If evolution is true

[inquiring mind]

First, let me make a statement, before I present my question. I understand very well that once the seed of ‘with enough time there is no limit to the amount of change possible’ is accepted… then it’s macroevolution hook, line and sinker. Ok, I get it.

Let’s forgo the goo to lower animal argument, no need to even go there. For argument sake, we’ll just say ‘if’ it did happen. What I’m wondering is what ever influenced us to even consider living outside the ‘wilds’, when every natural instinct is contrary to it. I mean increased brain capacity would be like ‘I need to make the jungle or savannah more comfortable.’ And, yes, I understand the hunter/gatherer and farmer transition (but only as humans).

I just can’t see a lot of ‘I don’t like this wild atmosphere at all, so I’m going to try another lifestyle altogether.’ I understand the concept of gradual change over time (micro level of course), and following and adapting to a food supply and even conditions to a point, but progressively changing from a lower animal natural lifestyle in the ‘wilds,’ to a human one outside the wilds… well, help me understand (please, no this is how evolution works) how you think this could possibly happen, regardless of the time involved?

 

[SelfSim]

Who says humans live 'outside the wilds'? We are part of 'the wilds' and we're continually reminded, surprised and sometimes shocked about that reality. Hurricances, wildfires, the pandemic, climate change etc are just reminders that the notion of 'outside the wild' is just an illusion.
Re-integration with that reality is well overdue.

 

[inquiring mind]

Who says humans live 'outside the wilds'? We are part of 'the wilds' and we're continually reminded, surprised and sometimes shocked about that reality. Hurricances, wildfires, the pandemic, climate change etc are just reminders that the notion of 'outside the wild' is just an illusion.
Re-integration with that reality is well overdue.

Good point.

 

[Shemjaza]

First, let me make a statement, before I present my question. I understand very well that once the seed of ‘with enough time there is no limit to the amount of change possible’ is accepted… then it’s macroevolution hook, line and sinker. Ok, I get it.

Let’s forgo the goo to lower animal argument, no need to even go there. For argument sake, we’ll just say ‘if’ it did happen. What I’m wondering is what ever influenced us to even consider living outside the ‘wilds’, when every natural instinct is contrary to it. I mean increased brain capacity would be like ‘I need to make the jungle or savannah more comfortable.’ And, yes, I understand the hunter/gatherer and farmer transition (but only as humans).

I just can’t see a lot of ‘I don’t like this wild atmosphere at all, so I’m going to try another lifestyle altogether.’ I understand the concept of gradual change over time (micro level of course), and following and adapting to a food supply and even conditions to a point, but progressively changing from a lower animal natural lifestyle in the ‘wilds,’ to a human one outside the wilds… well, help me understand (please, no this is how evolution works) how you think this could possibly happen, regardless of the time involved?

What you are describing isn't really evolution.

Humans basically genetically identical to us lived in caves and hide huts.

I think it's a combination of unified culture for regions and the development of agriculture that led to permanent settlements, and the rest of the development of towns, cities and role specification came from that.

 

[inquiring mind]

What you are describing isn't really evolution.

Maybe not... just that particular point in time makes me wonder what made us take a step like that (breaking from the natural norm), if we were a lower animal form. Another good point though.

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe not... just that particular point in time makes me wonder what made us take a step like that (breaking from the natural norm), if we were a lower animal form. Another good point though.

We are 'the natural norm' .. the 'if' condition there, is superfluous.

The distinctions you have attempted to make thus far, are demonstrably testably unfounded. The only conclusion which can be drawn from that, is that you're looking for refutations of your beliefs but the real question is; are you prepared to abandon them in the face of refutations based in objective reality .. (which is a seemingly rhetorical question there, I'm guessing?)

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe not... just that particular point in time makes me wonder what made us take a step like that (breaking from the natural norm), if we were a lower animal form. Another good point though.

Mostly knowledge.

Humans can survive with very limited technology, but if they have a better more comfortable way, they'll take it.

But it isn't just humans.

This is Abby, now she is only genetically slightly more distant from a wolf than I am from a cave man, but she has no interest in living in the wilds... in fact she gets deeply offended if there isn't space on the couch when we all watch the TV.

If she'd been born in the wilds she wouldn't know about dinner time, couches and treats... it's knowledge and experience that shapes her behavior.

These are some seals I saw in San Francisco. They could be sleeping on a beach or some rocks elsewhere in the bay, but these piers are more comfortable and convenient to them so they'll stay right here.

These aren't domesticated animals like Abby, these are creatures of the wild who know a good thing when they find it.

