Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:18 AM
19 online now:
Heathen, RAZD, Tangle (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,136 Year: 5,173/19,786 Month: 1,295/873 Week: 191/460 Day: 7/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   question for evolutionists
the cat
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 25 (28604)
01-07-2003 1:36 PM


By the way has anyone heard of the primatologist Frans de Waal? He works with chimps and studies their social behaviour and believes that the roots of morality - human morality can be seen in their social systems - he doesn't deny that they can be viscious and cruel - just that there are other traits, suggesting there is a natural basis to morality.

just thought i'd share - i believe he has a website, think i found it on google - looking up the name.

cat


  
the cat
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 25 (28607)
01-07-2003 2:32 PM


Just had another thought........yeah i do go on!

questions really:-

1) Can one believe in evolution without believing the selfish gene theory? ie without believing that ultimately all living things are selfish?

2) How would the above theory explain our love of beauty, not of people (i expect i know how it would explain that!) but of other things like flowers, etc - and of our love of music - and of the insights and feelings gained from music, as well as insights gained from quiet contemplation? If passing on our genes was our sole purpose - why would any of this be necessary? or is it that when we become fully concious, we really do transcend our biology?

3) also how does it explain our use of contraceptives? if we really are automatons here to perpetuate our genes, why do we use contraception? Why do we choose not to have children?

4) why do we ask questions beginning with 'why?' - if science can only explain the 'how'?

the cat (with an existential crisis..........)


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-07-2003 7:45 PM the cat has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 4:19 AM the cat has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5774 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 18 of 25 (28616)
01-07-2003 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by derwood
01-07-2003 11:51 AM


dear Page,

The content of your replies now almost reach the zero-level. How low can you go?

In another thread, you confided that you are an anatomist by education. Still you write on primate phylogenetics? How come?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 01-07-2003 11:51 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by derwood, posted 01-08-2003 8:56 AM peter borger has responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5774 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 19 of 25 (28617)
01-07-2003 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by the cat
01-07-2003 2:32 PM


Dear Cat,

Regarding your questions:

1) Can one believe in evolution without believing the selfish gene theory? ie without believing that ultimately all living things are selfish?

PB: The selfish gene hype has been postulate by somebody who doesn't understand anything about genes, a zoologist. Although this zoologist is already backing away from his selfish genes, he is still under the impression that 97% of the genome is junk. In the 1970s when we didn't know anything, it was a nice try. However, in the meantime science has proven evolutionism (from microbe to man) to be wrong. After 150 years of scrutiny NDT should have been proven and there should be a workable origin of life hypothesis. There isn't. Therefore the hype should be replaced by something else that better describes what we actually observe. My guess would be that it will not happen. They will keep it up, and propagate this outdated view by twisting and turning facts according to evo-interpretations. It is pseudoscience.

2) How would the above theory explain our love of beauty, not of people (i expect i know how it would explain that!) but of other things like flowers, etc - and of our love of music - and of the insights and feelings gained from music, as well as insights gained from quiet contemplation? If passing on our genes was our sole purpose - why would any of this be necessary? or is it that when we become fully concious, we really do transcend our biology?

PB: The hype of evolutionism is NOT explanantory. It merely tells stories.

3) also how does it explain our use of contraceptives? if we really are automatons here to perpetuate our genes, why do we use contraception? Why do we choose not to have children?

PB: Incomprehensable, isn't it? Ever heard of the swimreflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn? Yeah, you better believe we used to be aquatic apes

4) why do we ask questions beginning with 'why?' - if science can only explain the 'how'?

PB: Exactly my point. Evolutionism should be replaced by the GUToB.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by the cat, posted 01-07-2003 2:32 PM the cat has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 25 (28640)
01-08-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by the cat
01-07-2003 2:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by the cat:
Just had another thought........yeah i do go on!

questions really:-

1) Can one believe in evolution without believing the selfish gene theory? ie without believing that ultimately all living things are selfish?


As I understand it the whole 'selfish gene' thing is just saying
that individuals act to maximise the chance of their offspring's
eventual survival.

Evolution doesn't require that at all ... it's a behavioural
metaphor.

quote:
Originally posted by the cat:

2) How would the above theory explain our love of beauty, not of people (i expect i know how it would explain that!) but of other things like flowers, etc - and of our love of music - and of the insights and feelings gained from music, as well as insights gained from quiet contemplation? If passing on our genes was our sole purpose - why would any of this be necessary? or is it that when we become fully concious, we really do transcend our biology?

Anything that would maximise the chance of producing offspring
could be considered compatible with the 'selfish gene' idea.
That would include intellectual capacity, sensitivity, etc.
which could be considered (culturally) attractive to a potential
mate.

quote:
Originally posted by the cat:

3) also how does it explain our use of contraceptives? if we really are automatons here to perpetuate our genes, why do we use contraception? Why do we choose not to have children?

