That's like saying if lions didn't have teeth and claws then they wouldn't be top of the food chain in their habitat.
It's removing the very thing which makes them at the top of the food chain and doesn't make sense. Anyway, physical strength doesn't necessarily equate to top of the food chain.
Exactly. Instead of claws, teeth, and muscles to help us take down our prey, we have our brains which help us create and use tools. Kind of like how a monkey might use a stick to dig a bug out of a hole in a tree.
If a human just went out into the wild with some tools and his brain, we still wouldn't be at the top of the food chain. We're at the top because there's not a lot of wild animals walking around cities and other people raise and kill our food for us. If it was down to the individual against the animals, even with modern technology, we'd be at the a lot closer to the bottom.
If I had rope and a saw and was in a place with some resources (e.g. a forest) then I wouldn't be able to be killed.
You're underestimating how smart humans are. We can build shelters and make weapons. Opposable thumbs give us such an advantage over so many other animals too.
Yes, you would. A rope and saw won't be very good when a cheetah is on top of you, assuming you can even keep hold of the saw and keep it on you at all times. Monkey's have thumbs too.
Assuming I had some time to construct a shelter I'd be fine.
Monkeys and apes wouldn't attack you unless you provoke them and while they have opposable thumbs they have lower intelligence.
This is wrong on two accounts. If you assume naturalism, then life evolved through purely evolutionary processes, and no species was "meant" to do anything. We, along with every other organism, are accidents.
Assuming theism, God would've intended for humans to have dominion over the earth and its creatures, and to be on top of the food chain.
How's the post inconsistent with naturalism?
I guess it's technically not... But it kinda implies that some species were meant to do something, and we cheated the system by being intelligent, whereas with naturalism, we weren't even meant to exist, let alone perform some kind of function. We just beat the odds (which were unbelievably stacked against us) and arose. We are tiny, insignificant, accidental creatures on a tiny speck of dust called Earth that will eventually vanish, rendering our entire lives objectively meaningless.
Of course, I don't believe this, but that's what naturalism entails.
That makes sense. I think that OP was implying how fascinating it is that humans came out on top, despite having weak muscles, no camouflage, and horrible senses.
Well he would be correct in that sense. We're pretty easy targets without our guns. Haha.
And our houses engineered, to withstand high levels of wind.
We don't have built in weapons. We have hardpoints(hands) that can hold a wide variety of weapons.
Obviously we were meant to be at the top of the food chain because we are intelligent enough to find ways to take down prey without having claws, super sharp teeth, and without being very fast or strong.