42 replies to this topic

[olli]

SWG, you are missing the point. You have just Wiki-ed something and are now rattling it off with no understanding of it.

A species, a WHOLE species.. i.e. the whole god damn race doesn't evolve into a weaker state. It doesn't happen.

Take humans for example. Yes, we have evolved to become less ape like, and with this there has been a decrease in muscle size, BUT this does not mean that the species is a "weaker state". We are the most dominant species on the planet. We can decide what lives and what dies, we decide the rules, we decide where we live. Nothing, on earth, is more dominant than us. We have shaped the planet to what it is now.

By your understanding, we should have died out because we lost an advantage we used to have, and became physically 'weaker' (smaller muscles). But, as seen that is not the case. It doesn't work like that. Our intelligence and cognitive capabilities have evolved to be so advanced, meaning we don't need the use of larger muscles anymore. We evolved to not need them any more.

Tell me then, what species has become extinct because they all evolved to become shit?

Some of the things you say tell me you really don't understand this. We haven't isolated ourselves from Natural selection at all. Yes, ok advancements in medicine mean less people die from illnesses. But, how do you think this is balanced? How many people die each day from the following? Alcohol? Smoking? Drugs? And lets not even start on deaths per day involving poor judgment and stupid actions; Trying to run a level crossing, doing stupid things with guns, playing with fireworks etc etc.

Your last paragraph is the icing on the cake. This says more than anything else you really don't understand it.

The whole point of evolution is to become adapted to the environment you bloody well live in. Just because we couldn't survive well on the moon, or in the arctic, or in another hostile environment that is very dissimilar from our own, it does not mean we have de-evolved.

[some_weirdGuy]

I only come in the argue the other side for the sake of debate. You constantly telling me that i don't understand is getting very annoying. I have learned NOTHING new here(from you), i already knew EVERYTHING you have said so far. I understood completely your opinion and view in this matter from the beginning.

I didn't even really give much thought to devolution as a concept till now, but then decided 'hey, it might be fun to have a little debate, try going against my own opinions for a change, might even learn something about devolution in the process'... Big mistake. While the discussion itself wasn't to bad (although not nearly as much fun as i was hoping, not by a long shot...) your constant insistence in telling me i don't understand has made this thoroughly unenjoyable. I told you i know exactly what you mean, i don't make a habit of lying, so please stop insinuating that i am.

Anyway, for the record i actually agreed(for the most part) with your side all along, and while devolution has its merits, and could very well be accepted as plausible, i still agree more with the progressive evolution principles of which you have been arguing for. We have become more adapted to our environment (even if like i said a number of degradations, due to it being a less harsh environment, have occurred).

[olli]

I only come in the argue the other side for the sake of debate. You constantly telling me that i don't understand is getting very annoying. I have learned NOTHING new here(from you), i already knew EVERYTHING you have said so far. I understood completely your opinion and view in this matter from the beginning.

I didn't even really give much thought to devolution as a concept till now, but then decided 'hey, it might be fun to have a little debate, try going against my own opinions for a change, might even learn something about devolution in the process'... Big mistake. While the discussion itself wasn't to bad (although not nearly as much fun as i was hoping, not by a long shot...) your constant insistence in telling me i don't understand has made this thoroughly unenjoyable. I told you i know exactly what you mean, i don't make a habit of lying, so please stop insinuating that i am.

Anyway, for the record i actually agreed(for the most part) with your side all along, and while devolution has its merits, and could very well be accepted as plausible, i still agree more with the progressive evolution principles of which you have been arguing for. We have become more adapted to our environment (even if like i said a number of degradations, due to it being a less harsh environment, have occurred).

When you were stating things that were not entirely true, I just said you didn't understand.

I was arguing from my side. If you cant deal with a bit of heated discussion then grow a pair. Stop acting like you are so hard done by.