Alturism: A weakness in creationist reasoning

[leftysergeant]

Although it is widely accepted as given that behavior does not fossilize, the results of behavior often do. And one behavior that does leave a mark in the fossil record has to be a slap in the face of Creationism.

I am referring here to altruism.

The creationists say that the human tendancy toward altruism must disprove Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest," because, to the creationist mind, it has no survival value.

Er...All that that argument proves is the creationists have no clue what Darwin meant.

"Survival of the fittest," in the Darwinian sense, means that those organisms that display a given characteristic which is valueable to the survival of the individual or its offspring will cause the perpetuation of that characteristic through succeding generations.

Clearly, in a species which depends on its ability to form strongly-knit groups, the willingness of one individual to endure hardships for the benefit of the group is conducive to the survival of that group, and thus the species as a whole. In many species that live communally, ecconomicly useless individuals are often left behind when the group moves on or are allowed to become hyena chow when the herd is attacked.

In the human fossil record, however, it is not the least surprising to find, even in such primitive species as Homo habilis, indivuals who were clearly no longer able to contribute in any way to the group, and yet they were clearly taken care of by their fellows.

This may, at first, seem to threaten the survival of the group. But, the fact that we exist proves that this strategy was successful. So, what value has altruism for survival of the species?

Consider that humans and the early hominins enjoyed a far lower reproductive rate than most critters of similar size. They depended on the efforts of others to protect those few precious children. The ability to think of each individual as having some value simple as another human made it that much more logical, even to a simple mind, to stand and defend the females, the infants and the disabled and elderly. The knowledge that one could expect to also be taken care of should something unfortunate happen would, no doubt, have relieved some of the fears that an individual might experience.

The sharing of food, something that only humans and bonobos are known to do, aside from a mother and father bird feeding their chicks, is both conducive to social bonds and increasing the survival rate of the group in adverse conditions.

So, yes, altruism is very much an example of how "survival of the fittest" works.

[RandFan]

It would be very helpful if you could provide a link and cite the relevant evidence. Thanks.

Before I respond any further, I would like to ask, have you read The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6381482-2791111?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187836392&sr=1-1) by Dawkins? Do you have a copy at your disposal? I think this could be an interesting discussion if you did.

[plumjam]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




"Survival of the fittest," in the Darwinian sense, means that those organisms that display a given characteristic which is valueable to the survival of the individual or its offspring will cause the perpetuation of that characteristic through succeding generations.


with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

[RandFan]

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources

If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena. I'll assume that you are asking a sincere question and not arguing from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), right?

There are actually a number of theories and though it is a bit of a challenge no evolutionary biologists are kept awake at night worrying about the implications.


MadScience Network (http://www.madsci.org/).


A gene that is deleterious (in the sense of reducing reproductive success) in large doses may be beneficial in small doses. A classic example is the gene for sickle cell anemia, which in large doses (i.e., in a person with two copies of the gene) produces a debilitating disease, but in small doses (i.e., in a person with a single copy of the gene) produces a heightened resistance to malaria. For any numerical values you care to pick for (a) the benefit of a little extra malaria resistance, and (b) the penalty for having the debilitating disease, you can compute an equilibrium frequency for the sickle-cell gene, below which the gene will, on the average, benefit the organisms bearing it more than it hinders them.

Similarly, there is evidence that a single dose of the cystic fibrosis gene, which produces disease in a double dose, may increase resistance to cholera. (more on this (http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/hetadv.html)) The relevance to the homosexual-gene hypothesis is, of course, that such a gene might, in heterozygotes (people with a single copy), produce behavior that promotes reproductive success.
A slightly different observation is that practically all of our genes find themselves, during the evolutionary process, half the time in female bodies and half the time in male bodies. A gene that is somewhat detrimental to male owners can survive if it is sufficiently beneficial to female owners. Selective pressure, in this case, will not be to eliminate the gene, but to build for it a regulatory mechanism that will express it more in females than in males. The appearance of inherited behavior that is reproductively deleterious in one sex but beneficial in the other might merely reflect evolution's failure to surround some such gene with well functioning regulatory machinery.


Also, from the master.

Could a gay gene really survive? (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml) (3rd question)

[HawkeyeMD]

Before I respond any further, I would like to ask, have you read The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6381482-2791111?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187836392&sr=1-1) by Dawkins? Do you have a copy at your disposal? I think this could be an interesting discussion if you did.

What he said.

There's another really good author named Matt Ridley--his "The Origins of Virtue" is a pretty awesome read, too. This is neither a new attack idea on the part of creationists nor a new idea for biologists, but it does make for a fascinating talk.

[Drummer]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

There is a basic error in here: the assumption that every physical property or form of human behaviour must have been selected for by natural selection. This is simply not the case. The ability to play the piano for instance. It has no survival benefit (although you could argue that musicians get all the girls). It is simply an emergent property of the selection for large, flexible brains. Some things are a by-effect of a selected property, sickle cell anemia comes to mind. The selected property is protection against malaria, the by-effect is less effective red blood cells. If you're unaware of the protection against malaria, you are of course going to wonder what the selective advantage of defective red blood cells is.
And BTW, why do you use 'Darwinism' for evolutionary theory? You don't call physics 'Newtonism' do you?

[Broes]

The sharing of food, something that only humans and bonobos are known to do, aside from a mother and father bird feeding their chicks, is both conducive to social bonds and increasing the survival rate of the group in adverse conditions.

Actually, most animals that live in groups tend to do this...

[leftysergeant]

I use the term "Darwinism" because the term "survival of the fittest" is so closely associated with Darwin's theories.

Altruism is "selected for" in the sense that groups of self-centered apes would not have been as effective in adapting to a wide enough variety of environments to have spread as widely as we have. They would have been hyena chow if they got hurt.

In every species of fossil humans found to date, there have been examples of some sorts of pathology or injury that would have been at least temporaily debilitating, but the indications are that the individuals survived.

The Home habilis that Donald Johansen found at Olduvai showed signs of having eaten a plant that destroys the periostracum of the bones, but she survived. The community would have to have supported her during convalesance, and bloody little use she would have been to anyone during that time. That, in such a harsh environment is the height of altruism.

The fossils recently found at Dmanisi in Georgia, possibly the first hominins to have left Africa, also showed signs of caring for their disabled. One of the fossils was obviously quite elderly and toothless at the time of death.

All of the multiple burial sites of Homo neanderthalensis include at least one person who suffered injuries like those of a very unfortunate rodeo cowboy, and still lived a good long life, even though they could not possibly have done much to help around the cave.

