• Crankenstein@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days 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.

    • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yes and no.

      Ok my last input was a bit lazy hence all the armchair biologists tuning in.

      Less and more evolved is definitely a thing when alluding to the complexity of the system and since evolution is incremental time helps.

      However you are right that adaptability to the environment is the most important thing when defining the success of your “genetic constitution”.

      I guess my point is that we are more likely to have, in our DNA, evolved adaptation to them than they are to have adaptation to circumvent our immunity.

      That being said, yes there are inherent risks to getting those out there, I’m just saying our propensity for enjoying fictional doom scenarios might make us overstate the probability of those occurences.