The 'Selfish gene' idea is about basic, instinctual activity,
it's not suggesting that we are robotic ... only that our
instincts prompt us to pass on our genes.

[Added by edit]
The need for contraception actually leans in favour of
'selfish genes' since it indicates that there is an aspect
of human behaviour relted to reproduction that we feel a need
for, but have an intellectual over-ride for offspring
production.

In evolutionary terms, our intellect has had to develop to overcome
the short-comings of our physical bodies ... and we end up with
a lot of strange intellectual by-products.

quote:
Originally posted by the cat:

4) why do we ask questions beginning with 'why?' - if science can only explain the 'how'?

Scientists don't ask why, only philosophers do.

However, since science started out as 'Natural Philosophy'
I guess there is some intellectual baggage there

[This message has been edited by Peter, 01-08-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by the cat, posted 01-07-2003 2:32 PM the cat has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 21 of 25 (28668)
01-08-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by peter borger
01-07-2003 7:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Page,

The content of your replies now almost reach the zero-level. How low can you go?


Well, Ican't let you make all the zero-content posts, now can I?

quote:

In another thread, you confided that you are an anatomist by education. Still you write on primate phylogenetics? How come?


"Confided"? Your memory is a kaput as your reasoning skills. In the post that I 'confided' that my graduate major was Anatomy and cell biology (you keep leaving that off for some reason), I also mentioned that my minor was physical anthropology (evolution) and that I did my graduate research on the molecular phylogeny of primates.

I am well qualified to write on the subject.

What are your qualifications to write about phylogeny, evolutionary biology, etc., again?

When you try to argue from authority (or against it, in your vendetta against Dawkins), you just dig your little creaton hole a bit deeper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 01-07-2003 7:12 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 01-08-2003 6:42 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
the cat
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 25 (28674)
01-08-2003 9:27 AM


Peter Borger - thanks for your reply, could you explain what the GUTorB is - sorry if i've spelt it wrong!- or point me in the direction of this theory?

Peter - thanks for your reply. I prefer the use of contraception as going against the selfish gene idea, but i take your point. I'd say then that the instinct is not that strong in dictating our behaiour and that this would suggest reason overrides instinct quite easily. In which case this suggests that the cognitive abilities of animals must be quite limited, for example when lions kill off the babies in a pride and then mate with the female to produce their own offspring.

still thinking................

the cat


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-08-2003 10:43 AM the cat has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 25 (28683)
01-08-2003 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by the cat
01-08-2003 9:27 AM


Cat, maybe your problem lies in how you perceive the 'ought' from the 'is'. Even if we are here thanks to our precursors who were all survival machines, it does not mean that we should be like them. Humans have the ability to refuse the urge of selfish genes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by the cat, posted 01-08-2003 9:27 AM the cat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by the cat, posted 01-09-2003 6:08 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5774 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 24 of 25 (28701)
01-08-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by derwood
01-08-2003 8:56 AM


Dear Dr Page,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In another thread, you confided that you are an anatomist by education. Still you write on primate phylogenetics? How come?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

page: "Confided"? Your memory is a kaput as your reasoning skills. In the post that I 'confided' that my graduate major was Anatomy and cell biology (you keep leaving that off for some reason), I also mentioned that my minor was physical anthropology (evolution) and that I did my graduate research on the molecular phylogeny of primates.

I am well qualified to write on the subject.

PB: Congratulations! However, I have the feeling that you are only able to confirm the world from your own paradigm. Ever heard of confirmation bias? Try to overcome it.

Page: What are your qualifications to write about phylogeny, evolutionary biology, etc., again?

PB: Ask Schrafinator, she published my almost complete CV on this board.

Page: When you try to argue from authority (or against it, in your vendetta against Dawkins), you just dig your little creaton hole a bit deeper.

PB: In pondering the riddles of life I encountered some serious problems for evolutionism. You didn't provide a solution, either. I bet the current scientific paradigm is wrong!

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by derwood, posted 01-08-2003 8:56 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
the cat
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 25 (28755)
01-09-2003 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Andya Primanda
01-08-2003 10:43 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Cat, maybe your problem lies in how you perceive the 'ought' from the 'is'. Even if we are here thanks to our precursors who were all survival machines, it does not mean that we should be like them. Humans have the ability to refuse the urge of selfish genes.[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree totally with this - it's just that nature was my sanctuary, away from the madness of the world of human beings! - so to think that nature isn't the perfectly designed place i thought it was is a bit hard to swallow!

Nonetheless i've gone back to the selfish gene book and i realise now much more so that the 'selfish' aspect is a metaphor - afterall the genes are mere molecules, all of which replicate, the fact that some get passed on and some don't does not make those that do 'selfish' just successful............

comments anyone?

cat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-08-2003 10:43 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019