The difference between a human and a rock

quote:

---

So when I pose the question, why isn't smashing a rock any different than smashing out a life, the answer is blaring right back at us. Because our love and our empathy are what we are as human beings. Its not just another one of the survival techniques which could be discarded as easily as we could discard our hair-it IS what we are.

​

If you want evidence of a supernatural being, I don't know what more you could ask for.

---

Bolder-dash,this doesnt' follow. We don't have a detailed step by step story for the origin of empathetic behaviour in humans. How does that suggest a supernatural being? What it suggests we have an area that is deserving of further study, where we don't know all the answers. It's a big leap from 'we don't know the answer' to 'a supernatural being did it'.You should also be aware that the evolutionary picture isn't as made up as you think it is- many animals show empathetic behaviour, not just humans. There are degrees to which they show empathy. For example, monkeys will not eat food if they know that it will cause another monkey to receive an electric shock - until they are very hungry indeed, ie haven't eaten for a couple of days.- There is research that shows genetic control over levels of empathy and engagement in humans - eg this:

quote:

---

People with Williams Syndrome, who are missing about 21 genes on chromosome seven, are highly social and empathetic, even in situations that would elicit fear and anxiety in healthy people. They will eagerly, and often impulsively, engage in social interactions, even with strangers. However, they experience increased anxiety that is non-social, such as fear of spiders or heights (phobias) and worry excessively.

---

more at NIMH Science NewsSimilar work at Berkeley shows that human empathy is affected by which alleles people have for the oxytocin receptor protein.

quote:

---

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

​

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

---

- Scientists at Berkeley are also looking at the effect of co-operation and generous behaviour on the respect people have and the influence people wield. The results are that generous, and co-operative people are much more respected and wield higher influence.

quote:

---

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

​

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

---

More details of the Berkeley research is hereAttention Required! | CloudflareTo sum up, genetics have a significant influence on empathetic / co-operative behaviour, and empathetic / co-operative behaviour has been shown to increase respect and status.So while we can't demonstrate the step by step sequence of changes that led to human empathy, we can demonstrate that it a) is to some extent at least heritable and b) generates a selective advantage.So, what is your difficulty with the statement that this could have been produced by evolution?If empathy and love arose by natural methods it doesn't mean they aren't wonderful things. They are, however they came to be. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

For some empirical evidence that empathy is under genetic control and that it is selectively advantageous see my Message 62.On the other hand, all you have produced are statements that the importance of morals to us means that they must have been created by a supernatural being. Nothing empirical about that.

quote:

---

I have seen some of the things your side tries to call evidence, such as the Peepul's UoB studies which suggest that people who are generous are more respected in society. Well, well, there you go, no more proof needed! And guess who was conducting these studies? Social scientists who were trying to build a case for survival of the kindest! What do you know, just look and ye shall find!

---

Bolder-dash,It's impossible to give you the kind of evidence you are looking for. I could build a very plausible story on top of the evidence we do have - but can I show that this is what actually happened? No.We have enough evidence to say convincingly that empathy could have evolved, as it's heritable and a beneficial trait.If you doubt that evolution has occurred atall then that's a different question.The way I see it, science develops frameworks for understanding and we then allow ourselves to interpret the world using those frameworks, until we find (in some cases) that our interpretation no longer works in the light of new evidence.Evolution is an example. We are so confident that evolution is true that we feel justified in saying individual traits evolved without having evidence in every case. That's because evolution is now part of the framework for biology. And justifiably so. As we get more and more understanding, the evidence for evolution continues to stack up. The idea of 'evolution in crisis' is a fantasy.I used to look for a single piece of 'magic bullet' evidence that would prove or disprove evolution. But it's not like maths. The real evidence for evolution is that there are so many different kinds of independent evidence that all point to the same conclusion. It's possible to debate every piece of this evidence individually (and creationists do, mostly without full understanding) but what are the chances of ALL this evidence being incorrect? Very small.For example, ERVs are good evidence that we are descended from a common ancestor with other primates. If you don't accept ERVS, well there are LINES and SINES. If you don't like those, there are pseudogenes. If you don't like pseudogenes, there are molecular clocks. If you don't like molecular clocks then there are HOX genes. Etc Etc Etc.If you don't like genetics there is palaeontology, geology, bio-geography, ecology, evo-devo Etc Etc Etc.In my experience, the vast majority of people who say there is no empirical evidence for evolution are motivated by prior religious belief.Now if you're saying 'there is a lot of evidence, but personally I don't believe it's enough to prove evolution' - that's a position I can respect. But if you're saying there isn't any evidence, you're in denial.

This thread seems to have died - but I'm going to post this link anyway.It looks as if some of our moral feelings are governed by the amygdala and are therefore outside conscious control. Some people (the pro-social) have an amygdala that responds to situations of unfairness - other people don't.Generosity is natural for kind-hearted people | New ScientistMy speculation is that this mechanism will also be found to apply in other species.