Comments on: Highly Evolved

By: Opisthokont

Opisthokont — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:53:14 +0000

I agree with shlomo: in certain contexts, “highly evolved” is not a bad term. This also holds for terms like “advanced”. Properly speaking, they apply to traits, not organisms, but using the term for organisms as well is not an unreasonable shorthand. Of course, “certain contexts” are usually not those involving the general public; we try to be more careful then!

By: shlomo

shlomo — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:45:10 +0000

Einstein and a sponge share a common ancestor. Now, who has accumulated more changes from that common ancestor? The sponge or the human?

If evolving means just changing (I think that’s the definition: genetic change over time), well, humans have changed more than sponges ain’t they? (notice how I don’t talk about competition, complexity, or who’s mo’ better– only mere change here.)

By: Chris Nedin

Chris Nedin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:02:28 +0000

Consider the sponge, and then consider Albert Einstein. There are certain traits that Einstein had, that a sponge does not. We deem these traits to be of merit.

Yeah, but could Einstein push himself through a sieve and the reconstitute himself? I think not!

And I have it on good authority that Einstein was rubbish at sitting at the bottom of shallow oceans, fliter feeding!

By: Bjørn Østman

Bjørn Østman — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:54:22 +0000

Links to actual instances of scientists saying “highly evolved” etc. would be good. Who are these people?

Me, perhaps? http://pleion.blogspot.com/2009/01/evolution-does-mean-better-and-more.html

By: Lucas

Lucas — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:46:40 +0000

Welcome to the trenches! Your point really can’t be stressed enough.. That the public at large upholds a twisted and simplified view of evolution might be excusable, but scientists really should know better!