Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The implications of Evolution
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 95 (796322)
12-28-2016 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 6:19 PM


You are conflating beneficial with good.
'Bene' is Latin for 'good'.
The assertion that is being made is that because something happens in nature it is objectively good and we must endorse it and promote it.
By whom? Most evolutionists I have read the work of actively reject this concept.
So atheists for example and secularists argue that we can have morality without religion
This isn't about objective 'good'. It is asserting that we can learn cooperative behaviours outside of a particular type of framework. It is a repudiation of the notion that one needs 'God' to be good.
The other presumption being made is that we should carry on having children (I am a strong antinatalist) and that because humans have reached this era we must keep on propagating ourselves and we must propagate ourselves based on evolutionary principles.
Who is making this presumption?
The vast majority of human activities are spandrel like.
You mean culture? It has helped us become rather successful as a species, but a lot of strange stuff has piggybacked along for the ride, for sure.
We can learn to do a vast range of activities that only occurred recently and didn't require us to develop new adaptions.
One of the benefits of having a brain, which evolved.
If the human body was designed by evolution with specific functions in mind
It wasn't.
For example a birds wings can do a limited range of things but the human brain and hands can do an almost infinite range of things.
Seems to have come in handy, if you'll excuse the pun. Fortunate we evolved complex brains and dexterous hands isn't it?
So in what sense can you describe the majority of what humans do as evolved or adapted for?
The general has been evolved for.
The specific has been learned.
We have evolved to learn language to communicate, but we have not evolved to learn English.
That's the sense we can describe the majority of what we do as evolved or adapted for.
How can you legitimately pick out specific functions that were selected for in the brain considering its huge range of abilities?
In many cases you can't, which is why very few people do, and those that try are often criticized.
Anything can become a spandrel or what has been called vestigial once it ceases to have the purpose/s it is supposed to have adapted for.
I'm not sure you understand what a spandrel is. The whiteness of bones is a spandrel. They are white as a function of the materials used, not because bone colour is selected for. The appendix is not a spandrel, it played a more important role in our evolutionary history, and still does things - but its non-essential.
A spandrel, is the space under the stairs. It's not something specifically intended, its just a function of the basic structure of a stairway. A coal store under the stairs is probably a vestigial feature of an old house which used to be heated through coal fires.
If you apply a version of evolution to everything you can make plausible narratives. This is where competing theories for the same evidence occur (see my latest post on homosexuality) If there are competing theories and know means to choose between them that undermines falsifiability.
Right. But this is a well known phenomena and publishing a paper with a just-so story in it is likely to result in a lot of criticism.
There are times when someone says 'How could this have evolved? It makes no sense!?' and someone might reply 'Well perhaps this, or this or even this...sometimes evolution finds solutions that seem counter-intuitive and dismissing evolution on the grounds that you can't imagine how is myopic', but this is just illustrative - a means to demonstrating that evolution isn't as simple as 'survival of the fittest'.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 6:19 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AndrewPD, posted 12-30-2016 4:12 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 67 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 12:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 95 (796323)
12-28-2016 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 7:52 PM


Theories
The other issue I didn't get round to on competing theories...
A point of clarification. In science, a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts.
When there are several ideas competing to become a theory, they are more accurately described as hypotheses or something else, not theories.
You are confusing the points you are trying to make by describing them as theories or competing theories. At this point, there are no competing theories to the theory of evolution. There are only religious beliefs and apologetics pretending to be science, but they aren't fooling many people.
And a lot of the arguments in the social, philosophical, and theological fields do not use the same methods and their results are not necessarily comparable to theories developed using the scientific method.
So, please be more judicious in your use of the term, "theory."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:52 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:22 PM Coyote has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 18 of 95 (796325)
12-28-2016 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 7:52 PM


Here is an illustration of my notion of evidence.
.......
There is a woman's dead body lying at the bottom of some stairs. She has cuts and bruises on her face. Lying next to her is a note that a says "I told Jane I would kill her because she has been more like a living nightmare than a wife"
.......
My interpretation is that the woman's name is Kate. She just Killed her friend Jane and was planning to plant the note to implicate the husband. But she fell down the stairs accidentally and was killed.
.......
That interpretation of the evidence could be correct however, if the body turns out to have a knife in the back this new evidence undermines the previous theory and is of more weight.
......
So the point is that you can create a narrative about what the evidence is saying. Only some evidence is really compelling like a knife in the back. But a lot of evidence is not and is ambiguous. The compelling evidence may rule out certain claims. However if most of the evidence is ambiguous it does not have the truth status of an unambiguous piece of evidence.
In the case of science *induction* can be a source of strong evidence (though it is fallible) But induction is not unambiguous either. The idea that all swans are white was inductively strong for centuries. It was immediately overturned by unambiguous evidence , the discovery of a black swan. So inductive evidence is not final evidence. It is not impossible to overturn. The theories I am discussing only get their credibility from an assumption of the implications of evolution.
Thus Eugenics was given credibility through the evolutionary framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:52 PM AndrewPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:17 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 95 (796326)
12-28-2016 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 8:09 PM


That interpretation of the evidence could be correct however
Data + interpretation in light of a theory = evidence.
You can interpret data in many ways. This is well known.
But a lot of evidence is not and is ambiguous.
With disclaimers from above: Indeed. There are some things such as 'music', 'language', 'sexuality' and the like, for which we have yet to combine sufficient levels of data with good enough theory for a consensus view to emerge. But so what? This is true of murder enquiries, evolution, medicine, psychology, astronomy, particle physics...and well all human endeavours to be frank. There is little, if anything which is absolutely settled. There are some things which have more confidence about than others, and some things we are pretty sure are completely wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:09 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 20 of 95 (796327)
12-28-2016 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
12-28-2016 8:06 PM


Re: Theories
There are no competing theories to the theory of evolution
I am talking here about theories derived from the alleged implications of evolution not the general theory.
However on a general point..... We do not have an explanation for consciousness. It will no doubt be argued that any theory must be compatible with materialism and the theory of evolution.
If something is not explained I don't see how that gives us free rein to speculate (often with out clarifying that we are speculating) based on a current paradigm.
Every era in science and thought there has been a new attempt to explain consciousness based on things such as the computer, a mill. a robot, Quantum Physics and so on.
I think things should simply be explained. Explaining something is giving a provably complete causal account for it, in my opinion. What passes for as an "evolutionary explanation" is simply an explanation of what value an entity might have for evolution theory.
So for example explaining how consciousness or altruism or homosexuality may have helped us survive is conflated with a causal explanation for the phenomenon. Explaining how something benefits survival or evolution is not a causal explanation.
Explaining homosexuality mechanistically would entail explaining how we come to have a conscious same-sex sexual desire. So the explanation would incorporate an explanation of consciousness and the nature of desire. Suggesting that my mother is really fertile or I am really smart and altruistic is not an explanation for homosexuality it is simply trying to make homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution.
These subtleties seem to have passed many people by.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2016 8:06 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2016 8:28 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:39 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 95 (796329)
12-28-2016 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 8:22 PM


Re: Theories
It sounds like you should simply leave evolution and scientific theories entirely out of your musings, as your musings have no appreciable relationship to either...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:22 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 95 (796330)
12-28-2016 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 7:52 PM


Here I am talking about theories within evolution not about the general theory (obviously?) because these theories are derived from the perceived implications of a general theory of evolution
And if not backed up by objective empirical evidence and that haven't been validated through predictions, they would be better called hypothesis.
... Things can be homologous and not related. ...
No. They are related by definition.
quote:
Homologies and analogies
Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature so the presence of four limbs is a homology.
Feel free to wander through that site and to search it for items of interest, it is quite a valuable resource for understanding evolution.
... That creates the interpretations of homologies until other evidence undermines a homology.
Do you have an example of this?
Theories about why we like music are also based on the idea that evolution will have implications for all human behaviour.
That is something I would call hypothetical, not theory.
The other issue I didn't get round to on competing theories is when they are both completely compatible with the evidence or cause overdetermination.
Here I am talking about theories within evolution not about the general theory (obviously?) because these theories are derived from the perceived implications of a general theory of evolution
Again, I would call that hypothesizing, not theory (not in the scientific sense of being a tested hypothesis).
So here I am questioning the validity of making these further assumptions and implications.
And a good place to start is with a solid understanding of what the science of evolution covers and what the theory of evolution says.
Most of your comments seem to be second or third hand hypothesis with no real foundation in evolution.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:52 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 95 (796331)
12-28-2016 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 8:22 PM


Re: Theories
We do not have an explanation for consciousness
Or indeed, a commonly agreed description.
It will no doubt be argued that any theory must be compatible with materialism and the theory of evolution.
Not at all, but if it isn't it means one has a lot of extra explaining to do. It is expected, that is all.
If something is not explained I don't see how that gives us free rein to speculate (often with out clarifying that we are speculating) based on a current paradigm.
Our minds gives us the free rein to speculate. Science is about speculating and attempting to strengthen or weaken speculations.
I think things should simply be explained.
That'd be nice. Unfortunately before you can get there, you have to do a lot of work, and this can mean speculations and arguing.
Explaining something is giving a provably complete causal account for it, in my opinion.
Which is, of course, easier said than done.
What passes for as an "evolutionary explanation" is simply an explanation of what value an entity might have for evolution theory.
Well, not quite. An evolutionary explanation would be an explanation that utilizes evolutionary theory to provide a causal account for whatever it is.
Explaining homosexuality mechanistically would entail explaining how we come to have a conscious same-sex sexual desire.
I don't see why one needs to include consciousness at all. Is there some reason philosophical zombies {or non-conscious organisms in general} are prohibited from being attracted to organisms of the same sex?
Suggesting that my mother is really fertile or I am really smart and altruistic is not an explanation for homosexuality it is simply trying to make homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution.
Showing how homosexuality might continue to exist, in the face of evolutionary forces which seem - on the face of it - to inhibit homosexuality, may require looking for benefits above and beyond individual reproduction. This isn't to say 'this explains homosexuality' so much as 'this explains why homosexuality can exist and be to some extent heritable, despite what may appear to be, a reduction in the fecundity of the individual's concerned'. I think you might be looking at this backwards.
These subtleties seem to have passed many people by.
I agree, but I think you have let even more subtleties pass you by along the way too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:22 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 9:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 24 of 95 (796332)
12-28-2016 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
12-28-2016 8:29 PM


Homology defined thus is tautologous. It assumes a relationship based on likeness.
What I intended to say is that things can have similar features and not be related but relationships are assumed based on things looking a like.
If things weren't considered homologous where would the theory be?
I am not interested in a general debate about the theory so you can side track me constantly anyhow, I am talking about what things can be considered implications of evolution.
I was listening to a discussion on the BBC's "In our time podcast" about Neutrons and one of the Scientists on there referred to isotopes as isotones. Maybe she needs to retake GCSE physics?
I think the general tactics on this discussion so far are just aimed at undermining any chance of a worthwhile debate.
I am not going to waste my time reading tomes on every aspect or theory within evolution theory whilst you ignore my general points and pretend you have never heard anyone make any of the claims I have asserted. The idea that morality can be founded on altruism is widespread. If you haven't come across it then I don't know where you have been. Lots of claims are widespread but when you discuss them in these kind of debates suddenly everyone's got amnesia.
Has nobody hear of Sam Harris or Paul Bloom?
I am also not claiming that there is no controversy. There is loads of controversy in academia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 8:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:57 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2016 9:12 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2016 2:19 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 95 (796334)
12-28-2016 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 8:53 PM


I was listening to a discussion on the BBC's "In our time podcast" about Neutrons and one of the Scientists on there referred to isotopes as isotones. Maybe she needs to retake GCSE physics?
Are you sure? If they were talking about neutrons, then 'isotone' may have been the correct word.
The idea that morality can be founded on altruism is widespread. If you haven't come across it then I don't know where you have been. Lots of claims are widespread but when you discuss them in these kind of debates suddenly everyone's got amnesia.
Has nobody hear of Sam Harris or Paul Bloom?
Or indeed Richard Dawkins who wrote a rather famous book back in the 70s called 'The Selfish Gene' which provided a rather sound and easy to understand evolutionary argument to this effect. Do you have some particular disagreement with it?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:53 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 9:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 26 of 95 (796336)
12-28-2016 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
12-28-2016 8:39 PM


Re: Theories
I don't see why one needs to include consciousness at all. Is there some reason philosophical zombies {or non-conscious organisms in general} are prohibited from being attracted to organisms of the same sex?
I knew this would come up.
My attraction to men is based on my conscious experiences of lust or love when I have a conscious image of a male and the ensuing tingling sensations. When I am unconscious I don't engage in any homosexual activity. There may well be unconscious mechanisms that are required to produce the resulting behaviour but I don't think homosexuals are referring to unconscious behaviour (I certainly ain't) when they define themselves as gay.
In fact this is a pernicious aspect of the reductionist physicalist view. Homosexuality is reduced to a biochemical trick supposed to favour the genes and stripped of the romance, the lust, the unrequited love, alienation, the hate crimes and all the other vivid range of lived conscious experiences. This is all considered largely irrelevant and epiphenomenal.
This is why evolution is a great theory for claiming to be explanatory powerful. because often a theory is considered explanatory closed after simply stating a few trivial aspects of a phenomena and how they can be reduced.. (to genes etc)
(just read around!!) (Dennet's universal acid) Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 9:22 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 27 of 95 (796337)
12-28-2016 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 8:53 PM


Theory (again)
I am not interested in a general debate about the theory so you can side track me constantly anyhow, I am talking about what things can be considered implications of evolution.
If so, then you have to have an accurate knowledge of the theory of evolution. In other words, you have to know what the theory of evolution explains and what it predicts. The theory of evolution explains a given set of facts, it is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and it makes predictions which have been tested and shown to be accurate.
The various subjects you have introduced seem well outside of the theory of evolution.
Perhaps you should phrase your "implications" as such: If the theory of evolution is correct, then (given implication) must be supported by the evidence. (Here) is how we can test that hypothesis. (Here) is what the evidence shows.
The problem you have is that most of what you are proposing as "implications" are in the realm of social science, philosophy, or theology and are not as amenable to testing against real-world evidence as are scientific hypotheses and theories.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:53 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 9:37 PM Coyote has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 28 of 95 (796338)
12-28-2016 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
12-28-2016 8:57 PM


Do you have some particular disagreement with it?
Indeed. I will respond further tomorrow. However I was responding to RAZD who said
Do you have a citation for that claim? I see morals as just a social contract for socially acceptable behaviors. Altruism would if anything, be a very small part of that.
I thought it was so well known that altruism was popularly seen as the origin of morality, that I wouldn't need to make citations.
RAZD also says
There is no morality inherent in nature, and the concept of "good" as something more than beneficial to the individual is necessarily subjective. Nothing is "objectively good" so if you are talking social morality concepts of "good" then that is just what the society agrees on, in general.
However Paul Bloom in conversation with Sam Harris says
But the argument I make in Just Babies is that there also exist hardwired moral universalsmoral principles that we all possess. And even those aspects of moralitysuch as the evils of sexismthat vary across cultures are ultimately grounded in these moral foundations.
https://www.samharris.org/...item/the-roots-of-good-and-evil

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 9:35 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 95 (796339)
12-28-2016 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 9:04 PM