 

[inquiring mind]

We are 'the natural norm' .. the 'if' condition there, is superfluous.

The supposed natural norm at the time (swinging from trees), and 'if' being 'unneccessary' is just your opinion.

The distinctions you have attempted to make thus far, are demonstrably testably unfounded. The only conclusion which can be drawn from that, is that you're looking for refutations of your beliefs

So you say... no, we've discussed the impossibility of proving creation wrong many times.

are you prepared to abandon them in the face of refutations based in objective reality .. (which is a seemingly rhetorical question there, I'm guessing?)

Nothing need be rhetorical about it. If you could ever nail 'objective reality' you'd have real question there... but, as it stands it's no threat to my beliefs.

 

[inquiring mind]

Mostly knowledge.

Humans can survive with very limited technology, but if they have a better more comfortable way, they'll take it.

But it isn't just humans.

View attachment 305420
This is Abby, now she is only genetically slightly more distant from a wolf than I am from a cave man, but she has no interest in living in the wilds... in fact she gets deeply offended if there isn't space on the couch when we all watch the TV.

If she'd been born in the wilds she wouldn't know about dinner time, couches and treats... it's knowledge and experience that shapes her behavior.

View attachment 305421

These are some seals I saw in San Francisco. They could be sleeping on a beach or some rocks elsewhere in the bay, but these piers are more comfortable and convenient to them so they'll stay right here.

These aren't domesticated animals like Abby, these are creatures of the wild who know a good thing when they find it.

Another good point. I was trying anyway to make the point that... wonder just how far they would take it until they'd say 'I'm not going there.' If what you believe is true, we would have had to take some pretty bold steps. And, that before we had a lot of knowledge.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

What I’m wondering is what ever influenced us to even consider living outside the ‘wilds’, when every natural instinct is contrary to it.

Paleolithic and Neolithic[edit]
Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[1]:66 Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8]:19 Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] From the infants hominid skulls (e.g. Taung child skull) that had been traumatized, has been proposed cannibalism by Raymond A. Dart.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

Infanticide - Wikipedia

 

[Occams Barber]

First, let me make a statement, before I present my question. I understand very well that once the seed of ‘with enough time there is no limit to the amount of change possible’ is accepted… then it’s macroevolution hook, line and sinker. Ok, I get it.

Let’s forgo the goo to lower animal argument, no need to even go there. For argument sake, we’ll just say ‘if’ it did happen. What I’m wondering is what ever influenced us to even consider living outside the ‘wilds’, when every natural instinct is contrary to it. I mean increased brain capacity would be like ‘I need to make the jungle or savannah more comfortable.’ And, yes, I understand the hunter/gatherer and farmer transition (but only as humans).

I just can’t see a lot of ‘I don’t like this wild atmosphere at all, so I’m going to try another lifestyle altogether.’ I understand the concept of gradual change over time (micro level of course), and following and adapting to a food supply and even conditions to a point, but progressively changing from a lower animal natural lifestyle in the ‘wilds,’ to a human one outside the wilds… well, help me understand (please, no this is how evolution works) how you think this could possibly happen, regardless of the time involved?

You've confused biological evolution with cultural evolution. The shift from hunter/gatherer to herder to farmer etc. was not driven by biological (i.e. evolutionary) change. Instead of a change in allele frequency, the changes you're describing are behavioural.

Succeeding generations discover more advantageous ways of interacting with the environment so hunters learn to herd and gatherers learn to farm. The keyword here is 'learn'. Cultural change is passed on from generation to generation through learning - not biological evolution.

OB

 

[SelfSim]

Succeeding generations discover more advantageous ways of interacting with the environment so hunters learn to herd and gatherers learn to farm. The keyword here is 'learn'. Cultural change is passed on from generation to generation through learning - not biological evolution.

A good example of cutural change through learning from forebears would be the Australian indigenous culture, which didn't become herders, nor farmers, over an approx 50-60 thousand year period (and even then, perhaps only grudgingly, once they had to interact with the English culture).
That it may have only been a tacit/grudging acceptance, also supports the idea that its not necessarily the natural physical environment driving such a change, too.

 

[Shemjaza]

Another good point. I was trying anyway to make the point that... wonder just how far they would take it until they'd say 'I'm not going there.' If what you believe is true, we would have had to take some pretty bold steps. And, that before we had a lot of knowledge.

I don't think there's any giant leap from sleeping under the shade of a tree to making your own shade to reinforcing the walls of your shade.

Also from throwing a rock, to finding a good rock, to making a spear to making a blade.

