If all the beavers that like water in a small area are suddenly wiped out then the surviving beavers will breed something different. There's a good chance that whatever they breed won't like water as much as the beavers that died. It's a safe bet they will be different and less safe bet they won't like water as much. But these off spring will be quite a bit different and if they can mate with beavers immigrating to the region they will have a new set of genes that didn't exist before (at least not expressed in that way). It will increase the diversity of the gene pool and improve the odds of the survival of a "beaver like" descendants in the event something causes a global population bottleneck caused by eliminating beavers which like water in the future.
Since beavers are terrestrial aquatic mammals, that would be all beavers that get eliminated and there would be no beavers to breed and reproduce anything in your scenario.
However, if a mutation occurs in a portion of the beaver population that results in individuals with traits that allow them to move further from water for longer and something happens to beaver habitat to render it unlivable. Those with this novel variation have a chance to survive and reproduce. If further variation occurs that optimizes the previous variation, then it is possible that a completely terrestrial beaver population could form. Having new variation, these 'terrestrial' beavers would be different from their ancestors. The first generations with the initial variation would be transitional between ancestral aquatic beavers and later generations with further optimization from mutation and natural selection. They would be different.
You are assuming a dichotomy in beaver populations that does not currently exist. Beavers are found where there is standing and moving fresh water in large volume. There are no dry land populations that persistently live away from water along with those that persistently do live with water.
You still do not seem to have a firm grasp of these concepts, including population bottleneck.
I believe it's not claimed by science because they have taken a poor perspective for observation and interpretation of experiment.
It is not claimed by science, because it has no factual basis to be considered.
All animals (other than modern humans) are scientists.
A meaningless statement reliant on redefining scientist to mean something it does not.
The human race appeared 40,000 years ago when a mutation caused a closer connection between the speech center and higher brain functions allowing complex language. It is complex language that defines the human race by allowing the generational accumulation of knowledge. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.[/QUOTE]The evidence supports the conclusion that Homo sapiens evolved about 300 to 350 thousand years ago. You do not seem to know much about human origins and history.
Beavers invented dam building through theory founded on observation and the natural logic of the beaver brain.
What the f? Beaver behavior derives from a suite of genetically based traits that evolved over time. Dam building, like nest making in birds is a behavioral trait that evolved through natural selection. Unless you have evidence of these advanced, super beavers that refutes the roll of natural selection in beaver behavior.
Humans accumulated so much knowledge that our metaphysical language became overly complex and too few people could speak it. This caused us to use a pidgin form of the Ancient Language that was like modern language; deconstructable. Individuals must "grow" a new speech center (broccas area) to translate the now analog higher brain functions with the still digital speech center near the ears. The human race changed from homo sapiens to homo omnisciencis virtually overnight. Individuals changed overnight but the species started the change in 3200 BC and it was nearly complete by the "tower of babel" about 2000 BC. There were small pockets of the old race for some centuries (perhaps as late as 1400 BC)(they are called "Nephilim" in the Bible).
Animals and ancient man see the world only in terms of what they understand and we see it in terms of what we believe.
You can believe as you see fit, but I have no reason to give this any consideration. It looks contrived and, frankly, useless in describing or explaining anything.
Ancient science would have been very weak and very ineffective (it was poor at generating technology), but when you see the world in terms of what you know, then the anomalies jump out at you.
It is difficult to understand what this means. It seems circular and meaningless as near as I can tell. It is true that there are underpinnings of science observed in the activity of so called primitive people, both historically and now, but you do not seem to be establishing that as an explanation of anything.
Most scientific progress is still the result of studying anomalies.
Most scientific progress is the result of observing nature.
You should know by now I don't agree with science about anything that can't be derived from experiment.
Arbitrary exclusion of valid observation is going to be big problem for you, but that is your business. Observation of natural experiments has successfully been established for longer than experimental science and has yeilded practical and useful results. All that beaver biology that you used to make your analogy was the result of looking at beavers in the wild and seeing what they do. You may not agree with it, but that did not stop you from using it. All this means to me is that you do not understand science.
If it's not shown experimentally then it is no more than partially true and might not be true at all.
There is no evidence to support this and much to contradict and show that such an idea can be discarded as unfounded.
I have no horse in this race. Part of the reason I care at all is that we are being misled on this and it is extremely important.
This is nothing that you have demonstrated. Claiming a thing does not make that thing suddenly true. The only people that are misleading anyone are those like you that create your facts.
Ancient scientists share my "beliefs" on this subject but it should be noted they had no beliefs at all and that this was the ancient THEORY that led to the creation of agriculture.
Unfounded and unsupported claims can be dismissed without further consideration. There is evidence that populations of humans dating back 50,000 years, had beliefs.
You really do not do justice to the observational cognitive skills of our ancestors. What they achieved was not magic. They observed and learned. They did not run controlled experiments, but were still able to succeed by trial and error. By little improvements over time.
It was agriculture that allowed the survival of homo omnisciencis after the collapse of the tower.
A made up species surviving a made up calamity, saved by corn.
Without it we would have probably become extinct.
Another empty claim.