2 ms·

Every species in existence right now has the same number of years of evolutionary history, right? So on what basis are you saying it makes sense to say humans

Every species in existence right now has the same number of years of evolutionary history, right? So on what basis are you saying it makes sense to say humans have had "more" evolution than chimpanzees? What does it mean for one species to have "undergone more evolution" than another, if both have the same amount of evolutionary history? Just on the basis that you believe the result of that evolution for humans is an organism you consider more sophisticated? That is, I'd think, dependent on the assumption that evolution always leads in the direction you consider "more sophisticated", and, I guess, that it takes so much evolution to get so much sophictiation so something that is "more sophisticated" just must be "more evolved". That is also not true. You can make a "metaphysical" value judgement that humans are more sophisticated, sure! I'm not trying to say that is inappropriate to do. But "evolved" is the wrong word for this, if you think it means the same thing we're talking about when we're talking about biological species evolution as formulated by Darwin etc.

jollybean 5y ago
Oh yes, everything alive has the same level of evolution, that said, things evolve and adapt at different rates. The term 'evolved' I think can be used in English to describe something 'more advanced' by the crude and arbitrary manner in which we generally apply it. Maybe in a Scientific context it wouldn't be correct, I admit that.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Yeah, I mean the whole point I'm working on here (going off of codeflo who I was replying to, who was making much the same point) -- is that we believe that the biological process of evolution always leads in the direction of "advancement", and something that is "more advanced" (which is to some extent both subjective, and a value judgement rather than a descriptive one) has "more evolution" behind it (the biological kind). Yes, the word "evolved" can be used in a non-scientific way that has nothing to do with the origin of species or natural selection or genetic change over time too. I don't know if this the cause of our confusion, or that it's the result of our confusion, because so many of us, since Darwin, have had these assumptions that "evolution" functions teleologically and in a certain direction at a certain rate. So that leads the wrong idea that, as codeflo points out, "evolutionary theory puts humans (or hominins) last" over chimpanzees, or humans undergone "more evolution" than chimpanzeees. When we understand the biological process of evolution more clearly, we can understand the natural world and the species in it and the relation between them more clearly.
- bratwurst3000 5y ago
  I think „adapted“ is a better word

jollybean 5y ago

Oh yes, everything alive has the same level of evolution, that said, things evolve and adapt at different rates. The term 'evolved' I think can be used in English to describe something 'more advanced' by the crude and arbitrary manner in which we generally apply it. Maybe in a Scientific context it wouldn't be correct, I admit that.

jrochkind1 5y ago
Yeah, I mean the whole point I'm working on here (going off of codeflo who I was replying to, who was making much the same point) -- is that we believe that the biological process of evolution always leads in the direction of "advancement", and something that is "more advanced" (which is to some extent both subjective, and a value judgement rather than a descriptive one) has "more evolution" behind it (the biological kind). Yes, the word "evolved" can be used in a non-scientific way that has nothing to do with the origin of species or natural selection or genetic change over time too. I don't know if this the cause of our confusion, or that it's the result of our confusion, because so many of us, since Darwin, have had these assumptions that "evolution" functions teleologically and in a certain direction at a certain rate. So that leads the wrong idea that, as codeflo points out, "evolutionary theory puts humans (or hominins) last" over chimpanzees, or humans undergone "more evolution" than chimpanzeees. When we understand the biological process of evolution more clearly, we can understand the natural world and the species in it and the relation between them more clearly.
bratwurst3000 5y ago
I think „adapted“ is a better word