• lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      Viruses and bacteria don’t evolve to kill you. They propogate in your system to spread themselves. It’s actually in their best interest to keep you alive, so the more evolved ones would be less deadly because they’ve had more time to dial it in. Not that evolution is something they choose, it’s from mutations that work more or less better.

    • Crankenstein@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Not less evolved. Just evolved differently for alternative environmental circumstances.

      There is no hierarchy of evolutionary traits. Just an amalgamation of traits that are or are not useful in the current environment. What genetic makeup is effective in one place and time is useless in another, and what was once useless may now be beneficial.

      We have no clue how threatening they could potentially be.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Less evolved as in the product of less evolution. There is such a thing as more and less because more happens over time.

        • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Ok, but evolution doesn’t follow a straight path. The ancestors of whales looked like wolves, while whales look, act, and function much more like fish, which those wolf-like pre-whales evolved from way earlier up the line. This is a common misconception about evolution, so don’t feel bad for getting caught in it.

        • Crankenstein@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          To have “more or less” of something implies the effectiveness of the product is directly caused by the metric being measured.

          The amount of time a genotype took to evolve has no bearing on the effectiveness.

          There is no such thing as “more/less evolved”. There is no gradient. Something either is evolved to adapt to its environment or it isn’t.

          • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I’m not disagreeing with you here, but wouldn’t it be fair to say there is a gradient, but it is dynamic and defined by the current environment and what it takes to survive it?

            Maybe the goal posta keep moving but we are talking about a very large time scale, so long that, for at least a couple of million years, what could be defined as more or less evolved might seem or be descibed as pretty solid.

            Although i suppose its not fair to say more or less evolved and might be more accurate to say more or less well adapted.

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They are investigating it, some million years in the oldest beeings in Earth don’t make evolutive difference to the current ones. The only question is, if they can infect humans or animals or not. The climate change make that all tipe of indesirable things are defrosted, adding more dangerous diseases to the existing ones.