Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,196 Year: 5,453/9,624 Month: 478/323 Week: 118/204 Day: 18/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 243 (310300)
05-08-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
05-07-2006 4:53 PM


The evolution of morality
quote:
marriage easily fits in. It fits in because it provides a continual partner. Instead of having to duke it out with all the rest, I've got a mate that I can count on for reproductive success for my life (under normal circumstances, not counting things like divorce).
I think this argument is incredibly asinine because of all of your presumptions are based off what you have tried to logically surmise. In other words, its unfounded and purely speculative. This whole thing that humans want to procreate because of biological evolution is fanciful at best and is dashed to pieces when you factor in how many people don't want to get pregnant or have their partner get pregnant. Furthermore, there is no corroborating evidence that would suggest that a person respects the fact that you are married. How many extra-marital affairs occur every day? Quite a lot. You are trying turn humans into animals when the plain fact is there is such a vast difference between the two, I feel there is no need to try and assimilate them.
quote:
It's not conjecture. Let's take a look at our relative species. We have neoteny.
Charity and morals fit absolutely nowhere in a Darwinian sense. Darwinian evolution is ALL about competition. Taking care of such people, unsuring their survival with no incentive is entirely philanthropic. Its a wonderful thing. I believe it to be Divinely inspired, but it simply runs counter to Darwinism. You're just guessing what you think seems logical, but what empirical evidence supports what you're saying? You keep mentioning animals as if they are on par with humans, which they are clearly not.
quote:
Isn't survival what evolution is all about? You know, surviving so that you can reproduce and have offspring.
Helping your competitors fits nowhere in Darwinian evolution, in fact, it completely undermines it. To claim otherwise is about as asinine as justifying rape, claiming that they are simply following their biological urges.
Honestly, how have you come to such a low estimation about life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 05-07-2006 4:53 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 05-08-2006 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-08-2006 2:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2006 10:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 197 by Shalini, posted 05-24-2006 9:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 243 (310305)
05-08-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
05-08-2006 9:36 AM


Re: Some random thoughts.
quote:
Marriage has only recently become one man and one woman
Recent? What do you consider recent?
quote:
If we look at history of sexuality we find an even greater range of interaction than you find in most of the rest of the animal kingdoms.
Not really. In most species there is no ryhme or reason to their procreation affinities. They have multiple partners with whatever they want. Its purely instinctual. They get an urge, they go for what is around. Dogs hump peoples legs and hump shoes. Is that because they have some reason for doing so? The only viable reason is they have an urge to procreate. That's the extent of it. There isn't some evolutionary throwback allowing some penchant to hump legs and shoes.
quote:
Music too is certainly not a uniquely human creation. And recent studies have hinted at a connection between the invention of music and the invention of language.
Animals speak their own language too. Why don't they play music?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 05-08-2006 9:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 05-08-2006 1:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-08-2006 1:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 243 (310311)
05-08-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
05-08-2006 1:29 PM


Re: The evolution of morality
quote:
individuals who are cooperating and helping each other, then they will presumably be more likely to survive
So, helping a man in a coma is going to affect your likelihood of survival? No. Human beings help other human beings because they have a conscience. There is an innate quality to help those injured. And that empathic quality cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 05-08-2006 1:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 05-08-2006 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2006 2:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 243 (310465)
05-09-2006 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
05-08-2006 1:39 PM


Re: Some random thoughts.
quote:
Uhhhh.....you've never heard of a bird? Or a humpback whale?
What? You're comparing an animals language (which may or may not equate to a language in humans by singing) to human beings playing instruments? So if I played certain chords on a guitar, you'd know what I'm communicating to you? If I played a drum beat, you'd know that I'm saying to you, "Hey, lets go eat some pizza"? This isn't even remotely comparable. This argument does nothing to support the argument that music equates to an evolving language, especially when we already have languages. If you were to say that ;anguage is evolving, then there would be some semblance of veracity. But music doesn't fit the criteria at all. Music is spiritual. That isn't something that language could ever aptly portray in words. If music speaks to us, it speaks to us on an individual and spiritual level. I think everyone could agree with that even if they didn't ascribe to any theistic beliefs.
