So /sci/ is there such thing as a truly "more evolved"

Sounds like a dumb meme to me.

Everything is at the top of its evolutionary chain...

The only indicator of winning evolution is to be here.

>>8544596
Let me just play the devil advocate with this analogy...
Think of two type of digital cameras with two different settings:

1. A low-light (long exposure) setting
2. A high speed setting.

Both cameras had different traits and they are specialized for different purposes.

A long exposure camera setting allows us to see in a much darker light range and is much better of at capturing images in the dark but it lacks the ability to capture thing moving at a fast speed as they turn out to be blurs. Is also overexposes and is useless in a bright environment.


In contrast, a high speed camera can capture fast moving targets clearly. This comes at the expense that the camera must be placed in a bright environment with lots of light otherwise it underexposes and the image is useless.


But consider this, supposed you were to spend more money on a higher end camera with a quality sensor that had a very high ISO. In this case you would not only have a camera that could capture images in low light setting but could also capture at a high speed.

My argument is equivalent to expanding the Pareto frontier and increasing production in all areas. The ideas is similar to how disruptive technologies can render previously existing tradeoffs obsolete. How does this not, in an evolutionary view, correspond to a more evolved creature?

>>8544716
More evolved quantitatively, but what about qualitatively?

>>8544596
More evolved means more genetic difference from the common starting point of two populations. Populations can have different rates of evolution. However saying something is more evolved does not mean "superior" or whatever dumb implications you're thinking of.

>>8545844
/thread

>>8544716
>>8545839
>How does this not, in an evolutionary view, correspond to a more evolved creature?
It does only if the other cameras die off, unable to pass on their genes. If the long exposure camera spent all the time it had in the dark, perhaps in a cave with few other creatures, and passed genes onto it's children who would also live on in the dark, why is it "less developed"? It has no need to capture any fast moving targets if the environment contains few other creatures, or slow moving ones. It may have achieved the most specialized anatomy for it's purpose of survival and reproduction on Earth.

Take an extreme case of an extremophile. This supposed extremophile can survive in virtually any environment, and reproduces normally in almost all environments. No matter where it is placed on Earth, and in some cases, other planets, it has a much higher chance that humans do of surviving and reproducing. Wouldn't it be considered more highly evolved than humans?

No, because humans are alive and well on Earth and likely to endure for centuries ahead. The success of other creatures has little bearing on another creature unless they share a relationship like that of predator-prey.