Having developed this sort of behavior obviously works to promote social structures that aid in reproductive success, because a society that will go to such lengths to preserve the elderly will probably also be more successful in raising the few infants they have to adulthood as well.

Consider for a moment the importance of family or group bonding to the survival of offspring in the human line. If you are female and realize that everybody needs everybody else to survive, are you going to be more likely to choose a mate who is brutal to the elderly and disabled to help you raise the few children you can see in your future, or even to support you through pregnancy? I think not.

BTW, another time-bomb gene is that for Tay-Sachs. It helped prevent tuberculosis in the ghettos of eastern Europe, but it also interferes with brain development.

[Reptiliano]

Okay, this would definitely the first time I'm really jumping into a debate, so please be relatively merciful. @.=.@ Anyway, I'm used to seeing the word "altruism" as used in behavior, in a positive light, so I'll play the proverbial devil's advocate.

In the human fossil record, however, it is not the least surprising to find, even in such primitive species as Homo habilis, indivuals who were clearly no longer able to contribute in any way to the group, and yet they were clearly taken care of by their fellows.
I'm not archaeologically well-versed...could I get a source on this please?

This may, at first, seem to threaten the survival of the group. But, the fact that we exist proves that this strategy was successful. So, what value has altruism for survival of the species?

Consider that humans and the early hominins enjoyed a far lower reproductive rate than most critters of similar size. They depended on the efforts of others to protect those few precious children. The ability to think of each individual as having some value simple as another human made it that much more logical, even to a simple mind, to stand and defend the females, the infants and the disabled and elderly. The knowledge that one could expect to also be taken care of should something unfortunate happen would, no doubt, have relieved some of the fears that an individual might experience.

So, yes, altruism is very much an example of how "survival of the fittest" works.[/QUOTE]

"Survival of the Fittest" as an evolutionary concept clearly would not work if there isn't any competition (to use the word loosely) to work against. Individual groups of early humans would have used altruism within the injured members of their own group to compete against the species that threatened them.

As time progresses, groups of humans (early to modern) begin to interact with one another, more often than not in a hostile manner. Although humans are essentially one species, the fact that humans are unique to each other and perhaps within their group has undoubtedly resulted in tension, even before the advent of religion.

Here's where the waters get murky.
One definition of the word altruism goes: "behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species". (Source: Merriam-Webster, because I still don't have enough posts to make links yet)

This might explain why different groups see the altruistic behavior of their own members as a "good" thing while others see it as "bad."

In that sense - and this may be an extreme example - is an insurgent suicide bomber exhibiting altruistic behavior as much as the people who try to stop the bomber?

Perhaps I'm just being picky on the semantics again. >.=.>;

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.


What makes you think that a single one of those behaviors is genetically determined?

We now have a pretty good idea of the biological basis for homosexuality and it is not a single gene entity that is subject to Darwinian selection. Turns out that it is an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings.

Drummer and Randfan said the rest very well.

[articulett]

Yes... humans evolved as have other social animals to be cooperative and empathic because, as game theory shows... this can be a handy dandy ways of ensuring ones genes live on in those most likely to be related to you. It's a pretty decent algorithm. Female animals must have some degree of altruism towards their young, and it appears many mammal mothers are prepared to risk their lives for their offspring. Male animals often give their lives attempting to sire such offspring. Social animals help their more vulnerable members, and as the vulnerable members grow up they help the new generation of vulnerable. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3222077341781405086&q=youtube+hippo+alligator&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/index.html?hp

[Just thinking]

To me, the following seems to be non-sequitur in reasoning ....
"In the human fossil record, however, it is not the least surprising to find, even in such primitive species as Homo habilis, individuals who were clearly no longer able to contribute in any way to the group, and yet they were clearly taken care of by their fellows.

This may, at first, seem to threaten the survival of the group. But, the fact that we exist proves that this strategy was successful.

You're basically saying that Behavior A is good for survival --- I have found evidence of Behavior A in the fossil record, Behavior A continues to exist, hence Behavior A is good for survival. This could apply to any number of non-survival benefiting behaviors that still exist today -- homosexuality (in a purely physiological sense) cannot continue a lineage beyond a generation, yet I'm pretty sure it existed well before written history and continues today.

Plus, as you pointed out, Altruism is not common among other species --- yet they seem to survive quite well. Consider turtles.

[Beausoleil]

I think about it this way (bear with me, if you will).

An organism's genome can be thought of as a point in a multidimensional space. Mutation corresponds to a move from one point to another point across a generation. Such moves are not arbitrary - the structure of the genome limits the new points that can be accessed from any existing point.

"Genome space" is mapped to "Organism property space", where we talk about an organism having various characteristics. Allowed moves in "genome space" map to allowed moves in "organism property space" somehow.

"Fitness" is a function defined over the organism property space and (through the mapping) over genome space. The definition of the function changes over time, this is an extra complication.

Evolution is a sort of optimization routine, but one restricted by the allowed moves in the genome space. Talking about evolutiuon of things like "altruism" is a bit misguided since "altruism" is part of the wrong mapping for considering the problem - it's an organism property. That's the case until there is an argument made that allowed "moves" in "genome space" correspond to movements restricted to the "altruism" axis of "organism property" space.

In simple terms, why should we believe that simple mutations would lead only to changes in "altruism"?

[articulett]

To me, the following seems to be non-sequitur in reasoning ....


You're basically saying that Behavior A is good for survival --- I have found evidence of Behavior A in the fossil record, Behavior A continues to exist, hence Behavior A is good for survival. This could apply to any number of non-survival benefiting behaviors that still exist today -- homosexuality (in a purely physiological sense) cannot continue a lineage beyond a generation, yet I'm pretty sure it existed well before written history and continues today.

Plus, as you pointed out, Altruism is not common among other species --- yet they seem to survive quite well. Consider turtles.


I think the genetic algorhithm is just to take care of the vulnerable in your group-- the closer they are to you, the more likely you are to be caring for one who shares more of your genes... including the helping ones. Doesn't that explain the hippo trying to save the impala in the link above. As we get stronger we realize that we move into the role of taking care of the weaker with the hope that they return the favor to us or our descendents.

[Just thinking]

I think the genetic algorhithm is just to take care of the vulnerable in your group-- the closer they are to you, the more likely you are to be caring for one who shares more of your genes... including the helping ones. Doesn't that explain the hippo trying to save the impala in the link above. As we get stronger we realize that we move into the role of taking care of the weaker with the hope that they return the favor to us or our descendents.

