To make that sentence correct @Relates, you need to say “I emphasize …” because that’s what YOU do. It’s not what I do.
Biology knows no limits for how conflict is expressed. If you were more familiar with patterns of Alpha males and females in populations of felines and canines you wouldn’t be writing what you write.
You make for an interesting case study, Roger. Because you are the first proponent of BioLogos (you are a proponent, right?) that uses rather unusual RELIGIOUS ideas to justify your pro-evolution views.
I really do not think that my understanding of the Logos is that unusual. Please do not confuse religion with Christian theology.
I am a critic of Darwinian evolution that you seem to support, but I am not against evolutionary change which many Christians who are not evangelicals also support.
I don’t know any non-Evangelical Christians, who support Evolution but REJECT the idea that evolution involves (to a greater or lesser degree) conflict WITHIN and BETWEEN species.
You may be unique on the planet Earth in your specific beliefs on this.
There is symbiosis… and there is competition. They are 2 ends of the same gradient… and depending on the circumstances, one species might favor one side of the gradient or the other.
We KNOW this … because we can identify PARASITES that kill… and sybmiotes that help keep their partners alive.
Ever since you told me that God JUST DOES NOT intervene in genetic molecules I have found your viewpoint to be more than just a little non-responsive to evidence.
Job tells us that God guides whole bolts of lightning … and you say that he won’t guide a single cosmic ray.
Because someone challenges your pet idea about cosmic rays, you don’t get him anymore.?!
Job is interesting, but hardly conclusive scientific evidence, which is what we are talking about here.
Yes, parasites kill for food, and so do humans. Humans harvest all sorts of plants and animals for food, and yet we have a symbiotic relationship with them, as do most prey and predators.
Competition between prey and predators is not for scare resources, because lions cannot eat the grass that zebras eat, nor do zebras eat the zebras or other prey lions eat. They need each other, which is what symbiosis is about, and conflict is not.
That is the way God ordered the Creation so all things work together in harmony, which some occasional exceptions that prove the rule. I think that is what YHWH was saying in Job. YHWH ordered the universe, so YHWH does not need to micromanage it.
Roger, you just can’t EXCLUDE viable elements in the race to spread genetic information far and wide.
Zebras don’t eat Zebras… right. But if a new predator shows up … and is better at eating Zebras than lions are … Lions will either change food sources or die out.
Survival of the Fittest is about intra-species struggle. You are bringing up a inter-species struggle for survival, and an invasive species at that. Since the example you give is very hypothetical, it is hard to comment on.
However it is true that there are invasive species which do change the environment and thus offer a challenge to existing species. This fits in very well with ecological natural selection, but not with the traditional Survival of the Fittest point of view…
With all due respect, I’m not sure you are interested in the facts.
It is a FACT that very often animal males compete violently with each other for food, territory and mating privileges. Fact, yes?
So, how is it that you think natural selection ignores this kind of violence?
It is a FACT that very often animal females violently contend with new males (or males rival to the mates of these females) to protect their offspring from being killed.
So, how is it thatyou thnk natural selection ignores this kind of violence?
You seem to make up rules based on your religious belief … rather than on observational evidence.
We are talking about science and not just a collection of facts. To find out what is going on here we need to see how natural selection works in similar, but different creatures.
Let us look at lions and tigers. They are both “big” cats, but they life in different parts of the world ion different environments and different “life styles.” Lions do have a more violent life style. Lions live in a pride ruled by the alpha male who rule the females who do the hunting of live prey in a social manner. The male to too big and slow to hunt.
However the male uses his strength and bulk to defended the corpses pf dead animals from other scavengers until the lions have their fill. He also protects the pride from others and maintains order in the family. As a way of keeping order the alpha male the mate of all the females in the pride.
Even though the Alpha male is supposed to have a sexual monopoly on his females close observers have noticed that the females so have intercourse in the jungle with other males, and about half of the cubs do not belong to the Alpha as determined by DNA.
Tigers on the other hand live and hunt in pairs. The male and female are nearly the same size, while the male lion is much bigger than the females. The males do not compete, like the lions do. The competition of male lions for leadership plays an important role in adapting lions to their ecological niche.
The lions live on the open African plain living off herds of animals. The females work together to trap and kill the prey, but all this food attacks others too who would like to steal the meat so they need to help of the larger male. Also they need to scavenge to meet the needs of the pride so the Alpha prowls the plain at night to find dead animals to steal or scavenger and beat off the hyenas and dogs.
The tigers live in the dense Indian jungle. Unlike other cats they love the water. They do their own hunting together, so they do not live in a group or have a leader or conflict over sex.
This demonstrates that what is forming each species is its ecological niche, rather than conflict or the lack of conflict among members of the species.
George, you are mesmerized by struggle. It is the fact that the ecological niche shapes the species. You are right it is not an either/or, but it is not a both/and either. It is a simple reality.
It is a fact that ecological niche shape a species. It is also a fact that the shaping occurs primarily through competition between members of the species.
Roger, suppose the environment inhabited by lions didn’t have a top predator for some reason, and something like a tiger was living nearby. If some of the tigers moved into the empty niche, how do you think they would be shaped by the environment to become more like lions? What would actually happen to them?
Excuse me, but for good measure, how about the moon is made of green cheese? We can not bend nature any way we want it and think we are doing science. We cannot just pretend that the lions are not the top predator and that their species has not been shaped by their ecology to be the top predator in its niche.
Tigers are not equipped to hunt on the plain, and lions are not equipped to hunt in the jungle. That is the way that evolution, or natur5e, or God made them. It is not based on conflict, but on efficiency and adaption.
There is a cat that does hunt more like the tiger than the lion on the plain and that is the cheetah. However cheetahs are not in direct competition with the lions, because they prey on Thompson’s Gazelles, which are too small and fast for the lions. Still the lions steal their kill when they can and give them a very rough time.
It is their environment and how they adapt to it that makes the tiger, the lion, and the cheetah what they are. When the environment changes they must adapt or cease to flourish. Species are fading today because their niches are disappearing because of human activity. It has nothing to do with conflict and everything to do with ecology.
The difference is that the moon really isn’t made of green cheese, while organisms really do enter new environments to which they are not already adapted.
You haven’t answered the question: how do you think lions became adapted to their environment?
I do not think that this statement is true. If I am thrown into some water and I am not adapted to it, meaning I cannot swim, I will drown.
All creatures are adapted to their native environment. How well that carries over to a different niche is another question.
We call a species which successfully adapts to a new ecological niches, usually not too different from its old one an invasive species. It usually displaces one or more old species. What you suggested about the tiger and the lion before was not possible, because there is no way the tiger could displace the lion for ecological reasons.
In terms of how did the lion develop into the species that it is, it is hard to say, even though we can see the result. It would seem that this was a long process of symbiosis between the land, the climate, and the creatures of the land.
The African veldt is unique and very old. No doubt the African lion developed over the millennia in relationship to the other creatures of the veldt until they are what they are today. It is natural selection or trial and error that leads to adaption, not conflict.
If you want a more specific understanding of how changes in ecology can direct evolution, please see my BioLogos essay “From Dinosaurs to Birds.”
