Serious Evolution Theory Doesn't Make Much Sense When You Think About It

[BlkPillPres]

The theory doesn't make much sense to me, there's so many things that exist that shouldn't exist if evolution theory is true.

Take for example the sloth and the bombardier beetle, the two best examples I know of, showing how ridiculous the theory is if you really think about it, the logic of evolution is that traits that INCREASE SURVIVABILITY are the ones that get passed on because the creatures possessing those traits are more likely to survive, so here's the question.

Sloth


1. Were sloths slower than they are today and they evolved to be faster?, if so how the fuck didn't they get killed off if they were that much slower? (clearly there were predators that could reach them in trees and were faster than they are, a sloth literally has nothing going for it, its the slowest, the weakest, it cant even fight back)

2. If sloths were faster then, wouldn't that be admitting that sloths literally EVOLVED TO BE SLOWER AND LESS AGILE? (sounds like the opposite of evolving to me)

Bombardier Beetle


The beetle has two separate chambers in its body where two different chemicals are stored after being produced, when mixed together the reaction between the two chemicals cause something like an "explosion", if those reactions took place inside the beetle it would definitely kill it, the chemicals are mixed only when ejected from two separate pathways leading out of the chamber, and they collide outside the beetle.

Here are the questions to ask yourself

1. What evolved first, the chambers or the ability to biologically manufacture the two separate chemicals?

If the chemicals came first then wouldn't the beetle die?, with no means to separate them that would have led to instant extinction for that mutation group

If the chambers came first are we seriously going to say that there was a creature that literally evolved random internal chambers that didn't increase its survivablity in any shape or form, and it just had that mutation for thousands of years until another mutation for that group made them start to produce the chemicals? (and the mutation for some reason just ended up making the chemicals be stored seperately in those conveniently place chambers)

There's so much that could go wrong in the evolutionary process of this particular creature that it doesn't make sense for it to exist, everytime I think about this insect I think - "this thing should be dead, it should not exist, the first iteration would have blown itself up".

 

[First loss]

You missed the forum

 

[Inceldo]

Things can evolve down btw

 

[Mahlo]

Evolution does not always select for traits that increase survivability. This is a common fallacy

 

[Smallframecel]

Evolution is about adapting to the environment dealing with predators conserving energy and reproduceing
Its not about becoming faster stronger many big animals have evolved or adapted to survive in there environment without environment pressures humans will also becoming weeker and dumber than they were previously

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

JFL. None of your threads can be taken seriously.

 

[CopeWithTheRope]

Low iq. Evolving doesn't necessarily mean "improving". Also, you're not taking into consideration the animals environment.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Low iq. Evolving doesn't necessarily mean "improving". Also, you're not taking into consideration the animals environment.

1. There is no environment for a mammal where being slower is to its own benefit, that doesn't increase your survivability in any way, so what considerations are you talking about, give an example, that would have to be a very specific environment where for some reason there are no suitable predators around.

2. If evolution doesn't mean improving then what is its function, how does it even make sense, the entire basis of the theory is that the traits that increase survivability are the ones that get selected, the theory makes even less sense now if it doesn't even do that.

Evolution does not always select for traits that increase survivability. This is a common fallacy

JFL common fallacy, its literally what you keep hearing basically every atheist online say, its in every video, this common fallacy is being purported a lot by the people who should know better then. Every explanation of evolution theory I've read or heard about stated this, now you're stating "devolving" is part of evolution too.

 

[1984cel]

Idiocracy and Fisherian Runaway are the most legit theories of the 21st century ded srs

 

[BlkPillPres]

Idiocracy and Fisherian Runaway are the most legit theories of the 21st century ded srs

You are the only poster so far who hasn't said anything generic and actually gave an example

I've made a thread about the fisherian runaway theory - (https://incels.is/threads/females-b...tes-is-to-the-detriment-of-all-species.96372/), I get those cases, but for various organisms, it doesn't make any sense why they exist at all.

For the example of the fisherian runaway, a peacok evolved to have all that plumage because the females selected males based on that, so progressively the males of the species had larger and more vibrant feathers.

Now take the sloth for example, could it be argued that the females selected the slowest males?, the least aggressive males?, there is nothing that says "selected based on environment" about a sloth, they are literally the worst animal on the planet, there's reason for it to exist, the only thing its good at is a parlor trick to monkeys.

Also I can't imagine an environment where the traits a sloth has would be selected at all.

 

[Norky]

Evolution just means genetic changes in a population over time. Evolution does not necessarily mean the increase in adaptive traits for a population. You need to be studying more basic biology.

 

[Michael15651]

Evolution does not always select for traits that increase survivability. This is a common fallacy