- Kenny Pwns2
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
At least I didn't get kil-
Posted by: Frasier Crane
Posted by: Kenny Pwns2
Posted by: Frasier Crane
How should we know?
I think this raises a good point on the homosapien evolutionary cycle though. Considering we are in an age where almost everything is made infinitely easier by technology, it's only logical to assume that we have reached the peak of our evolutionary pool and will now start devolving back into dysfunctional, less sufficient beings, Idiocracy style. Actually, humans have been getting more intelligent since the beginning of history. Like, not just technology wise, people today have longer and better memories then ever before.
Devolution as a concept is flawed, as evolving backwards doesn't even make sense biologically speaking.I was more referring to physical devolution.
While its entirely possible, some positive features will remain because well, attractive people get laid more often.
And the term devolution irks me, its kind of an oxymoron.
Posted by: XxMuNcHmOnKeYxX
Not true at all. The first "true" animals were more complex than current day sea sponges- they resembled cnidarians more than anything. It's happened in the past and is still happening with many organisms, today. The dysfunctionality of eyes in moles- do you actually think their ancestors were blind>?
I should have made it clearer in my post; the term devolution means evolving backwards. How do you "evolve" backwards? You can become more simple by human standards, but as long as it ensures the longevity of your species, which is what evolution entails, you cannot devolve.
[Edited on 11.29.2012 5:46 PM PST]