• Gloomy@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I disagree.

    Evolution is not so much a numbers game. Otherwise Bacteria, Ants, Viruses and the like would have to be crowned winners. So the point op brings up is mute moot.

    The point you add, that they keep reproducing, is also not relevant in evelotionary terms. The short amount of time that we have domesticated chickens, let a side the very resent industalisation of animal farming (it started in the 1950s ish), is just not relevante in evelotionary terms.

    I’d say what makes a successfull species is resilience. 99 % of all species have gone extinct. The “winners” of evelotion are, in my opinion, those species that have lasted the longest. And in that regard, chicken ain’t looking to good. They are highly dependent upon humans. Most industrial chickens are genetic aborninatons, bred for beeing fat, fast growing, egg laying machines to the point where their own bones brake because they lack calcium. I’d argue that chickens in their current form would not last long in “the wild”. Hence once humans are gone their is a high chance chickens will follow.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      Otherwise Bacteria, Ants, Viruses and the like would have to be crowned winners.

      They are. And you mean ‘moot.’

      Also, you don’t know what evolution is. It’s a change in allele frequency over time. All that is needed for that is continued reproduction.