Pets prove "Evolution" not at maximum independence, is still survival?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I think pets have discovered a kind of Evolutional niche. They don't have to hunt, the don't have to find shelter, the don't have to choose a mate - all this despite their worldly counterparts struggling for all of it.

Wouldn't you say that "pets are post-Evolution"?

It stands to reason that Evolution be reexamined: survival for pets does not mean, what survival in the wild does? Nor does the exact means of survival, mean the same thing one pet to another - whichever pet you choose, it is the human being's survival that makes the difference?

I mean think about it: the more appealing a pet is, the more likely the human will sacrifice his survival, for that of the pet. That means the pet escapes Evolution?

I don't know; maybe we should aim to transplant as much of wild Evolution as possible, into sustainable niches (like zoos, or better?)? Is Evolution, or at least wild Evolution, not something that should be escaped?

I think this is something that can coexist with Evolution, for the betterment of Evolution - if post-Evolution can survive, then survival itself lacks the pressure to be anything other than a moderate version of itself? As long as that survival, provides benefits such as being interesting and encouraging?

Thoughts?

 

[PloverWing]

Wouldn't you say that "pets are post-Evolution"?

I mean think about it: the more appealing a pet is, the more likely the human will sacrifice his survival, for that of the pet. That means the pet escapes Evolution?

It means that humans are part of the selection pressure on domestic cats and dogs. Most likely, some thousands of years ago, wild felines and canines (probably African wildcats and wolves, respectively) who had a calm enough temperament to live peacefully with humans got to share some of the humans' food, warmth, and shelter, giving them a survival advantage. Human society is part of the environment that domestic cats and dogs evolved to adapt to.

 

[Freodin]

The mechanisms of Evolution are still the same. Just the circumstances are different.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wouldn't you say that "pets are post-Evolution"?

Not at all. They are actually a product of man lead evolution.

 

[lasthero]

You’re wrong, but at least I can kind of follow your thought process. Baby steps.

 

[Larniavc]

Hi there,

So I think pets have discovered a kind of Evolutional niche. They don't have to hunt, the don't have to find shelter, the don't have to choose a mate - all this despite their worldly counterparts struggling for all of it.

Wouldn't you say that "pets are post-Evolution"?

It stands to reason that Evolution be reexamined: survival for pets does not mean, what survival in the wild does? Nor does the exact means of survival, mean the same thing one pet to another - whichever pet you choose, it is the human being's survival that makes the difference?

I mean think about it: the more appealing a pet is, the more likely the human will sacrifice his survival, for that of the pet. That means the pet escapes Evolution?

I don't know; maybe we should aim to transplant as much of wild Evolution as possible, into sustainable niches (like zoos, or better?)? Is Evolution, or at least wild Evolution, not something that should be escaped?

I think this is something that can coexist with Evolution, for the betterment of Evolution - if post-Evolution can survive, then survival itself lacks the pressure to be anything other than a moderate version of itself? As long as that survival, provides benefits such as being interesting and encouraging?

Thoughts?

How does a species being adapted to it’s environment and prospering in any way bring ToE into question.

A species being adapted to it’s environment is what ToE would predict.

Shrugs

 

[Shemjaza]

All it shows is that interaction with humans adds some very strong, and weird selection pressures for animals and plants.

A new trait in dogs creates stubby legs -> humans think stubby dogs are adorable -> stubby dogs get deliberately bred and looked after in preference to normal dogs -> later:

 

[jayem]

Not to mention that humans have selected for brachycephalic dogs. With short, flattened muzzles, elongated soft palates, small nares, and partially obstructed tracheas. Which all predispose to respiratory problems. And heads so large that puppies must be delivered by C-section.

And brachycephalic cats, too.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm going to try and not sound annoyed, but...

You are basically saying "Evolution was true in the beginning" AND "at the point that Evolution is at an end, IT IS TRUE again!"