That may be true enough --- but my argument was in how it was determined to be of Darwinian continuance. Merely finding a behavior we see today and then finding evidence of it in the fossil record should not (I believe) automatically conclude that it follows Darwinian evolution. It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior. My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me. ;)

[CapelDodger]

Actually, most animals that live in groups tend to do this...

The actual distribution of the food - who gets how much, and in what order - seems to play an important social role. It pretty much defines the hierarchy - and, outside hive societies, there's always a hierarchy if you look closely enough.

It comes through clearly in modern human societies, mostly with money standing-in for food.

[CapelDodger]

I think the OP basically amounts to one sentence: social life forms are social.

Well of course they are.




with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

The choice of remaining child-free is a pretty recent introduction. Natural selection has nothing to do with that choice. It's an individual decision made for personal reasons. We're unique creatures in being able to make that choice. HomSap, like all species, is the result of natural selection, but it's the only one that has figured out what natural selection is. We've broken through to a new level. Selection is no longer natural.

Celibacy and suicide are also choices made for personal reasons. Dynastic considerations don't usually enter into it. In the case of celibacy, it would be bizarre if they did. Celibates are most commonly religious types focused on their own egos, not the long chain of being.

Homosexuality may not be bred in but it's not bred out, so either any harm done (from the dynast's perspective) is inconsequential or there's a compensation. One possibility is that a childless sibling has resources to lavish on their nephews and nieces, so the family produces fewer but better endowed offspring at that generation.

Natural selection isn't really about how many children an organism has, it's about how many viable grandchildren they have. I've chosen to end my line right here with me, but my parents' line continues in my six nepots. Most of their heredity is represented therein (as is most of mine, not that I care particularly). Not having kids of my own I've been able to lavish attention and largesse on them.

[articulett]

That may be true enough --- but my argument was in how it was determined to be of Darwinian continuance. Merely finding a behavior we see today and then finding evidence of it in the fossil record should not (I believe) automatically conclude that it follows Darwinian evolution. It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior. My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me. ;)

You seem not to quite understand evolution, so please don't wink at me-- it reminds me of hammy. You are correct in the first sentence. Of course turtles and other animals can survive fine without altruistic behavior. Such traits only develop in animals where a little bit of cooperation or empathy make for a slight survival or reproductive advantage. In mammals, it appears to be a byproduct of hormones related to bonding and mirror neurons--especially in primates. In insects and bacteria and slime mold it seems to be more with having the benefits of a society or group so that various members can take on different roles. And genetics doesn't code for specific traits really... just tendencies and preferences and inclinations-- we evolved to be "programmed" by our culture. Our ancestors who had better social skills survived preferentially--and for obvious reasons. Even in baboons you see this. The males who are jerks and don't make female friends, die young-- the youngsters come into power and drive the nasty old guy out.

We actually understand a lot about the parts of the brain that encode for social behavior and the some of the genes involved. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/index.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

Why, do you have evidence for an alternative explanation (other than evolutionary benefit or byproduct) for such a trait? How does any alternative hypothesis fit the above links?

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

[CapelDodger]

It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior.

Lineages are always as weak as the next link in the chain. Most competition occurs within a species, and there's never much slack available.

My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me. ;)

Considering turtles, as one should from time to time, the co-ordinated hatching of turtle-eggs does have a benefit for the whole ensemble, in that there are only so many predators around and only so many wee turtles each can eat. No altruism involved, but co-operation still emerges. Flocking behaviour in birds is similar.

[articulett]

That may be true enough --- but my argument was in how it was determined to be of Darwinian continuance. Merely finding a behavior we see today and then finding evidence of it in the fossil record should not (I believe) automatically conclude that it follows Darwinian evolution. It may very well be that as a species becomes stronger (in keeping its lineage going) it can afford a certain amount of tolerance in other non-related survival behavior. My example of turtles shows that a species can survive quite a long time without virtually any altruistic behavior --- not that altruism (in many forms) doesn't exist in nature, it does. But to think that it has become a need for survival as have other evolved traits is not so clear ... at least to me. ;)

You seem not to quite understand evolution, so please don't wink at me-- it reminds me of hammy. You are correct in the first sentence. Of course turtles and other animals can survive fine without altruistic behavior. Such traits only develop in animals where a little bit of cooperation or empathy make for a slight survival or reproductive advantage. In mammals, it appears to be a byproduct of hormones related to bonding and mirror neurons--especially in primates. In insects and bacteria and slime mold it seems to be more with having the benefits of a society or group so that various members can take on different roles. And genetics doesn't code for specific traits really... just tendencies and preferences and inclinations-- we evolved to be "programmed" by our culture. Our ancestors who had better social skills survived preferentially--and for obvious reasons. Even in baboons you see this. The males who are jerks and don't make female friends, die young-- the youngsters come into power and drive the nasty old guy out.

We actually understand a lot about the parts of the brain that encode for social behavior and the some of the genes involved. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/index.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

Why, do you have evidence for an alternative explanation (other than evolutionary benefit or byproduct) for such a trait? How does any alternative hypothesis fit the above links?

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

[CapelDodger]

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

More remarkable than being able to "see" moral calculation - which is pretty damn' remarkable - is the fact that we have the concept and go looking in the first place. We're the first introspective species in the neighbourhood. All bets are off.

[dudalb]

Wow,a discussion about Altruism and Ayn Rand's name has yet to make an appreance.I am impressed.

[leftysergeant]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.

[supercorgi]

I'm not archaeologically well-versed...could I get a source on this please?

The famous Shanidar Cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar)

Social animals help their more vulnerable members, and as the vulnerable members grow up they help the new generation of vulnerable. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3222077341781405086&q=youtube+hippo+alligator&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1


That is an amazing video. In some of these cases, I think it's maternal instinct gone wrong, where the animal identifies an offspring of another species as an offspring of their own species. For example, the crow that raised a kitten: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/kitten-and-crow-p1.php or the gorilla who protected the child that had fallen into her zoo habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binti_Jua

[Terry]

My take on homosexuality is that it is not of itself adaptive behavior, but comes as an inevitable result of something else that is highly adaptive. Pair-bonding, for instance.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.

It looks like it is much more complicated than that.

[CapelDodger]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearest animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

Bonobos are no closer kin to HomSap than the troglodytes, and I think it shows. I sort of wish we were more like bonobos, but if we were we'd be bush-meat to Pan troglodytes.