To add to the overall argument: Morals fit nowhere in the evolutionary paradigm. Helping dying people detracts from your own sense of self-preservation, which Darwinism is totally based upon. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing competitors.... These sinful notions is what Darwinsim is all about. The fact that any of you are arguing that point is hysterical because it completely undermines everything you assert about evolution as it pertains to the animal kingdom.
This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-09-2006 09:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 05-08-2006 1:39 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 05-09-2006 10:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 05-09-2006 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 243 (311028)
05-11-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chiroptera
05-09-2006 11:15 AM


The altruism conundrum
The solution is that perfect altruists do not exist (except, perhaps, as individuals among humans). The individuals of any cooperative species can identify and retaliate against cheaters, and this is the essential point that makes altruism stable in real populations.
How could altruism develop over time if it undermines the very principles that epitomize the evolutionary theory? How could a trait for altruism be transmitted from generation to generation? If an animal that exhibited some level of altruism, then they'd more prone to be preyed upon. If they are preyed more highly than the others, then fewer altruists would survive to reproduce. Eventually, altruism should vanish from any given population strictly by examining the classical, evolutionary model. In other words, the nice guy always finishes last in a dog-eat-dog world. We know that certain creatures can work together. And that's fine. One, it makes perfect sense on how it would help them survive, because there is safety in numbers. And two, we're able to witness this event when we see birds flying together. But nursing the sick back to health doesn't conform.
So its up to certain pro-evolutionists to redefine what biological fitness means in order to resolve the marked paradox. Darwinian thought concerning fitness culminates the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce, and thus yielding offspring to carry on some of their traits. The focus has now shifted from how individual fitness can evolve into inclusive fitness, crossing over to the overall populace. But this ignores the plain fact about the ToE. Kin selection can't be quantified. But it tries to reason with an over-elaborate scheme that ultimately undermines everything we've been taught on how a species is to survive. They survive by being cut-throat.
As I pointed out elsewhere, merciless killing, lying, cheating, stealing elucidates ToE, not altruism. As it relates to humans, taking care of sick people fits nowhere in the Darwinian model. Doing 'good' for no immediate gain fits nowhere at all. ToE is dependant on we might otherwise call, sinful. I realize that you might object to the term, 'sinful,' but you understand the premise I hope, even if you don't ascribe to any set of theistic beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 05-09-2006 11:15 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 12:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 43 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 3:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 243 (311209)
05-11-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
05-11-2006 12:35 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
worker bees sacrifice their lives to protect the hive because the queen is an exact clone of every worker bee, so there's not a genetic difference between the offspring of a worker bee (which are sterile, actually) and the offspring the queen produces on her behalf.
What? Worker bees are programmed in this way, whether you want to ascribe that to millions of years of mutations or by Divine design. Aside from which, if bees manage to accrue this feature, then it should be evident in the lives of all organisms that precede the entomological line. What I mean to say is, I think we would agree that if macroevolution occurs, then Hyennas derived after bees. So why would altruism exist in bee colonies but not be present in Hyenna packs? Yes, Hyennas work together in packs and that teamwork helps the whole colony survive. But that isn't even close to altruism. Now, you could say on some level that Dolphins exhibit a form of altruism because they've been known to help drowning victims for no apparent reason. In other words, they gain nothing by doing it, but evolution does not portray this message. So how does altruism jump gaps throghout different lineages?
Any worker sacrificing herself for the queen is a 1 to 1 equivalence, because the queen shares all her genes. There's no reduction in fitness for that behavior.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion. Can you elaborate?
Could you cite a source for where those are defined and mandated within modern evolutionary theory?
Probably not because this logical question was posed a long time ago and they've attempted to reconcile this. There's been an attempt to rectify the conundrum since Darwin first contemplated it. But lets look at logically. What we know about evolution consists of, killing for food, stealing food, destroying rivals... Its survival of the fittest and a constant battle for supremacy. This is what natural selection is based upon. Aside from which, if altruism is the product of genetic drifting then shouldn't they have been killed out long ago? Helping others detracts from your own sense of self-preservation in a Darwinian sense. How could you honestly say otherwise? All of this speculation conveniently glances over the obvious ironies. How can you have in one instance, animals that kill for self-preservation, and in the next, have them love each other for self-preservation? That's too paradoxical to make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 12:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ramoss, posted 05-12-2006 8:16 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 243 (311215)
05-11-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
05-11-2006 5:51 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
And not the natural world: dogs don't eat dogs!
Its an idiom. It represents that animals don't have the ability to reason in the same way a human does. Stick one bowl of food in front of two dogs. What happens? They fight and growl until one takes on the dominant role and the other takes the submissive role. One doesn't nudge the bowl over to the other for the sake of the other, which is what altruism really is. That kind of display is only seen in Disney films, but it does not represent the reality.
I think part of the problem is certain people in here are ascribing teamwork as altruism when the two are not synonymous in any way. Altruism is a selfless act where one person gains nothing and the other gains everything, (or in this case, animals). That isn't Darwinism.
I thought of a story that my buddy once told me. I think it might shed some light on what I'm reffering to. An old friend of mine told me that when he was a police officer, he and some of the other cops used to check on a certain old lady, coined the "Cat Woman," because she loved and owned upwards of 20 cats. The reason why they checked on her was because they had been called to her house a number of times and began to understand the nature of this womans circumstances. She was a widow and had no family living in the area. Her friends were old themselves and were in no position to care for her either. But she refused to live in a nursing home and there was no legal recourse to place her into one. Anyway, this was in a relatively small California city nestled in the Coachella Valley and it gets incredibly hot during the summer months. Geriatric's who's air conditioning units that break down often die out there.
So, one day, out of sheer altruism, he decided to stop by and check on her. It had been a few days. When he arrived, no one answered the door. After a few minutes he peered through the windows. What he found was a layer of flies on the window. He began to fear the worst. He called it in and the Patrol Supervisor okay'ed him to enter the premise on the grounds of exigent circumstances. When he kicked down the door, he was met by the unmistakable odor of putrefaction. There she was, dead.
He surmised that she had been dead for a number of days because the heat had caused glycerine in her body to rise to the surface. (Think of that gelatinous goop that forms on the surface of a turkey that's been in the oven for a few hours). To his horror, her beloved cats were feeding upon her, licking the fatty gelatin off of her!
She was taken away to the forensics lab, because protocol requires any unsolved deaths to be investigated. The coroner determined that she had not died of an aneurysm, stroke, or heart attack. They determined that the cats began feeding on her while she was still alive! In her weakened condition, they took advantage of her and managed to overcome her. It would be one thing for them to start eating at her once she was dead and they had no access to food, but no, they killed her. They killed the lady who fed them, loved them, and cared for them. How's that for being grateful?
The moral of this story is, this epitomizes the evolutionary model. Altruism doesn't fit in any notions we can come to when understanding the true nature of evolution. The cats were just being cats. We can't say, "You evil creatures!" Because, they're unreasoning animals. To think that some benevolent gene has been transposed from generation to generation, transmitting over aeons of times, through different biological epochs doesn't make any sense. Cats, harnessing their predation skills might be something worthy of consideration in the evolutionary paradigm, but not altruism. Altruism is Divine.
This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-11-2006 09:53 PM
This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-11-2006 10:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 5:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 50 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2006 10:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 53 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 54 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 243 (311247)
05-11-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kuresu
05-11-2006 10:08 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
well it's seems that you finally accept that teamwork is very important in survival.
Not once have I said anything that runs counter to that. Teamwork and altruism are not even remotely related.
However, you are still messing up the definition of natural selection. It is NOT a struggle in the manner you describe, but more of a sexual struggle.
And how does this fit in humans? By your estimation, we should abandon laws on assualt and rape, because it might just be some atavistic trait in all of us. This would be the perfect motive. Imagine being exonerated on the grounds of biological evolution. We can't fault the rapist because he is just in his epic struggle for sexual dominance! Is that what we've reduced life to? Sex? Should we abandon marriage and start copulating in the streets with anyone we find desirable? I mean, by your own words, that's what its all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 10:08 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 243 (311252)
05-11-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
05-11-2006 10:46 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Even Mother Theresa derived a deep sense of satisfaction and pleasure from the commission of good deeds, as we all do.
