Evolution belief in America

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by James R, Sep 12, 2007.

?

What do you believe?

Poll closed Oct 12, 2007.
  1. God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

    6 vote(s)
    11.8%
  2. Human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life, with God helping or guiding the process.

    4 vote(s)
    7.8%
  3. Human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life, and God played no part in the process.

    36 vote(s)
    70.6%
  4. No opinion.

    5 vote(s)
    9.8%
  1. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Anyway, more on topic, I agree that the poll questions are flawed, but the third question is closest to where I stand on the topic.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    That's not true.

    http://www.livescience.com/animals/070514_femchimp_killers.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Thats biological instinct present even in cats

    Chimps gorillas and langurs kill members of nearby groups but they also compete with and kill young males in their own groups who "stray"
    http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_cult_2.html

    see previous link
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    This is actually a very anti-scientific statement. Nothing that an animal does in its life is to ensure maintaining a community and an environment in which their bloodline will survive and prosper.

    That's because it looks this way in hindsight. That is not the same as what actually occurs. An animal will just do whatever it does. Regardless of the consequences for the future. Regardless of the consequences for the environment. Regardless of the consequences for the community.

    It is kind of typical of the anti-scientific thinking on this forum and in the general public that led to this poll.

    Everybody thinks they think scientifically because they can repeat a few popular phrases. But scientific thought is actually much more tricky than that. It's so easy to fall for traps as depicted in Fraggle's quote, because they make sense to us.

    And they make sense because we have certain philosophies. And all goes well, if said philosophies are in line with evolutionary thinking, but are they ever?
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Well I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that despite our slightly closer relation to chimpanzees in DNA, the bonobos are better role models.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not quite sure whether or not we split off from that line before the chimp-bonobo split.
    But cats are not social by nature. They don't form communities. No undomesticated cat feels any obligation toward other members of his species or their children. Dogs, who are pack-social, are a better study and they are a counterexample. Like the primates mentioned in the previous post, each dog wants his or her own progeny to have an advantage over the progeny of his pack-mates. This is why a female dog will copulate with every male she can find, so they all instinctively believe that at least one member of the litter is theirs. They have to protect "their" pups from the other females.
    I'm not sure what that means. Gorilla packs are patriarchal and each young male is expected to "stray" when he reaches reproductive age, to go off and form his own pack with the restless females who get fed up with bearing their elderly grandfathers' children.
     
  9. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Wouldn't you agree that a species behavior evolved, at least for a large part ?
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822


    Do you understand the difference between traits and behaviour? Natural selection rewards action, not emotion.
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Don't traits lead to behavior ?
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I do not mean to imply that any animal except Homo sapiens can do this consciously, and excuse me if I gave that impression. Animals have instincts which motivate them to act in certain ways. Instincts are synaptic patterns and evolve like all other physiological traits. Natural selection gives an advantage to the individuals who, by instinct, increase the survivability of their own bloodline. In mammals and birds, whose young require significant nurturing, and particularly in humans, whose young must survive an extended period of graduated helplessness, this is a significant issue.

    My point is that the pack-social instinct itself is a survival advantage for a species like ours. Primitive economy of scale and division of labor were practiced to advantage even by Mesolithic humans. Cooperative hunting by the men increased everyone's food supply, as did leaving all of the babies in charge of some of the mothers while the others went out to gather more herbs, nuts and berries.

    And my logical deduction from that is that modern humans from the Neolithic Era onward have been able to expand upon that instinct by conscious reason and learning. The effectiveness of economy of scale and division of labor were demonstrated by the nomadic hunter-gatherers. Applying that proven technology to the endeavors of a more complex lifestyle is hardly a remarkable accomplishment for an intelligent species with at least a rudimentary instinct for harmony and cooperation with pack-mates.

    If morality is defined as working for the common good, my thesis is that we do not need religion in order to behave morally.
    My philosophy is derived logically from empirical observation, in accordance with the scientific method. Morality "makes sense" because it works, not because it is in line with any particular style of thinking.