HomPongo will inherit the Earth, mark my words.

[athon]

My take on homosexuality is that it is not of itself adaptive behavior, but comes as an inevitable result of something else that is highly adaptive. Pair-bonding, for instance.

I agree. People treat homosexuality as if it is a single, 'all or none' trait which is universally identical amongst all who are classified as such. In truth, it's a much deeper and more complex social behaviour.

Additionally, not all genetic transfer is direct. My sister has a fifty percent chance of sharing any given gene I have. Her children have a twenty-five percent chance of sharing my genes and genetic combinations. If my homosexuality assists in social bonding, there's a good chance those genes will be successful by proxy. This is a form of kin selection. Bisexuality could form strong bonds social groups as well, of which homosexuality is at one extreme.

People who use the tired old 'homosexuality is unnatural' or 'anti evolution' obviously have never studied evolution.

Athon

[plumjam]

I've just been told that homosexuality is "an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings."

it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory

[articulett]

More remarkable than being able to "see" moral calculation - which is pretty damn' remarkable - is the fact that we have the concept and go looking in the first place. We're the first introspective species in the neighbourhood. All bets are off.

Damn straight we are! And we figured it through slow and steady progress in science-- no omniscient anything gave us a clue.

[articulett]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.

Yes-- orgasms instead of aggression. It release oxytocin-- making participants closer and more trusting. As to the sex drive of males in general... it seems very strong and not necessarily very specific (any port in a storm)-- and more likely to be odd and not subject to threats of hell (witness pedophilia in the clergy).

It seems some homosexuality is related to hormonal influences in the mother and the fetus. Opposite sex twins have hormonal affects on eachother, in fact, in both animals and humans.

The brain is only partly developed in utero... it evolved to get it's programming from the environment it finds itself in. It has an instinct for language... but culture inculcates that language.

[athon]

I've just been told that homosexuality is "an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings."

it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory

It's interesting how you have nothing else to say other than some derisive comment. I assume you don't understanding evolutionary theories, hence can only give a blanket refutation?

Who's clinging to what, I wonder? :rolleyes:

Athon

[Just thinking]

You seem not to quite understand evolution, so please don't wink at me-- it reminds me of hammy.

I'll try to refrain.

You are correct in the first sentence. Of course turtles and other animals can survive fine without altruistic behavior. Such traits only develop in animals where a little bit of cooperation or empathy make for a slight survival or reproductive advantage. In mammals, it appears to be a byproduct of hormones related to bonding and mirror neurons--especially in primates.

Yes ... pair bonding is a strong instinct, but that does not define altruism, does it? Do we find animals in the wild fighting natural enemies as groups beyond what we would consider mere cooperation? Once one is taken down do the others continue to fight the enemy for it back in a wounded state, or do they allow nature to take its course with the hunter having its reward?

In insects and bacteria and slime mold it seems to be more with having the benefits of a society or group so that various members can take on different roles. And genetics doesn't code for specific traits really... just tendencies and preferences and inclinations-- we evolved to be "programmed" by our culture. Our ancestors who had better social skills survived preferentially--and for obvious reasons. Even in baboons you see this. The males who are jerks and don't make female friends, die young-- the youngsters come into power and drive the nasty old guy out.

Now this is beginning to get at the heart of what I'm getting at. We may very well be programmed to accept cultural behavior and pass it along from generation to generation. And that is evolutionarily derived. And it makes sense, as we can take those traits which work to our benefit the best and continue to use them ... and with our brains, refine them as well. Perhaps altruism is just that --- a cultural behavior that has been refined to what we define it as today. Starting out as pair bonding, or even parental bonding, we as humans could see the benefit of this behavior beyond its immediate payoff. And we could even apply it to more generalized behavior --- not because our genes wired us that way, but because they wired us to learn, and pass down what was now an accepted beneficial cultural behavior.

Why, do you have evidence for an alternative explanation (other than evolutionary benefit or byproduct) for such a trait? How does any alternative hypothesis fit the above links?

See last paragraph.

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

Yes ... and we can utilize psychological altruism over mere biological altruism as a result of these brains, which is the big step.

[articulett]

Did you watch the clip where the hippo attempts to save the baby impala-- I have a couple that shows gorillas (one male; one female) protecting a toddler that fell in their enclosure at a zoos. Have you read much about mirror neurons? Did you read those articles? Some degree of moral sense and altruism evolved-- the way mother mammals often nurture those of a different species-- cats going in burning buildings to save kittens... apes risking their lives to save friends that fell in zoo moats. Yes, some is definitely a cultural byproduct... but we evolved to be cultural--social-- we evolved to learn language, but the language has to be "programed" via culture.

We evolved to fill niches as well. Most mammals do most of their brain development in utero-- humans do much of it on the outside depending entirely on others while the brain develops.

I would say altruism is no more culture than language-- maybe less so, because it's more primal-- not really thought out... rather instinctive... like that man who jumped upon another man in the subway who had fallen from a seizure as a train was coming. There was no time to think... and he had his kids with him. But he jumped on the guy (a stranger) and lied over him as the subway passed safely over the both of them. He saved the guys limbs if not his life. But I bet he wouldn't have known he would do something like that before him. There had to be some extinct. When you have a kid, most people feel very strongly that they would rather die or suffer than have their kid do so-- it must be encoded on some level and then extended by culture or as a byproduct of the primal instinct (our love of baby looking animals). What humans see as cute is a byproduct of the evolutionary advantage of finding babies cute--especially one's own.

[leftysergeant]

When you have a kid, most people feel very strongly that they would rather die or suffer than have their kid do so-- it must be encoded on some level and then extended by culture or as a byproduct of the primal instinct (our love of baby looking animals). What humans see as cute is a byproduct of the evolutionary advantage of finding babies cute--especially one's own.

In deed. The more one resembles a baby bonobo, as opposed to, say an adult chimpanzee, the better one's chances of mating successfully and forming a relatively stable bonded pair.

[plumjam]

how about love?
you know,... like when you look into another conscious being's eyes and recognise that the essence of their being is identical to yours?
come on, even some of you cold scientists on here must feel love sometimes
yep, even without evidence or citations
go on, surprise me ;)

[leftysergeant]

Er....

The ability to love is closely related to what we are discussing here, but the connection gets a bit nebulous.

Certainly, it is a trait conducive to the survival of the species.

And finding another person sexually attractive is a stimulus to that emotion.

As for its survival value to humans, just ask yourself whether, if you did not really find the female in your life attractive, emotionally comforting or whatever, would you want to put up with her squalling brat when you are trying to sleep?

