They never said natural selection. But that doesn't matter. Evolution happens regardless of whether the selection is natural or artificial. All they were talking about was reproductive success and how that is the driver of selection. They even made it clear that evolution cares not for the quality of life just that the genes are passed down.

Spelling

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then call it reproductive success instead of dishonestly causing it evolutionary success. And I didn't state that evolution requires or doesn't require anything, you brought that up - we're talking about whether it's considered successful, which is a philosophical question.

Artificial selection is not a reflection of a species' ability to survive in the natural world and to me that is not an example of success over the longer, think-billions-of-years, term.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Weirdly enough evolution doesn't care about long term success. It only cares about short term success leading to local maximums. If evolution cared about long term success humans would have optic nerves that faced the right way and no cancer, but that was sacrificed during evolution.

Oh and all of animal evolution had happened in less than a billion years.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're implying that I'm making a case for evolution achieving some sort of perfection, and linking that to a definition of success, which, again, isn't what I said.

If you can't have an honest conversation about it then I'm not interested. I don't doubt that you understand evolution, you've said enough to demonstrate that, but you certainly do not understand the point I'm making.

And billions was an autocorrect.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Then what is the point you are trying to make? You seem to have an agenda here, but I don't see how it fits into the original conversation.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The original comment I replied to made a definition of evolutionary success and I made a counter-definition. I'm not sure what conversation that you're referring to before that. There was only one other comment above it in the chain and it had little do with defining the evolutionary success of chickens or what that might entail.

If you're perceiving an agenda where there is none while also not understanding the point being made then, not to be rude, but thats a comprehension issue.

It's possible I'm explaining it poorly, but I've run out of ways to approach this so I can't offer you anything more.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Sorry for a second comment but, by agenda, are you implying that I'm anti evolution?

[–] Brokenbutstrong@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can, it's in the humans. Survival of the fittest, the humans are smart enough to allow a fuck ton of chickens

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Er, yeah, I agree with that. Nothing to do with my point, but you are correct.