Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we born to an evolutionary purpose?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 16 of 32 (387216)
02-27-2007 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 4:02 PM


Neutralmind writes:
Why would gay guys even be born if there is so much less chance that they're genes will get passed on? What evolutionary advantage (considering passing on genes) do gay men have over straight?
You seem to be infering that being gay must have a predetermined 'role' in evolution.
Being gay could be an emergent propperty of being a human.
Like being an artiste: some are, some are not.
It may confer some adaptive advantage but that would very much depend on the culture.
In a very macho culture you would most likely see less expression of overtely camp men but you would still get homosexuality.
Biological systems are prone to having emergent propperties; perhaps homosexuality, just like having aristic talent is simply expressions or one way in which the human organism exist.
Invoking so reason for it being so is putting the cart before the horse.
If you really wanted an answer in evolutionary terms, just look at groups with an alpha male and a hareem.
I believe humans were once in that camp, many moons ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:02 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 32 (387217)
02-27-2007 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by anastasia
02-26-2007 5:37 PM


ana writes:
This is way too close to forcing science to give meaning to life, it is looking to science for a justification of all behaviours. Science can give an explanation, maybe even prove that we have tendencies, but purpose lies entirely in our choices. Everything depends on what purpose YOU ascribe to your life. Or, even if it doesn't, say, God or nature have a purpose for your life, it is so clearly obvious that we do not know this purpose by default.
How many times have you had this explained to you in the past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 5:37 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 02-27-2007 9:01 PM Larni has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 32 (387234)
02-27-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by anastasia
02-26-2007 8:24 PM


quote:
I do not see any difference in looking for an evolutionary explanation thru which to content oneself with a situation, or in using the old adage 'it is in god's plan for me'.
There is actually an enormous difference.
"Godidit" doesn't explain anything.
Evolution/science lets us understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 8:24 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 02-27-2007 9:11 PM nator has not replied

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 19 of 32 (387248)
02-27-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chiroptera
02-26-2007 9:11 PM


Chiroptera
Well, I don't agree that these speculations are comparable to making evolution "intelligent". I do agree, though, that a lot of the speculation about the biological basis for human behavior is silly and nonproductive.
Thank you, this is the point I think I was getting at.
Any sort of behavior can be ascribed to having some evolutionary benefit if you think about it. That in a way also means, any sort of behavior can be ascribed no meaning. It's just speculation as far as I see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 9:11 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 20 of 32 (387321)
02-27-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Larni
02-27-2007 5:51 AM


Larni writes:
How many times have you had this explained to you in the past?
I don't know what you are talking about. Tell me again, do we know the purpose to our life by default, or are we not even sure that there is one?
I find it funny. Some people here understand what I mean, and actually take it further, while others are guaranteed to disagree by default. Again, here is my sentence;
ana writes:
say, God or nature have a purpose for our life, it is so clearly obvious that we do not know this purpose by default.
Do we? Do we automatically do what is right for us?
I request that you substantiate your post. It furthers no thread or no topic to have you say 'how many times have I explained this'. Each topic stands on its own, and if you have a point to make that is different from another person's, by all means, do so. Neutralmind started this thread to look at possibilities, and you are welcome to express your view.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 02-27-2007 5:51 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 02-28-2007 3:22 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 32 (387322)
02-27-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
02-27-2007 9:49 AM


nator writes:
There is actually an enormous difference.
"Godidit" doesn't explain anything.
Evolution/science lets us understand.
That is not the point, at all. In case it is my wording that is unclear...
There is no difference between 'goddidit' and 'evolutiondidit' when it comes to 'ok, what do WE do next'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 02-27-2007 9:49 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2007 9:25 AM anastasia has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 22 of 32 (387339)
02-28-2007 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by anastasia
02-27-2007 9:01 PM


ana writes:
Science can give an explanation,
Yet you refuse to accept it, saying it is unfullfilling.
Thats what bugs me.
ana writes:
Do we? Do we automatically do what is right for us?
We have gone through an entired thread on this one!!
http://EvC Forum: Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy -->EvC Forum: Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy
Same old ground, same old fundy rejections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 02-27-2007 9:01 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:04 AM Larni has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 23 of 32 (387350)
02-28-2007 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Larni
02-28-2007 3:22 AM


Larni writes:
Yet you refuse to accept it, saying it is unfullfilling.
Thats what bugs me.
This is not a morality thread, Larni. I can't possibly have refused to accept anything scientific regarding THIS thread, since there has been no scientific conclusion presented.
Same old ground, same old fundy rejections.
Oh, stop. No one else had an issue with what I wrote. There is nothing here that can be 'rejected', since nothing has been presented as more than a question.
Why do you think I could give a darn whether we have evolved tendencies? I only asked what to do with them. Obviously, if a murderer has an evolutionary purpose, we can't let him 'fulfill' it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 02-28-2007 3:22 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 02-28-2007 7:14 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 24 of 32 (387352)
02-28-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by anastasia
02-27-2007 9:11 PM


