Not less evolved. Just evolved differently for alternative environmental circumstances.
There is no hierarchy of evolutionary traits. Just an amalgamation of traits that are or are not useful in the current environment. What genetic makeup is effective in one place and time is useless in another, and what was once useless may now be beneficial.
We have no clue how threatening they could potentially be.
Ok, but evolution doesn’t follow a straight path. The ancestors of whales looked like wolves, while whales look, act, and function much more like fish, which those wolf-like pre-whales evolved from way earlier up the line. This is a common misconception about evolution, so don’t feel bad for getting caught in it.
I’m not disagreeing with you here, but wouldn’t it be fair to say there is a gradient, but it is dynamic and defined by the current environment and what it takes to survive it?
Maybe the goal posta keep moving but we are talking about a very large time scale, so long that, for at least a couple of million years, what could be defined as more or less evolved might seem or be descibed as pretty solid.
Although i suppose its not fair to say more or less evolved and might be more accurate to say more or less well adapted.
The question is more or less adapted to what? An elephant is more adapted than a mouse to the daily activities of an elephant, and vice-versa. An elephant might be more well adapted for our current environment for elephant tasks than, say, a wooly mammoth, but it could just be that the wooly mammoth was actually the more well adapted animal except for being the only megafauna in an area with humans, eventually leading to extinction by hunting. There’s a million and one ways to be adapted to an environment.
But in your example, humans are part of the environment. Or at least they are a factor in your ability to survive. Part of being adapted and being able to survive is surviving your predators. Dont you agree?
I dont know if i agree that being adapted to “elephant tasks” is a good marker to measure how adapted elephants are. If an elephant can eat, reproduce, and defend or hide itself from predators or deadly flora or weather, etc, then i would look at the elephant and argue it is well adapted.
Unless you think that predators change things or you dont consider humans as predators because we dont always kill for survival.
I dunno, im kind of just fleshing this out in my head as we speak.
Viruses and bacteria don’t evolve to kill you. They propogate in your system to spread themselves. It’s actually in their best interest to keep you alive, so the more evolved ones would be less deadly because they’ve had more time to dial it in. Not that evolution is something they choose, it’s from mutations that work more or less better.
They are investigating it, some million years in the oldest beeings in Earth don’t make evolutive difference to the current ones. The only question is, if they can infect humans or animals or not.
The climate change make that all tipe of indesirable things are defrosted, adding more dangerous diseases to the existing ones.
Although, most likely less-evolved hence less-threathening than the current virus and bacterias.
That’s not how evolution works.
Not less evolved. Just evolved differently for alternative environmental circumstances.
There is no hierarchy of evolutionary traits. Just an amalgamation of traits that are or are not useful in the current environment. What genetic makeup is effective in one place and time is useless in another, and what was once useless may now be beneficial.
We have no clue how threatening they could potentially be.
Less evolved as in the product of less evolution. There is such a thing as more and less because more happens over time.
Ok, but evolution doesn’t follow a straight path. The ancestors of whales looked like wolves, while whales look, act, and function much more like fish, which those wolf-like pre-whales evolved from way earlier up the line. This is a common misconception about evolution, so don’t feel bad for getting caught in it.
Nothing about the phrase “more evolved” implies a “straight path” of evolution
To have “more or less” of something implies the effectiveness of the product is directly caused by the metric being measured.
The amount of time a genotype took to evolve has no bearing on the effectiveness.
There is no such thing as “more/less evolved”. There is no gradient. Something either is evolved to adapt to its environment or it isn’t.
I’m not disagreeing with you here, but wouldn’t it be fair to say there is a gradient, but it is dynamic and defined by the current environment and what it takes to survive it?
Maybe the goal posta keep moving but we are talking about a very large time scale, so long that, for at least a couple of million years, what could be defined as more or less evolved might seem or be descibed as pretty solid.
Although i suppose its not fair to say more or less evolved and might be more accurate to say more or less well adapted.
The question is more or less adapted to what? An elephant is more adapted than a mouse to the daily activities of an elephant, and vice-versa. An elephant might be more well adapted for our current environment for elephant tasks than, say, a wooly mammoth, but it could just be that the wooly mammoth was actually the more well adapted animal except for being the only megafauna in an area with humans, eventually leading to extinction by hunting. There’s a million and one ways to be adapted to an environment.
But in your example, humans are part of the environment. Or at least they are a factor in your ability to survive. Part of being adapted and being able to survive is surviving your predators. Dont you agree?
I dont know if i agree that being adapted to “elephant tasks” is a good marker to measure how adapted elephants are. If an elephant can eat, reproduce, and defend or hide itself from predators or deadly flora or weather, etc, then i would look at the elephant and argue it is well adapted.
Unless you think that predators change things or you dont consider humans as predators because we dont always kill for survival.
I dunno, im kind of just fleshing this out in my head as we speak.
Viruses and bacteria don’t evolve to kill you. They propogate in your system to spread themselves. It’s actually in their best interest to keep you alive, so the more evolved ones would be less deadly because they’ve had more time to dial it in. Not that evolution is something they choose, it’s from mutations that work more or less better.
Is the saber toothed tiger less threatening than the common house cat ?
Yes, saber toothed tiger can’t manipulate humans.
It’d have a fair go at manipulating your arm off your torso given the chance.
If it can’t survive in today’s environment then yes.
They are investigating it, some million years in the oldest beeings in Earth don’t make evolutive difference to the current ones. The only question is, if they can infect humans or animals or not. The climate change make that all tipe of indesirable things are defrosted, adding more dangerous diseases to the existing ones.