by 
iwnit
ANSWERS: 5
-
i'd think evolving is always better. get more intelligent or get more resistant to pre-existing diseases will always be welcomed
-
Evolve I think is better.
-
to regress, is to not learn the lesson, to stay in the same place without reason, to me is like staying in a broken time machine, to evolve and to learn the lesson is to grow, and is to be the example.
-
devolve is better. evolution is cancer. look how we turned out.
-
Great thought-provoker! Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as "devolving." I know a lot of people use the blind cave-fish as an example of "backwards evolution." (If you haven't heard of them, it's this species of fish that lives in very dark habitats that have vestigial remnant of eyes. It appears that they "lost" their eyes after they started living in caves) But really, things that look like de-evolving to us are actually really clever ways to adapt. Why risk having functional eyes (which use resources to develop and are vulnerable to injury and infection) when you don't need them? It's a waste. So even though from our vantage point, it looks like organisms are regressing, devolution would imply that an organism got worse at surviving as time went on. Since even really primitive looking animals only get better at surviving as time goes on, it's technically still called evolution. Appearances are deceiving! So, to answer your question, to evolve is not only better, it's the only option we have. (that said, DEVO is still an awesome band)
wolfdrakos RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC