morality, charity according to evolution

You've noticed that too, huh? Like the folks who shouted about The Last Temptation of Christ and now The DaVinci Code.

You may be right but no where did I refuse to recognize anything. In fact I specifically stated that I was using this case as an example. Altruism and homosexuality may not be genetic at all. They both may be emergent properties of other characteristics that DO stem from evolution such as increased intelligence. Either way though your reasoning behind trying to debunk the genetic factors is based on a completely ignorant characterization of the way genetics work. No amount of your layman's babble on an internet forum will change the way genes interact in the real world and the only thing you have demonstrated is that you have no idea what you are talking about with regards to genetics or heritability. Except when it is paired with something that natural selection DOES choose which is exactly what my examples were trying to illustrate. Just because one trait/gene is disadvantageous in one sex of the species does not mean that it is not advantageous when present in the other sex. I am sorry that you continue to fail to understand this concept but I don't know how I can explain it with any more clarity. Assuming that homosexuality is genetic for the purposes of conversation, there are plenty of reason that many people including myself have illustrated as to how the trait could sustain itself in a population. Just because you don't get it does not mean the mechanisms do not exist. You don't get to define reality by your ignorance. I understand what you mean completely and by the same logic the people of mesopotamia should be the most advanced civilization on earth right now. Why not? I mean they were there first right? There is no way that some barbarians over in western europe could ever catch up to the enlightened civilization of these great empires. Also, we can totaly forget about those primitive folk over in south east asia. How could they ever hope to surpass the great Sumeria? I never said they didn't exist. You must have made yet another incorrect assumtion and once again failed to understand anything that people try to communicate to you. Their existence though is not evidence for the origin of the species just the origin of civilization. That is of course unless you choose to belive in a religious myth that forces you to ignore the evidence. Ah yes, and then at the end of the day what is better that the grand old fatal mischaracterization of evolution by the ignorant masses. "I didn't come from no monkey!" Say it loud man. You are doing more to deconstruct yourself then any argument I could ever begin to fathom.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I have been following this thread with great interest. The evolution of altruism (or apparent altruism) is an area of great interest to me. But there are a few statements you have made that I need to address first.In message #58 you said:

quote:

---

I wouldn't expect Charles to have all the answers back then. The problem is, he was pretty convinced that he did have all the answers and that his assumptions were factual

---

Charles Darwin never indicated he had all of the answers. Many posts later you were asked if you had ever read Origin. This statement demonstrates that you have not read Origin or anything by Darwin for that matter. Darwin was one of the most unassuming and humble figures in scientific history. He repeatedly allows for how he might be shown wrong. Nearly all of the out-of-context quotes creationists use against Darwin are from those times where he is outlining the kinds of evidence needed to show him wrong. Those evidences never surfaced during his lifetime nor since. As one of my committee members used to say, "Bad!" Don't cut down Darwin without reading him yourself.In message #72:

quote:

---

No macroevolutionary progress has ever been observed, and it can't be studied or tested without these observations

---

This type of comment arises again and again here at EvC. Science does not rely on direct observation in the sense of seeing something. Science is based on the scientific method which is based on deduction. Generalizations (hypotheses) are created and tested against future observations. These observations could be based on direct observation, confirmation by predictions, etc. Macroevolutionary change (the term has no real meaning BTW, it is just evolutionary change used by creationists to explain changes between 'kinds') has been observed over and over again via fossils, genetics, etc.In message #83

quote:

---

Evolution posits that there is no direction, just change. But this ignores the basic fact about evolution. If we go from less autonomy and complextiy to more autonomy and more complexity, isn't that indicative of a clear direction? Yes, it is

---

This, like many of your statements, shows your lack of understanding about evolution. Evolution from simple to complex (I am ignoring 'autonomy, I have no idea what you mean here) is a spectacular example of the process. But it is not the only. In evolutionary biology we use the terms 'advanced' and 'primitive'. Primitive means "less changed (derived) from the ancetsral form" and advanced is "most changed from ancestral form". Very often primitive forms are much more complex than are advanced forms. A universal trend is for parasites to be simpler in organization (loss or degeneration of nervous system, digestive, etc) from their ancestors and non-parasitic relatives. We see the same trend in commensal species that are non-parasitic.And my favorites are a few from your message # 91:

quote:

---

Really? Then what is the Cambrian explosion all about? If they didn't appear abruptly then what need is there of punctuated equilibrium?

---

I see this again and again. You obviously have not read nor understand at all what Eldredge and Gould were talking about with PE. It has NOTHING to do with the Cambrian explosion. I strongly advise that you look up these references rather than trust creationist sources on them. PE is not nor was ever intended to be an explanation for the sudden appearance of major taxa. It was not an attempt to explain missing links. That is a strawman used over and over again. Read the paper.
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models In Paleobiology (Ed. by T. J. M. Schopf).And this gem from #91:

quote:

---

There are two known living types of Coelecanth, the Commoros and the Sulawesi. The difference between them is about as far-reaching as the difference between a Tabby and a Calico. The fact is the Coelecanth is its own Genus, and the fossilized version is no different between livings one. So, in 350 million years it either forgot to evolve or macroevolution simply doesn't exist.

---

As pointed out before, you mean 70 million years, not 350. A tabby and a calico are the same species, the living Coelacanths (note the spelling) are three members of the genus Latimeria (one undescribed). They belong to a genus that is unknown in the fossil record. The word coelacanth refers to any member of the subclass Coelacanthimorpha. Please learn about taxonomy before presuming to know such things. Also, please look at fossil coelacanths and note they are under 30 cm in length (usually) and freshwater rather than over 1 meter and deep saltwater before you say "no different".Sorry, I had to address those points. Now on topic:

quote:

---

Think about this logically. If theft, rape, and murder occur in the animal kingdom for survival, then any organism helping out its competitors would simply die out. Remember, natural selection does not choose the weak vessels, but the strong, and in some cases, the mercilous.

---

I agree with your argument here in a theoretical basis. It is where game theory comes into play. The points you outlined above can be considered the rules of the game (or some of them). Game theory can look at how those hold up over repeated playings. For example theft. An individual that steals resources might do better than an indivdual that doesn't. And we find thieves throughout the animal kingdom. But why don't thieves predominate? Because if you play the numbers game you find that stealing is not an evolutionary stable strategy (except to a point). Stealing works if a few steal sometimes but not if all steal frequently.Rape can also be an evolutionary advantage. But it is not an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). This is because many females (mostly non-mammals) have mechanisms to control which individual male fertilizes their offspring. Female birds of many species eject the sperm of unwanted males. Many reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates have multiple sperm recepticles and can choose which mating will result in offspring. Mammals (and multiple other groups) have evolved female choice strategies such as pair-bonding, harems, etc. that prevent matings from unwanted males.I have a lot more to say, but it is very late and I am not going to get to my main points tonight. I am going to leave it at this and finish this tomorrow.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Read Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. I can only very lightly summarise his argument, but, basically, virtually all the domesticated animals and plants originate there. This gave them, and latterly Europe an immense advantage over the rest of the world. Africa, for instance, has no native domesticatable animals. There is absolutely no evidence of any significant difference in mental abilities across the world and Africa, for instance, had some quite sophisticated cultures, within their environmental limits. See Great Zimbabwe

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Sexual desire for the opposite sex and the desire to procreate are two seperate (but linked) issues. I know several homosexual couples that want to have children (not that personal experience counts in scientic discusions).

If you don't mate then you don't pass on your genes. If you have no desire to mate then you are weaker by the terms of natural selection. How would it help anyone by not having children, 'for the greater good of the tribe?' What people honestly relinquish their paternal and maternal rights on the basis of ensuring a tribe or community will be better? I mean, you speak about these invented scenarios as if they are kinds of certainties. What this comes down to is you have resolved to reason your way out of the conundrum that homosexuality poses on an indivdual basis and a communal level. So, let me get this straight. You now basically think that homosexuality is an extreme case of altruism where they forgo their paternal rights for 'the good of others?' But of the total number of homosexuals in the 'village' or 'tribe', there are some who are also bisexuals and chooses to mate. Now, the homosexual allele will proliferate throghout the community. Ok, and how is that a good thing? I see you have tried to tie homosexuality into altruism, but sociology tells a different story concerning human motivation. And the way in which you have done it portrays homosexuals as cannon fodder in an evolutionary sense, which was argued before. So homosexuals are born to die in your scenario. Therefore, they are weaker in terms of natural selection. First off, there is no known cause for homosexuality. Alot of theories have been thrown around, including the result of a point mutation, some theorize that its the result of a glandular disturbance, others think its psychological. My only concern is, you seem to have this general fantasy that most of the world lives under some sort of tribal rule. This is obviously not true. The way you make it sound, everyone gathers around and has sex with each other and when one of them gets pregnant, the whole 'tribe' (whoever that is) takes care of the child. 95% of the human population does not live in any kind of communal 'tribe.' And of the 5%, there are clear societal guidelines that include marriage and faithfulness. There is not this open stance on homosexuality. Virtually every culture understands that there is a physical and natural aberration associated with it. And we can scream and cry about 'tolerance,' but the results are in and have been for a long time. If it was socially acceptable, then it would have been evident by now, especially in light of your scenarios showing us the benefits of homosexuals in our tribe. How would having sex make people survive better? LOL! This is hilarious only because you are so certain about your invented scenarios. Go to any tribe right now, either in Africa, Australia, or South America and tell me if this rich tapestry you allege, even exists. The way you make it appear, people don't speak to each other or work together unless they've already slept with one another. I mean, you are really just pushing the boundaries of everything that we know about people. Tribes don't go around sleeping with every member of the tribe to increase community relatiions. I mean, I know there are alot of people who want to believe that in order to give themselves the excuse to engage in such behavior, but the reality is quite different. Furthermore, chastity is still a very desirable trait because marriage in these 'archaic' tribes is still very much alive.All in all, I think you have invented this world in which you want to see where people have sex with each other in the street and everyone works as a team. But all I can really say is that your vision is nothing like what we actually see in society. In this vision, you have imagined ways how homosexuality would benefit the greater good of the tribe, but not one thing you've claimed is thus far proveable by anything at all.

This means, under normal circumstances, being altruistic in the zoological sense destroys its adherents, but working as a team increases your chnces for survival. Everything I've been saying since the first post. Your issue is equating morality/altruistic behavior of humans to teamwork in the animal kingdom. Teamwork doesn't equate to altruistic behavior, it equates to selfish/reciprocal behavior.

That`s the core of the point you've been making throughout this thread. And that's exactly where you might be mistaken. You haven't given us anything besides your own opinion as support for this point.

I thought it was, but then again, there is no standard for anything because everything pretty much relates in relativity. What do hermaphrodites have to do with the equation? Its amazing that more of them aren't born, being that all fetuses are androgenous leading to a dimorphism in the early stages of development. In any case, I'm not sure how this fits in to our conversation.

quote:

---

Somebody at least concede that its bizarre.

