the species marches on.

remember that evolution is actually a process that occurs on individuals in history and not something that works by statistic averages

a retarded whale could have been born that should by all reason have died out because the other whales would have out-competed it, but maybe all the other male whales got hit by fucking lightning or something just out of sheer bad luck and thus the retarded whale ensured that it's retardation would be passed on

That's the point of evolution, those who can't find enough to eat dies. They go extinct. It's not linear. Evolution is not "intelligent".

Where is the empirical evidence of this edge? Has a single data point been found suggesting pilot whales ever outbred porpoises? Have orcas ever outbred pilot whales? This has never been observed, neither by number nor by percentage. It is not only safe but imperative to assume that the alleged transitional forms between the three and all other whales have never had such reproductive advantages either.

The argument that this is in turn due to self-regulatory mechanisms boiling down to energy and entropy is backwards reasoning.

See Evolution is not an efficient, "intelligent" system, if an individual survives it's good enough. Big is not necessary better but there are potential advantages to being big. I'm only listing the generally accepted advantages.

>fucking literature board
>OP is sincerely, unembarrassedly arguing against evolution and ~15 posters unironically respond to him
OK, I'm half-and-half about philosophy threads on Veeky Forums, in fact you could make a good argument philosophy falls into literature, but Jesus fucking Christ, this is just a scientific debate, and not even a very interesting one at that.

Also, you shouldn't compare the success of different species but rather within a species.

Currently actually biologists are researching how environmental factors contribute to the traits of offspring. There are many examples of experiments like these and data suggests that the availability of food contributes to larger organisms more than solely genetics.

This is, again, all but arguing against selection. Curious...

Think about what you said.

Presumably that is to do with the timescale it takes to grow a larger organism and the smaller relative number of them.

"Poor" environments favor small genotype and phenotype.

where

OP is an idiot.

You forgot to take random mutations into account.