Okay so there is a recognized need to which the wild dogs are responding intelligently to. The human ape has proved to be something that the wild dog has to adapt to.
Sigh. No. Did you read my
edited to add at the end? The wild dogs aren't doing anything intelligently. This is basic Evolution 101, available in any recent text on the topic. I don't know if you really don't understand it, or if you're deliberately waiting for me to make a mistake in wording and twisting it the worst possible way to make it look theist. FWIW I'm arguing sincerely but you could get a much clearer explanation, that's been run through a couple drafts and an editor, by reading about evolution in a book.
But of course there was no purposeful selection involved - the lion did not so much 'let' the best stripes survive....they simply couldn't see the zebra with the better camouflage.
Yes, exactly.
I wouldn't myself presume fearlessness was the motivating factor. It is far more likely the human ape made it obvious that the wolf was not in any danger and probably threw scrapes of food to it and left carcasses behind.
It's possible, and I don't know what the latest concensus is. My reaction would be, why would the humans do that? If I saw wolves hanging around, I'd chase them off. The initial benefit would be to the wolves, with maybe some benefit to the humans who wouldn't have to clean up a stinky butchering mess.
So now we have the alpha mentality in viewing 'natural selection' as a competition rather than a cooperation...
I don't think alpha and competition go together that way. It's possible for two species to avoid competition by exploiting two different niches. It's possible for one to dominate a niche and drive the other out, but I've not heard that called the alpha species.
Natural selection can select either for cooperation within a species, competition between individuals, or competition between species.
I'm only familiar with
alpha used in the context of a group like a pack of wolves, where the alpha male (usually a male) dominates. It's merely a description of observed behavior, as far as I know, and doesn't address evolutionary pressures that developed the format of a group with a dominant male. Do you have a link to something explaining what alpha means, in the context of evolution? I tried googling, without luck.
I can do better than picture it. The evidence supports the case for the human ape being so different from all other apes that it became the leading environmental factor of the biological world.
And the rest of the world is adapting to it. Humans didn't necessarily choose to make dogs. Dogs adapted to them, better than weasels, honey badgers or muskrats, skunks, beavers, etc. So we wound up with dogs. Rather than remaking species into what we wanted, godlike, the species had to have the right genetic mutations to make it along the whole path from wolves to dogs.
There is nothing special about the human ape in that way. The difference is in the fact that humans are indeed a special kind of ape and that as such humans make different choices based on their position in the ecosystem and how they can influence it to some degree and certainly utilize it to theirs and other animals benefit. No other animal does this to anywhere near the degree humans do.
Well, I tried to show that humans are unique and powerful, but not omnipotent. We wont be riding rhinoceroses or milking hippopotamuses anytime soon. The genetics just aren't there, like in horses and Holsteins, and we can't force a species to adapt in ways it doesn't have the genetic potential for.
Conundrums! Let us just agree that of all the animals on the planet, the human ape is indeed working towards that agenda.
Definitely not, in my opinion. The human species is not trying to breed itself better, except for that eugenics phase early last century. Humans breed, but genetic improvement is rarely the leading decision. In general, statistically, the most successful humans breed the least.
Yes - and that is what appears to be so strange about the human ape. It appears to be rocketing along the evolutionary highway even that it has the same amount of generations as other species in which to the natural selection stuff. It is a true breed unto its own and so different in that regard than to any other species on the planet...
Are you familiar with "punctuated equilibrium"? Let me find a link and make sure it's not been rejected.
Punctuated equilibrium. Looks like it's still okay. I swear it wasn't long after 1972 that I first read about it.
Anyway, I think that's the explanation for what's happening with humans in the last, say, 100,000 years. We learn to talk and boom, next thing you know, we're on the moon. We're in the phase that punctuares the equilibrium.
And then we get to the argument that while this natural selection stuff is all so apparently intelligent, don't think for a moment that the other animals purposefully think their way into exploiting new niches...they 'can't help it' and are just going through the motions as the environment dictates and they respond automatically and adjust accordingly.