[athon]

Er....

The ability to love is closely related to what we are discussing here, but the connection gets a bit nebulous.

Certainly, it is a trait conducive to the survival of the species.

And finding another person sexually attractive is a stimulus to that emotion.

As for its survival value to humans, just ask yourself whether, if you did not really find the female in your life attractive, emotionally comforting or whatever, would you want to put up with her squalling brat when you are trying to sleep?

Ignore him. Plumjam has no interest in discussing anything, so don't bite the bait he's putting out.

Athon

[plumjam]

Er....

The ability to love is closely related to what we are discussing here, but the connection gets a bit nebulous.

Certainly, it is a trait conducive to the survival of the species.

And finding another person sexually attractive is a stimulus to that emotion.

As for its survival value to humans, just ask yourself whether, if you did not really find the female in your life attractive, emotionally comforting or whatever, would you want to put up with her squalling brat when you are trying to sleep?

yep, i accept most of what you say.
I'm just wondering why it is that, if survival value is the supreme value in life (according to Darwinism), why don't we live our lives like that?
Sure, people like to have sex, but with most of it they do their best to stop the perpetuation of their genes (contraception, abortion, withdrawal, non-penetrative sex.. not to mention homosexuality, which I brought up in another post )
But that's just a minor point.
In a purely Darwin-formed living world why would it be that most people for most of the time derive meaning in life from (and therefore ascribe most importance to) forms of behaviour difficult to reconcile with Darwinism... such as religion, music, arts, crafts, a thousand and one hobbies that won't perpetuate their genes, philosophy, humour, watching sport, drinking beer, reality tv, surfing the net, dangerous sports, parachuting, rock climbing etc etc...
A Darwin Universe just would not have produced such incredibly complex phenomena, most of which have no discernible survival value. :)

[plumjam]

Ignore him. Plumjam has no interest in discussing anything, so don't bite the bait he's putting out.

Athon

seeing as I don't remember you offering to discuss anything with me, that's a slight exaggeration

[athon]

seeing as I don't remember you offering to discuss anything with me, that's a slight exaggeration

Given a topic to discuss, the best you can offer is 'it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory'. Rather than back it up with anything, you continue with more nonsense.

You want to know why those who believe such silly things aren't taken seriously? Because they avoid discussion, choosing mockery and derisive comments like that.

Make a solid comment and people might want to talk to you. Otherwise, you're nothing more than an annoying troll who brings nothing worthy to the discussion table.

Athon

[RandFan]

It would be very helpful if you could provide a link and cite the relevant evidence. Thanks.

Before I respond any further, I would like to ask, have you read The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6381482-2791111?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187836392&sr=1-1) by Dawkins? Do you have a copy at your disposal? I think this could be an interesting discussion if you did.So, I guess the answers are no, no and no.

Thanks, I guess.

I'm curious lefty, why did you bother to invite me to this thread?

[RandFan]

I've just been told that homosexuality is "an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings."

it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theoryThis isn't argument. It's rhetoric.

[leftysergeant]

Are you familiar with the concept of play being a stimulus to brain development? I think that the extension of play into adult years, in some other form, keeps us interested in learning things. Learning things helps us adapt to a wider range of environments.

Being able to colonize everyplace from the middle of the Rub al khali to Antarctica and everyplace in between has proven to be of some survival value to the species.

[leftysergeant]

So, I guess the answers are no, no and no.

Thanks, I guess.

I'm curious lefty, why did you bother to invite me to this thread?

I am still looking for a source on Dawkins. I have never heard of him before.

I am trying not to draw any unfounded conclusions here, but, out of curiousity, are you using Dawkins to support a particular socio-political position?

I am drawing largely from my memory of books I have read by Richard Leakey, Donald Johanson and Stephen Jay Gould, and perhaps flavor my interpretations of these works with my own religious beliefs.

My belief in a natural process of evolution, to include the formation of self-replicating organic matter out of the primordial soup does not preclude my believing in a provident God. Evolution seems to me the way that a rational God would have gone about it. (I'm thinking of the "blind watch maker" version of God here.)

[athon]

Never heard of Dawkins? You've read Gould and Leaky, have an interest in evolution, and never heard of Dawkins? Sorry, I just find that rather amazing.

If you've read Gould, you must read Dawkins for an interesting contrast.

Athon

[plumjam]

Given a topic to discuss, the best you can offer is 'it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory'. Rather than back it up with anything, you continue with more nonsense.

You want to know why those who believe such silly things aren't taken seriously? Because they avoid discussion, choosing mockery and derisive comments like that.

Make a solid comment and people might want to talk to you. Otherwise, you're nothing more than an annoying troll who brings nothing worthy to the discussion table.

Athon

yawn...
go through my old posts if you're so interested in my Randi Forum history

[plumjam]

This isn't argument. It's rhetoric.

yes, rhetoric always adds a certain 'je ne sais quoi', I find...
....
in fact.. come to think of it, it isn't rhetoric at all.. it's observation of the evidence.. which is much more sacred here. Someone should massage my feet with oil.

[leftysergeant]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

[articulett]

the woo just scream-- "notice me", "worship me", "respect me", "you are all so lucky to hear my woo-- the true woo!"

And randfan, like the gentleman you are, you actually labeled it as "rhetoric".

Plumjam-- you must hook up with maatorc. He thinks he's the next messiah too.

[athon]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Fair enough. It's just like saying 'I've seen a fair bit of magic; but I've never really gotten around to checking out this Houdini guy', is all.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

How much have you read on it? Do you understand the concept?

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature.

Memes function in any organism that has a culture. If it demonstrates a behaviour which can be passed on socially, the behaviour can be called a 'meme'. It is useful in drawing a parallel in terms of genetic change and social change, which share some similarities.

Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

So? Altruism is not necessarily a memetic phenomena. You're confusing two fields that Dawkins was describing. If you wish to discuss memetics, we can do that. Or the idea of a selfish gene, we can discuss that, too.

Athon

[plumjam]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

don't dare criticise Dawkins on here. You'll be excommunicated ;)

[articulett]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

Well, you might want to try reading the tops in the field on the field of genetics and neurology... or at least look at the links provided in order to have some credibility on the subject-- Steven Jones, Dawkins, Shermer, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, etc. Or watch them on you tube. Dawkins is as non-woo as Randy and your pre judgement of memes shows that you, not only haven't read him, but you are don't really know what you are talking about. It's not a "theory"-- it's just a way of showing how information systems evolve-- whether it's culture, fads, religions, or the internet... I don't trust people who talk like you do. Those who seem to have this dislike of Dawkins without having read him tend to be those who have "intelligent design" ideas that are not supported by evidence. Moreover, they tend to be hard to follow and insert silly emoticons. They seem to judge science without even investigating the evidence while proffering vague opinions as facts without a smidgen of evidence in support.

