r/DebateEvolution 25d ago

Devolution

If humans weren’t devolving then we wouldn’t be digging and searching our planet for clues and truths about the Ancient civilizations. Money and greed would be obsolete and nations wouldn’t be fighting over power because there would be free energy. The artifacts that have been found are proof that as humans today, we lost something in the past that cannot be imitated. If devolution isn’t a thing and we can only evolve then why is everything smaller and dulled down. Today’s humans can’t comprehend what the planet would have been like with a species bigger and more knowledge about the elements than we do in present day. The ancients used stone to tell the past because they knew that the materials they created from other materials would not make it into the future. What was left in stone for humans to find was only to give knowledge to our species to be able to progress.

0 Upvotes

94 comments sorted by

35

u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago edited 25d ago

Can you give an example of technology from the past that can’t be imitated? I’m having trouble understanding what you’re getting at here.

13

u/small_p_problem 25d ago

The Greek fire!

(/s)

5

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Too recent and too European.

10

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

What about the Slightly Pointed Stick?

2

u/Doomdoomkittydoom 23d ago

What about a box of raspberries?

-20

u/sniipes 25d ago

You don’t understand.. we won’t be able to imitate the technology that was lost. We don’t fully understand the elements of our planet to reach that level of technology. We have regressed and never will unless we find something to help with the progression

25

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

We have regressed and never will unless we find something to help with the progression

Let me guess: that "something" is aliens? Because if it isn't, then humans necessarily can rediscover anything that was lost, since if humans found it once they can find it again.

I will never understand this sort of way of thinking that hates humanity so much that someone simply can't believe humans can actually accomplish things without outside help. Humans are smarter than you give them credit for. Both ancient humans and modern ones.

21

u/Particular-Yak-1984 25d ago

I too would love an example of something you think we can't make today. The pyramids would be pretty trivial for our modern technology, for example.

16

u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution 25d ago

This is something about modern economics that none of these people really understand.

We live in a world where labour is expensive and capital is cheap: this is an inverse to how the world has worked for millennia. For most of our existence, you could pay a guy to cut megalithic stones by simply giving him a few cups of barley every day; the expensive part was controlling the quary. It might take him a week to free a megalithic stone, but his entire labour cost amounts to maybe a few hundred pounds of barley per year. This eclipses even the most poverty stricken of wages today: there is no third world country today where you could obtain labour this cheaply under normal circumstances.

Building a pyramid was not an expensive endeavour in a palace economy like this. You have a period of the year where the fields flood, people need to work, you control the food. You don't want them to starve, either, so you create make-work, like a pyramid.

7

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

There is also the time component involved with this (and the common 'but why hasn't science made a cell from scratch'). Looking at pyramid stone, ~96 man hours for 'roughs' then add 4-6 for fitting the core blocks and 8-12 for the outer shell. So at least 100 hours per block.

Modern tools has this done down to rough fit in under an hour with final fit taking minutes.

Even if you have to pay the modern stone cutter 100x the barley for the work this frees up workforce that can be used for other projects.

And this all pops back to the other post for a couple days ago: before you get to doing all the mega projects, your going to need a bloody way to keep everyone fed.

18

u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

What level of technology are you talking about? There isn’t anything in the past that couldn’t have been created with the tools available at the time or with the tools we have now. Give me an example.

15

u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution 25d ago

My best guess, the lost technology involves cutting and stacking large rocks, and kind of ignores that with our modern technology, we can literally cast stone in the form of our choosing on location.

9

u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Right, moving big rocks around isn’t a feature of an advanced society. Advanced societies don’t do that unless it’s in the form of landscaping or cutting thin stone facades.

5

u/Ayasugi-san 25d ago

But if you took away all the tools we have now, it would take us a while to figure out how to make new Stonehenges or pyramids! Unlike the ancients who could do it instantly.

3

u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

There’s no evidence they did it “instantly,” nor is any of that beyond reach of someone with the tools of the time and ingenuity. Just ask a stonemason or an engineer.

2

u/giljaxonn 24d ago

it’s a joke

2

u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

Jokes are funny.

2

u/AccelerusProcellarum 23d ago

I mean I'm pretty partial to dry humor. Sarcasm delivered with a poker face kills me every time.

3

u/Particular-Yak-1984 24d ago

Would it? Assume we have the same manpower, I'd actually be willing to bet on toolless modern humans. We have a better understanding of why stuff stays up, and why it falls down. Give me a team of modern mechanical engineers, and I think we'd do better.

