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

[Freodin]

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.

Gottservant, please listen! You have been told that before, we all know that. Acknowledge that. Understand it. Without it, all this musing is meaningless. All your thoughts are irrelevant, baseless.

INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EVOLVE. EVOLUTION HAPPENS IN LINES OF DESCENT.

Do you understand that? Please just answer this question.

 

[Larniavc]

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

Evolution operates on species at any point in time.

Evolution is a process, not an event.

 

[PloverWing]

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

Fill in the XXXX gap?

"Understand"? I doubt that my cat understands anything about her instincts. Probably humans are the only creatures with self-reflective intelligence sufficient to analyze their own instincts.

By "understand", do you mean "exhibit"? That is, are you asking about when creatures begin to act in accordance with their inherited instincts?

If you can explain what you mean by "the creature begins to understand the instinct it has inherited", I can try to fill in XXXX.