That intent and conscious decision making by humans to change the world around them is what makes them special.
Sure, that’s what makes us special. I obviously can’t disagree, that’s in fact what originates sociology as a whole, language, and our entire relationship with the world. Now explain why somehow our most important trait makes us dominant from a biological point of view. “Understanding behavior” and changing it over time is important to humans, not important for beavers, what makes beavers special is a completely different set of traits.
There are no “dominant” species. Downvote me all you want, go call your favorite phylogeny professor from whatever university you prefer and ask him to define “dominant species” in a biological sense, share your multiple definitions of “impacting the world as a whole” and “humans are special” and see how long they’ll entertain that phone call.
Now explain why somehow our most important trait makes us dominant from a biological point of view.
It allows us to accomplish far more than would normally occur based on our biological limitations.
Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear. Like when someone uses the lay version of theory and then arguing against it based on the scientific definition of theory without making it clear which one you are using.
Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear.
We are in the “science” community and the post asked which animal will replace humans as Earth’s dominance species. I commented that “dominant species” does not exist in biology.
You people are the ones freaking out over it and trying to come up with a definition. I was speaking about the academic definition from the beginning. But good to hear you finally admit that there is no scientific definition or meaning to this phrase, that was my comment from the beginning. We are done in this discussion then.
Sure, if my goal was to entertain their proposed definition.
My goal was instead commenting that this might be a fun endeavor for some, but remind everybody else that might not be familiar with biological sciences that this isn’t actually a formal definition or a scientific claim that one species is or isn’t dominant.
Sure, that’s what makes us special. I obviously can’t disagree, that’s in fact what originates sociology as a whole, language, and our entire relationship with the world. Now explain why somehow our most important trait makes us dominant from a biological point of view. “Understanding behavior” and changing it over time is important to humans, not important for beavers, what makes beavers special is a completely different set of traits.
There are no “dominant” species. Downvote me all you want, go call your favorite phylogeny professor from whatever university you prefer and ask him to define “dominant species” in a biological sense, share your multiple definitions of “impacting the world as a whole” and “humans are special” and see how long they’ll entertain that phone call.
It allows us to accomplish far more than would normally occur based on our biological limitations.
Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear. Like when someone uses the lay version of theory and then arguing against it based on the scientific definition of theory without making it clear which one you are using.
We are in the “science” community and the post asked which animal will replace humans as Earth’s dominance species. I commented that “dominant species” does not exist in biology.
You people are the ones freaking out over it and trying to come up with a definition. I was speaking about the academic definition from the beginning. But good to hear you finally admit that there is no scientific definition or meaning to this phrase, that was my comment from the beginning. We are done in this discussion then.
You could read the article for their definition of dominant and use it like the rest of us are.
Sure, if my goal was to entertain their proposed definition.
My goal was instead commenting that this might be a fun endeavor for some, but remind everybody else that might not be familiar with biological sciences that this isn’t actually a formal definition or a scientific claim that one species is or isn’t dominant.