• jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as “If vertebrae don’t have it, it means it wouldn’t improve their fitness” it would be wrong. I’ll admit that the comment as worded is true, but it does depend on a very literal interpretation of what “needs” means. Why even post that? In my opinion, that makes it low-quality content, so worth a downvote.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      disagree. again, we don’t even know if such a change would be beneficial.

      also, more importantly, the post is entirely stupid.

      suboptimal by what measure? became disadvantageous how? against what? last time i checked ve**rtebrates were still dominating. now even more than they did during the ages of dinosaurs.

      evolution was too late to correct it… what? first of all, is it even a mistake to correct? where’s the evidence of that? second of all, did evolution stop? too late how? it’s complete bullshit, and if anything the original comment wasn’t harsh enough on it.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        I’m not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I’m claiming that the following does not hold generally: “Doesn’t have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness.”