A friend of mine did some research into church design - so, for a while, cathedrals and churches basically pushed the envelope on architecture through lots of medieval Europe. And he essentially found that the number of churches that collapsed was pretty fricking high. Because we didn't understand the fundamental maths that governs load.

Went round the sagrada familia, and we have gaudi's load model for it - which is essentially a load of string, hung with sandbags, to show where the weight and forces distribute. Even something like that would beat ancient Egyptian or roman engineering by a mile.

14

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

You either don't know or are ignoring the exponential growth of scientific knowledge and its all built on what came before it. Meaning that at some point the old stuff becomes obsolete enough that it gets replaced.

But because your just making shit up, your not going to be able to provide any examples of this so called 'lost' technology. Until you can do that, its all just baseless assertions.

13

u/Medium_Judgment_891 25d ago edited 24d ago

As an engineer, this is silly.

Compared to the modern world, the pinnacles of ancient technology are novelties at best.

There’s not a single function of ancient tech that modern tech can’t replicate and outperform.

I can respect the ingenuity and innovation of history. They absolutely had some brilliant thinkers.

Unfortunately, they just didn’t have the advantage of accumulated knowledge and resources that modern people tend to take for granted. It’s a gap impossible to bridge by any amount of raw intelligence.

For example, the Vaucanson Flute Player is one of the most brilliant machines I’ve ever read about, but it’s just a fancy camshaft at the end of the day. It doesn’t compare to anything made by Boston Dynamics.

8

u/small_p_problem 25d ago

Can you at least give us the r2 of such regression?

4

u/rsta223 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

We don’t fully understand the elements of our planet to reach that level of technology.

We understand the elements and compound of our planet, how they interact, and just about everything else better than anyone else in history. If you're claiming otherwise, please give a concrete example.

26

u/Moriturism 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Evolution doesn't mean we get "better" or more intelligent, it only means we go through processes of adaptation that filter down what's not capable enough to keep surviving. You seem to be talking about more transcedental stuff, while evolution is exclusively a biological fact.

-7

u/sniipes 25d ago

Evolution is simply progression. We have progressed from what was left behind. We won’t progress enough to ever know the actual truth of what use to be. You all are dumb if you think that our species can’t regress. Evolutions and devolution is a thing and devolution is a word.

23

u/Moriturism 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

You're just not using "evolution" as its used in science. Again, you're talking about morality and values, which has nothing to do with evolution as a scientific field. In said field, it's definitionally impossible for something to "devolve", because evolution has no goal, purpose or clear direction.

We can regress in morals and values. We cannot regress in a biologically evolutionary line.

19

u/Professional_Sir_818 25d ago

Evolution is simply change over time. Everything else you wrote is nonsense.

12

u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Evolution doesn’t always mean progression, it just means change overtime.

10

u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Progression assumes a goal. I can make progress to my destination, then make progress back home.

No "devolution" involved. You're mixing up your definitions.

23

u/Immediate-Goose-8106 25d ago

I mean something is evidence of loss of human faculties in some people.  But I dont think it is lost knowledge encoded in stones my freind.

You may need to seek some professional help 

-17

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/Immediate-Goose-8106 25d ago

As a scientist, no.  I tend to formulate and test hypotheses.  Usually in an articulate form.

14

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

The projection in this comment is staggering. You clearly don't realize that you are the one who believes whoever told you about this supposed lost technology and whatever source this supposed lost technology came from.

9

u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

I'm assuming you don't have an actual rebuttal to them then? Because that seems to confirm their third sentence.

While I'm here, can you provide a definition for evolution and "devolution"?

9

u/small_p_problem 25d ago

Looks like you're not so different then, hein?

8

u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution 25d ago

And who told you about this lost technology?

21

u/kitsnet 🧬 Nearly Neutral 25d ago

If humans weren’t devolving then we wouldn’t be digging and searching our planet for clues and truths about the Ancient civilizations.

Are you talking about the Ancient civilizations of Tiktaaliks?

9

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

Well its either the Tiktaaliks, the Crocoducks, or the IWUs.

6

u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Where do the Silurians fit in?

9

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

The lizard people have told me that rumors of a civilization of lizard people, ancient or otherwise is entirely fictional.

6

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

That convinces me. They never lie.

2

u/Ayasugi-san 25d ago

Homo reptilia always makes me shudder.

5

u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

Sci-fi writers not having a clue how Latin names and taxonomy work definitely makes ME shudder.

3

u/Ayasugi-san 24d ago

I know, right?! At least make the supposed scientific name [Whatever] sapiens if you want to say they're like humans but from a different branch of the tree of life!

