/u/ZmeiOtPirin ?

Pot smokers probably smoke less than the average cigarette smoker

I was going for sarcasm, but yes.

>Evolution isn't merely about dying.

Please highlight where I said this.

>Evolution is here, alive and well.

Or where I claimed evolution is something that isn't happening.

Like I said, you should have spent more time reading/thinking before replying.

You deny that we are able to overcome any of the restrictions evolution has imposed on us? So any time a child is born premature and survives due to modern medicine, when they would have died otherwise, that is what exactly? Any time someone with a genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease is saved with at coronary artery bypass, what are we doing if we are not preventing a consequence of evolution?

Maybe try having a few days think before replying this time.

>The metaphor reflects reality better than the nihilistic assertion that nothing matters in evolution.

No one made any assertion that nothing matters in evolution. Somewhat ironically, given you are talking about absent-minded misunderstanding, you apparently need to refresh yourself on what nihilism is.

>Yeah and what I've been telling you is that the fittest species are those that utillise death rather than some immortals. Being immortal is actually pretty bad in terms of the long term fitness of a species.

So you're under the impression that mankind is still under the same selection pressures as we were 100,000 years ago? Or is it that that we shouldn't bother with medical interventions, because we are lowering the fitness of the population by allowing people to live/reproduce when they otherwise wouldn't?

It's genuinely amazing how people with the least understanding are always the ones who speak with the most authority. The evolutionary benefit of death is something I would expect a high school student to understand. The fact that we are able to escape the consequences of evolution in the modern world is something I would expect a kid to know.

Don't stress about it too much - the fact that you actually linked the study and not some science journalism article puts you way ahead of 99% of posts I see on this sub.

It's good to be cautious when asserting things as factual, so you could definitely add "Study finds ...", but I personally think it makes it more wordy for information that is assumed when you're linking a paper directly.

77 cases in 1.6 million people isn't going to be much different from the background incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis...

Why not take the study title and just include more information from the abstract?

The majority of myocarditis or pericarditis events after BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents are mild and do not require hospitalisation.

Concise, accurate, and it isn't clickbait like the title you chose.

"Flaws" and "features" are arbitrary words that we assign to things as humans. I think you'll find most people, if given the choice, would choose not to die. So in that sense it's a "flaw" for us, isn't it?

Evolution on the other hand isn't an entity with foresight and planning. In that sense nothing is a flaw or feature. It's literally just survival of the fittest.

No.

We evolved in a way in which we die.

That doesn't mean it's impossible to overcome the design flaws of evolution.

We are a very long way away from this btw. We have barely scratched the surface of the underlying biology.

The human body, surprisingly, is more complex than the entropy of a simple system.

Somewhat surprised that you're familiar with the concept of heritability, but not yet come across regression of offspring on mid-parents as a method to estimate it. For example:

Parent-offspring regression to estimate the heritability of an HIV-1 trait in a realistic setup

Comparing parent–offspring regression with frequentist and Bayesian animal models to estimate heritability in wild populations: a simulation study for Gaussian and binary traits

>No, you can't estimate heritability that way, because this can't distinguish between genetic and environmental transmission of traits.

What do you mean by environmental transmission of traits?

Parent-offspring regression is definitely one way to estimate heritability. It has flaws and biases, but no more than estimates derived from twin-studies, which tend to overestimate narrow-sense heritability.

This sounds more like self medication.

Capillaries are very small. We are talking of a scale where red blood cells might only fit through single file. At this microscale, diffusion/osmosis are what predominantly facilitates the movement of useful stuff out of the blood and into the extracellular fluid/cells, and waste back into the blood vessels to be taken away.

Yes, arteries take oxygenated blood to the body and veins return deoxygenated blood to the lungs/heart.

But it isn't like a loop where at some point it becomes a vein. The artery splits and branches like plant roots until it's down to the scale of arterioles, tiny vessels which actually spread the oxygenated blood throughout your tissues via capillaries.

Then there is things like Ebola, which often only cause infections *after* the patient has died.