• NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
    14·
    2 天前

    In the beginning the universe was created.

    This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

  • Miller@lemmy.world
    5·
    2 天前

    Well exactly, because evolutionarily we do still have bodies that should be covered in fur, a lot of fur.

    • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
      132·
      2 天前

      Nah man. “Evolutionarily” doesn’t give a fuck about anyone over 30 because you’ve already had enough kidlets and are about to die from a blood infection that took hold from a rotten tooth.

      • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        2·
        9 小时前

        Genetically coded social behavior helps the genes even when they don’t help the individual. The most obvious example is how each worker bee in a hive or worker ant in a colony is a genetic dead end, with no offspring, but will do plenty of work to help the overall hive/colony survive.

        We’re hard wired to raise our children, as can be shown by just how helpless our children are at birth, and how long it takes for them to form full maturity. That extends to the whole village, including grandparents.

        Meanwhile, plenty of anthropological evidence shows that we form coalitions and tribes and work together to advance group interests, and that it’s been going on for our entire species’ history, including in the genealogical line that we descend from, outcompeting other hominids and even other branches of homo sapien that didn’t form such complex alliances.

        Our brains are hard wired to develop complex language for communication with other humans. This is what helped us thrive as a species, to where our evolutionary success threatens to harm our greater environment.

        But that just shows that humans are really good at socializing. And as social creatures, we have evolutionary value even beyond our direct ability to produce offspring.

        • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
          2·
          6 小时前

          Sure, but there’s no evolutionary incentive for people to be sexually attractive after prime breeding age.

          • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            1·
            2 小时前

            Well, not-so-prime breeding age is still has reproduction potential greater than zero. And the social effects still matter, with the interplay between sexual attraction/ desirability and all the other social factors. So extended sexual attractiveness might be a side effect of something else that is evolutionarily advantageous (including correlation with prime age sexual attractiveness): being athletic and smart and funny and charismatic are all attractive traits that have functionality outside of just reproducing.

      • Pilon23@feddit.dk
        9·
        2 天前

        Evolution cares whether you can keep the kidlets safe until they themselves have kidlets tho. That should give you at least another 5 years before your spine self-destructs

        • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
          1·
          2 天前

          Fair point. I don’t think that precludes some extra weight around the waist in your 30s though?

    • LurkingLuddite@piefed.socialEnglish
      21·
      2 天前

      Nah. We lost fur hundreds of thousands of years ago and never needed it again to survive several ice ages. So I’d say we’ve definitely evolved past fur thanks to the ‘advanced’ tool usage of… clothing.

      • Miller@lemmy.world
        31·
        2 天前

        Hundreds of thousands of years is not much time in evolutionary terms and my point is the shape of our bodies has not really caught up with our loss of hair and particularly in age we can still look a little unaesthetic. We look exactly like what we are, an animal that is supposed to have fur that has been shorn.

        • LurkingLuddite@piefed.socialEnglish
          1·
          20 小时前

          Our loss of hair is caused by the EXACT same process that defines the rest of our bodies, so it’s absolutely stupid to say we haven’t “caught up” with losing hair…

          • Miller@lemmy.world
            1·
            17 小时前

            I did quickly start to answer your reply but I had to delete it and step away from it for a while because I became increasingly astounded by your argument. Is it genuine that you have no conception that elements in a system can run at differential rates. I do not mean to limit that to evolutionary science, I mean it is true of any system in the world or anything that can be defined as systemic which is essentially everything. So if you spoke to your mother and father in any given interval of time you could only conceive of talking to them for exactly the same duration and word count, you cannot fathom that within that system you might talk to one more than the other given only natural constraints on that system. You are fundamentally misunderstanding not just evolution but the nature of systems and so the nature of the world you find yourself in.

  • Cypressed@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    61·
    2 天前

    it’s been wrong for as long as i can remember. perhaps longer. it’s always been wrong, as far as i know.

    it’s still wrong…

    …but for the first time, it seems to be getting less wrong.