If evolution is real then why do humans have such poor sight,

Evolution is mainly driven by random mutation

>>8279138
Our sight, smell, and hearing isn't poor. It's completely addiquate for all aspects of our life.

And dont be a faggot and say some shit like we're not strong enough to move cement blocks.

We are suited perfectly for our primitive stone age selves.

>>8279144
Compared to animals that are "below" us, our senses are shit. I don't understand why our consciousness would evolve before our senses, human evolution seems to be contradicted by the evolution of basically everything else.

>>8279144
Human body is full of weaknesses and openings. Just ask an athlete or someone who does martial arts.

Actually just ask a doctor.

>>8279144
>addiquate

wew lad

>>8279147
define "below". The anon I responded to pretty much covered why our senses aren't poor, it's because they're catered for us, humans specifically. If a dog had our sense of smell then, yeah they'd be fucked, but that's because they need to rely on their ability to track scents. We don't.

>>8279147
We didn't need such acute smell or hearing to SURVIVE. Those animals who have finer senses live and die by those more powerful sensory inputs. Hell, deaf and blind people today get by just fine.

>>8279149
Similarly, the weaknesses we still have weren't so strong as to RENDER US NONEXISTENT. People get sick and die, but not all of them. People might not be able to perform every feat of strength your heart desires, but it didn't prevent us from living a full life and procreating.

>>8279155
I'm saying that all animals except for humans improved physically instead of developing higher consciousness, why is this?

>>8279138
Because having better hearing, sight and smell does not result in more children than someone ith normal hearing smell and vision

>>8279162
Why don't you see our brains as being more physically advances?

>>8279169
Because our brain is the only brain that has advanced. Can you think of a single creature that has developed higher consciousness over 50 million years? No, they were all selected for senses and physical power.

>>8279147
Get this: We didn't need incredible sight, hearing or smell to hunt in groups, we needed communication. We do well at communication. If there is a better species than us in terms of communication, please tell me.

>>8279176
Thats what I'm saying. Why don't you see our brains as being more physically advanced?

You (if you're this anon >>8279162) said that all animals except for humans improved physically and youre attributing a physical advancement as superior, then why aren't you looking at our brains and realizing that we ARE more physically advanced than other creatures.

>>8279162
A higher consciousness could be argued to be the result of a larger brain in early hominims, and a higher consciousness complemented some of our better physical adaptations. We developed thumbs, like the rest of the apes, and our hands have better dexterity compared to said apes. We also developed an upright posture that allowed us to become bipedal while freeing up our other limbs, and there's numerous endurance running hypotheses that claim humans to be the champions of long distance running, which allowed us to hunt earlier prey by exhausting them.

Whatever we lack physically, we make up mentally, just like other animals compensate their lack of intelligence (compared to humans) physically.

>>8279187
Exactly. Nothing can think like us, so nothing can threaten us but ourselves. We have adapted to create offspring that think better than us.

You assume that evolution is some sort of upward driving force, it isn't. Natural selection (which isn't the only factor driving evolution) does not necessarily result in life becoming more advanced, only in propagating life that is suited for its particular niche. Animals don't tend toward complexity, only toward adaptations that suit their environment, which may or may not result in complexity.
>why am I replying to obvious bait

File: 1471493142349.gif (2MB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x350px

>literally the best endurance runners on the entire planet with a god-tier endothermic system
>hurrdurr why did evolution fail us

>>8279219
Uh huh, nearly anything with 4 legs and warm blood can outrun us.

>>8279219
>Actually believed that's what they were saying in the gif for a second
t. brainlet

>>8279227
he's talking about how long we can run, not how fast

>>8279227
endurance =/= speed

>>8279233
Show me a human that can run for longer than a horse.

File: nido.org_1470944528600.jpg (21KB, 480x468px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x468px

>>8279227
xdd

File: 1471195708135.jpg (58KB, 552x621px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 552x621px

>>8279235
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

>>8279235
It depends where. The warmer and drier the climate/weather, the more of an edge humans have by sweating more. I think a man could run down a horse.

>>8279244
>horse wins nearly all the time
>comparing a horse with a human rider to an unburdened horse

also, consider natty life senses. no artificial flavors or odors to desensitize you, no loud music, cars, roads, industrial stuff, etc. maybe banging rocks together dulls certain frequencies.

no screens, artificial light, etc.

