Is social adjustment part of evolution, or is it against evolution?

Question

Most evolved species live in a community and focus more on social harmony and social cooperation, while primitive animals live in isolation and focus on physical stregth and the display of power.

Does this mean that being socially adjusted is MORE EVOLVED than being the strongest and the most powerful?

Answer 1

No. The use of terms like "more evolved" is really not appropriate. One can say only that our ancestors were in situations where sociability and group cooperation would have been "adaptive"... And therefore likely to be selected for.

Individuals who were contentious, uncooperative, disruptive.... Would have likely been shunned by the group and found limited opportunity to mate and pass on those characteristics.



Those that prospered within the group by reason of cooperation and social behavior would have had better mating opportunities.



As well... With human beings.... Culture plays a role. Our ancestors would have noted that a group that worked together prospered better than groups that were constantly squabbling or fighting...

So they would work to establish social norms... "Culture" to promote cooperative behavior.

Answer 2

Tigers, cougars, many bears. foxes, wolverines, are not social but solitary. Ants, bees, locusts, termites and some wasps live in communities.

Evolution takes many paths.

Answer 3

It is part of evolution. We evolve because of constant adjustments... environment, politics, life style and more.

Answer 4

Neither. Some species are successful because they are social animals. Others are successful because they are not.