There's some clever know-how and tricks you need, but I imagine in most cases the reaction would have been: "Wow. How'd you do that?"

 

[Shemjaza]

A good example of cutural change through learning from forebears would be the Australian indigenous culture, which didn't become herders, nor farmers, over an approx 50-60 thousand year period (and even then, perhaps only grudgingly, once they had to interact with the English culture).
That it may have only been a tacit/grudging acceptance, also supports the idea that its not necessarily the natural physical environment driving such a change, too.

I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion.

The environment of pre-European colonisation Australia is very different to other places around the world.

Most significantly they didn't have plants or animals that would be particularly conducive to domestication with the technology available.

 

[inquiring mind]

You've confused biological evolution with cultural evolution. The shift from hunter/gatherer to herder to farmer etc. was not driven by biological (i.e. evolutionary) change. Instead of a change in allele frequency, the changes you're describing are behavioural.

Succeeding generations discover more advantageous ways of interacting with the environment so hunters learn to herd and gatherers learn to farm. The keyword here is 'learn'. Cultural change is passed on from generation to generation through learning - not biological evolution.

OB

I only put that in the comment because I thought someone might say that type transitioning was what influenced a move from a wild natural state. I said I understood that those transitions took place, but only as humans (in other words, nothing to do with evolution to a higher form of animal). I'm wondering why lower forms would have been bold enough to have even wanted to change their natural state of existance... pretty bold, evidenced by the fact that all didn't do it.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't think there's any giant leap from sleeping under the shade of a tree to making your own shade to reinforcing the walls of your shade.

Also from throwing a rock, to finding a good rock, to making a spear to making a blade.

There's some clever know-how and tricks you need, but I imagine in most cases the reaction would have been: "Wow. How'd you do that?"

Again, that makes sense. But, if what you believe is true the progression is almost unimaginable, and is for some of us. And, there is always the 'why' just one branch would do it?

 

[Shemjaza]

Again, that makes sense. But, if what you believe is true the progression is almost unimaginable, and is for some of us. And, there is always the 'why' just one branch would do it?

Technological intelligence requires a string of extremely unusual traits and environments to develop... but once in place it's a game changer.

That's why it has happened only once in the history of the Earth and in fact may be unique in the billions of worlds in the galaxy.

Being smart is a drain on resources and sophisticated manipulators are less useful if you are big and don't live in a tree... but there's nothing impossible about the development of primates, they are just an unusual example of the diversity of life.

 

[inquiring mind]

but there's nothing impossible about the development of primates, they are just an unusual example of the diversity of life.

Can't argue with that. The fact that one person can conceive of its happening on its own, effectively threading the eye of a needle, and another only seeing it possible by God's hand testifies to it.

 

[SelfSim]

The environment of pre-European colonisation Australia is very different to other places around the world.

Agreed. That's why its a good control candidate for testing the ideas of the natural physical environment vs human cultural learning driving the change to herding/farming, I think(?)

Most significantly they didn't have plants or animals that would be particularly conducive to domestication with the technology available.

Hmm .. dunno about that one. Many plant food species used by the Aus indignenous people were highly seasonal .. which drove their nomadic/gathering survival strategy. I don't think I've ever heard of any evidence for them ever having even considered a fixed herding/farming strategy? If they ever did consider that, then surely they would have stuck to the coastlines and fished and not wandered (and set up shop) throughout the largely inhospitable outback desert regions?

Actually when one thinks about it, why bother with domesticating animals (and growing crops) when one considers the land around oneself as being 'the farm'? No need for technologies when one adopts that viewpoint(?)

 

[That Guy 11200]

Many cultural changes happen through necessity. In Eurasia, our ancestors used to be hunter-getherers. There were plenty of large animals to hunt and feed on, which sustained a relatively large and stable population. The population had no need to change.

Eventually, these animals died out, either due to overhunting, climate change, habitat destruction or, most likely, a combination of all of them. But the large population still existed, now with less food available, which meant conflict over remaining food sources.

It's at this stage that a farming lifestyle became viable. It probably existed as a concept long before 'farming communities' spread around Eurasia. Some hunter-gatherer bands almost certainly would have noticed that leaving seeds in an area one year would mean that plants were there the next year. But they wouldn't have needed to rely on it because their regular food sources were still available; until they weren't anymore.

Farming would have provided a reliable food source but, if the group of budding farmers continued being nomadic, then another group of people could have taken the crops. So they settle down, dig a ditch around the town, perhaps eventually build a wall to protect themselves and their food. There's the first settlement.