[dahart]

Please elaborate, I think you misunderstood me. Are you defending the claim that 1% human body mass reduction is an evolutionary advantage? Your quip about biology should maybe be directed at @roenxi?

I was talking about variation within each species, not across different species. (Edited to clarify) I was talking, in context as a reply to the claim that losing a given vestigial organ would improve (lessen) mortality. Humans, for example, have wide natural variation in body mass, therefore the evidence contradicts the claim that “1% reduction in body mass is a huge advantage evolutionary”.

If a reduction in body mass was an evolutionary advantage, we’d be evolving to be smaller over time. That’s not happening. Why?

In fact, there is an evolutionary advantage in humans to being taller and having more muscle, since these traits are selected for by mates, and are beneficial for hunting.

[JoeAltmaier]

That is the naïve one-variable approach which breaks down immediately. Features all evolve together, the individual thrives or dies as one organism.

Any change in one variable affects all the others, e.g. drop body mass releases calories for other survival purposes. Any increase over the critical need consumes resources better used for other things.

[dahart]

> drop body mass releases calories for other survival purposes. Any increase over the critical need consumes resources better used for other things.

Hahaha you just made the exact naive one-variable mistake you accused me of once sentence earlier. Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that reduced body mass is beneficial for human evolution? Back your claim up. Show me. Where is it? Losing body mass is an evolutionary disadvantage at least as often as it’s an advantage, which is why humans are evolving to be larger over time and not smaller. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t back up yours and @roenxi’s claim about body mass vs evolution.

It seems like you’re making stuff up and moving the goal posts. We’re talking about evolution, and you’re defending @roenxi’s claim that having 1% less body mass is a huge evolutionary advantage, so tell me what calories are “released” with lower body mass when an individual is compared to it’s neighbor? Where were they being held? Please define “critical need”. What “other things” will these released calories do? You’re making an enormous number of unexplained assumptions.

Body mass is beneficial for hibernation in many species, beneficial for energy to survive winters and periods of no food, beneficial for muscle growth for hunting and attracting mates, beneficial for defending one’s self, etc. etc. I mentioned those last two already and notice you quietly ignored them without being able to address them at all. Having lower body mass than neighbors makes an individual more likely to be prey, less likely to succeed at hunting or mating, and gives them a shorter survival time without food.

You’re certainly not convincing me you have a grasp on evolutionary biology, but by all means continue the thinly veiled insults and smug remarks that attempt to compensate for it, and maybe you’ll win some internet points.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sorry wasn't criticizing anything but the theory. Didn't mean for any comment to be seen as personal.

I don't think I can say anything more without it being misinterpreted here.

[dahart]

Hehe I’m sure you could manage if you had any valid theory critique or any actual answer to the fact that the outcomes of human evolution disprove your claim about body mass. I see why it’s convenient to drop here, so I understand.