---

There should have been a comma in there, as in: 'Somebody, at least concede that its bizarre.' Meaning, 'Will someone, at the very least, admit that its bizarre?' I said the 'root' of society, not the minor intricacies. The roots would include laws and social norms. All societies are virtually identical, without any coersion from other nations to assimilate. Its only methodologies that change from society to society. You don't think the ToE has underpinnings and underscores of atheism at the heart of it? Apparently you take the Deist approach that, if there is a Creator, it made everything at the very beginning and does nothing else for all of eternity. Maybe this paper will help aggrandize my view.Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God“In 1874, the theologian, Charles Hodge, asked his congregation a question. He asked, “What is Darwinism?” After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation, his answer was unequivocal. “It is Atheism.” -Phillip Johnson In 'Origins', (the book that I've never read), Darwin goes into the differences between domestication and natural adaptations. He delineates around the two in hopes to eventually marry one another. But even he recognized that out of all these alleged gadations, everything appears abruptly. I would agree that Linneus and Darwin recognized what everyone could plainly see; that organimism can create subspecies."These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?...Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?-Charles Darwin If evolution only goes in one direction, from simpler to more complex, then evolution refers to a refining over time, which clearly expresses a direction. You can object to "highly evolved" but until you can explain it in other terms, everyone will continue to know exactly what it implicitly means. I'm not suggesting that Darwin was an overt or covert bigot. I'm using simple logic here. If the general direction is more intelligence, more fitness, better suitability to the enviornment, then there is unquestionably a direction from lesser to greater. What are the implications as they relate to races? One race is less evolved than another. There should be no ambiguity. I'm sorry you object to that terminology, but if it the theory wee true, a gereral direction is plain to see. If Neanderthals lived before modern humans existed, and modern humans branched out of Neanderthal, then modern man is more highly evolved. According to theory, Neanderthal couldn't compete with modern mans intellect. And so a line of demarcation is drawn in the sand. We see the same drivel being played out today with intelligence quotients and whatnot even today. Its the Us :vs: Them mentality. That was quite a few posts ago, and if I hit the 'back' button, I'm liable to lose everything I've just typed. I think what I was referring to was subspecies, as in small adaptations due to isolation, inbredding, or natural selection. A taxonomic niche could just about anything that enhances survival in whatever enviornment, i.e. white fur when living in the Arctic. Some foxes have it and some don't. If you stuck a typical redtail fox in the arctic, he'd probably be less likely to deal with the cold or predators than his Arctic cousin. But beyond that, I can't remember what the conversation was about. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

Your logic is pushing the boundaries of what is sensible. The plausibility of your logic is lacking even circumstancial evidence. There is nothing compelling about it that would compel me to put any stock into it. That's just how I feel about it. You are entitled to your opinion, and if you see the purpose in it, more power to you. But it seems so fanciful to me based on what we do currently know. It seems like its just another excuse to cover up what the deeper issue is. If there wasn't the fear of losing all the information by hitting the back button, I'd go find all the times in this forum where it explains the only purpose to life is to procreate. How do you transmit those traits from one organism to another? This is so important that I'm going to repeat it: How do you transmit traits from organism to another? Answer: Procreation. As in, natural, normal, healthy heterosexual behavior. And your theory that homosexuals routinely engage in heterosexual sex undermines what homosexuality is. Because it isn't evidence of anything other than what we already know and have always known. For me to go into the TalkOrigins '29 evidences' on a point-by-point basis, it would take the greater part of two days to complete. And quite frankly, I have a wife, kids, job, and school. I already neglect housework just to speak with you fine folks as it is. But since you have repeatedly cited this, I will go over it little by little, and point by point. Its a fact that species develop small adaptations. What isn't a fact, or even remotely close to it, is that all organsims ascended or descended from a paramecium. Yes, that is a fact. What isn't a fact is that its due to malfunctions in the brain, pyschotrauma, point mutations, or glandular disruptions. All of those are good and worthy theories for a starting point hypothesis. But you are personally inventing reasons that sound half-way plausible and are pawning it off, and in doing so, you are confusing the laymen in here. 1. ToE says that change helps organsims survivability.
2. ToE says that natural selection is one of those mechanisms.
3. NS states that it is a process that is not due to chance, but rather statistical odds. In other words, its as close to intent as you could get in a nature that isn't congnizant.
4. The only way for any organism to proliferate is to procreate, hence, the entire premise of evolution and its subunits, like natural selection, would collapse without procreation.
5. The only stated goal of life is to pass on genes.
6. Homosexuals are members of the same-sex who have sexual attraction to memebers of the same sex.
7. Memebers of the same sex can't procreate.
8. For homosexuals to procreate, they have to go against their own avowed nature in order to do so.Therefore, evolving into homosexuals doesn't make any sense in a Darwinian sense. Any other grandiose assumption beyond this basic theorum, is just that.... Grandiose, and highly illogical.

quote:

---

If you don't mate then you don't pass on your genes.