>>8279235
google man vs. horse marathon. and consider horses were bred to carry humans and cargo over distance, and any longer than a marathon, like say a double marathon and the human wins. because homo sapiens evolved as a persistence hunting/migratory species, literally walking for days or running our prey to exhaustion before smashing it with rocks or something.

>>8279244
>Humans win only twice
Kek, human endurance myth btfo. Humans confirmed for shittiest animals.

>>8279246
I think >>8279245 has a point, though.
Also, horses couldn't be considered a natural prey of out ancestors

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3716644/Lieberman_Marathon.pdf?sequence=3

tl;dr humans have the fastest trot speed on the planet and can run the furthest thanks to sweat glands and lack of body hair especially in hot conditions, almost like we adapted to the climate conditions of the african plains

>>8279250
consider the athleticism of the runners though, I mean, yeah they MAY be in somewhat healthy shape for their age and for that small welsh town, but look at humans in the natural environment, where eating meant running, every day, not competing for a local marathon, not running because it's trendy or because your cholesterol is high or you are pre-diabetic,

google the Raramuri people of mexico, they can run the just under distance of washington to new york.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners

especially consider the high test levels of our early ancestors, they were all world class tier runners.

>>8279260
the whole hair and sweat stuff is debatable since body hair protects from UV radiation and requires more sweat to cool off. nobody knows really.

>>8279275
>and requires more sweat to cool off. nobody knows really.
If true, that's retarded.

Also, the human body is fragile and our sensitive spots and organs are exposed.
And our women are retarded when it comes to mate selection.

File: image.jpg (50KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x500px

>>8279293
They were in the past, but now it's 2016 and we all know which group of men have the best seed.

>>8279275
then why do antelopes and shit have hair all over them? or chimpanzees in the dense brush under the jungle canopy? pretty sure horses and some primates can sweat too.

>>8279293
i'm guessing you aren't a hairy fellow whose been stuck in tropical heat?

i don't really get it though, it's got some utility in keeping warm but, compared to wolves, hares, bears, etc. it's a weak ass pelt. seriously, throw a naked hairy person, the hairiest you can find, in the woods in the winter, see if he comes back, Inuits and other northern people known to be particularily aren't hairy at all.

>>8279142
Proofs?

>>8279184
There is no specific evidence to suggest that humans are specifically pack hunters and ample evidence to disprove it. Wolves are pack hunters and they communicate just fine.

>>8279187
All of the physical adaptions; opposing thumbs, uprightness etc. are perfectly adapted to higher cognitive functioning. It is unlikely that this would be a random occurrence.

>>8279138
Humans have the ability to see with x-rays, ultrasound, gamarays, and at long ranges with telescopes. Arguably our cognitive prowess has allowed us to surpass all other animals on the planet in terms of these skills. If evolution is responsible for our intellectual prowess then it is also responsible for our advances in these fields. If not then evolution is still an undirected force, as it has failed to come up with these advances in and of itself.

>>8279142
>he believes in the random mutation meme

>>8279235
probably these guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

>>8279138
Because we're smart you dumb nigger.

Yea a bloodhound can smell shit way better than I can but we can detect that same dog several miles away via technology.

Even when we didn't have that technology, we were smarter than every animal around and could fuck up anything we chose to. There's no reason for anything but our minds to evolve at this point since nothing but another human can truly challenge us.

>>8279138
People are born with better/worse than average sight all the time. Does it give them better chances of survival and reproduction? As long as the answer is no, humans as a whole won't develop better senses.

>>8279138
The real misconception there is that evolution produces species perfectly adapted, to anything, in any sense of perfect. Were that the case, invasive/introduced species would not be a problem.

>>8279142
Nope, it's more recombination and mixing. More of a scientific definition thing, i'll grant.

Evolution is not guided by traits humans find desirable. It's the environment that selects traits.

Evolution also only acts on a small number of traits with a small amount of selective pressure over a long period of time. Take the textbook example of pepper moths in england. The only trait selected for was colorl not how fast it could fly, not how well it could see, not how smart it was, but simply what color it was. That was it. Evolution has nothing to do with what humans consider "better" just what works. Evolution is not guided, it's a 'just enough to get by' mechanism. As long as you live and pass on your genes that's all that matters.

