Comment

Comment by pinkmuffinere

> as far as we know." Every few years, I see in the headlines stuff like "oldest 'human' ever found in X."

The discovery of older humans does not respond to the point you’re arguing against — in evolutionary time scales, humans are recent.

> The theory of evolution itself has morphed since Darwin [0], and is probably far from being in its definitive form.

Fields continue to change as they grow older, but the magnitude of changes tend to get smaller. Of course evolution will change, but it would be very surprising to have large changes in the fundamental elements

> Thinking about painful pregnancies and birth, [1] hints at the "need" for pain/discomfort.

Evolution only optimizes for what results in dna being passed on. It doesn’t care about ancillary details. I think painful childbirth pretty much shouldn’t matter much to evolution, because the parents have no control over the birth at that point — it’s happening one way or another. Perhaps it promotes bonding with the child, or something like that? But in general, I think it’s wrong to say “evolution provided X, so X must be needed”. If X has no significant effect on the passage of dna, then it could just be random noise.

parent pinkmuffinere 6 months ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton