Evolution is not a ladder, Huggy. There's no such thing as "de-evolving."
What you're talking about are maladaptive changes in the population, and as usual, you're wrong about that too. See, when you're talking about evolution, you necessarily also have to take into account the environment the population you're discussing finds themselves in. For example, evolving a thick coat of fur is a fantastic adaptation for a population living in a cold climate, but an absolutely disastrous one for that same population if it were living in the desert. Your advances are always relative to your ecological niche.
Now, we'll ignore, for the moment, that your initial claim was both completely unsourced and equally as untested, and focus on the fact that you've arbitrarily decided the marker for whether an evolutionary change is positive or negative is physical resilience, specifically in combat. That might have been true at some point in our past, but the human survival niche has always been cooperation and intellect, not general resistance to being beaten up. Those two traits, among a few others, are what led to us becoming the dominant species on the planet, and improved our survivability immensely. Given our current ecological niche, evolution away from outright physical competition and towards education and technological advancement would be a positive, not a negative; evolution, not de-evolution, according to the way you're using the word.
In other words, according to an actual understanding of evolution and what it does, a decrease in physical toughness would not be a step backward for humans. The only sense in which it would be is in your arbitrary, subjective, and fallacious appeal to tradition.
Perhaps this might be surprising to you, but evolution does not take your personal opinions into account when changes are selected for.
What you're talking about are maladaptive changes in the population, and as usual, you're wrong about that too. See, when you're talking about evolution, you necessarily also have to take into account the environment the population you're discussing finds themselves in. For example, evolving a thick coat of fur is a fantastic adaptation for a population living in a cold climate, but an absolutely disastrous one for that same population if it were living in the desert. Your advances are always relative to your ecological niche.
Now, we'll ignore, for the moment, that your initial claim was both completely unsourced and equally as untested, and focus on the fact that you've arbitrarily decided the marker for whether an evolutionary change is positive or negative is physical resilience, specifically in combat. That might have been true at some point in our past, but the human survival niche has always been cooperation and intellect, not general resistance to being beaten up. Those two traits, among a few others, are what led to us becoming the dominant species on the planet, and improved our survivability immensely. Given our current ecological niche, evolution away from outright physical competition and towards education and technological advancement would be a positive, not a negative; evolution, not de-evolution, according to the way you're using the word.
In other words, according to an actual understanding of evolution and what it does, a decrease in physical toughness would not be a step backward for humans. The only sense in which it would be is in your arbitrary, subjective, and fallacious appeal to tradition.
Perhaps this might be surprising to you, but evolution does not take your personal opinions into account when changes are selected for.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