Sigh. Quit looking so hard for a gotcha and realize that humans tend to anthropomorphize things, especially when they're trying to write casually and in an entertaining way. Yes, it is all unplanned and automatic, without a goal. I thought you allowed for that among non-human animals.
You seem to be pushing hard for intelligent design. Okay, if your theist half turns out to be one of those religions that reject evolution, you'll need to argue intelligent design. But what of your atheist half, or your theist half if it accepts evolution? Don't you want to understand how it works without anti-evolutionists' contamination?
Perhaps you should focus on the content of the discussion instead of freaking that if you acknowledged that humans actually are different from all other apes and indeed from all other critters, as they are advanced in intelligence and in self awareness (and the implications which come with such type of self awareness) that somehow theism will seep through the cracks in the atheist mindset and proclaim itself king of the mountain or some other such thing....
Do you really not understand what advanced means? You seem to freak out at having to admit that humans aren't advanced in every single aspect, yet clearly my dog can smell things I can't.
I've said that humans are more advanced in intelligence and self awareness. What more do you want me to say? That they're more advanced in swimming than dolphins, in flying than birds, in running than cheetahs? That's nonsense. Humans need help to do what those animals do naturally.
"Wooooooooo...." < *spooky noise* It seems that a hard atheist faced with the facts of the matter here is tempted to bring in the 'theist threat' as an unnecessary factor in order to avoid having to acknowledge that the agnostic is talking sense about the human ape.
To repeat:
I've said that humans are more advanced in intelligence and self awareness. If you don't believe me, here's the link:
I'd agree that humans are more advanced in self awareness and intelligence.
What are you mocking me for and demanding of me?
Well I certainly think anyone would have to agree that it is possible there an explaination as to why humans are so much more progreessed than the rest of the critters and that explainations such as ET genetic maniipulations, we are all within a simulation, there is an intelligent design behind the process etc etc al, but lets not be jumping the gun on that one right now.
I agree it is possible, but as ridiculously improbable as us being specially created by a god.
And everything that goes with that? (Tool making, creating complex things from the stuff of the earth etc...)
Of course. Language, compensating for our shortcomings like not having wings to fly, electricity and other power, etc.
Could you agree for example that 'natural selection' could involve ET...that is... an even more advanced critter in relation to intelligence and self awareness and all that this would imply?
See?
It
could involve an ET but I think the probability it does is near zero, because an ET isn't necessary to explain anything.
So I take it from the "See?" that your answer is no? You're sure there was a god or a godlike ET involved?
Remove that for the time being and focus on how come natural selection did this to just one ape and left the other biological beings on automation. Or if you prefer to think humans are still automated in relation to natural selection, why is there any significant difference at all?
Wait. You didn't just ask, in a roundabout way, if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Is this a joke? Really, species differ because speciation happens. Not everything can be the apex preditor in its environment, but bugs, rabbits and sparrows can find a niche. I'm really starting to think that a basic book on evolution would be more helpful than I can be.
Why do you suppose it has to be one OR the other?
Because the plain vanilla theory of evolution by natural selection is the standard scientific concensus. That's one. I'd put crackpot ideas like ETs, religious creationism by a god, intelligent design, and all the wacky ideas as the other, so if you want to include ETs, that's where I'd put it. One starts from the basic science, then tries to disprove that, before making stuff up.
Your argument about natural selection being a mindless process is without merit.
You've just declared hundreds of scientists on the cutting edge of evolutionary studies to be wrong. I believe hubris is the word.
What appears to be automation (and therefore requiring no intelligent agenda) looks very much to be very intelligent...
Really, a basic understanding of evolution would go a long way, especially including punctuated equilibrium.
Anyway, I think as a pet theory, belief that natural selection is a mindless process is not seeing the woods from the trees and wanting it to be that way in case the theists find a foothold and start breaching the walls of atheism....
Do you mean it's my pet theory? I dont want to take any credit for that. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants! I'm just poorly reporting what some of the most amazing biologists of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have figured out. Really, it's fascinating.
and explain: