We are too humane.

Not necessarily, unless you feel that "society" is somehow separate from evolutionary or biological processes. We evolved to be organisms that use societal constructs to survive.At a qualitative level, human society is not so different than a troop of baboons or a pack of hyenas working together for survival of all. We wouldn't say the baboons or hyenas were acting "anti-evolutionary" even though the efforts of the strong may allow the weak to survive longer than if they were on their own. Is it that the "environment" no longer exerts influence, or that we've created a new environment? Depends on the population, depends on the disease, depends on your definition of natural. In parts of Africa people are "naturally" becoming resistant to malaria and HIV; while in some Mediterranean countries incidences of certain genetic syndromes are on the decline due to intense genetic screening. The first may be "natural" evolution, while many seem to see the latter as "artificial" or "anti" evolution; however, genetic screening remains the result of our biology, our capacity for society and civilization, as well as an inherent desire to optimize producing "healthy" offspring with technology when possible. Ultimately both result in a change in allele frequencies over time, so they fit the definition of evolution.

Those are two bold assertions with no evidence presented to back them up: First, that baboons don't have decision-making power; and second, that humans have transcended the influence of their genetics when it comes to behavior. Neither is true.Humans and their behavior ("humanity") are not "separate" from the rest of the animal kingdom as you describe. Perhaps: You should stop looking for black-and-white answers to explain complex issues of the evolution of human behavior and society.By the way, are you actually a working scientist? (Not meant to be accusatory, I was just interested in what field you might be working in, since you seem to have many misconceptions about evolution theory).

I didn't realize that the initial "I think" covered the entirety of the post; I was responding to assertions several sentences afterwards... It's not my opinion - you haven't given any evidence. It's not just another opinion, since 'human' behavior/culture/genetics are readily observable in apes and monkeys. If you are interested in an evidence-based discussion, I'll spend the time to dig up some references. If you just want to express your opinion, I don't see the point. Is "consciousness" the only difference between humans and all other animals? How do you define "consciousness" (in a way that is scientifically testable)? Mmmm... polymer chemistry... giving me flashbacks to organic chemistry demonstrations. I always wanted to do more polymer chemistry as an undergraduate but didn't get the chance. I think it is a little more than a difference of opinion given your use of directionality and 'macroevolution' in your arguments - not to mention the concept that 'evolution' is somehow different for humans.

Then perhaps "consciousness" is a useless concept to science. First: self-awarenessA classic set of experiments: An ape is put under anesthesia, then a dot of dye is placed on its forehead (control experiments are done by placing vehicle-without-dye on a set of animals). The ape wakes up and gives no indication of knowing the dot is there. A mirror is placed in front of the ape. The ape immediately reaches up and touches the dot on its own forehead, NOT the image reflected in the mirror. This is self-awareness. The ape realizes that it is looking at itself when presented with a mirror.Most other animals do not respond the same way (though many other animals may not be capable of this sort of test due to other limitations, even though self-awareness may be present).Second: capable of thoughtI have to ask, do you honestly think that no animal other than humans think?When an elder chimpanzee in the wild is teaching a young chimp the proper use of hammer and anvil technique to open nuts, is it thinking? When a macaque begins washing its food in salt water, and the practice than proceeds among social lines to the rest of the group, is there thought involved?Extensive chimpanzee (and other ape) behavior studies have revealed the presence of "culture" - that is, different groups of chimps behave and interact differently, and these behaviors are passed via "nurture" to younger generations. One outstanding example is that a particular group of chimps includes females that make and wear vine necklaces with no practical value. The practice has been maintained within the females of the groups across several generations. Is thought involved with adornment? Furthermore, isn't self-awareness a requirement for adornment practice? First, much of this line of discussion relies on your definition of language.However, chimps appear to have their own language separate of human interaction. They use the language not only to relay general emotion, but to organize complex hunting parties.If a chimp simply responds with sign language in a research context, that might not be considered language. However, chimps that have been taught sign language have taught it to other chimps without human interaction, and chimps use sign language to communicate in the absence of humans. How is this not language?Seems to me that non-human animals are capable of both self-awareness and thought. Thus non-human animals exhibit "consciousness", (or the definition fails).