Altruism is a wonderful thing. And it does instil a sense of inner-joy that can scarcely be expressed in the human language. But, how does this resonating inner-joy cross over in the animal kingdom?
And that's what we gain from it - that sense of satisfaction. Because we gain, the act cannot be truly altruistic. The question is not why are we altruistic, but how it is we come to develop a sense of satisfaction from acts that gain us no immediate benefit and often, considerable immediate cost.
So, now animals such as bees get a deep sense of satisfaction when helping other bees? This thread is degrading into the non-sensical. What evidence is there to support your assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 10:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 57 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 11:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 243 (311262)
05-11-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by EZscience
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
And that is different from our current American appraoch to foreign policy how?
M'kay........ I'm not sure how politics fit into the topic. Can you elaborate?
The 'teamwork explanation' is currently the best explanation for the evolution of altruism. Please be so kind as to enlighten us on your alternative explanation.
I agree that its the best theory it has to explain it, which isn't saying a whole lot. I can't enlighten you on a better explanation from a purely naturalistic point of view because I don't believe one exists. If something doesn't exist, then I can in no wise prove that it doesn't exist. Therefore, the burden of proof remains with you and anyone else that believes that there is an 'altruism gene' that makes creatures instinctively care about their natural competitor.
You would have to actually understand ”Darwinism’, or as we would say, the ”theory of evolution’, before you would be able to make such a determination, and you obviously do not.
The title of his book speaks volumes: The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
I think in a one sentence summary that's what evolution is all about.
It hasn’t been called ”Darwinism’ by actual biologists in almost 100 years.
That's only because he was incorrect in certain areas so it needed to be refined, which is fine. 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.... Very simliar to the exact same hubris we see today.
In fact, many superficially altruistic acts might be intrinsically selfish. Can you prove otherwise? Can you prove to me that the guy rescuing the baby from the burning car isn’t thinking of his book deal while his hair is one fire?
No, I can't climb inside peoples minds and know their thoughts. But if you can, more power to you. I'd almost incline covetousness to that... Almost. However, in my own personal experience, I've never thought of book deals when I've helped saved peoples' lives. Maybe my altruism gene is hypersensitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 11:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 67 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 7:58 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 87 by fallacycop, posted 05-15-2006 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 243 (311269)
05-11-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Chiroptera
05-11-2006 11:10 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Huh? You don't think that creatures' behaviors are determined largely by their genes? Where do you think their behaviors come from?
Of course I do. I just don't think that being 'nice' does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 11:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 11:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 243 (311280)
05-11-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chiroptera
05-11-2006 11:22 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
"Being nice" is a behavior. Most behaviors (by your own admission) arise through the expression of genes. Why would "being nice" be any different?
Doing something nice because you expect to get something nice in return is being reciprocal. Altruism is doing something nice for someone without the expectation or want of gain. Doing good for someone because they might to do something equally or greater in return is still ultimately self-seeking. But an altruistic sacrifice is something far beyond being nice. That's the difference.
The way I see it, our thoughts and emotions are controlled and transmitted through the mind. But I don't believe life begins or ends in the mind. Or to put it more bluntly, maybe the brain is better description. Perhaps the mind and the brain are two separate entities. Perhaps the brain is just the avenue for recieving and processing the information. But that is getting too metaphysical for this thread. If you'd like to discuss the spiritual aspect, I can ask the mods to start a thread in. Let me know if you'd like to philosophize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 11:22 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 11:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 243 (311306)
05-12-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by kuresu
05-11-2006 11:40 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
I already explained how marriage fits into evolution, either in this thread or the "Evolution Simplified" thread. You still haven't given a reasonable objection to my explanation, other thatn saying "it isn't so"
Okay... Well, being that I'm not sure what you're referencing I'll have to look it up, but not tonight. I'm tired. I'll definately look for it though.
You do realize that alphas punish the other males who attempt copulation with the alpha's females? Apparently, animals don't appreciate rape either.
