Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6114123" data-attributes="member: 177">Beware of evolutionary psychology.&nbsp; It works on the basis of plausible arguments, rather than testable hypotheses, and that's the place where our preconceived notions get in the way.&nbsp; The one here is that humans are the &quot;dominant species&quot;.&nbsp; That's based in an old, outmoded view of evolution (the &quot;evolutionary ladder&quot;, with humans at the top), which itself is based on the notion that humans are somehow special and distinct among living creatures.&quot;Survival of the fittest,&quot; applied purely to physical conflict misses much of the point of evolution.&nbsp; &quot;Fittest&quot; does not mean, &quot;most capable of fighting back&quot;.&nbsp; It acutely means, &quot;best adapted to its conditions&quot;.&nbsp; Grass doesn't reach up and throttle cattle, beating it into a bloody pulp so that it doesn't get eaten. The grass that it &quot;fittest&quot; maybe has a chemical defense that makes it unpalatable. But really, most of the grass is fittest because it has the ability to simply grow back after the cattle have passed by, a completely passive approach to survival that has led there to being a whole lot more grass than there are cows!&nbsp; Plankton and krill don't &quot;fight&quot; when the baleen whales come by, either.&nbsp; Most of the living stuff on our planet is completely incapable of &quot;fighting&quot; in the human sense of the word.This, at least, is correct.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6114123, member: 177"] Beware of evolutionary psychology. It works on the basis of plausible arguments, rather than testable hypotheses, and that's the place where our preconceived notions get in the way. The one here is that humans are the "dominant species". That's based in an old, outmoded view of evolution (the "evolutionary ladder", with humans at the top), which itself is based on the notion that humans are somehow special and distinct among living creatures. "Survival of the fittest," applied purely to physical conflict misses much of the point of evolution. "Fittest" does not mean, "most capable of fighting back". It acutely means, "best adapted to its conditions". Grass doesn't reach up and throttle cattle, beating it into a bloody pulp so that it doesn't get eaten. The grass that it "fittest" maybe has a chemical defense that makes it unpalatable. But really, most of the grass is fittest because it has the ability to simply grow back after the cattle have passed by, a completely passive approach to survival that has led there to being a whole lot more grass than there are cows! Plankton and krill don't "fight" when the baleen whales come by, either. Most of the living stuff on our planet is completely incapable of "fighting" in the human sense of the word. This, at least, is correct. [/QUOTE]

Verification