But maybe I've been around religious apologist types too much and see it when it isn't there. But why the smarmy wink? I don't consider you more knowledgable than me or Dawkins or others on this thread. Is there a reason we should.

[articulett]

don't dare criticise Dawkins on here. You'll be excommunicated ;)

It's the hammy wink and everything.... and associating respect of scientists who tell the truth as being similar to invisible savior worship of people who offer nothing testable.

Faith does not equal Facts even though someone dumped that notion in your head. And it's religionists that excommunicate to manipulate people into believing stuff for which there is no evidence. Dawkins is always more than willing to provide evidence-- but the smarmy creationists don't want any of it-- they just want to convince themselves that he doesn't know what he's talking about although it is they who haven't an iota of evidence for their everlasting parade of inane claims.

Respect for the massive amount of true measurable useful data has brought to the world is not the same as is not the same as worshiping invisible people because some all loving guy killed his kid (who was really him) and yada yada yada.

But of course-- the woo mind is impenetrable-- too certain they know all--

[plumjam]

It's the hammy wink and everything.... and associating respect of scientists who tell the truth as being similar to invisible savior worship of people who offer nothing testable.

Faith does not equal Facts even though someone dumped that notion in your head. And it's religionists that excommunicate to manipulate people into believing stuff for which there is no evidence. Dawkins is always more than willing to provide evidence-- but the smarmy creationists don't want any of it-- they just want to convince themselves that he doesn't know what he's talking about although it is they who haven't an iota of evidence for their everlasting parade of inane claims.

Respect for the massive amount of true measurable useful data has brought to the world is not the same as is not the same as worshiping invisible people because some all loving guy killed his kid (who was really him) and yada yada yada.

But of course-- the woo mind is impenetrable-- too certain they know all--

lol.. you're so easily provoked that I almost feel guilty

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've just been told that homosexuality is "an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings."

it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory

That's nice. Would you like to ask how it works rather than deciding ahead of time that there is no explanation? If you have no intellectual curiosity or no interest in actual biology and simply want to gainsay, that's fine.

How you could decide that the explanations are convoluted and improbable when you haven't even been given the explanation is beyond me. I have seen plenty of people respond in just such fashion when they have an obvious agenda. What is your agenda? Are you even aware of it?

[strathmeyer]

with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

Can you explain what about the perpetuation of these phenomena isn't made clear to you by the explanation of the perpetuation of altruism?

[MRC_Hans]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.Homosexuality can also be seen as a by-product of the shift of sexuality from a pure vehicle of reproduction to a social activity, which has occurred in humans. The advantage of sex as a social activity is to bond the males and females together as a family group with sufficient strength to endure the unusual long time needed to rear human children.

Since family groups are often diffuse in primitive societies, a minority of homeosexual relations don't detract from this. In fact, homosexuals are perfectly capable of conceiving and rearing children, except in the fairly rare cases where some are so strongly oriented that it prevents them from having an occasional heterosexual intercourse.

Hans

[Ichneumonwasp]

Homosexuality can also be seen as a by-product of the shift of sexuality from a pure vehicle of reproduction to a social activity, which has occurred in humans. The advantage of sex as a social activity is to bond the males and females together as a family group with sufficient strength to endure the unusual long time needed to rear human children.

Since family groups are often diffuse in primitive societies, a minority of homeosexual relations don't detract from this. In fact, homosexuals are perfectly capable of conceiving and rearing children, except in the fairly rare cases where some are so strongly oriented that it prevents them from having an occasional heterosexual intercourse.

Hans

I think that is a potentially dangerous view because it seems to imply, at least to me, that homosexuality is a choice. While there may be some choice involved, I think it is more of an orientation.

[articulett]

seeing as I don't remember you offering to discuss anything with me, that's a slight exaggeration

Not to the majority if not all the respected members of this community.
You are typical woo. All preaching, no evidence, no listening.

[Terry]

I think that is a potentially dangerous view because it seems to imply, at least to me, that homosexuality is a choice. While there may be some choice involved, I think it is more of an orientation.

<derail> If homosexuality were to be a choice, so what? That doesn't make it wrong or bad. If someone is "against" homosexuality, whatever that means, they need to show why it is problematic, regardless of how it comes about. </derail>

[Ichneumonwasp]

<derail> If homosexuality were to be a choice, so what? That doesn't make it wrong or bad. If someone is "against" homosexuality, whatever that means, they need to show why it is problematic, regardless of how it comes about. </derail>

Doesn't bother me one way or the other but it makes it more difficult to discuss the matter with the fundies who want to cite biblical support for the evils of homosexuality.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't know why but I just find some of the research on this topic interesting.

The first break was the demonstration of that subnucleus in the hypothalamus (whose name escapes me at the moment) that seemed to have some influence in mate choice (sexual preference). And the later studies that showed that homosexuality in men was more prevalent in younger sons who usually had several brothers raises the strong possibility that there are local intrauterine factors, perhaps mothers' immune response to some male antigen similar to the Rh story, that play a role in determining sexual preferences. If we want to find the "gene for homosexuality" we are probably looking in the wrong place. Don't look in the homosexuals. Look to their mothers and their immune response genes. It's just another one of those instances where we can't look to genes as the absolute answer. The whole nature/nurture "debate" is silly. There is no nature without nurture and vice versa.

[Just thinking]

Did you watch the clip where the hippo attempts to save the baby impala-- I have a couple that shows gorillas (one male; one female) protecting a toddler that fell in their enclosure at a zoos. Have you read much about mirror neurons? Did you read those articles? Some degree of moral sense and altruism evolved-- the way mother mammals often nurture those of a different species-- cats going in burning buildings to save kittens... apes risking their lives to save friends that fell in zoo moats. Yes, some is definitely a cultural byproduct... but we evolved to be cultural--social-- we evolved to learn language, but the language has to be "programed" via culture.