Purpose?
There is no difference between 'goddidit' and 'evolutiondidit' when it comes to 'ok, what do WE do next'?
Well there is in the sense that evolutionary explanations attempt to provide a deeper understanding. An understanding based on origins of behaviour in terms of ancestral environment and gene propagation. Goddidit just begs the unanswerable question as to WHY Goddidit. It provides no understanding whatsoever as to why we are the way we are.
Understanding human nature (whether we accept certain aspects of that nature as undesirable in modern society or not), it's origins, the environment it developed in and the differences our current environment requires of us, must be an important step in looking at "what do WE do next"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 02-27-2007 9:11 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:53 AM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 32 (387355)
02-28-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
02-28-2007 9:25 AM


Re: Purpose?
Straggler writes:
Well there is in the sense that evolutionary explanations attempt to provide a deeper understanding. An understanding based on origins of behaviour in terms of ancestral environment and gene propagation. Goddidit just begs the unanswerable question as to WHY Goddidit. It provides no understanding whatsoever as to why we are the way we are.
I definitely wouldn't say that we should give up on finding the 'why' just because the resulting 'what do we do next' stays the same. In fact, it might not. We may find all sorts of solvable problems in human behaviour.
On the other hand, I have a sister who is perpetually searching for a sientific explanation for every idiosyncracy of her behaviour, and this is all well and good, except that she has yet to find a 'solution' even if she has found tentative 'cause'.
Imagine that we can research human behaviour to the extent that we find a cause for something undesirable such as murder. Imagine we found a 'murder gene'. What would we do? Medicate? And would we potentially medicate every person into 'normal'? How would we define normal?
So, I say, 'evolutiondidit' and 'goddidit' leave us in the same predicament concerning our future actions...although looking for the 'why' could help us solve some things. Weight problems, sure, addictions, sure, murdering? not so sure. And how many of our problems do we want to solve minus will-power? See, finding a 'cause' for an addictive tendency gives some people an 'excuse' in their own minds when they fail. It is the same idea that gets religious people going in the wrong direction...I have no control over this, God wants it this way, etc.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2007 9:25 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2007 10:09 AM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 32 (387358)
02-28-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by anastasia
02-28-2007 9:53 AM


Re: Purpose?
I also question the validity of looking for an answer for every sort of inividual human behaviour. Given the complexity of the subjects involved (i.e. us)it would seem to be pointless task doomed to error and failure.
Maybe your sister should investigate her need for such answers...........
However broader tendancies do seem to have genetic foundations. There may not be a "murder gene" but there may be a genetically related tendancy to aggression and violence which will make some individuals in some environments more likely to commit murder than others.
I don't think science claims to tell us what we should or shouldn't do. It merely provides us with the knowledge on which we can make those decisions if we choose to make them.
Would you stop studying human behaviour scientifically because you might not like the results?
Goddidit provides us with nothing except perhaps false reassurance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:53 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 11:03 AM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 27 of 32 (387367)
02-28-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
02-28-2007 10:09 AM


Re: Purpose?
Straggler writes:
I don't think science claims to tell us what we should or shouldn't do. It merely provides us with the knowledge on which we can make those decisions if we choose to make them.
I understand. It could get complicated either way. If we find that something is 'meant' to be that way, evolved for some purpose, it is hard to know when we should interfere, or how.
Would you stop studying human behaviour scientifically because you might not like the results?
Goddidit provides us with nothing except perhaps false reassurance.
No, I wouldn't stop studying the behaviour, and I can't even say I am afraid of what we would find. I am only afraid of how we could use the findings, as in, the same 'false reassurance' being applied to behaviours that we can and should change.
My sister, for example, is searching for meaning so to speak, and 'why I am the way I am' is not the same as 'WHY I am the way I am'. In other words, we can accept who we are, and why we are that way, but we do not have to limit ourselves to that as far as what we can accomplish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2007 10:09 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 4:31 AM anastasia has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 32 (387495)
02-28-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by anastasia
02-28-2007 9:04 AM


Okay, we should stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:04 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 32 (387843)
03-03-2007 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by anastasia
02-28-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Purpose?
It is true that natural = good is a common misconception in this sort of area. However this does not mean that becuase something is "'meant' to be that way" (as you put it) we have to accept it as morally right or socially acceptable.
Just because humans have a natural inclination to fatty sugary foods due to an ancetral environmnet where these sources of energy were relatively scarce does not mean it is good to pander to these inclinations.
The same is even more true of rape, murder etc. should these be found to have an overriding "natural" basis.
We may need to factor in human nature in making such decisions but claiming natural (in whatever sense) necessarily equates to right or even desirable is just silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 11:03 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 11:33 AM Straggler has replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 30 of 32 (387847)
03-03-2007 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by AnswersInGenitals
02-26-2007 8:56 PM


Avoid Group Selection Theories
Genitals writes:
It has been found that a great many species have techniques to insure that they do not excessively reproduce and exhaust their resources...The option for our the human genome to 'turn on' the homosexual behavior in a subset of its phenotype when faced with high population density can act as an effective modulator of population growth.
While I completely agree with the first portion of your post, your last paragraph is pure group selectionism. This has failed every possible model. Meaning that all group selection theories have fallen flat because the data supports natural selection senso stricto. All presented cases of group selection have been explainable by normal selection processes (Rabbit viruses in Australia, Slime mold research). If homosexuality is genetic it has to be governed by the normal processes of natural selection (which I believe it is).

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-26-2007 8:56 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024