Retracing Natures Steps for Naturalizing Values

In Holmes Rolston's examination of nature and the application or possession of value to it, he feels that "values are objective in nature" (107) and that values need to be naturalized. He finds that we run into a lot of dead ends with philosophers only reaching so far as to placing anthropic values to biotic and abiotic objects within naure. Many find that things are only valuable once humans have come upon it and found it to be useful or interesting or pleasing to us. Without a valuer, value cannot be placed...and we seem to be the only ones capable of placing value (on our level/standards). He has also pointed out that Singer finds that it is possible to hold not just an anthropogenic but "sentiogenic" position on value, stating that "animals value on their own"...but that mostly just leads to how they biologically may value another object or thing, mainly from the theory of natural selection. He acknowledges that "it is difficult to dissociate the idea of value from natural selection".
A point that may back up value beyond its services in natural selection and therefore evolution of species may be found in what happened before the natural selection started, or rather, why the natural selection occurred in the first place. We now understand that animals, and humans as well, will select for "traits" that our ancestors have found to favor our species...but what happened in the moment where the first few individuals, hundreds and thousands and millions of generations ago, decided that such a trait was favorable? Did the male peacock that hit the genetic jackpot realize that his extra extravagent plumage was going to attract a mate better than the rest? Was the female knowingly searching for such a display? Something attracted her, caught her attention...maybe it could be argued that she valued the bright colors. And not certainly in the way that we do. It was something different, unique, and did not have a biological significance yet.