Nipples

to the contrary, i think design makes perfect sense for the reason that we are not predetermined to behave a certain wayall animals have their own list of predictable behaviors, but humans do notwe have the ability to choose how we want to behave...that is a huge difference

So humans are designed because they are un-predictable while animals are not designed because they are predictable.Where did animals come from then? Abiogenesis?

it makes sense because animals live by instinct but humans live by lawwhats the difference between the two?animals are subject to instict but humans are submissive to lawIf evolution was the answer, then humans would be subject to instinct like every other animal on the planet... but we are not. We choose to live by laws and therein lies evidence of design rather then randomness.

That doesn't answer my question. I get that you insist humans are designed. I am curious about the animals, and once I get that answer I am going to press you on why evolution cannot result in intelligence. Then I will point to various animals that do have intelligence, basic "laws" and law breakers, and various human behaviours that are actually instinctual.Its all quite predictable actually. It must be my ape ancestry.Once again - What about the animals? Quick summary:Un-predictable life is evidence of a designer
Predictalbe life is evidence of randomnessEdited by Vacate, : No reason given.

How did reason push us towards monogamy? I don't see anything inherently more rational about it; and there are and have been plenty of non-monogamous cultures around the place.There are biological reasons pushing towards monogamy. From a male point of view, you need to know a child is really yours if you're going to invest any time in raising it after doing your bit at conception; otherwise it's wasted effort from the point of view of reproductive success. Men who are jealous with their partners, and effective at ensuring they sleep with no-one else, have a selective advantage. As for women, keeping your man focused on you alone, and making him believe that he's the only man for you, increases the chances that he will consider your (and only your) offspring his own and help you invest in their success.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

You're right. I was responding to Peg, and trying to show that her logic was flawed, but in doing so, I made an error myself.While I would argue that monogamy is not completely an evolutionary concept in humans, it is at least a major factor. Some have even tried to show that men becoming sleepy after intercourse is an evolutionary tactic to keep the man near the woman and to help an emotional bond form.I think the fact that we need laws to stop men from creating a harem of women, or a polygamous marriage, is indicative that the evolutionary push for monogamy has not fully taken hold in men, at the very least.

quote:

---

I think the fact that we need laws to stop men from creating a harem of women, or a polygamous marriage, is indicative that the evolutionary push for monogamy has not fully taken hold in men, at the very least.

---

Well, evolutionary considerations don't only drive towards monogamy. You can guard your mate to ensure the parenthood of the children you invest in; whilst at the same time spreading your oats far and wide; you put serious investment into a few children you know are yours while putting a tiny investment (a quick shag) into potential scores of other offspring. This could be an evolutionary basis for patriarchal cultures where infidelity is tolerated in men and condemned in women.As for harems; if you've got the resources to invest in lots of children and the power to keep control over a lot of women; then the same arguments I mentioned above for monogamy would lead to success for men with big harems.

quote:

---

If evolution was the answer, then humans would be subject to instinct like every other animal on the planet... but we are not.

---

humans objectively ARE subject to instinct. you shiver when cold, i'd wagerbut, like all animals, humans can change *some* instinctive reactions or behaviors through a process called learning. thus, for example, the instinctive behavior of crying-when-hungry becomes the learned behavior asking-Mommy-for-a-snackif your intent was to note that humans don't seem to have complex preprogrammed behaviors, like building a Bower-bird nest, then you're merely pointing out a different in quantity rather than quality

Exactly my point. Evolutionarily, for men at least, monogamy doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's carrying all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. Which gets back to my original, though poorly phrased, point that monogamy isn't evolved, it's more that we, as a reasoning society, saw the vast upside in monogamy and the raising of children...not to mention tax laws (polygamous tax forms would have to be complex), and so made laws and taught our children that it's a good thing.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

all animals have their own list of predictable behaviors, but humans do not

---

You really think this? And I mean that on both sides of the question.So I guess psychology is completely bogus. I mean, how on earth could we possibly think we could study human behaviour and understand it? Humans are "unpredictable"! And I suppose all those warnings about never approaching a strange animal lest it do something unpredictable were just bunk.

quote:

---

we have the ability to choose how we want to behave...that is a huge difference

---

It's a difference in degree, not kind. Other animals have the ability to choose how they want to behave, too, and humans can be easily manipulated. There's a reason advertising works.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

it makes sense because animals live by instinct but humans live by law

---

So how to explain chimpanzees who live by law? And how to explain human instincts?There's a reason advertising works.

quote:

---

whats the difference between the two?