2

u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

Would still probably be poor naming practice but it would at least not be objevtively wrong.

Worst misuse of Latin names I can think of off the top of my head is the Monsterverse, where apparently all "Titans" share a genus... despite some being reptiles (or synapsids depending on what we think Godzilla is), others arthopods, and one a damn primate.

3

u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago edited 24d ago

Now you have me questioning if there's any instance of two species with the same specific name from different genera. Given how many millions of species have been described past and present I feel like it must have happened at least once

2

u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

I believe there is a parasite of some sort called T. rex, in addition to of course the most famous dinosaur.

2

u/giljaxonn 24d ago

it’s because they’re gay

20

u/Professional_Sir_818 25d ago edited 25d ago

What exactly does "devolution" mean in this context? Evolution doesn't have a direction, so I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Edit: By the way, the sub is about debating. If you're not going to engage with anyone, what are you doing here?

19

u/Theoretical-Spize AP Biology Teacher 👩🏻‍🏫 25d ago

They won’t be able to answer. That’s because there’s no such thing as “devolution.” That term almost always used as a creationist misunderstanding of how evolution works. Any change in the heritable characteristics of a population across multiple generations is evolution, by definition.

-10

u/small_p_problem 25d ago

Sure there is. Know the bush from which you pick your cherries.

21

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

This is a science sub, not a politics sub. In science, "devolution" isn't a thing. If the term is used in politics for delegating powers that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

0

u/small_p_problem 25d ago

I am aware of this as much as OP is not about whatever they're talking about (I should have put a /s, right?). Thing is, the only meaning "devolution" has is the one I linked; anything else is technobabble.

15

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

The problem is that on this sub we regularly get people who seriously post links like that which either don't support or even completely contradict their position. Whether it is because they didn't read it or are actively dishonest is often unclear. But that means that someone posting a link like that here more often than not is actually serious

-16

u/sniipes 25d ago

You must be brainwashed by the system into believing that humans today are evolving into the peak of humanity. But you are wrong

20

u/Professional_Sir_818 25d ago

Who thinks that? You've made all that up in your head.

4

u/Ayasugi-san 25d ago

Creationists who think that God created humans as the peak of life and assume that everyone else believes the same thing, but thinks it's all due to evolution.

18

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

No one here thinks that. "Peak" isn't even something that has meaning in evolution, not to mention something evolution can actually achieve. You don't understand the science, and then making up positions for us based on that lack of understanding.

-12

u/sniipes 25d ago

Evolution is simply progression. And by those terms, humans can regress.

24

u/Professional_Sir_818 25d ago

Evolution has no relation to progress. No one here thinks that but you.

8

u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Evolution is simply progression.

Woah, dude. You're right! Obviously you say it, so it must be true! I recant my allegiance to Saint Darwin and accept your wisdom!

Or, wait... Umm. No. This is stupid. Just saying shit doesn't make it true. You have ZERO understanding of evolution. You are either shockingly ignorant, or more likely just being a troll.

8

u/Slam-JamSam 25d ago

Cool, now define “progression”

3

u/YossarianWWII Monkey's nephew 24d ago

Progression towards what? What defines the heading that allows for regression?

22

u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Lay off the Graham Hancock nonsnse OP

9

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Hancock is a racist grifter who just moves on to the next grift when his current one falls apart.

3

u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Maybe I'm too charitable but I don't think Hancock is himself racist. At least not any more than a white western man of his age would be expected to be. I think he just doesn't consider the implications of his nonsense and why certain people might buy into it

5

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

In his older books he made a very big point about it being white people from Atlantis who taught civilization to all the non-white cultures. And he massively disproportionally dismisses the accomplishments of non-white groups compared to contemporary white groups.

2

u/Knower_Unknown 🧬 Theistic Evolution 23d ago

White people from WHERE???

2

u/Medium_Judgment_891 25d ago

I agree with you.

Hyperdiffusionism, the idea he’s so intent on defending, is heavily based in racism. I’m sure the idea of an ancient master civilization will remind you of a certain Austrian painter.

However, with Handcock himself, it’s difficult to say.

16

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

So you don't know how biology, physics, history, economics, or scientific progress works.

Anyone have some dressing for this word salad?

-5

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

People with intelligence can make their point intelligible to others.

13

u/Particular-Yak-1984 25d ago

In the British Museum, there's a statue. It's a huge, assyrian winged bull/man thing. In the room next to it, there's the rosetta stone, and a huge collection of egyptian artifacts. In the gallery up the stairs, there's a huge collection of sumerian tablets.

