Asklemmy

44132 readers

973 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

I was just listening to eons in my car and specifically the episode about armored fish, and the thought occurred to me: isn't evolution ultimately selecting for adaptability? (m.youtube.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It would seem the design that can survive the most extinctions would be the clear winner in the end.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well humans don't really rely on their physicality to survive in their environment. They moved to different locations a little shelters even mechanically improve the area.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Right. We're the most adaptable animals on the planet, and we've thrived.