File: absolute_fitness_001.png (74KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 400x299px

>>8280825
You are wrong about the "just enough to get by". It's not enough to just get by, your genes (alleles mostly) would die out eventually and more efficient genes would replace them.

It's not just about having some children, it's also about how many children you will have, and what quality of mates your children will be getting.

A mutation that allows you to have on average 6,3 children will be selected for if your neighbour's non-mutated part of the genome only averages 6,25 children in the long run and eventually the latter might be replaced entirely.

In millions of generations, even small advantages matter cause they pile up.

I'd say the reason we don't have eagle vision, dog olfactory system and elephant hearing, is that there would also be detrimental aspects to having them, like energy consumption (brains don't process information using 0 Wh and our skulls are pretty tightly packed already). For some animals these costs would be lower compared to the gains cause of different environments and strategies applied.

File: img.jpg (46KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x300px

>>8279138
>If evolution is real then why do humans have such poor sight, sense of smell, and hearing?
What makes you think we are done evolving?
And who wanted heightened senses in prehistoric times? Everyone was ugly, stank and grunted or snored!

>>8279138
>If evolution is real then why do humans have such poor sight, sense of smell, and hearing?

If evolution isn't real why don't humans have extremely advanced RADAR antenae and embedded seismographs?

>>8281266
I do.

>>8279138
learn what evolution is ffs.

It's not like creating a character in a Game, oh yeah here some stats now here a lil talent.

It is not purposeful it is random.

File: selfish.jpg (108KB, 805x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 805x600px

>>8279138
read these too, you might get a much better understanding of evolution

(hater-fags, kill yourself, lol)

>>8279138
What are we supposed to have? Dog-level senses? Why don't dogs have even better senses? Why didn't we just cut out the middle man and evolve omniscience?

>>8279235
there are people that run 100 miles for fun

>>8279138
Why can't dolphin fly?

>>8279138
speak for yourself bro. I got fuckin eagle eye vision. My hearing is pretty solid too. As for smell i dont know why we'd need that.

And if you think about it. We probably have the best average of all the sense of any 1 animal. Dogs have great hearing and smell but terrible eye sight, and i mean terrible. We have a nice average of all 5

>>8279138
>single photon detection capabilities, full spectrum detection from above infra-red to below ultra violet, binocular vision with enhanced occipital cortex for advanced image and pattern recognition
>poor eyesight

fuck off

Reasonable Faith Animated Videos: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX

Anything wrong in these? Wasn't too convinced when the Leibniz video said abstract objects couldn't be the creator of the universe.

>>8281344
Evolution is not random.

Natural selection is a non-random process.

>>8281402
>why would I need to smell if the food has gone bad?

>>8279184

underrated post

Does anyone here actually believe that our brains are the result of random mutation and natural selection? Because if you do then you're basically no different to religious people.

>>8279138
Because poor sight, sense of smell and hearing don't prevent you from reproducing.

File: brain.jpg (132KB, 1350x868px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1350x868px

>>8281430
Bait?

What type of brain would you accept as having evolved? Where do you draw the line? A single neuron? Ten neurons? Billion neurons? Worm brain? Chimp brain?

Brains are encoded by four types of nucleotides, ATGC. The human genome is just a sequence of these letters. Some of those sequences affect how the brain grows during your lifetime from a single cell into a huge complex organ. Which ATGC sequences do you think are impossible for mutations to form? Or maybe for natural selection to favor?

Why would say ATCATGTTGAATATA be impossible when mutations can delete any nucleotide and add any nucleotide to any position in the sequence?

>>8281448
What's near impossible is random mutations leading to a being that can ponder its place in the universe. There is no way that something as complex as the brain could have formed naturally, even over millions of years.
I find alien tampering to be much more plausible than random evolution.

>>8281461
Your ignorance is not an argument anon. Just because you can't see how it could happen doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Do you know how natural selection works?

>>8281470
Yes I do. But it's ridiculous to claim that incremental changes, most of which were beneficial at the time led to the modern brain. Do you realize how much design work goes into a microprocessor? How many problems have to be foreseen and accounted for in the design? The brain make a microprocessor look like a slide rule in comparison.

