Evolution? Or De-evolution?!?

Which implies that prior to TV, the blue-collar man's hobby was fucking. I doubt television was an upgrade.

 

You make a persuasive argument Sitka, and I'm willing to attack a power plant with you, should the need arise.

 

You seem to have de-evolved to the point at which you're the sort of blibbering fool that does not know that evolution only moves in one direction.

The only way to de-evolve is to reverse time. We are evolving, no matter how little you like the direction it's going.

 

Thank you for being one of the few people on this forum who has common sense.

My hero.

 

I somewhat disagree.

Biologically, you're both correct. Devolution doesn't happen. Things adapt successfully or unsuccessfully to their environments. They thrive or they die, but either way they are changing to their environment which is always evolution.

But I think the poster was speaking in a social construct. Devolution means the decay of something, in this instance modern society, which were the entire points he raised with the OP.

I don't agree, and he used the context of society and biology incorrectly, but he was talking about the sociological context of it. In which devolution is apropos.

I myself am an optimist. I think things really are getting better. And we're just hearing about how bad things have always been is becoming apparent with the spread of information to the masses.

To which I would say the internet has a large part in.

 

Indeed, I think that movie, silly and low budget as iit was, had a valid "message".

There's a lot more population now than there used to be. Growing every day. I fear it may be true that the "masses" that are producing children at a pace to cause overpopulation are not the "masses" that recognize the problems it brings about. There is a point where there are "too many" 3 to 8 child families that then have each child also have 3 to 8 children. We have been there awhile now but "they" have mostly been in parts of the world that are not generally hanging out on forums saying how silly the notion is.

And for those that are being "technical" about "de-evolution" being unable to occur - sure that is "correct" but hopefully they at least grok the point being made (even if they do not agree). It's more like "advancement" is being "diluted".

 

Why do you say that? We are the only species on the earth that has managed to perfect the practice of survival of the least fit.

 

The past two posts already covered that very clearly.

Devolution (Not De-Evolution) is a social construct which can occur.

Evolution can be a social or biological term. as a biological term it means the change of a species over time. Neither for the benefit nor to the detriment of the species. Simply change. Biologically, devolution can't occur.

 

That is still evolving, in a sense. I saw an evolution chart a couple of weeks ago - I think someone posted it on here actually - and it showed man's journey towards walking on two feet, then the last person was really fucking fat and slumped over. It was hilarious. But I digress. That still isn't devolution. To devolve suggests that the gene mutations that have gotten us to this point will reverse themselves.

 

I can't tell if this is a hilarious pun about fat people fucking or if you really don't understand the concept of evolutionary fitness.