If evolution is true

[tas8831]

It's funny that this whole thread started because Inquiring Mind just cannot accept the scientific fact that humans evolved from lower lifeforms.

Of course - such a fact runs counter to the tales from the ancient middle east which must be held as TRUTH lest one be cast out from their place of worship.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's funny that this whole thread started because Inquiring Mind just cannot accept the scientific fact that humans evolved from lower earlier lifeforms.

Fixed that for you

 

[Mr Laurier]

There is no such thing as "lower animal forms"

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.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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?

I think it had to do with the invention of farming. People cleared the land to plant and then they built shelters near the fields. They built fences to keep out wild animals and predators so that they became more and more removed from the wilderness. Farming was so vastly superior to hunting and gathering that it left lots of free time for people to make their shelters more comfortable and invent better ways of doing all kinds of talks.

 

[Gene2memE]

I think it had to do with the invention of farming. People cleared the land to plant and then they built shelters near the fields. They built fences to keep out wild animals and predators so that they became more and more removed from the wilderness. Farming was so vastly superior to hunting and gathering that it left lots of free time for people to make their shelters more comfortable and invent better ways of doing all kinds of talks.

There a couple of problems with that hypothesis:

Sedentism predates agriculture. And;
Agriculture predates sedentism.

Seems contradictory, but there's an explanation.

There's evidence of sedentary pre-agricultural settlements in various locations. Generally in highly abundant environments, where foraging was actually a more productive strategy than agriculture.

There's also evidence of cultures that developed agriculture that remained nomadic, or became partly nomadic/did not maintain a year-round sedentary lifestyle. There's evidence of agricultural development in some early societies that precedes the onset of sedentism by centuries (or even thousands of years).

I'm not saying you're wrong - sedentism and agriculture are definitely linked. However, there's WAY more to the picture than just that and a lot of other factors need to be taken into account.

It's taken ~300 years to piece some of the reasons together, and we still have a frustratingly inexact account of the hows and whys of the development of sedentism. There's no one reason - there's a host of local situations and factors that contributed to the rise of permanent settlements.

 

[Shemjaza]

There a couple of problems with that hypothesis:

Sedentism predates agriculture. And;
Agriculture predates sedentism.

Seems contradictory, but there's an explanation.

There's evidence of sedentary pre-agricultural settlements in various locations. Generally in highly abundant environments, where foraging was actually a more productive strategy than agriculture.

There's also evidence of cultures that developed agriculture that remained nomadic, or became partly nomadic/did not maintain a year-round sedentary lifestyle. There's evidence of agricultural development in some early societies that precedes the onset of sedentism by centuries (or even thousands of years).

I'm not saying you're wrong - sedentism and agriculture are definitely linked. However, there's WAY more to the picture than just that and a lot of other factors need to be taken into account.

It's taken ~300 years to piece some of the reasons together, and we still have a frustratingly inexact account of the hows and whys of the development of sedentism. There's no one reason - there's a host of local situations and factors that contributed to the rise of permanent settlements.

It seems pretty clear that development of technology and culture isn't linear and multiple paths can lead to advancement.

 

[inquiring mind]

You make good points, but it seems after-the-fact (whether creation or evolution) or ‘mankind specific’ transitions. My question is... if you think macro evolution occurred, ‘why’ would a group or groups of apes decide to leave the jungle, and everything natural to them, for an unknown or un-natural way of life in the first place? Just curious about your thinking... it doesn't seem like a natural act, evidenced by the many apes that didn't do it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You make good points, but it seems after-the-fact (whether creation or evolution) or ‘mankind specific’ transitions. My question is... if you think macro evolution occurred, ‘why’ would a group or groups of apes decide to leave the jungle, and everything natural to them, for an unknown or un-natural way of life in the first place? Just curious about your thinking... it doesn't seem like a natural act, evidenced by the many apes that didn't do it.

You keep using the phrase unnatural, and you need to stop. Nothing is unnatural unless it is constructed and fake. Any act an animal does is natural, and migration to find new grazing land, to move with the passage of time or because of changes in environment is a natural thing.

Also, early humans didn't live in the jungle. The area of Africa early human fossils were found in were largely still the grasslands that we associate with east Sub-Saharan Africa. There would have been a bit more forestation around, but there would still be lots and lots of savannah and grassland. In fact, if you look at the maps of the locations of finds of Australopithecus fossils:

You'll see that it's in areas that already are massively either grassland or savannah. Very little forests to begin with.

 

[inquiring mind]

You keep using the phrase unnatural, and you need to stop. Nothing is unnatural unless it is constructed and fake.

That's my point.

Also, early humans didn't live in the jungle.

I didn't say they did. I said group or groups of apes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's my point.