You seem to be missing the points I raised that actually agree with much of this paragraph. I do agree that there are forms of altruism in nature -- I came right out and said that. I also hypothesized that a more refined form of altruism might be our ability to observe and expand upon behaviors that we see as beneficial to survival --- and that culture and society might well reinforce that behavior from one generation to the next. We, as humans, can think abstractly enough into taking what is biological altruism into psychological altruism --- and that is what I would argue as being different, somewhat, from an evolutionary development (biologically speaking).

We evolved to fill niches as well. Most mammals do most of their brain development in utero-- humans do much of it on the outside depending entirely on others while the brain develops.

I would say altruism is no more culture than language-- maybe less so, because it's more primal-- not really thought out... rather instinctive... like that man who jumped upon another man in the subway who had fallen from a seizure as a train was coming. There was no time to think... and he had his kids with him. But he jumped on the guy (a stranger) and lied over him as the subway passed safely over the both of them. He saved the guys limbs if not his life. But I bet he wouldn't have known he would do something like that before him. There had to be some extinct.

The above situation is rather extreme, but it does raise some points. As I said earlier, I do think that psychological altruism comes out of biological altruism, so there is something primal in all of it --- how much is what I'm questioning. As for the man jumping on the stranger in the subway I can see that there is much to consider here. You say he didn't have time to think, but I'm not so sure. We can think quite rapidly in certain situations --- even on a complex level; just because it may be happening on a subconscious level doesn't make it any less involved. (Ever look at complex math equations and say 'something isn't quite right', only to later examine it and find out that there was in fact an error made? I have .... and more than once.) A good deal of mental processing may have been going on in this man's brain --- both instinctive and cultural --- and he came to a conclusion on which he knew he had to act immediately upon and did. But how many others that were there did the same, or even thought of doing so? Also, what of the man who jumped initially? What of that behavior? Maybe his death was an escape from what he considered to be something far worse than death. Did our hero consider that? Who knows?

When you have a kid, most people feel very strongly that they would rather die or suffer than have their kid do so-- it must be encoded on some level and then extended by culture or as a byproduct of the primal instinct (our love of baby looking animals). What humans see as cute is a byproduct of the evolutionary advantage of finding babies cute--especially one's own.

Yes ... I did mention parental bonding as a possible pre-courser to what we developed into societal altruism.

[leftysergeant]

Okay, it seems that too much is being made of my insertion of religious views into this matter. It's a mionor point, realy. I do not require anyone to accept the existance of God when I explain how what is came to be. Creationionists do. By the same token, I do not have to accept atheism to believe the scientific explanations of the cosmos. If God is rational, should His creation not also be rational? Otherwise, rational beings with free will, seeing what He has created might go far astray.

Take it to the sub-atomic level for a moment. All matter isa collection of charged particles moving in formation, all insentient as units. Very well. Charged particles of what?

There is as valid a reason to consider these particles the texture of God as anything else.

Could there be moral lessons in evolution? Of course. Most importantly, it teaches us that we are subject to very real physical laws and limitations. Ritual magic is not going to get us anything. We can be the instruments of our own destruction if we do not learn to take care of our environment and each other.

I especially fear the mischeif that the creationists can do now, in their religious right-wing political manifestation, by putting us above natural law, on the pretext that God will rapture us out of here before we can totally screw up the creation.

I still have some trouble with the idea of the meme because it seems just a little bit Lamarcian. It seems like something that can really only function in reasoning creatures.

I would, however, attribute the ability to reason to a lot of non-human creatures as well, to some degree.

Altruism, at the same time, can very readily develop and survive in a Darwinian model, because a complex creature incapable of it just wouldn't work.

[jimbob]

Leftysargant, may I recommend Frans der Waal's books expecially his latest "Our Inner Ape" (titled to echo Desmond Morris, and with a forword by him...)

Lots about bonobos and chimps, and other social animals.

"Chimpanzee Politics" is a seminal work, too.

[RandFan]

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the Internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique...The is a rather odd thing to say. Dawkins is a preeminent intellectual in his field because of his contributions to evolution.

...and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.Again, odd. I know there are are reputable scientists who disagree with Dawkins and that is perfectly fine but I've never heard anyone accuse Dawkins of woo. On what basis do you make this claim? You are making and ad hominem attack.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed? Entirely irrelevant to the point. That a meme can really only function in an advanced creature is entirely beside the point.

[RandFan]

<derail> If homosexuality were to be a choice, so what? That doesn't make it wrong or bad. If someone is "against" homosexuality, whatever that means, they need to show why it is problematic, regardless of how it comes about. </derail>Bingo.

[plumjam]

This isn't argument. It's rhetoric.

There is some rule here against rhetoric? Personally I think it's one valid way to discuss something, among others.

I've noted you're a fan of Dawkins (you even described him as 'the master')
He quite regularly uses rhetoric.
Are you saying it's ok for him to use rhetoric, but not me?

For illustration here are just a few of many examples :



It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

[articulett]

Okay, Justthinking... maybe I misread.

But, as an aside, the original guy did not "jump on the tracks"--he fell from a seizure as I had said before. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/nyregion/03life.html?ex=1325480400&en=bfb239e4fab06ab5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

And I don't think you can culturally indoctrinate that sort of reflexive instant reaction--.

[RandFan]

There is some rule here against rhetoric? Yes, RandFan is the only poster allowed to use rhetoric. ;)

Personally I think it's one valid way to discuss something, among others.Rhetoric is like sachrine. It can be sweet but it has empty calories.

I've noted you're a fan of Dawkins (you even described him as 'the master')
He quite regularly uses rhetoric.
Are you saying it's ok for him to use rhetoric, but not me?If Dawkins only used rhetoric for any purpose I would not call him the master.

For illustration here are just a few of many examples :

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. I engage in rhetoric all of the time. Rhetoric has it's purpose. However, when one is responding to logical argument a rebuttal of only rhetoric is just laziness.

[athon]

There is some rule here against rhetoric? Personally I think it's one valid way to discuss something, among others.

Occasional rhetoric is fine. We all post waffle every now and then. But to consistently post little else, especially with lazy one sentence objections which have no substance, highlights you as a troll. When challenged you still refuse to engage in debate, choosing to hide behind such rhetoric.

If there was something to your opinions we might have a discussion. Instead I see nothing but attention whoring. Feel free, but I fail to see the point of why you choose to waste your time.

Athon

[plumjam]

Occasional rhetoric is fine. We all post waffle every now and then. But to consistently post little else, especially with lazy one sentence objections which have no substance, highlights you as a troll. When challenged you still refuse to engage in debate, choosing to hide behind such rhetoric.

If there was something to your opinions we might have a discussion. Instead I see nothing but attention whoring. Feel free, but I fail to see the point of why you choose to waste your time.