Re: Theories
My attraction to men is based on my conscious experiences of lust or love when I have a conscious image of a male and the ensuing tingling sensations.
Sure. You were talking about explaining homosexuality generally though. Not YOUR homosexuality specifically.
There may well be unconscious mechanisms that are required to produce the resulting behaviour but I don't think homosexuals are referring to unconscious behaviour (I certainly ain't) when they define themselves as gay.
Naturally, but then what is 'conscious lust'?
Homosexuality is reduced to a biochemical trick supposed to favour the genes and stripped of the romance, the lust, the unrequited love, alienation, the hate crimes and all the other vivid range of lived conscious experiences. This is all considered largely irrelevant and epiphenomenal.
I'm not reducing anything or declaring anything irrelevant. I am saying that evolutionary theory is about the general. The specifics such as a certain case of being assaulted aren't really something evolutionary theory is for. Sure, one could point to the evolution of in-group and out-group behaviour, citing other examples within humanity such as race, language or culture. Or even point to other primates, or even other mammals or go wider to the animal kingdom at large.
But evolutionary theory isn't for explaining why Tony punched you for looking at his legs in a certain way. Much of that would be learned behaviour from an individual perspective, and evolution deals with populations not individuals. As previously said, we may explain why there Tony's behaviour is so unfortunately prevalent with reference to both culture and evolutionary theory, but there's no point trying to explain why I caught the cold on Wednesday using Germ Theory. It's just not what it is for.
This is why evolution is a great theory for claiming to be explanatory powerful. because often a theory is considered explanatory closed after simply stating a few trivial aspects of a phenomena and how they can be reduced.. (to genes etc)
You have avoided the part where I told you were looking at it backwards. I don't claim to explain through evolution why you found Tony's legs eye-catching in the morning, but by the afternoon you found him repulsive.
I can explain how homosexuality may persist in a population despite the fact that it may reduce fecundity - which would seem to run counter to what is predicted by evolutionary theory. There is a world of difference between these things.
If, for instance, as a side effect of increased fecundity there happens to be occasional homosexual children - the trade-off from an evolutionary perspective may pay for itself.
However, this doesn't explain why Tony's legs are so lovely.
(just read around!!)
Right back at you.
(Dennet's universal acid) Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Wikipedia
Dennet and I are in broad agreement (largely because much of what I am saying is inspired by him):
quote:
Today, though, I’m going to talk about Darwin’s other strange inversion, which is equally puzzling at first, but in some ways just as important. It stands to reason that we love chocolate cake because it is sweet. Guys go for girls like this because they are sexy. We adore babies because they’re so cute. And, of course, we are amused by jokes because they are funny.
This is all backwards. It is. And Darwin shows us why. Let’s start with sweet. Our sweet tooth is basically an evolved sugar detector, because sugar is high energy, and it’s just been wired up to the preferer, to put it very crudely, and that’s why we like sugar. Honey is sweet because we like it, not "we like it because honey is sweet." There’s nothing intrinsically sweet about honey. If you looked at glucose molecules till you were blind, you wouldn’t see why they tasted sweet. You have to look in our brains to understand why they’re sweet. So if you think first there was sweetness, and then we evolved to like sweetness, you’ve got it backwards; that’s just wrong. It’s the other way round. Sweetness was born with the wiring which evolved.
And there’s nothing intrinsically sexy about these young ladies. And it’s a good thing that there isn’t, because if there were, then Mother Nature would have a problem: How on earth do you get chimps to mate? Now you might think, ah, there’s a solution: hallucinations. That would be one way of doing it, but there’s a quicker way. Just wire the chimps up to love that look, and apparently they do. That’s all there is to it. Over six million years, we and the chimps evolved our different ways. We became bald-bodied, oddly enough; for one reason or another, they didn’t. If we hadn’t, then probably this would be the height of sexiness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 9:04 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AndrewPD, posted 12-30-2016 10:39 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 95 (796340)
12-28-2016 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 9:17 PM


I thought it was so well known that altruism was popularly seen as the origin of morality, that I wouldn't need to make citations.
It's more complicated than that, by several orders of magnitude. The origin of morality is not altruism, that makes little sense. Altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary explanation, and altruistic behaviour + culture + communication leads to social contracts etc etc.
However Paul Bloom in conversation with Sam Harris says
I can't speak on Bloom, but I know Harris claims absolute and objective morals, but he's wrong. But yes, most animals have 'hardwired behaviours' as well as 'learned behaviours'. Vampire bats share food, meerkats lookout for predators at the cost of their own safety etc. That isn't to say sharing food is objectively good, it's just a strategy that can be evolutionarily advantageous in a situation where mutualism exists.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 9:17 PM AndrewPD 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