So why is it unnatural for a group of apes to do what is natural for animals to do? Animals move around. The only ones that stay in a set area stay because they cannot leave due to the environment.

I didn't say they did. I said group or groups of apes.

You didn't say it but you very much implied it, especially with this phrase: "...if you think macro evolution occurred, ‘why’ would a group or groups of apes decide to leave the jungle, and everything natural to them, for an unknown or un-natural way of life in the first place? Just curious about your thinking... it doesn't seem like a natural act, evidenced by the many apes that didn't do it."

 

[Shemjaza]

You make good points, but it seems after-the-fact (whether creation or evolution) or ‘mankind specific’ transitions. My question is... if you think macro evolution occurred, ‘why’ would a group or groups of apes decide to leave the jungle, and everything natural to them, for an unknown or un-natural way of life in the first place? Just curious about your thinking... it doesn't seem like a natural act, evidenced by the many apes that didn't do it.

I don't understand where the confusion comes from.

There aren't rubbish bins in nature... but no one is surprised that wildlife raids them.

There aren't houses in nature... but no one is surprised that possums and wasps move into them.

Plastic doesn't exist naturally, but some birds love it to decorate their nests.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't understand where the confusion comes from.

There aren't rubbish bins in nature... but no one is surprised that wildlife raids them.

There aren't houses in nature... but no one is surprised that possums and wasps move into them.

Plastic doesn't exist naturally, but some birds love it to decorate their nests.

I cannot wrap my head around an animal moving from one place to another is somehow unnatural to them.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't understand where the confusion comes from.

There aren't rubbish bins in nature... but no one is surprised that wildlife raids them.

There aren't houses in nature... but no one is surprised that possums and wasps move into them.

Plastic doesn't exist naturally, but some birds love it to decorate their nests.

Yes, but this is usually the result of humans encroaching on or near natural habitats, not the other way around.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, but this is usually the result of humans encroaching on or near natural habitats, not the other way around.

That isn't true at all.

Animals move into new environments all the time whenever the opportunity arises.

Think of every feral domestic species in human history alone.

Think of accidental releasing of wild species into new environments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... My question is... if you think macro evolution occurred, ‘why’ would a group or groups of apes decide to leave the jungle, and everything natural to them, for an unknown or un-natural way of life in the first place? Just curious about your thinking... it doesn't seem like a natural act, evidenced by the many apes that didn't do it.

It doesn't take much imagination to think of ways this might happen - I speculated an answer to this back in #126:

"There need not be any explicit desire to switch habitats. For example, a forest-dwelling population that finds itself at the edge of the forest might find raiding the savannah for the kills of other predators to be advantageous. Over the generations, they might be increasingly selected for spending longer times out of the forest, becoming increasingly bipedal, scaring off predators, even hunting their own game, eventually transitioning to a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle."
​

 

[gaara4158]

You make good points, but it seems after-the-fact (whether creation or evolution) or ‘mankind specific’ transitions. My question is... if you think macro evolution occurred, ‘why’ would a group or groups of apes decide to leave the jungle, and everything natural to them, for an unknown or un-natural way of life in the first place? Just curious about your thinking... it doesn't seem like a natural act, evidenced by the many apes that didn't do it.

What is it you find unnatural about animals migrating to new areas and/or making those areas more suitable to sustained comfortable living? Do you find it unnatural when rabbits construct tunnels to live in, or when beavers construct dams?

 

[inquiring mind]

What is it you find unnatural about animals migrating to new areas and/or making those areas more suitable to sustained comfortable living? Do you find it unnatural when rabbits construct tunnels to live in, or when beavers construct dams?

Not really, that's what rabbits and beaver do... I'd find it odd if they started building nests high up in trees though.

 

[inquiring mind]

That isn't true at all.

Animals move into new environments all the time whenever the opportunity arises.

Think of every feral domestic species in human history alone.

Think of accidental releasing of wild species into new environments.

I don't get it... you disagree with my statement about human encroachment then give me two examples, which humans initiated.

 

[gaara4158]

Not really, that's what rabbits and beaver do... I'd find it odd if they started building nests high up in trees though.

So, building settlements and complex infrastructure is what humans do in the same way that building burrows and dams is what rabbits and beavers do.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't get it... you disagree with my statement about human encroachment then give me two examples, which humans initiated.

Initiated sure, but what happened was that animals took advantage of a situation humans caused, not just moved into human space when their environment was destroyed.

Humans didn't have to clear the way for rabbits and cane toads to spread across the Australian continent, they took the opportunity and ran.

It demonstrates that animals environments and behaviors are not static and they can and will adjust and adapt when the opportunity arises.

The ancestors of humans were apes that lived in the forests near the savanna, but there was opportunity for some of them to move and they took it: luckily their descendants managed to adapt and thrive, rather than die out as many others do.