Hi Bolders,
If we are going to assume that altruism is a result of Darwinian evolution, there is no reason to assume it only began in the human lineage.
I agree with you here. There is reason to suppose that it was already largely in place way before humans arose. Other apes display altruism after all.
Hunter-gathering is just one of the phases of man's lifestyle. The fact that it was probably the first phase doesn't really mean it would be more important evolutionarily than the 2nd phase or third phase, etc.
No, but that fact that agriculture has only been around for about 10 000 years, as compared to at least 160 000 years for
Homo sapiens, would tend to argue for a strong hunter-gatherer influence on our inherited characteristics. Of course other members of the
Homo group would have been hunter-gatherers, as would their hominim ancestors... The history of human settlement and agriculture are a drop in the ocean in comparison.
I don't put a lot of stock in things like the Granny Magda models...
Does this mean you don't love me any more? Heartbreaker.
...of well, it just arose independently a number of times in history...
I ask you again; do you have any other suggestion as to how altruism could be displayed in both dogs and humans?
...and I guess stuck around because it was selected for.
Can you point out to me where I said that Bolders? Oh, you can't, because I didn't. Lying certainly does come naturally to you.
Not ubiquitous, and also not so rare.
Oh look, more feeble misrepresentation. Which part of "I would say that it is very uncommon." translated into Bolder-dash-speak as "not so rare"?
Frankly, you are making a fool of yourself here. Your only input to this thread has been to jeer at any evolutionary speculation. That seems rather pointless in a thread which is explicitly devoted to speculation about evolution.
If you refuse to entertain the possibility of evolution, even as a hypothetical consideration, you have no reason to post on this thread.
Mutate and Survive