/what/ - ...

Did you know most mammals synthesize vitamin C themselves, but humans can't.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase

Other mammals have far higher levels of vitamin C in their body than us due to this gene. It's speculated that restoring normal mammalian levels of vitamin C may significantly increase lifespan. Of course Darwinian logic is that this is a "mutation".

Huh. That must be why my diet is full of spinach, lemons, ginger and oranges.

>>3994
>It's speculated that restoring normal mammalian levels of vitamin C may significantly increase lifespan
There’s no evidence for that. Humans already tightly regulate vitamin C levels, and excess intake just gets excreted. High-dose vitamin C has been studied for decades and hasn’t shown meaningful lifespan extension.
>Of course Darwinian logic is that this is a "mutation".
The evolutionary explanation is straightforward: our fruit-eating primate ancestors got plenty of vitamin C from diet, the gene stopped being necessary, mutations accumulated and it became nonfunctional. Nothing mysterious about that.

>>4012
>hasn’t shown meaningful lifespan extension.
There's no clinical trial in humans that conclusively says anything at all increases lifespan, period. Humans live too long to prove it and make that claim.. Mice only live like 1-3 years so you can actually test and conclude entire lifespan experiments.

>Darwin babble
Wild guinea pigs also lack it, and would greatly benefit from it as their diet is low in fruits or vitamin C

Why lose fur? There's no functional benefit to losing fur and only downsides. If it's sexual preference, why would the females develop a preference for something worse in the first place (same issue with many birds, like blue footed boobies with ridiculous blue feet).

DNA is like a programming language and sometimes there is bugs, or mutations naturally do arise and proliferate, this is one of those small ones that could happen but it would not be evidence of Darwinist evolution, like small genetic changes that proliferate among a population such as losing GULO or lactose tolerance or red hair color != a fish turned into you.

>>4013
>There's no clinical trial in humans that conclusively says anything at all increases lifespan, period.
Right, because you’re literally ignoring all comparative biology and model organisms. Mice, worms, flies, and monkeys show aging patterns. Saying "humans live too long so nothing matters" is just moving the goalposts.
>Wild guinea pigs also lack it
Guinea pigs also lost GULO independently through… wait for it… evolution. Wild guinea pigs eat grasses, herbs, and whatever vitamin C containing plants they can scrounge enough to not die of scurvy. You're literally using an example of convergent evolution to argue against evolution.
>Why lose fur?
>Why would females develop a preference for something worse?
You've stumbled upon actual evolutionary biology (sexual selection, genetic drift, trade-offs) and presented it as a gotcha. Congrats, you've rediscovered that evolution isn't an intelligent designer optimizing for your personal definition of "better". Sometimes traits are neutral, sometimes they're linked to fitness indicators, sometimes drift happens.
>DNA is like a programming language and sometimes there is bugs, or mutations naturally do arise and proliferate, this is one of those small ones that could happen but it would not be evidence of Darwinist evolution, like small genetic changes that proliferate among a population such as losing GULO or lactose tolerance or red hair color != a fish turned into you.
Yes, mutations happen. Doesn't mean that evolution is not real. Losing GULO in primates isn’t a random quirk in isolation, it’s a mutation that spread because our ancestors had fruit-heavy diets. That pattern, shared with chimps and gorillas, is exactly the kind of evidence evolution predicts.

>>4014
I agree genetic mutations are real and natural (or artificial) selective pressure can make them more prevalent among a population.

They could result in minor things like losing GULO accidentally or birds with different beaks better suited to eating seeds on an island becoming more prevalent on that island.

This same biological process is not infinite though, it has limits, it's pseudoscience when you take this process and claim that with enough time it would result in an animal changing into a different kind of animal, or a single-celled organism becoming all life on Earth, it's not repeatable, observable, or verifiable in any way.

>>4015
You’re literally describing evolution and then arbitrarily declaring it stops once the changes get too big.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not different processes. Macroevolution is just microevolution accumulating over long periods plus speciation. We’ve directly observed new species form in plants, insects, fish, and microbes and genetics lets us track divergence happening in real time.

Saying small changes happen but large changes don’t is like saying steps exist but journeys don’t.

>>4016
We both see the same repeatable, observable, verifiable biological process of genetic mutation and selection.

I'm claiming it has limits. You're claiming it has no limits.

Logically there's many things that could not have developed step-by-step through this process, slowly, over countless generations. Things that have multiple interworking parts that are useless or harmful without the other. Such as a snake's venom delivery system, sexual reproduction, or the bombardier beetle.

Selection is moot in these long contexts, an increasingly retarded bump on the side of your body would not be selected for for countless millions of generations until it randomly turns into functioning wings.

>>4017
No one claims evolution has no limits. Physical constraints, genetics and environmental pressures all limit what changes are viable. The point is simply that small genetic changes accumulate over time and can eventually produce new species and major biological differences, something we've already observed.

>>4018
You have never observed that this process can cause large changes, such as an animal turning into a different kind of animal, or the development of new organs.

You've only observed it's capable of relatively minor changes, like a change in hair color, genetic diseases, or making increasingly retarded dogs like American Bullies, and there's literally zero evidence if you just give it more time that would change.

You are talking about the same exact biological process that created American Bullies, albeit this is artificial selection, but you could do any kind of selection you want, tell me how would this same biological process turn it into anything but some form of dog?

>>4019
You’re assuming evolution has to turn a dog into something that isn’t a dog, which isn’t how speciation works. Dogs only produce dogs because they’re a very recent lineage. Given enough time and isolation, populations diverge into new species, not completely unrelated animals overnight.

The same process that produces dog breeds (mutation plus selection) is the mechanism of evolution. In nature the difference is time and scale, acting over millions of years rather than a few thousand.

And we absolutely have evidence of larger changes than hair color. New structures evolve by modifying existing ones over time. That’s why vertebrate forelimbs (human arms, bat wings, whale flippers) all share the same underlying bone layout.

>>4013
>Why lose fur? There's no functional benefit to losing fur and only downsides

are you talking about humans?
because we sweat, numbnuts, and our bodies are basically meant to run down prey until it collapses from heat exhaustion in the african savana
literally no one has more sweat glands than we do
how the fuck are you gonna do evaporative cooling with fur retard

i don't get how the retard llm you're actually arguing with didn't bring that up and said it's fucking sexual selection

>>4020
I'm aware of your argument, you seriously believe that if you just did the same exact biological process that created American Bullies, but added more time and with whatever selection method you want, would result in that retarded dog becoming something other than a dog.

It's sort of like claiming that if I randomly modified bits of your RAM, it would eventually form into Google Chrome, instead of just crash your OS or corrupt your data. If you're lucky it might just change a color value, and maybe you like that color better so you keep the change. But this random memory corruption is never going to "accumulate" into Google Chrome.

>>4022
Your analogy doesn’t work.

Randomly modifying bits in RAM won't work because there’s no selection preserving useful changes. Evolution isn’t just mutation, it’s mutation plus selection, where beneficial changes get kept and accumulate over generations.

That process is exactly how related species diverge from a common ancestor. If corrupted RAM could replicate, compete and keep useful changes you would basically be describing evolution.