Athon

nice rhetoric + insults.
keep it up

[articulett]

I think you guys are really nice to elevate plumjam's self aggrandizing blither to "rhetoric". I find his arguments... when I can parse them... vain and vapid and devoid of any content except to confirm how ignorant belief can make
people and how very blind they become to that ignorance.

The funny thing is, that like T'ai and Hammy and other woos... he talks like others on this forum agree with him. But the woos don't even seem to understand each other. They all think their woo is the true woo but none can succinctly sum up their own blather much less any other person on this forums point- less so the edifying concepts of people like Dawkins, Randi, and the many fine forum members they insult. Where is this imagined agreement they see coming from?-- the voices in their heads? Their invisible savior? (And aren't they a fabulous illustration of my sig article. They belittle people who have so much insight and knowledge to share while foisting of inane platitudes that they have bought as "higher truths".)

Makes one glad for synaptic connections. :)

[plumjam]

I think you guys are really nice to elevate plumjam's self aggrandizing blither to "rhetoric". I find his arguments... when I can parse them... vain and vapid and devoid of any content except to confirm how ignorant belief can make
people and how very blind they become to that ignorance.

The funny thing is, that like T'ai and Hammy and other woos... he talks like others on this forum agree with him. But the woos don't even seem to understand each other. They all think their woo is the true woo but none can succinctly sum up their own blather much less any other person on this forums point- less so the edifying concepts of people like Dawkins, Randi, and the many fine forum members they insult. Where is this imagined agreement they see coming from?-- the voices in their heads? Their invisible savior? (And aren't they a fabulous illustration of my sig article. They belittle people who have so much insight and knowledge to share while foisting of inane platitudes that they have bought as "higher truths".)

Makes one glad for synaptic connections. :)

You're right. T'ai, Hammy and myself should be burnt.

[thaiboxerken]

yep, i accept most of what you say.
I'm just wondering why it is that, if survival value is the supreme value in life (according to Darwinism), why don't we live our lives like that?

It's survival of the species that really matters. The earth is so vastly populated with humans that having abortions, safe-sex and being homosexual doesn't seem to be any threat to the survival of our species at all, not in any significant way.

[thaiboxerken]

lol.. you're so easily provoked that I almost feel guilty

So you admit your motive is to troll the forum. Thanks for that confession. 3 hail mary's and bang your head on a wall for repentance.

[articulett]

You're right. T'ai, Hammy and myself should be burnt.

interesting strawman, strawman.
(...if he only had a brain...)

[articulett]

It's survival of the species that really matters. The earth is so vastly populated with humans that having abortions, safe-sex and being homosexual doesn't seem to be any threat to the survival of our species at all, not in any significant way.

And the stupid spawn at excessive rates... darwin just cares about what works-- what genes make vectors that copy more copiers... and so far the stupid are winning. Sure, the stupidity would have been a liability in the past--but thanks to science we save even the dumbest and on they spawn.

[Roboramma]

how about love?
you know,... like when you look into another conscious being's eyes and recognise that the essence of their being is identical to yours?
come on, even some of you cold scientists on here must feel love sometimes
yep, even without evidence or citations
go on, surprise me ;)


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2339008&postcount=27

[Roboramma]

I am still looking for a source on Dawkins. I have never heard of him before.

I am trying not to draw any unfounded conclusions here, but, out of curiousity, are you using Dawkins to support a particular socio-political position? Doubtful. He's just suggesting that Dawkins is a good source for clear explanations of evolutionary theory. I'd agree.
And from your posts it seems like you haven't been exposed to the 'selfish gene' idea. It's a very good way of looking at and understanding natural selection.

I am drawing largely from my memory of books I have read by Richard Leakey, Donald Johanson and Stephen Jay Gould, and perhaps flavor my interpretations of these works with my own religious beliefs. The thing is that some of the paleoanthrological claims in your post are pretty big. I'm a little surprised by the point about homo habilis caring for the weaker members of their groups. Not because I find the behavior surprising, but because I can't imagine what sort of evidence we could have that leads us to that conclusion. There aren't all that many homo habilis fossils, after all, and they are fragmentary. So it'd be cool to see the data that you're refering to. Otherwise I can't know if your remberence of your interpretation of something you read is accurate.

(I'm thinking of the "blind watch maker" version of God here.) Just as an aside, I think the term "blind watch maker" was coined by Dawkins. Could be wrong about that, but it is the title of one of his books (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml).
From what I remember it was a good book.

Oh, also I want to second the recommendation of Frans De Waal. Peacemaking Amoung Primates is one of my favourite books!

[articulett]

Oh, also I want to second the recommendation of Frans De Waal. Peacemaking Amoung Primates is one of my favourite books!

Then you will like this: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/822/2

[athon]

nice rhetoric + insults.
keep it up

Insults? What, is your skin made of paper? Thicken up sunshine. There's no insults there unless you get offended by people suggesting you bring something of substance to the table.

Athon

[RandFan]

Thanks Robo, I missed this post.

I am trying not to draw any unfounded conclusions here, but, out of curiousity, are you using Dawkins to support a particular socio-political position? No. You are talking about altruism and evolution. Having reread Selfish Gene recently I can tell you that Dawkins makes an excellent case for altruism being an evolutionary trait. However I think some of your ideas not quite on the mark.

I am drawing largely from my memory of books I have read by Richard Leakey, Donald Johanson and Stephen Jay Gould, and perhaps flavor my interpretations of these works with my own religious beliefs.

My belief in a natural process of evolution, to include the formation of self-replicating organic matter out of the primordial soup does not preclude my believing in a provident God. Evolution seems to me the way that a rational God would have gone about it. (I'm thinking of the "blind watch maker" version of God here.) That's fine. The problem is that we don't need god to understand evolution or altruism. Appealing to a rational God tells us nothing about anything. Parsimony would dictate leaving God out of the details. But hey, you are free to believe what you want.

[RandFan]

Oh, also I want to second the recommendation of Frans De Waal. Peacemaking Amoung Primates is one of my favourite books!:)

It fits very well with my recent studies. It's on my list.

RandFan

[Roboramma]

Randfan - :) you'll definitely enjoy it. Its both great science and real drama.

Then you will like this: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/822/2

Good call. Very cool! It seems that the more we learn about chimpanzees the more alike we find ourselves. Thanks for that! (recommend others check out the link as well).

[RandFan]

Then you will like this: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/822/2Yes, I like it. Thanks.