File: evo.jpg (151KB, 660x364px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 660x364px

>>8281461
So tell me what is the maximum complexity achiavable using evolutionary processes over some X amount of time?

How complex can the brain really be, genetically, when there are only around 3.2 billion letters worth of DNA? And that's at least 80 % junk, so we have around 300 - 600 million nucleotides that actually do anything at all. And only a fraction of that has anything to do with the brain.

Humans and worms share a common ancestor that lived around 600 million years ago. Even worms have sophisticated brains with sensory inputs and hormone secretions and whatnot. Worms had around 2.5-3.5 billion years time to evolve worm brains and then some 0.6 billion years for humans to evolve our brain from worm brains.

That's only about 1 nucleotide change per year since life started. Or around 10 years per nucleotide that is actually functional. Maybe a few hundred years per nucleotide change that governs the brain.

Why would there not be enough time for complexity like this?

Or is there some process that says "Huh, this is complex enough, halt evolution here"?

>>8281482
So what if the brain is complex? It is still generated by the DNA and there is no pattern or sequence that cannot be generated using mutations.

File: 1318681667332.jpg (246KB, 787x768px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 787x768px

Did humans evolve to be smart because of our relatively weak bodies...

Or did humans evolved to have weak bodies because we are smart?

>>8279138
We do? I thought our senses were good enough, not the greatest but still pretty good.

>>8281502
>weak bodies

Humans are actually relatively tough.

>>8281502
We got weaker (less muscle) after getting bigger brains, but it wasn't a single point in time, but more like a continuum of exchanging muscle mass to brain mass.

>>8281493
>So tell me what is the maximum complexity achiavable using evolutionary processes over some X amount of time?
I have no idea, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either.
>How complex can the brain really be, genetically, when there are only around 3.2 billion letters worth of DNA?
The Mona Lisa is also just lots of different colour pigments organized in an array, why couldn't someone flicking pain at a canvas have painted it?
>Or around 10 years per nucleotide that is actually functional
Christ you're dumb.

>>8281507
Not really. Get an average person to fight 1v1 without any tactics or weapons against any animal with the same size and the human will lose.

>>8281507
Compared to what? A chimp has 2 times the muscle strength per weight.

>>8281493
>Or is there some process that says "Huh, this is complex enough, halt evolution here"?

Evolution doesn't have an end goal. It doesn't care about complexity. What evolution is is a process that arises from imperfect reproduction. It is primarily driven by a natural tendency for those more capable of reproducing to continue to reproduce, whether the organism is unfathomably complex or very simple.

>>8281509
Someone flicking paint to a canvas is nothing like evolution. That would be a completely random process when evolution is not at all random.

File: BoxCar2D_v1_2.jpg (36KB, 825x618px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 825x618px

>>8281509
Random process flicking random parts to existence and then assuming it would mysteriously form a car is stupid. But that same process combined with a non-intelligent selection algorithm can produce something like a car.

Check this one out: http://boxcar2d.com/

>>8281512
>>8281513

Compared to other mammals, humans have greater endurance, resistance to harsh climate and terrain, and recover and adapt to injuries better.

Nature is not a 1v1 fight.

File: 182acv[1].jpg (31KB, 500x348px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x348px

>>8281528

>>8281536
> humans have greater endurance, resistance to harsh climate and terrain, and recover and adapt to injuries better.
No we don't. we have winter jackets, snow boots and camping tents. We don't have any evolutionary advantage on them if were left in nature.

>>8279293
Poor anon... No girls have picked you? Were you picked last for kickball, dodgeball, and red rover too? Hmm. Correlation, or no?

>>8281418
Dogs don't care. Even with their sense of smell, they eat everything and vomit up the stuff they can't handle.

>>8281482
>The brain make a microprocessor look like a slide rule in comparison.

It works on different principles than a microprocessor. People are working since a long time on processors that can build their own pathways. This would allow them to become more complex and specialized than a processor by human design. Self-optimization is a powerful concept.

