But that's just not provable
not in any real respect :S I'm not really seeing the proof of a pack mentality even a subconscious one. Just how many people would it take to conclude that a biological imperative had shifted from a primary focus?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 22 Sep 2010, 10:09, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

well, the individual vs species point is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
Of course that doesn't mean I expect you to believe it just because I say so, but more eloquent people than I have written on that many many times.

In terms of numbers to prove an evolutionary change? it doesn't work like that exactly, but technically, you need to see a statistically significant population living in a completely different way. So, no partnerships of any kind, no joint child rearing by any combination of the sexes, no co-operative living so no towns, villages, shops, schools or education, hospitals, cars, power, computers, processed food ... nothing that you hadn't made or learned yourself without ANY input from other people other than maybe whichever single adult reared you.

And crucially, this large population living like this would need to have moved from a position that had all of the above things to not having it (or else it's not an evolutionary change towards that position). And the population would have to be thriving, and would have to be out-competing other human populations which have all the above pack advantages for it to be anything other than an evolutionary failure.

I'm pretty sure if a population like that existed we'd notice ;)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 22 Sep 2010, 10:18, Reply)

See this makes a lot more sense
I can see where you are coming from. I might not necessarily agree that pack mentality brought us to that point, but I can see the line of working.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 22 Sep 2010, 10:27, Reply)