---

Nothing, really. You seem to think that humans aren't animals.

quote:

---

If evolution was the answer, then humans would be subject to instinct like every other animal on the planet

---

And they are, just like every other animal on the planet.Or do you deny the Stanford experiment? You remember the one. That's where they split students up into groups of "prisoners" and "guards" and made to simulate a prison. It quickly devolved into a real life version of Lord of the Flies with the guards becoming more and more abusive, drunk on their power they had.So is anybody surprised that it happened again at Abu Ghraib?

quote:

---

We choose to live by laws

---

...except for when we don't. Surely you have noticed the police who patrol our cities looking for people breaking the law.

quote:

---

therein lies evidence of design rather then randomness.

---

Except chimps have law, too.Again, you seem to be under the impression that humans aren't animals.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

So humans don't follow instinctive behavior?Here are a couple of human instinctive behavior:
1. Fight or flight reflex aka survival instinct
2. Sexual drive (why do you think many humans are willing to disobey human made laws for sexual gratification?)
3. The competitive nature to win (also part of the survival instinct)
4. Altruistic behavior (which benefits that individual's survival)
5. Face perception
6. Normal bodily functions such as breathing, eating, sleeping etc.In a nutshell instinctive behavior inhances the chance of survival for that organism and in the long run survival for the entire species.Human laws are just human contrived ways of controlling large groups of people to act a certain way which in the end are ultimately derived from individual instinctive behavior. Some higher intelligent animals aka apes, marine mammals, etc also have forms of "law" akin to humans i.e. chimpanzees policing each other to ensure loyalty to there tribe/sexual companion etc.The difference between a human/animal derived law and instinct is that instinct is the inclination for a human/animal to behave a certain way due to there genetic makeup not through learned behavior. Instincts are not learned but are inherent to that individual organism, though the majority of organisms of the same species will be subject to the same instincts.The question then becomes how much control does that individual organism have of overriding that instinctive behavior. The more intelligent the animal the greater the ability of overiding those instincts but even the most intelligent animals on the Earth aka human, are still influenced by these unlearned, inherent instinctive behaviors.This is where laws come into play. Laws are learned behavior which are culturally passed down from generation to generation and are used to control the behavior of large groups of people for the benefit of society. Usually laws are used to suppress some instinctive behavior which is potentially destructive to the greater good of the rest of the population and promotes other more beneficial and altruistic instinctive behavior which benefits society. So in reality laws are merely an extention of natural instinctive behavior which are accumulated and pass down to succeeding generations.Higher intelligent animals such as apes do have some rudimentary form of social "laws" but due to their limitations in communication, limited cultural transmission from generation to generation does not produce the complexity of these "laws" which are present in modern human society.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

we see rule-based social behavior outside of primates, too. heck, wolves have "laws" that they must follow, or be rejected by the pack

grandfather raven writes:

quote:

---

we see rule-based social behavior outside of primates, too. heck, wolves have "laws" that they must follow, or be rejected by the pack

---

And let's not forget that chimps and dogs both have a sense of "fairness," though it gets expressed differently.That is, dogs understand the concept that rewards should be given for good behaviour. If one is getting rewarded for behaviour and the other is not, the non-rewarded dog will stop complying since he can see that it isn't fair.Chimps, on the other hand, also understand the value of the reward and expect that to be equal. Dogs don't recognize that one is getting a prime reward while the other is getting a lesser reward. They both got rewarded and thus it's "fair." Chimps, on the other hand, can tell the difference between a good reward and a pathetic one and the ones getting the pathetic reward will stop complying since they can see that it isn't fair.Human "law" is a difference in degree, not kind.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I agree. And we see it in the animal kingdom plenty. But in humans we dont see it as often.Yes we have an instinct to eat, But some people will choose not to eat when hungry...anorexics are one example...people on hunger strikes are another. This shows that humans are not BOUND by instinct in the way other animals are.The instinct to care for offspring is very strong amongst all animals...except for humans who readily will kill their offspring ie abortion. Or they will neglect them and not care for them properly.That certainly is not beneficial to the human race.Even when it comes to Fight or flight we present a non instinctual behavior. Animals will hear a noise and run, but humans are more inclined to get closer & investigate. When a volcano erupts for example we see the smoke rising and want a front row seat...many people have died because they did not flee in time. Unlike animals who sense the danger and take to flight at the first signs of activity.