Sorry, but that just does not fly: you can't have it both ways, either it is cosmic accident in the beginning and Evolution at intelligence; or it is Evolution in the beginning, and cosmic accident at intelligence.

Thanks for the pictures, I just need you to be decisive?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm going to try and not sound annoyed, but...

You are basically saying "Evolution was true in the beginning" AND "at the point that Evolution is at an end, IT IS TRUE again!"

Sorry, but that just does not fly: you can't have it both ways, either it is cosmic accident in the beginning and Evolution at intelligence; or it is Evolution in the beginning, and cosmic accident at intelligence.

Thanks for the pictures, I just need you to be decisive?

There is no beginning or end with evolution. Evolution just is. Stop trying to make this more complicated than it really should be AND LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST!

 

[Freodin]

I'm going to try and not sound annoyed, but...

You are basically saying "Evolution was true in the beginning" AND "at the point that Evolution is at an end, IT IS TRUE again!"

Sorry, but that just does not fly: you can't have it both ways, either it is cosmic accident in the beginning and Evolution at intelligence; or it is Evolution in the beginning, and cosmic accident at intelligence.

Thanks for the pictures, I just need you to be decisive?

No. Just no. Gottservant, just for once... please LISTEN to what people tell you. Listen to what THEY tell you... not what the voices in your head tell you.

Evolution is a process that happens when you have "descent with modification" and "selective pressure".

I try to keep it simple:

- You have entities that can make copies of themselves.
- These copies are not perfect... they differ from the originals.
- There are circumstances that result in some entities have greater chance at successfully making copies of themselves.

That's it. That is the fundamentals. All the rest - how to make these copies, why they are not perfect, what are these circumstances - these are details. But these three points above are the basics. This is what Evolution is about.

So...
Are pets reproducing? Well, yes, they are!
Are the offspring different from their parents? Why, certainly!
Is there selection in who gets to breed? That's the whole idea of "breeding", isn't it?

So, this is not "Evolution at an end". It is Evolution at work.

 

[PloverWing]

"at the point that Evolution is at an end, IT IS TRUE again!"

What do you mean by "Evolution is at an end"? Are you asserting that evolution isn't currently happening?

 

[Gottservant]

There is no beginning or end with evolution. Evolution just is. Stop trying to make this more complicated than it really should be AND LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST!

Time has a beginning and an end.

This is fact.

If you are saying it doesn't matter, when Evolution manifests, you need to justify "why?"

 

[Gottservant]

I try to keep it simple:

- You have entities that can make copies of themselves.

Do they make copies of their beginning, or their end?

- These copies are not perfect... they differ from the originals.

Do they differ in the beginning, or the end?

- There are circumstances that result in some entities have greater chance at successfully making copies of themselves.

Do these entities, have greater success, at the beginning, or at the end?

So, this is not "Evolution at an end". It is Evolution at work.

Is it Evolution more at the beginning, or at the ending?

 

[Gottservant]

What do you mean by "Evolution is at an end"? Are you asserting that evolution isn't currently happening?

I am asserting Evolution can't work both at the beginning and the ending.

Pets are either evolved, because their ancestors were, or evolved because their survival rests on another species; alternatively, they are not evolved, because they began wild, or they are not evolved because they are kept as pets (and are not free).

If I took a pet and gave to it a human, then after a little while I took that pet and gave it to a different more intelligent human, and then after a little while took that pet and gave it to a radically different much more intelligent human, that pet is not evolving (even though it is dependent on humans with greater and greater intelligence).

Your only argument would be it depends on how well the animal is treated.

 

[PloverWing]

I am asserting Evolution can't work both at the beginning and the ending.

Pets are either evolved, because their ancestors were, or evolved because their survival rests on another species; alternatively, they are not evolved, because they began wild, or they are not evolved because they are kept as pets (and are not free).

If I took a pet and gave to it a human, then after a little while I took that pet and gave it to a different more intelligent human, and then after a little while took that pet and gave it to a radically different much more intelligent human, that pet is not evolving (even though it is dependent on humans with greater and greater intelligence).

