posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:11 PM
It's a nice analogy verbal kint, but it ignores a difference between humans and most other species.
The slow progress of evolution explains why introducing a non-native species can be so traumatic.
The non-native species spends millenia developing beneficial attributes, and right along side them, other species spend those millenia developing to
take advantage of them.
Then you move the first species into a new environment, and under the right circumstances (if the evolutionary advantages of the non-native species
are applicable to the circumstances, but sufficiently different from native species that no predator exists which can exploit that species) then only
the biotic potential of the food chain checks the new species, and it will take a very long time for evolution to provide a suitable balance.
With humans though, there is an alternative reason why evolution has not provided a suitable check on us. Human's are no longer solely reliant on
biological evolution for adaptivity. Because humans developed a cerebral cortex and a high degree of dexterity, humans became able to evolve
technologically to meet challenges. Technological evolution has been geometric rather than arithmatic. So the advantages of humans are evolving faster
than the advantages of species that provide a check on us. Because technological evolution is too fast for biology to respond to effectively, humans
do not have to be non-native to Earth in order to explain why nothing is able to put a check on us.
This can be proven by the fact that humans are able to dominate new ecosystems where there biological evolution is not advantageous.
When you introduce a new species to an environment where its biological evolutionary advantages are not applicable, it will be destroyed. We can
perform an experiment to demonstrate this if one of our Aussie friends will help. Go catch a rabbit, then go throw it into the ocean. If Rabbits
overrun the Great Barrier Reef, then I am wrong and I will shut up. But they won't.
Humans on the other hand can rapidly develop technologically to thrive in environments where they have no biological advantage. In the water, a shark
should have the upper hand on a human. And it would, if the human had no equipment. Give the human a fishing boat though, and he'll be selling shark
fin soup to the Japanese.
The fact that human dominance is based on technological rather than biological evolution is also evident in the dominance of certain groups of humans
over others. We're all the same species, so the advantage of one group of humans over another should be quite limited. If you randomly select 100
people from two different places and throw them in the same environment, they should perform similarly, biologically speaking.
But what if you select the first 100 from the French Foreign Legion and you select the second 100 from Walmart, and put them in a jungle?
One group is familiar with the techniques and technologies necessary for that situation and the other is not. The legionaires would immediately assume
dominance over the walmart employees.
Also observe the difference between how the populations of exotic species work versus how human populations work.
An exotic species increases its population until the food it is developed to exploit is used up, then the population crashes until the food supply can
Humans don't do that. Humans use up everything they are developed to use, then they develop to use something else and keep on growing. This is
another manifestation of our techological rather than biological evolution.
One more thing:
We've been here for a long time. We have A LOT in common with almost everything else on this planet.
The basic chemistry of our metabolism goes back almost to the dawn of life on Earth.
Many of our mammalian features, including elements of our bone structure, brain structure, reproductive system, etc go back over 100 million years,
and made continuous progress from there.
The fossil record of species sharing 98.4% of our genes goes back nearly 10 million years. Much closer relatives were around 2 million years ago.
Our species has been around for 200,000 years.
This not only demonstrates that we probably evolved on Earth, but it shows that Earth was well prepared for something just like us even if we did show
up from somewhere else. That is reflected in the fact that we did not become dominant until the advent of civilization.
We have a civilized history of 12,000 years since agriculture and 6,000+ years since the development of proto-nations. That is when we started to
exponentially out-evolve nature, and even then nature still got the best of us from time to time. Insects remained capable of out-competing us and
significantly reducing the carrying capacity of our land for humans until we developed pesticides. The longer we have to develop technologically
though, the more dominant we become. You have acknowledged this yourself in discussing how many of the restraining factors on humanity, such as war
and poverty, could be eliminated technologically.
So, in so many words, you can explain the success of humans without us being from elsewhere.