>>98558530You'll totally die doing that and it won't be pleasant, or quick.
Evolution doesn't mean drastic, visible changes that give you huge advantages. Look at you: you're walking upright, but no other extant great ape does that. You do it because your ancestor - the common ancestor of all kinds of now-extinct hominids - started doing it, millions of years ago. It's not a winning strategy - more of your close relatives, genetically speaking, have died with upright walking than survived, but you persist in doing it because it's useful. You're not evolving it out of your lineage because it's not a hindrance, at this time. It's not even as if apes were the first creatures ever to use their hind limbs the way we do - there were plenty of creatures walking on their hind legs millions of years before anything resembling us - before anything resembling GRASS, for that matter - evolved.
What you are is a generalist. You have lots of capabilities and the brain to use them; to an extent, we might argue, you don't need to evolve any major new changes. Minor changes - things like focal distance, or gait, or increased resistance to the onset of acquired diabetes, or whatever - are much harder to spot than, say, Johnny Five-dicks over there. Discovery takes huge amounts of time and resources, and the co-operation of large cohorts of disparate people to acquire the means to carry out those studies, and the co-operation of secondary cohorts of subjects, and the abstract thinking necessary to conceive of the studies and the need for them. That kind of thought was simply beyond even very recent ancestors, within recorded history, which is a tiny slice of human existence.
Look at it another way: creatures that could survive a devastating event are those which breed fast and aren't picky eaters. Your ancestors spent millions of years becoming slow breeders with helpless, tiny litters of one or two spawn, with high-energy requirements. Is that evolution the way you pictured it?