Your only argument would be it depends on how well the animal is treated.

I'm not following you. I don't understand what you mean by "Evolution can't work both at the beginning and the ending." Do you mean the beginning and ending of the entire universe? Do you mean "beginning" to be the beginning of life on earth, and with "ending" being now?

The idea of evolution is that it's the way populations of organisms adapt to a changing environment over time. It started happening soon after life began. It has been happening all along. It is happening now. It is expected to continue happening as long as there is life on earth.

I agree that a single, individual pet won't evolve, regardless of its owner. Populations evolve, not individuals. But if there were a large change in the environment -- if the earth became much colder, or much hotter, or if humans went extinct -- then we would probably see some changes in the descendants of our current domestic animals. The new environment might favor animals with thicker fur, or a heavier build, etc., and a new feline or canine species might develop over the generations.

Are you perhaps trying to distinguish between the artificial selection that creates dog and cat breeds, versus the natural selection that separated Canis familiaris and Felis catus from Canis lupus and Felis lybica? Or are you making some other point?

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not following you. I don't understand what you mean by "Evolution can't work both at the beginning and the ending." Do you mean the beginning and ending of the entire universe? Do you mean "beginning" to be the beginning of life on earth, and with "ending" being now?

The idea of evolution is that it's the way populations of organisms adapt to a changing environment over time. It started happening soon after life began. It has been happening all along. It is happening now. It is expected to continue happening as long as there is life on earth.

I agree that a single, individual pet won't evolve, regardless of its owner. Populations evolve, not individuals. But if there were a large change in the environment -- if the earth became much colder, or much hotter, or if humans went extinct -- then we would probably see some changes in the descendants of our current domestic animals. The new environment might favor animals with thicker fur, or a heavier build, etc., and a new feline or canine species might develop over the generations.

Are you perhaps trying to distinguish between the artificial selection that creates dog and cat breeds, versus the natural selection that separated Canis familiaris and Felis catus from Canis lupus and Felis lybica? Or are you making some other point?

Wind may hit the aeroplane wing, but it's not until the wind has passed over the wing, that the aeroplane begins to fly.

Rain may gather in clouds, but its not until a drop has condensed enough, that the rain begins to fall.

Evolution may mutate, but its not until XXXX that the creature begins to understand the instinct it has inherited?

Fill in the XXXX gap?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Time has a beginning and an end.

This is fact.

If you are saying it doesn't matter, when Evolution manifests, you need to justify "why?"

But evolution just exists. As long as life exists, evolution will. This is a fact.
Seriously: learn about evolution, please. And I mean ACTUALLY learn about it by reading actual scientific literature, even the most basic stuff will, not listening to what the voices in your head tell you about it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Wind may hit the aeroplane wing, but it's not until the wind has passed over the wing, that the aeroplane begins to fly.

Rain may gather in clouds, but its not until a drop has condensed enough, that the rain begins to fall.

Evolution may mutate, but its not until XXXX that the creature begins to understand the instinct it has inherited?

Fill in the XXXX gap?

Creatures don't understand the instinct they have inherited. If fact most creatures don't understand anything at all.

Evolution isn't a deity, it isn't alive. It's just a description of how life changes over the generations.

 

[Freodin]

Do they make copies of their beginning, or their end?



Do they differ in the beginning, or the end?



Do these entities, have greater success, at the beginning, or at the end?



Is it Evolution more at the beginning, or at the ending?

Neither. They make copies of their state at the point at which they were making the copies.

And, importantly, their genetic state.
And, more importantly, not only their genetic state, in the case of species with sexual reproduction, but a mixture of the genetic states of both progenitors.
And, most importantly, it is extremely difficult - beyond the capability of most forms of life - to change your genitic state towards a specific goal... and it doesn't work by "desire".

But nothing of that has anything to do with my post, or even your initial post.

It seems you do not only have problems listening to what other people try to tell you... you do not want to listen to what other people tell you.