    To the extent that religions motivate us to do the same thing--work for the common good--the instincts that are manifested as religion (archetypes) can be seen as adjuncts to the more primitive pack-social instinct. However my observation is that the Abrahamic religions, at least, reinforce tribalism and do not encourage working for the common good of a larger community. In an era when our communities are nations and even unions of nations, which far surpass the tribal model, I believe that these religions, at least, are impediments to the advance of civilization and contradict the morality they are claimed to promote.

    It seems that we've gotten a bit off topic. But if the topic allows for discussion of attitudes toward evolution, then by recursion it must allow for discussion of attitudes toward the people who adopt various attitudes toward evolution. As a demographic, people who "do not believe" in evolution are primarily fundamentalist Abrahamists. This is the same demographic that is mired in tribalism, with its holy wars, protectionist economics and anti-immigrant politics. Ironically, they illustrate my thesis that evolution is a more powerful force for morality than religion.
     
  13. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Also, how is behavior not action ?
     
  14. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    That's horrible.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That figures. The Religious Redneck Retards are about 95% Republican. I guess that makes them Religious Redneck Retard Republicans, having a Religious Redneck Retard Republican Revival.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    sorry i didnt see this post before, in regards to the law first of all, alot of women want to be treated as complete equals yes?. yet alot of these same women would still not want to be treated as a man is, in the eyes of the law. for example we can look at sexual assualt and sexiest behaviour in the workplace, alot of the time women commit sexual assualt and are never punished. where a man in the same position will be disciplined,

    the same goes for violence, a womam in court will usualy never be sent to jail for assualt on a man during an altercation. yet within a jury any man who lays a finger on a woman is usualy seen as scum and sent straight to jail no bail.

    we could next look at divorce, many women would not like to be treated fairly in this respect. they would prefer to take more than a fair share of the money. also im pretty sure 50% of women who claim custody of children would not like to lose the child in court.

    i could probably come up with alot more situations where the law fabours women over men, and alot of women are perfectly happy with the unfairness of it all. but we could also look at social graces and manners for instance.

    alot of women would like equal rights, but where it suits them. like alot of women would not like the idea of paying for a mans dinner, or opening doors for men. the term "ladies first" comes to mind here, which is not equal its putting women first by rights of social grace. men are expected to do things for women and act in a certain manner towards them which is not equal.

    i will end on tradition, by rrights of tradition in some cases women would not liek to be equal. i know plenty of women who would have a ghastly look upon there face if they were told they get no engagement or diamond wedding ring unless they also buy one for there man with there own money. i remember reading a newspaper column last week along these lines actualy. where a woman was complaining about the child getting her husbands name by tradition, where she wanted the child to have her name. she said and i quote "tradition is utterly stupid and needs to be scrapped" then she was confronted with the reply in the column (people write in like a newpaper forumn) "so you wont be expecting a sparkling diamond ring then, as tradition is utterly stupid" her reply was something along the lines of "well, that part of the tradition is a nice part which doesent upset anybody".


    peace.
     
  17. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    the RRRR's having an RRRRR.

    peace.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I agree with you. In many ways we women want to be more than equal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    You are absolutely right; it was a bad choice of words on my part; I meant we consider evolution to be the passing on of traits favorable to an environment; so in that case, behavior would "evolve" because those possessing certain favorable behaviour patterns would be more likely to survive.
     
  20. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Except >30% of both independents and democrats also don't believe in evolution. Over 30%! That means at least a third of our population consists of idiots, which is should be unacceptable to anyone with half a brain. Unless the numbers are represented wrong.
     
  21. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    yeah its true, but also true for men alot of the time. real equality is hard to find anywhere in the world.


    peace.
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That is some really complicated math there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The problem with the crusade for equality is that many people think that to be "equal" is to be "the same."
     

Share This Page