You are missing my point. Not only are autos not integral members of their environment, they tend to be independently designed. A Yugo does not have the same designer as the Model T Ford. These two factors, combined, are the whole issue. The entire cosmos is a life-support system, and that system is a particular binary: involving a relationship between the general and the special. In the most encompassing sense, that is the wider universe and Earth. And that binary is instantiated in a nested hierarchy that itself is the same binary: non-life and life. For the planet, that is geophysical and ecological. There are no Model T’s here. It’s all one system.
So there is no need to invoke ‘evolution’ to explain it. In fact, such invocation has consistently underestimated, and even often trivialized, the intimacy and complexity of any part of it. Consider just that for human musical perception:
The nature of the relation between human musical perception of sound and human sonic-vocal language has, on the part of some scholars, been so overlooked as to trivialize this human musicality as an non-adaptive phenomenal quirk. This seems more-or-less to be that done by Dutton (see reference list below) and Kivy (see Reference list below).
Dutton, for his part, claims that humans’ ‘aesthetic tastes and interests do not form’ any kind of ‘rational deductive system’, but instead look ‘more like a haphazard concatenation of adaptations, extensions of adaptations, and vestigial attractions and preferences.’
That is, Dutton reasons that, due to the terrestrially foreign conditions of another planet, other-worldly life forms that principally are as intelligence as humans just might find, say, smells aesthetically pleasing instead of ‘music’. The idea here seems to be is that human perceptual musicality (HPM) is just a disjointed accident of evolution, and that sonic-vocal language is the only real adaptive function of the two.
Complicating this picture is Pinker’s (see link below) suggestion that music is the evolutionarily inevitable result of human-level intelligence, namely as a ‘pleasure technology’ of which a requisite level of intelligence could, and would, see to produce. Specifically, music is the clever assembling of sonic ‘signals of fitness’ into a single package, and then repeatedly stimulating the package (‘music’). Pinker’s metaphor for the package (‘music’) is ‘auditory cheesecake’: a concentration of various simple, high-value substances that nevertheless lack the far more sophisticated nutrients necessary for a brain’s supposedly normal function of ‘wringing bona fide fitness increments from the harsh world’. The metaphor here either contradicts the ‘pleasure technology’ theory, or outright supports a far more profound and adaptive theory as to the nature of human perceptual musicality.
As to this ‘harsh world’ of adaptive fitness to which human perceptual musicality does not belong, the theorized no-holds-barred territory of bio-evolutionary struggle seems to be at odds with the inevitability of a ‘pleasure technology’ that, despite its claimed adaptive nil value, has lasted through the many centuries or eons since humans first supposedly invented it.
To this latest thought, the nil-adaptive ‘pleasure technology’ theory can reply that the human instinct for this ‘pleasure technology’ has been allowed to continue to exist by the handicap-supportable capacity of human’s general cultural learning. Accordingly, despite the recursive nature of sonic propagation and its biological instantiation, HPM is rendered pure phenomenal pleasure rather than admitted to constitute an immediate fractal-sensing awareness of fundamental sonic and organic reality. Pinker effectively is saying that we have need have no pleasure in being alive and being curious, so that we have any pleasure to begin with only as reward-inducement for ‘wringing bona fide fitness increments from the harsh world.’
But this nil-adaptive ‘pleasure technology’ theory flies in the face of the realization, made centuries ago, that our phenomenological being is mutually inherent to our rational capacity, not alien to it. (((see, for example, ‘PETER HARRISON SCIENCE RELIGION AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp67uHdsPsQ)))
Further, if there are such things as basic biological needs, of which nutrition is only a most basic example, then comparative disadvantage may not be a simple either/or matter. It is a disadvantage for prey ever have any need of intake of external matter save what constantly is provided by breathing. To have to stop to eat is a risk for prey animals, even if some species of prey animals are themselves predators. But biological needs are not so much a binary logic as a dynamic hierarchy, and in which there is a spectrum: beginning from the most basic and constant needs to a very fine gradation of ‘lesser’ and ‘lesser’ kinds of needs.
And though air is one of the most constant and thus most basic of needs over which an animal has some control, the very existence of sound as the intra-motional relations of all matter is even more basic. How this relates to the musicality of a creature made in God’s image, as a function of its sensibility to the sonic dimension, may not be so brutishly obvious. In fact, under given assumptions, taking whatever is brutishly obvious as the only primary standard of judgment has had a very poor track record in all fields of inquiry.
Dutton, Dennis (2009) , The Art Instinct, pg. 219
Kivy, Peter (1990). Music Alone.
Kivy, Peter, (2007). Music, Language, and Cognition.
Pinker, Steven (1997) How The Mind Works: http://hampshirehigh.com/exchange2012/docs/Steven%20Pinker%20-%20Ho… (page 524 middle)