How You Know This Shit Was Written By Men!

[Huggy Bear]

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.

*emphasis mine*

Here's the thing, the scientific version of evolution is based solely upon the idea that abiogenesis is true. Abiogenesis is unscientific by definition. Science doesn't even entertain the idea of evolution based off of intelligent design, and why not? one is just as unscientific as the other.

As far as evolving away from physical competition, that statement is just false, one of the highest people of 2015 was a boxer with earnings of 300 million.

---

Yes. And you were asserting we've gone backwards because we no longer beat the shit out of each other. So what? I had thought you were able to follow the flow of the conversation.

No, I was asserting that we've gone backwards because we are not as resilient as we used to be, boxing was just an example.

Wrong again. I need not have been present at your birth to see that you've grown since I first met you at age seven.

Here's your shovel.  Keep digging.

Terrible analogy, here's why.

The process of a baby being born and growing to adulthood is fully understood, heck I don't have to know anything about you to know that you were once a baby.

A better example is trying to determine someones growth by looking their shadow, when there are other factors besides growth that can account for a larger shadow.

I noticed you dodge my question...

Do you accept abiogenesis as likely?