---

There are other ways to pass on one's genes than to reproduce yourself. Your brother shares half the genes you do. So, if you help your brother, you are helping to propagate half of your genes. If one of those is a "help your brother gene" then the "help your brother" gene you posses is being passed on. If by foregoing reproduction a homosexual shares the resources that he is not using on reproduction to help other members of the tribe, which then increases the chances that these other members will successfully reproduce, and if some of these reproducing members share the gene or genes for homosexuality, then the gene or genes for homosexuality will be propagated into the next generation. If having some members in a tribe forego reproduction enables the tribe to produce more surviving offspring than other tribes all of whose members attempt to reproduce, then the individuals with the gene or genes for homosexuality will increase in number. This is all that is needed for natural selection to work.-

quote:

---

What people honestly relinquish their paternal and maternal rights on the basis of ensuring a tribe or community will be better?

---

What are you talking about? I am talking about people working together for a common good rather than selfishly squandering their resources on themselves. I am talking about a passerby picking up a stranded motorist or a woman watching her neighbor's kids when the neighbor has a doctor's appointment. I am speaking of hunters working together on a hunt, gathers working together in gathering food. I am talking about several people taking turns minding the children and the sick while the men are out hunting and the women are gathering.-

quote:

---

You now basically think that homosexuality is an extreme case of altruism where they forgo their paternal rights for 'the good of others?'

---

It could be. We are speaking of individuals that have passed by opportunities for "reproductive success". These individuals are also contributing to the societies to which the belong. Whether these are linked, I don't know. I merely propose it as a possibility.-

quote:

---

Therefore, they are weaker in terms of natural selection.

---

"Weaker" and "stronger" can only refer to what traits are passed onto the next generation. I have given several possibilities in which genes for homosexuality can be passed onto the next generation. In these cases, homosexuality would be a "strong" trait, your obsession with a cartoon version of evolution notwithstanding.-

quote:

---

First off, there is no known cause for homosexuality.

---

The argument here is not about the cause for homosexuality. The argument here is that if homosexuality has a genetic basis, then it is possible in some situations for this genetic trait to be maintained in a population through natural selection.-

quote:

---

Go to any tribe right now, either in Africa, Australia, or South America and tell me if this rich tapestry you allege, even exists.

---

Actually, it does. There are several tribes that I know of in South America and in Indonesia where the males practice communal homosexuality. This practice serves to strengthen the social bonding of its members.-

quote:

---

I mean, you are really just pushing the boundaries of everything that we know about people.

---

Actually, I have done a lot of reading in cultural anthropology. Not enough to make me an expert, but enough to know about the immense diversity that exists among human cultures, and a lot about the various theories that explain those behaviors (I tend to favor "cultural materialism" myself, although I think those who try to expain everything in terms of it tend to overstate their case). You, in this very post, have now expressed your own ignorance in these matters.-

quote:

---

In this vision, you have imagined ways how homosexuality would benefit the greater good of the tribe, but not one thing you've claimed is thus far proveable by anything at all.

---

You don't seem to understand that your argument has been thoroughly shredded. I do not need to prove that any of the outlined scenarios take place in the real world. Your argument is, "This is not possible." To prove you wrong, I need only to prove the opposite of "This is not possible." The opposite of "This is not possible" is not "This actually occurs" -- the opposite of "This is not possible" is "This is possible". Therefore, the prove you wrong, all I need to show is that "this is possible". To show that something is possible, all I need to do is devise reasonable scenarios in which the something is possible. Until you show that the scenarios are not possible (which you have not yet done since you refuse to understand natural selection), your argument "This is not possible" is refuted.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

All the significant points in this post by randman nemesis_juggernaut have already been addressed in my post here.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Are you sure randman=nemesis? I seem to have a perception of randman knowing high school level genetics.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

No, I'm not saying that juggernaut is randman. I am simply pointing out certain similarities in their "debate" styles.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

It is highly unlikely that nemesis_juggernaut is randman.

---