What? Animals rape each other all the time, only we can't really call it rape because rape is only a human extrapolation. Go down to a farm sometime and watch a bull in action. Take careful notice to look at the cows face. She's not terribly excited to be underneath him. Actualy go in the back of some alley and watch cats mate. The female isn't enjoying herself. Those screeching yowls aren't moans of pleasure, but groans of pain. But maybe that's just because male cats have barbs on the tips of their penises. In any case, Its not the same pleasurable experience that we might associate with humans. There's a reason why we refer to rapists as being animalsitic, and that reason is because they've abandoned morals and chose to be like an unreasoning animal driven by the baser appetites of the flesh.
Your problem is that you are objecting to evolution more on moral grounds than scientific grounds, and that completely destroys any credibility in your argument.
This thread is on Biological Evolution. Its been made quite clear to me by the Mods to stay on topic. So the best that I can do is offer scientific reasons why it doesn't make sense and to provide reasons why by giving natural explanations. Unfortunately for me, I don't see any reason to assume that there are strictly naturalistic reasons why we would ever arrive at such a conclusion like, animals possessing morality. Its so stultifying to me that I find it difficult to even put it into words.
It would be the same if I objected to a round world or a heliocentric solar system on moral grounds. Without the science to back up another explanation to replace the current one, you don't have much. Especially when the science used to back up your objections is just a front for your moral objections.
That's funny, because I could say the same for you. I could just as easily say that you've concoted fanciful reasons to ascribe natural processes to something we might clearly understand better in spiritual terms. For as much as some may say I have an agenda to push my religious beliefs, I could say the same for my counterparts wanting to push their cynicism. I guess its a two-way street. Furthermore, I don't disagree with this theory based on preconcieved religious notions, I object to them on the basis of their scientific implications. If you don't like those implications then keep inventing reason why 1 + 1 should = 8.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:40 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 05-12-2006 12:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 69 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 243 (311446)
05-12-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by EZscience
05-12-2006 7:58 AM


Re: The altruism conundrum
My point is that your description fits humans as well as it does animals, and yet you don't accept that altruism in humans has evolved naturally.
So how does this balance between being cutthroat and devisive intertwine with being altruistic in a biological sense? When does one gene kick in to action while the other remains silent? You are ascribing a high level of intelligence to purely instinctual creatures, such as insects. Well, maybe not you in particular, but some people in here.
I think 'best theory' it's saying plenty. You're essentially admitting that no one can currently explain it any better than that.
You keep leaving one option out. Why is it so unthinkable that a Creator, (some level of higher cognizance) could be the culprit? For something to exist out of nothing, then something had to be eternal at some point. And if life in general is eternal, then you have to discontinue the Big Bang, singularity, and the red-shift. So why not a Creator? We wouldn't even have to try to understand what that Creator is. Leave that up to philosophical and theological debate. Why is that not even a consideration when giving the order and complexity? Altruism, I think you would admit, must be a very advanced evolvement, and yet we have some in here talking about bees as if they can logically reason.
So the only reason we are altruistic is because god made us that way?
An answer of such brevity would emasculate science. I have no aspirations to do as such. But you'd have to admit that there is such a vast difference in humans than to even our closest supposed ancestors. So what is the reason why we cry, laugh, and appreciate art, music, and but no other animal even comes close to these finely tuned mechanisms? They can't even comprehend what any of that is. Its totally nonsensical to them.
Who said anything about it being only one gene?
Okay, then genes.
That's a simplification we make for purely heuristic purposes - for trying to model the simplest possible scenario. Altruism is likely influenced in different ways by many genes, but it doesn't change anything. All you need is some component of heritability and it has evolutionary potential.
Still does nothing to explain how that would benefit any organism. Stealing food, lying to get food or the mate, killing to destroy your competitors.... This at least makes sense if we were to agree with evolution. Helping out your competitor makes no sense whatsoever. And if anyone can demonstrably map out in the genome of any organism the specific sequence that makes us do 'nice' things, I'll gladly concede. But as of now, this is all speculation based on no merit. This is just assertions and conjecture at this point. You're trying to give me philosophical reasons why it makes sense and then call it Biology.
No it isn't what it's ALL about.
I didn't say that's what evolution is all about. I said, if I were to give a one sentence summary on what evolution is, then Darwin layed it out quite nicely with the title of his book.
