An interesting quote on evolution

[Jackalope]

That depends on the environment. Here in our nice regulated cities we sit at the top of the food chain (actually more of a food web). Take a trip to somewhere like the Amazon, where huge carnivorous spiders are king, and you'll learn rather quickly your place on the menu.

Indeed. Traipse through the savannas of sub-Saharan Africa on foot for a few weeks and see how secure you feel at the "top of the food chain".

There's a reason our distant ancestors spent much of their time in trees.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know there are still people who literally run gazelle to death on the savannah (think marathon, not sprint)? We're fairly competent predators in our own right.

[Jackalope]

You know there are still people who literally run gazelle to death on the savannah (think marathon, not sprint)? We're fairly competent predators in our own right.

Oh absolutely we are. I'm familiar with that practice. My point is that, we're still quite on the menu when it comes to large predators such as the lion. Bush-dwelling Africans aren't stupid, and have developed effective defenses against predators despite having few resources to do so with. They fear being outside the protective defense of their village at night, and for very good reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehe, yeah, it's a little more give and take in some places, for sure. Even in such places though, the most dangerous thing someone is going to run into is likely to be another human being.

tartled by a lion in the brush: "Thank fucking god, for a minute I was worried that somebody was following me"..lol

[mannaka]

Stimbo: That is true, though if you don't mind me saying, I think that's a bit pedantic and detracts somewhat from the point made. If we so desired to "rule the amazon," I am fairly certain we could. Likewise with most other worldly environments.

Rythm: Indeed there are a great deal of areas that could be improved within us, but it is the artefacts of evolution that have seemingly(!) and actively reduced capabilities that fascinate me. I'd argue that nature does have goals (though obviously not in a conscious sense), enacted through the principles that Darwin deduced. If it did not, then there would be no point in evolving in the first place. As you pointed out though, these goals are not necessarily logical from a human perspective (in particular mine) at this point in time. Which might explain my persistence in this topic.

[Faith No More]

Faith No More: Effectively as I read it, it is to say that it is not wholly logical to find something that is not particularly useful, attractive.

But its attractiveness is its usefulness which is why I am failing to understand the argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rythm: Indeed there are a great deal of areas that could be improved within us, but it is the artefacts of evolution that have seemingly(!) and actively reduced capabilities that fascinate me. I'd argue that nature does have goals (though obviously not in a conscious sense), enacted through the principles that Darwin deduced. If it did not, then there would be no point in evolving in the first place. As you pointed out though, these goals are not necessarily logical from a human perspective (in particular mine) at this point in time. Which might explain my persistence in this topic.

There is no point in evolving Manna, it simply happens. Nothing is trying to better suit itself to aything, there is no steady march. You're projecting our own very human concepts where they do not belong. Adaptations do not arise for the purposes of increasing an organisms chance at survival. Adaptations arise and then maybe (a great big maybe, btw) an advantage becomes obvious under a specific condition. What we see is what comes after the fact, which is to say, when a clear "winner" can be declared.

I'm wondering where you see anything in human beings that has reduced our capabilities? We kind of run this place after all.... It didn't take alot of balance, it didn't take alot of strength or speed. It didn't take telescopic vision or an ability to "see" in the infrared, it's what's between our ears.

[mediamogul]

Stimbo: That is true, though if you don't mind me saying, I think that's a bit pedantic and detracts somewhat from the point made. If we so desired to "rule the amazon," I am fairly certain we could. Likewise with most other worldly environments.

Rythm: Indeed there are a great deal of areas that could be improved within us, but it is the artefacts of evolution that have seemingly(!) and actively reduced capabilities that fascinate me. I'd argue that nature does have goals (though obviously not in a conscious sense), enacted through the principles that Darwin deduced. If it did not, then there would be no point in evolving in the first place. As you pointed out though, these goals are not necessarily logical from a human perspective (in particular mine) at this point in time. Which might explain my persistence in this topic.

I diagree that nature has "goals". It is regulated by certain processes like natural selection but that is utterly dependant upon environment and occurs simply as a matter of fact and observation. Traits are selected for or against as a result of whether they promote survival within an environment. Goal implies that nature is "aiming" at something or has some end towards which it is moving.

[The Grand Nudger]

This sort of stuff is very much an effect of our language betraying us horribly.

[Cyberman]

Stimbo: That is true, though if you don't mind me saying, I think that's a bit pedantic and detracts somewhat from the point made. If we so desired to "rule the amazon," I am fairly certain we could. Likewise with most other worldly environments.

If by 'detracts' you mean disagrees, then you may be half-right. I was simply attempting to clarify your statement. The point made was that we are at the top of the food chain. As other have pointed out besides myself, this is conditional and only applies in situations which imply group participation to hunt or otherwise obtain food. One-on-one, or even small groups, the outcome is fairly predictable. Put another way, food chains are not universal; what fits one environment gets eaten in another. There's a reason why humans who live in places with a with a resident wild animal population tend to have a healthy respect for their neighbours.