Also just because we can't build computers yet that outperform human brains in terms of interpretation and interaction with it's environment at the moment, doesn't mean we won't be able to build computers that can outperform brains in the near future. Eyes seemed for a long time like the most efficient unapproachably complex light sensors, since then we have developed cameras that outperform eyes in pretty much every aspect.

As some other anons pointed out already. We see different levels of brain complexity in animals. We can use these less complex brains as approximations of the evolutionary steps of the human brain. Relatively small changes can have a massive impact on processing ability of brain parts, given the self-optimizing nature of brains.

>>8279235
well see anon, we didn't hunt horses, you retard

>>8281541
Humans had populated most of the globe before winter jackets had been invented.

>>8279138
If god made us, then why do humans have such poor sight, sense of smell, and hearing?

>>8281461
You don't understand what a million years are.

>>8281512
Humans can run longer distances over continues periods of time than pretty much any other animal. That's how persistence hunting works. That's how humans hunted down prey for thousands of years.

Humans can swim, climb trees and vertical rock walls. Depending on the environment a human would often win simply by outmaneuvering the animal.

Humans often punch sharks into submission. That's literally what you are supposed to do when a shark attacks you. Humans striking ability shouldn't be underestimated. A trained human can knock out a kangaroo.

Yes if you put a human into an open arena with a similarly sized animal, especially if it's a carnivore, with no weapons and no preparation time, then he will lose. But that's not how it goes in nature. Also humans usually hunted in groups like wolves.

>>8279138
>why do humans have such poor sight, sense of smell, and hearing?
We don't. Our eyesight's pretty good, and our hearing and sense of smell are both decent.

>>8279147
>Compared to animals that are "below" us, our senses are shit
Except they're not. Our sense of sight is shit compared to some animals, but it's better than most. Our sense of hearing is shit compared to some animals, but it's also better than most. Even our sense of smell, that we always completely discount as terrible, is actually pretty average when you compare it to all sorts of animals.

>>8279149
The same goes for animals. No creature is perfect.

>>8279162
>I'm saying that all animals except for humans improved physically
Improved from what starting point exactly?

>higher consciousness
This is also a meme. A bear doesn't have a human's brain, and a human doesn't have a bear's nose.

Basically because it costs more resource wise to develop those more advanced systems. What we are currently equipped with is good enough to keep the species going in our current environment, why spend extra on something that doesn't really impact survival?

>>8279246
Do you know why this marathon length is less than half the usual for human?

>>8279138
we're smart enough to extrapolate from incomplete sensory information where "lesser" animals need as much information they can.

>>8279275
>the whole hair and sweat stuff is debatable since body hair protects from UV radiation and requires more sweat to cool off. nobody knows really.
If nobody knows then it sure isn't for reasons as retarded as that.

>body hair protects from UV radiation
So does melanin.

>and requires more sweat to cool off
What do you mean, "more sweat"? That's what sweat is for in the first place.

>>8281583
Right, just like how Oetzi was bare-ass naked and had no clothes whatsoever near or on him when archaeologists discovered his corpse. Oh, wait.

>>8280221
Humans were persistance hunters, not pack animals. Our superiority didnt come from our ability to communicate just for hunting either. We could pass down memories, train and teach each other.

From the moment humans stopped shitting where they ate, we became the apex predators of the world.

>>8280221
actually, there is some evidence that humans can detect X-rays, and near IR, it's debated, inconclusive, leaning towards a non-functional yes.

>>8282351
yes, but with persistence hunting comes team-effort, chasing down a zebra to exhaustion is some tough shit, you better hope it doesn't outrun you 200km into the Serengeti rather have some people dispersed over a distance who can pick up some slack and keep it "penned" in a sense, share the meat, no need to cook it on the spot after running 3 marathons and not being able to hold it down, then fending off hyenas and moa birds and shit.

>>8282330
>What do you mean, "more sweat"? That's what sweat is for in the first place.
I don't understand the question, body hair retains heat, meaning, to cool down in a hot climate, one would need to sweat even more than someone who is bare skinned. meaning, sweat would "logically" develop with body hair.

>>8281538
go get prepared for your school, honey

>>8282374
>I don't understand the question, body hair retains heat, meaning, to cool down in a hot climate, one would need to sweat even more than someone who is bare skinned. meaning, sweat would "logically" develop with body hair.
No, that would logically lead to the elimination of body hair.