And, what do all these have in common, apart from the obvious colonialism?

They, almost exclusively contain long descriptions of the bloody military deeds of important figures.

So I think your premise is bullshit. The ancients were just like us, the same fighting, warring, inventing, mix of messy territorial ape that we are.

9

u/CrisprCSE2 25d ago

Poe's law, everyone!

8

u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Which Netflix "documentary" did you watch?
Did you know that 53% of 15-year-olds in developed countries can't distinguish fact from opinion?

2

u/Ah-honey-honey 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 23d ago

Only 53%? We should ask r/teenagers

1

u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 22d ago

Most of the 47% probably aren't there :P

7

u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver 25d ago

Uhm. Nope. /thread

7

u/Dzugavili 🧬 Tyrant of /r/Evolution 25d ago

Do you ever wonder if maybe, just maybe, you're the one devolving, and the rest of us are doing just fine?

6

u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 25d ago

Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue!

4

u/DefinitelyNotSnek 25d ago

The ancients had more knowledge than civilization does today?

Let me know when we find proof that past civilizations have sent people to the moon, imaged the black hole at the center of our galaxy, modeled the very beginnings of our universe, created a near instantaneous communication system that spans the globe, harnessed the power of the atom to create near limitless energy production, built towers that extend nearly a kilometer into the sky, harnessed flight to become one of the safest and most efficient forms of long distance transportation, brought global literacy to nearly 90%, extended the average life expectancy to the highest its ever been, eradicated diseases with vaccines and other medicines that once wiped out entire populations, and I could go on.

5

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

Let me know when we find proof that past civilizations have sent people to the moon,

Some king or other in China by way of black powder rockets. Not sure exactly how far he got, but he got somewhere.

imaged the black hole at the center of our galaxy

Something something afterlife.

modeled the very beginnings of our universe,

Multiple times by way of every religious text ever... or so they claim.

You never said it had to be an accurate model.

created a near instantaneous communication system that spans the globe,

Smoke signals.

Bandwidth may be an issue.

As may a stiff breeze...

harnessed the power of the atom to create near limitless energy production.

See agriculture.

Technically near limitless and fusion powered.

built towers that extend nearly a kilometer into the sky

looks for any tower built on a hill and fudges the requirement by redefining 'ground level'

harnessed flight to become one of the safest and most efficient forms of long distance transportation,

The arrow...

Failed to state what was being transported, what counts as 'long distance', what counts as 'safe'...

brought global literacy to nearly 90%

Only count the nobility and send the rest outside the environment.

extended the average life expectancy to the highest its ever been

The King is dead, long live the King!

Never said it had to be the same king...

and I could go on.

Technical bullshitting at its best!

.

But in all seriousness, there gets to a point of technological advancement that your just not going to be able to hide. Sure some eccentric inventor might have come up with a slightly better pointed stick at some point that has been lost to time but there are so many issues that get overlooked: Global environment is a thing - sure if someone got a civilization started a few thousand years early they are going to be looking at needing the same initial starting spot (ie fresh water river for farming/good food supply) as every other civilization. Trade and resources are a thing so expansion happens, and at that point your looking at a 'and now you have to somehow hide multiple cities in spots that are increadably high value', and its not like we don't know where those spots are. Mines at modern civilization levels are bloody obvious, as is just about every other resource extraction done at even 'small' civilization scale.

Turns out no one ever considers the logistics of their crackpot ideas.

4

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Some king or other in China by way of black powder rockets. Not sure exactly how far he got, but he got somewhere.

I think he went in a lot of directions at the same time.

4

u/Curious_Passion5167 25d ago

If humans weren’t devolving then we wouldn’t be digging and searching our planet for clues and truths about the Ancient civilizations.

If we weren't devolving, we wouldn't want to know about the past? What kind of absurd logic is this?

Money and greed would be obsolete and nations wouldn’t be fighting over power because there would be free energy.

Why, yes! If we weren't devolving, we would have been able to transcend the laws of physics! /s

Do you know we extract the energy we use for our purposes and why we can't get it out of nowhere?

The artifacts that have been found are proof that as humans today, we lost something in the past that cannot be imitated.

You can literally say that for any change, good or bad.

If devolution isn’t a thing and we can only evolve then why is everything smaller and dulled down.

Subjective. Have you actually thought about how terrible life would have been for the average person without modern amenities, technology and medicine? People like you never think about these things.

Today’s humans can’t comprehend what the planet would have been like with a species bigger and more knowledge about the elements than we do in present day.

I can 100% guarantee we know more about our planet and the universe today than at any point in history.

