Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 109 of 243 (312052)
05-15-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2006 10:42 AM


Re: The altruism conundrum
I guess homosexuality is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. Evolving into homosexuals makes no sense. So, what are the scientific implications for it?
The gene that causes males to incline to homosexuality may in females cause hyper fertility. At least that is what some preliminary studies have found. So a guy might be gay but his sister might be especially adept or inclined to have a large family. Someone linked to the popular description of this on this forum awhile back. Certainly more research would need to be done on this specific case but it is a good example of how a trait that seems counter to reproductive success may propogate itself.
You have to remember, genetics is not so cut and dry. You have to take it all in the context of the environemnt which in this case part of your environment is your other genes (XY or XX).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 10:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 137 of 243 (313166)
05-18-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 10:07 AM


Re: When rationalism fails
True or false: Evolution cannot continue without heterosexual
contact resulting in the procreating of an offspring capable of
carrying the parents genes?
True or false: In order for homosexuals to have offspring, they
have to go against their own self-proclaimed nature to do so?
True or false: Natural selection is completely dependant upon
heterosexual sex producing offspring?
You are missing the point completely. Even if homosexuality is entirely genetically determined which I doubt it is, there are mechanism given our method of reproduciton to sustain genetic tendencies toward homosexuality.
If the 'gay gene' in men cause homosexuality but the same gene in women cause hyper-fertility then the gene will stay fixed in the population with some frequency. Even though you cant imagine homosexuals ever having hetrosexual sex, the sisters of gay men will more than make up for their brothers reduced number of offspring. Obviously the 'gay gene' will never totall innudate the population because there still has to be mates for those gay guy's sisters but the point is that the mechanism DOES EXIST for the genetic disposition to be homosexual.
It's also been used to justify euthanasia and eugeneics (i.e.
Hitler). Now it's being misused to say that we should allow all
these acts that are considered immoral. This in turn is being used
as a reason to reject ToE.
It may have been used in those situations but it is not dictated thus by the theory. People use all kinds of philosophies derieved from science, religion, and their personal lives to justify their actions. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, mass murder, and capital punishment among other things. Does that mean the Bible itself is the problem or that people's manipulation of the it to their own ends?
I am sorry to tell you that the rest of your post talking about how evolution implies humanism implies racism is nothing more than you uninformed opinion probably based on a lot of propaganda you have read about the topic. The reason I say this is because you are not the first person to come in here is pretty much say the exact same things paraphrased to the point that a casual reader can point out that the origin of the duplicated claim are the same. Ever since the first outcries against "Darwinism" there have been these arguments. "Evolution justifies racism...Hitler...Darwin was a racist...blah blah blah." It is like listening to a broken record. It is good for trying to make Evolution look like some sinister tool of the devil but it is not good at all for making yourself look informed or for producing a valuable discussion about the topic.
In fact, they constantly claim that the very first Homo sapiens are found in Africa, even though life originated in lower Mesopotamia.
The claim that the first Homo Sapiens are found in Africa because the first Homo Sapiens ARE FOUND IN AFRICA. Fossils of early ancestors of man are found in Africa. These are the same fossils that almost all evolution critics call, "just human." The only people who believe that man origininate in lower mesopotamia are those who believe in a religious myths generated by people who lived in lower mesopotamia.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 10:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 12:54 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 144 of 243 (313204)
05-18-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 12:54 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
Your argument is so asinine and seriously taken back by it.
That is because you just don't get the whole concept that the fitness expressed by certain genes don't have a 1 to 1 correspondence with a specific behavior.
Heck, I don't even know if all that stuff is true. For all I know those results have not been replicated yet and it is all just a hypothesis. But it IS A GOOD EXAMPLE against your 'asinine' understanding of genetics.
Altruism toward other people could be also linked to other characteristics like our ability to care for our children. Some of what helped us evolve into humans had to do with our ability to care of offspring for 25% of our life. That may have also had the side effect of caring for others who are not our children. We don't know. The point is that your whole "altruism will never evolve because it is a dog eat dog world" is total crap because you completely ignore the other factors that a particular genetic trait might imbue on the individual.
Forget caring for your children. What if the altruism gene also made me 50% strong and faster than everyone? Pick any trait that you might see as advantageous. Put the gene in a different context, male, female, pre-natal, adolescent, etc and it may have a different effect. Genetics does not work like you think it might in your obviously ignorant characterization of it. Gene X = Behavior Y is almost never going to be that cut and try no matter how much you spout on and on about "the bottom line is that you need heterosexual sex for something to evolve."
History begins in Mesopotamia and that fact is more than undeniable. So what are the chances that the Sumerians were so vastly advanced over those stupid Africans, that while the Africans were grunting, the Sumerians were advancing in a very complex language system and code of sociological laws? In other words, the Sumerians and Akkadians seemed to spring out of the ground already remarkably advanced. So, what are the odds that this level of intelligence didn't evovle slowly from one society to the next?
Because the environment that those people lived in made it more conducive to developing agriculture and therefore more advanced society. Just because I may be born after you does that necessarily make you smarter or better than me? Sure you may have had more time and therefore opportunity to become more "advanced" but that does not mean you did.
The evidence points toward the start of humanity in Africa. Some people's religious myths say it started in mesopotamia. It just so happens that the origins of those religious myths is also mesopotamia. Who is and who isn't connecting the dots?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 05-18-2006 1:25 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 160 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 8:11 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 158 of 243 (313312)
05-18-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 6:52 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
If our sisters are completely separate entities from us, then how would they be affected by some chance mutation that occured in our formation years earlier?
It is not a mutation. At least it is not now. It probably was at one point in time and being that it improves the reproductive fitness of females it probably started in them.
If our sisters developed after us, what is the cause of her hyperfertility? How are the two even homologous? If we were maternal twins, then there would be some reasonable expectation for similar maladies. So then, what is the cause that would lead us to a reasonable expectation for this to occur?
It is not a malady. It is a gene. If one of the parents have it, lets say the mom, then there is a 25% chance that the kids will have it. If the kid that gets it is a boy then he inclines toward homosexuality. If the kid that gets it is a girl the she get the benefit to her fertility.
You have some very strange and VERY WRONG ideas of how genetics works. What we are talking about here is not something that happens to a baby boy in-utero that is some kind of deformity. We are talking about the statistical frequency of a normal allele in the population that provides a evolutionary advantage to women regarding reproduction.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 6:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:56 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 167 of 243 (313418)
05-19-2006 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 8:11 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
Here's the plain fact that you simply refuse to recognize. No gene or genetic expression has ever been determined to be the causation of homosexuality or morality. As of now, no such gene exists. Therefore, anything at this point is total speculation on your part.
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.
Secondly, if there was some genetic mutation that caused this, it runs counter to what natural selection chooses.
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.
And that's not my version of events, that's what we all know to be true (except in this case, of course). If the entire theory of evolution is utterly dependant on procreation, and procreation is impossible between same sex partners (thank you Chaos), then doesn't it stand to reason that homosexuality just undermined itself?
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.
Agriculture makes peolpe who used to grunt all of a sudden have the ability to make vast technological and sociological advances? I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. The oldest 'human' skull is said to have been found in Ethiopia or somewhere there about. That is supposed to be millions of years ago. But the first instance of a civilization comes to us through the Sumerians who seemingly appear out of thin air fully developed. What I mean is, if evolution is true, then we'd expect to see humans developing slowly, in language, in commerce, in history. But that isn't what we see. What we find is history beginning 5,000 + years ago out of thin air. Do you understand what I mean?
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?
You can call the Sumerians and Akkadians or whoever part of 'religous myths', but I can assure you that they existed
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.
and that it seems to present a problem for anyone under the grand assumption that man evolved slowly from a monkey.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 8:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 178 of 243 (313566)
05-19-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Chiroptera
05-19-2006 1:50 PM