No, he was basically correct. It is because the theory has evolved into something far more complex with the contributions of many others over the past 100 years.
He was correct when he noticed microevoluton. He even admitted, himself, that he could not prove macroevolution but hoped that those who would follow might prove it. We're still waiting for tangible evidence.
You don't have to in order to recognize that a large number of superficially altruistic acts have a very tangible 'selfish' payoff within our society. That can really facilitate their evolution. In essence, it is group selection reinforcing individual selection.
That isn't what altruism is. That's reciprocating which is self-serving. And being self-serving is what evolution is all about. Screw the other guy, its all about me, me, me. Altruism is a deed done out of selflessness not selfishness. It brings everything about classical evolution into disrepute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 7:58 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 3:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 76 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 4:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 89 by fallacycop, posted 05-15-2006 10:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 243 (311461)
05-12-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by kuresu
05-12-2006 12:10 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
If anything, you should accept ToE for it's scientific implications. Without it, we wouldn't know that the dird flu can evolve into something that will hit us HARD. WIthout it, studying the effects of drugs on mice makes no sense. If we are all created, it would be an unsound assumption to say that we are all related by means of a common ancestor.
No, its not unsound. And it isn't unreasonable to assume that we do all share a common ancestor. Admittedly, ToE is a very appealing theory. I once shared commonality with it. I just see it running counter to what we actually can verify. The startling fact remains that never, ever, ever, has one organism changed into another. You could say, "Well, that's because we can't notice these gradations because they are so miniscule." Okay, point taken. But looking back in the fossil record shows no changes either. Everything appears abruptly, fully formed, without any evidence of gradations. Take the Coelecanth for instance. For starters, it was a scientific fact that he was extinct, and not just extinct, but dead for 350 million years. But alas, he was found very much alive off the coast of Africa. What's effectively worse, the living Coelecanth is exactly the same as his fossilized contemporary. But lets use odds to solidify the notion. If there are over 3 billion extant species, not including those extinct, then what are the odds that we wouldn't have at least one organism demonstrating these transmogrifications? Its inconceivable that they wouldn't. The evidence should be so unequivocal that you and I discussing it should be trivial.
sorry, science is about finding the natural explanations for how this stuff happens and why it happens.
Your science just so happenes to be based off faith. The definition of science, is, the knowledge derived from the observation, study, and testing of evidence”. No macroevolutionary progress has ever been observed, and it can't be studied or tested without these observations. Therefore, your science fits more heavily into science fiction than it does empirical science. Your science is based on faith. And your faith presumably stems from your theological aversion to there being a God.
Saying that God did it is an empty explanation, a cop-out if you will, because you're not willing to actually but that brain of your's to use. We aren't making stuff up. We are trying to find the best NATURAL explanations for all our observations.
You're right. Just saying, "God did it!" is a cop-out, and it explains squat. However, this is precisely why I have an aversion towards any sort of religious affinities to enter the realm of science, if we are solely speaking about science. If you don't want to confrom to the Judeo-Christian idea of YHWH, then don't. But at least allow for their to be an opportunity just to consider that given the marked complexity, maybe, just maybe, there really is a cognizance far beyond our immediate understanding. In other words, if you don't want to believe in Jesus, Buddha, HaShem, Allah, or whoever, then don't. But if you rule out there having being the possibility for a number 2 to exist, then how are you going to solve 1 + 1? Ruling things out as a priori is not being open-minded.
Who said I was a cynic? I am about government and the state of the US, but not when it comes to life. In that I've got a naive optimism, and I quite like it.
Its not naive. In fact, swallowing the notion of God is quite difficult. I'm fully aware and familiar with the wrestling that goes on in the human heart. But if we were to collectively take information from each discipline, I believe that it spells out very clearly that there is a Creator, but moreover, that His/Her/Its expressed plan is written in fingerprints of life. Because of the ontological, teleological, cosmological, biological, and theological fingerprints... Out of the conglomeration, I see Him.
Everything else is dust. Everything else is background noise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 12:10 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 05-12-2006 4:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 74 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 4:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 77 by AdminNosy, posted 05-12-2006 4:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024