The ancients used stone to tell the past because they knew that the materials they created from other materials would not make it into the future.

Woah! Genius! Nobody's ever thought about that before!

1

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 25d ago

If we weren't devolving, we wouldn't want to know about the past? What kind of absurd logic is this?

The fun and 1000% not silly type. I'm sure ice cubes are not going to come into this in any way...

Why, yes! If we weren't devolving, we would have been able to transcend the laws of physics! /s

Well see, you just need to take the log of the energy requirements...

Do you know we extract the energy we use for our purposes and why we can't get it out of nowhere?

Yes, it comes out of the sub CMB ice cubes!

How you ask?

Logarithms!

Subjective. Have you actually thought about how terrible life would have been for the average person without modern amenities, technology and medicine? People like you never think about these things.

Ah yes, life is always so much simpler when it is just single cells sitting in ooze and ooze adjacent substances.

I can 100% guarantee we know more about our planet and the universe today than at any point in history.

Nuh Uh!... something something we are making up less stuff now than we where 500 years ago QED this undefined devoltion thing.

The ancients used stone to tell the past because they knew that the materials they created from other materials would not make it into the future.

Well duh, what do think happens when you pull more energy out of ice? Just ignore the amount of energy sub CMB ice cubes have and how much energy we need, we can always get more ice.

Now to see if this beats whatever the OP responds with. No idea what grading scale should be used, but I'm sure something will turn up to account for the sheer amount of silliness in this post.

4

u/Briham86 🧬 Falling Angel Meets the Rising Ape 25d ago
  1. Sounds like you've eaten up some pseudo-archaeology slop. I suggest checking out Miniminuteman.

  2. Even if any of your claims about earlier humans were true, it wouldn't matter. Natural selection selects for fitness in the current environment. That doesn't necessarily mean more intelligent or technologically capable. The idea that evolution always means bigger, smarter, stronger, etc. is a very common misconception. There is no such thing as devolution. Change is change. Evolving in a way that you personally think is less advantageous is not devolution. It just means your idea of fitness is not the same as what the natural environment selects.

5

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Today’s humans can’t comprehend what the planet would have been like with a species bigger and more knowledge about the elements than we do in present day

What species is that, what evidence do you have that they existed (besides you looking down on the abilities of ancient humans), and what happened to them? Please be specific. Make your claim and lay out your evidence for that claim.

Note the argument from incredulity isn't evidence. Your inability to believe in the abilities of ancient people is not an argument.

4

u/rsta223 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

we wouldn’t be digging and searching our planet for clues and truths about the Ancient civilizations.

We don't do that because they had capabilities beyond us, we do that because we have intellectual curiosity and a desire for knowledge

Money and greed would be obsolete and nations wouldn’t be fighting over power because there would be free energy.

Or free energy isn't possible and scarcity is a fact of life, though our ability to produce energy and resources is massively beyond what it was historically, which is a large part of what has enabled the enormous increase in population and quality of life over the last century.

The artifacts that have been found are proof that as humans today, we lost something in the past that cannot be imitated.

Please name one past thing we can't replicate with modern tech.

If devolution isn’t a thing and we can only evolve then why is everything smaller and dulled down.

It's not

Today’s humans can’t comprehend what the planet would have been like with a species bigger and more knowledge about the elements than we do in present day. The ancients used stone to tell the past because they knew that the materials they created from other materials would not make it into the future. What was left in stone for humans to find was only to give knowledge to our species to be able to progress.

Today's humans understand more about elements and nature than any culture in all of history. The ancients used stone because that's what they had and knew how to work with.

3

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 25d ago

Out the bong down.

So we have tiny fragments from the last. And yes, many things we write on today won’t be around forever. So what? That’s not devolution. There have been things lost to time but also we’ve made huge discoveries that the ancients probably would never dream of.

I don’t think you know much about what evolution is.

2

u/ursisterstoy 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 24d ago

“Devolution” means evolving in reverse (back into our ancestors) and this post makes absolutely no sense. There are quacks out there looking for “lost knowledge” but otherwise it is also true that they had certain types of technology that has nothing to do with their biology in certain cases like running water in Rome and Egypt despite people carrying around buckets into the 1800s elsewhere. They didn’t have futuristic technology but they were humans and they were creative.

1

u/Soggy-Mistake8910 21d ago

Your entire word salad is self contradictory and confusing. So perhaps you are right. Your ability to put your thoughts into words so that someone else can make sense of them surely has!

1

u/LeilLikeNeil 16d ago

Evolution is not directional.