>>8279138
if /sci/ is so smart why do people make posts like this?

>>8282397
>/sci/
>smart

>>8279142
>mainly
>implying that a big percent aren't silent and/or fixed

>>8279138
because we are new in some aspects like full bipedality in vertebrates

only time will say if we are succesfull lineage or not

>>8279138
>forgetting that we can trottle by hours non-stop in the same range of speed in order to pursuit and kill

>>8279149
Pulling apart a dogs forelegs literally kills them

Nature is full of redundant and self-defeating designs, who would've thought haha

>>8279293
They are "shitty" at selecting mates because our memetic form of communication has outpaced our biological means.

And because women are dum

>>8282446
>>8279293
If you want women who are attracted to intelligence and hard work, move away from your welfare countries to some shithole in the 2nd or 3rd world.

>>8282374
Body hair doesn't retain heat, it gives it off.

File: glasses_PNG49.png (625KB, 2053x1360px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 2053x1360px

Maybe because we've invented a system to fix our sight before evolution does it for us.

>>8282564
Didn't happen long enough ago to impact evolution yet.

>>8282374
I would assume humans had better immune systems than we do now. After chasing some animal over some miles, they would probably just eat it right there and then pack up as much as they could. Theres african tribes that still dont cook all of their meat, even after letting it hang in the air for a few days.

I would like to see something about humans not emerging in groups, hunting for food together.

>>8279138
>Implying instant perfection.
It requires steps and is a response to various different things, including different environmental factors.

>>8282673
Modern humans lost a lot of gut flora due to hygiene standards and clean food/water supplies.

People in third world countries regularly eat food and drink water that would put a westerner into a hospital bed with shits, vomiting and dehydration for weeks.

Also humanity indirectly developed a lot of dangerous bacteria and viruses due to high population densities in cities and factory farming. These environments are the perfect breeding ground for human killers. A lot of diseases that afflict humans when we eat raw meat evolved rather recently together with our cultivation of livestock.

A wild animal with barely any contact to human civilization should be rather harmless if you eat it raw, unlike a salmonella chicken from a factory farm.

>>8282570
Maybe your average human had a much better sight 1000 years ago, and the apparition of glasses has encouraged the emergence of individuals bearer of bad alleles that were on the decline back then.

>>8282811
And maybe you're talking out of your ass. Oh wait, no, that's not a maybe, that's a certainty.

>>8279138
We have DAMNED good sight... Only a few octopi and birds have better sight than we do. Some of the mammalian predators pick up movement better, but are also far sighted and have less color acuity. Some critters have better night vision, but we're asleep at night, and have better day vision than they.

Probably because we're scavenging omnivores that need to pick out which fruits and vegetables are good to eat, as well as aren't rotten. (Unlike herbivores, we can't get away with eating as much rotten shit.)

Our hearing is "okay", fairly good at distance, if not range, and we don't have much need for a sense of smell, as we aren't trackers (insomuch as we are, our sight more than makes up for it.)

We've also got incredible stamina and pain resistance as mammals go. Not that all our physical advantages aren't rendered moot by our intelligence and social organization, which eventually lead to language and writing, which more or less rendered evolution itself moot. (And will do so entirely, once we start genetically engineering ourselves.)

Beyond that, evolution doesn't automatically make you better at everything. If something doesn't aid in survival, it tends to drop off due to the calories it uses making members of the species more likely to starve before breeding when they dedicate more towards said. That's why you end up with things like Dodos. Food is all on the ground, there's no predators in the area, thus those birds that fly less, eat more, breed more, and eventually, you stop flying. Evolution doesn't look ahead to see people with hunting rifles coming to make you extinct as a result.

>>8282351
>Humans were persistance hunters, not pack animals.
This is a myth perpetuated by a camera crew that ran around with some primitive and gave the kid water while encouraging him to do it.

A few tribes do it as a ritual, but actually gathering food that way is retarded, in terms of calories rewarded, vs. spent, vs. risk taken vs. number of people fed. It's also next to impossible in forests and jungles, and not at all possible for most of the proto-humans.