Re: When rationalism fails
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Chiroptera, posted 05-19-2006 1:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Chiroptera, posted 05-19-2006 2:04 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4030 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 187 of 243 (313589)
05-19-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Hyroglyphx
05-19-2006 2:56 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
nemesis I think you need to decide what you are arguing and stick to it. I was operating with the understanding that you were trying to use the genetic basis for homosexuality as a refutation of evolution on the grounds that homosexual people are less fit because they have no desire to engage in activity that would result in procreation. To have that kind of a discussion we have to make the assumtion for the sake of argument that homosexuality is genetic.
If you then switch to say that we are not taking that assumption for the sake of argument then your whole point of the fitness level of homosexuals goes out the window. If homosexuality or altruism is not heritable there there is no point in having a discussion about the evolution of those traits or how they show that evolution could not have occurred.
So here we have two scenarios.
1. Altruism/Homosexuality/(Other non-obvious beneficial trait) is genetic. To rephrase, this means that this trait is passed on by the physiological makeup of the individual via there genes. If we operate under this assumtion then there are many examples and evidence already given that illustrate both the plausability and possibility of maintaining non-ideal genetic traits at some frequency in the population.
2. Altruism/Homosexuality/etc are not genetic. Therefore there is no problem explaning them in terms of evolution because evolution does not operate on characteristics that are not genetic.
So if you are going to continue to operate in the realm of 1 you need to stick to that basic assumtion or else all capability of having a reasonable discussion goes out the window. If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion then might I suggest you go start a blog.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024