I can’t anymore. You are very vocal and very confused and I am not getting through to you. The fact you think Darwin was writing about beaks within his own lifetime is too much for me. I hope you realize that “Darwin’s Finches” are about a dozen distinct species, right? You simply don’t know what you’re talking about,…

I’d love to believe that these idiots’ sense of masculinity is not so fragile as to be so threatened by a female protagonist in a franchise they loved, but sadly “people are idiots” is my go to these days for most of what I see happening in the world.

Your examples all demonstrate that you misunderstand the biochemical foundations of evolution and genetics. You seem to me an armchair scientist. All the traits that you describe arose as genetic mutations and are propagating through the population. You need to think on geologic timescales. You also need to think at a…

I love “Cheeto Benito”, brilliant.

How long till we find out she is fulfilling other first lady duties? And yes I mean that in the grossest way possible.

I hope things get better for you soon.

You seem to be missing the basics of evolution here. Or you don’t understand the meaning of the word propagation. Evolution is the cumulative effect of rare events arising from genetic variability and genetic mutation. Larger beaks and whatnot were once random mutations.

You are correct that we have many vestigal structures. However, we do not have any vestigal bones (who aren’t in the process of reduction - you could argue that pinky toes are vestigal, but they are clearly reduced in humans vs. other apes). I am not an expert in metabolic load to support different types of tissue,…

The key word is propagation. All mutation is random. Disadvantageous mutations do not propagate (they are less likely to be passed on). Advantageous mutations propagate (they are more likely to be passed on). This is the key central concept in evolution. External pressures determine whether a random mutation is…

You think like a well-fed modern human. The cost of carrying and feeding a useless bone to a starved pre-human hominid was likely much higher. Bones are living tissue that have a real metabolic cost to maintain. “Sexual” selection, aka mate selection, is not the only form of natural selection.

1. Yes, selective pressure is the reason why any mutation propagates. In this case, leaf chewers benefit from more chewy molars, so genes that cause more teeth to form are favored. We don’t do that so much anymore, so the selective pressure is gone, and over evolutionary time scales, the gene for wisdom teeth…

I meant that the selective pressure against the penis bone is NOT sexual selection, but is still natural selection. It’s kind of the opposite of the giraffe neck - having a penis bone is a disadvantage, so getting rid of the bone was an advantage. I was describing the nature of the disadvantage.

Yes, scientists understand evolution. Just because the explanation doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean that someone else doesn’t understand it. In fact natural selection encompasses both things you think are incompatible with each other.

False dichotomy - just because you can survive after removing something doesn’t make you more fit (for survival and reproduction) than if you still had it. Both these organs serve a purpose - e.g. the appendix has functions that are apparent now and weren’t fully appreciate in the past.

Yes! This is it!

You should think of it more as building a bone and maintaining its health (bone is living tissue) is a waste of resources if it doesn’t help you in any way. Gradually individuals with smaller or no bones will be better off and better able to reproduce.

From a biological perspective, having one partner at a time is monogamous. I think the terminology is monogamy doesn’t mean mate for life. This applies to human and non-human animals from a biological perspective. Monogamy from a social perspective has a different meaning, implying marriage (the “gamy” means…

The selective pressure is the resources devoted by the body to building bones. If the bone is useless, individuals with bigger bones are less fit than those without due to the waste of metabolic resources.

I know you are correct even if OP didn’t see it at first.

No, he’s actually correct. See my reply as well.