Wherever there are primitive humans, there are water sources. Wherever there are water sources, there are cliffs. As close as you get to persistence hunting, is organizing a group to drive a herd off a cliff. This is also literally what you see depicted in cave paintings.

File: 1463319209269.gif (456KB, 202x150px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 202x150px

>>8282397
because its fucking 4chan

First of all we do have very good sight. When you say poor sight I do believe you're talking in terms of distance and resolution. A lot of critters do have much better sight than us in these terms but that isn't everything. Our sight evolved along with some other primates to be specialized in color recognition. A majority of animals are dichromatic but somewhere down the line we got the color red as a way to tell wave lengths of energy apart. This was very useful. With a lot of other senses specialization for our social needs were chosen over total magnitude and clarity as well.

File: stock-photo-man-look-huge-wall-with-impossible-text-126993812.jpg (1MB, 1500x1225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1225px

>>8283032
We're lucky we didn't evolve from pure predators, as most are extremely far sighted... If we had been, we probably never would have invented writing.

...Or we'd just write very large text, and read it from really far away, which probably would have precluded libraries, or required them to be the size of small cities.

>>8283524
It doesn't seem likely that a civilization of our sort could evolve from any kind of pure anything. We're smart because we had to keep figuring out niches for ourselves. A hunter with a spear is not a hunter with a bow is not a gatherer of berries is not a fisherman.

File: mg21428680.500-1_300.jpg (9KB, 300x229px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x229px

Brain size has been going down since the cave man times (we lost a chunk as big as a tennis ball, 1500 cc to 1350 cc). Some speculate it's because society offers a safety net and you can outsource some thinking to the large group around you, saving energy.

It could be that the senses had the same fate and we haven't been like this until recent times.

>>8281223
>It's not enough to just get by, your genes (alleles mostly) would die out eventually and more efficient genes would replace them.
Only if there's selective pressure. If not, any genes can be passed on.

Your ideas of population and what's selected for are ill-informed and flat out wrong.

>>8279138
The biggest common misconception about evolution is that it is about the survival and reproduction of the fittest and by that logic there's no answer to your question. However, evolution is, instead, about the evolution and reproduction of the "fit enough" that means that if you can manage to survive and reproduce even just by luck and being an unskilled pussy, your gene pool is going to be passed down and you won't be cut out of the evolution process

>>8283621
We aren't like that in recent times though.

>>8283629
>being an unskilled pussy
Being skilled with pussy might be more advantageous though.

...Thus, it maybe that even the most beta among us is more suave than the most chad of our ancient ancestors.

>>8283621
>[citation needed]
Though it would explain a lot...

File: ev.jpg (21KB, 300x253px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x253px

>>8283626
There is always selective pressure, however tiny and perpetually changing.

Also, I'm not sure what you are referring to with me being ill-informed and flat out wrong. Could you elaborate?

>>8283667
by unskilled pussy i meant unskilled for survival and pussy as beta male. though the "alpha's" will logically produce more offspring, if the "beta's" are able to reproduce too the evolutionary process will treat both as the same

>>8279138
>humans have such poor sight
Humans have remarkably good vision,
Lrn2visual-acuity fgt pls

>>8279138
What do you mean we have poor sight and hearing? There are certain animals that might have better at one or the other or both, but we're pretty decent at least. And even if we did have poor sight and hearing, what difference would it make for evolution?

>>8281223
This guy has it surprisingly right. Well done.

And about this thread, all the question about evolution would be answered by reading Darwin, but I guess it's too much for all the brainlets.

File: holy wars.jpg (19KB, 320x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x323px

>>8279138
But evolution can't be real, the holy bible says so.

>>8284700
He's moderately right.
Eventually and in an ideal environment an allel will fixate, provided there is no heterozygote masking or heterozygote disadvantage coupled with low initial frequency.
Statistically even a small advantage will be lead to fixation over enough time in an ideal environment.

However the environment isn't ideal.
Genetic drift is completely random so "bad" traits can replace "good" traits through no significant solo merit.
Genes that are close enough on a chromosome are basically linked so a "worse" trait can be passed on with a "better" trait.
Every beneficial mutation must take place on the established base.

Also you won't answer every question with reading only Darwin since his theory and his ideas are only a component of the modern evolutionary synthesis which is the current version of evolution.