Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 151 of 265 (88955)
02-26-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dan Carroll
02-26-2004 9:28 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
I guess it's a fair question to define Darwinist ideology and bring up some examples, but it would be delusional to suppose you have any genuine intellectual curiosity in the matter.
I guess the typifications are:
- selfidentification with hereditary material
- awareness of selection as a law / process of nature that determines the fate / success of human society, and personal fate
- extreme (Darwinist/scientific) rationalism in making valuejudgements, as opposed to making valuejudgements based on emotions
So a person who believes, like Darwin said, in selection as a force that scrutinizes every aspect of their being, which controls the working of society to a large extent, is a typical Darwinist ideologist. The thought "I am born selfish", or "my purpose is reproduction", might pass in the mind of such a person a dozen times a day. Which is not to say the Darwinist ideologist believes that selfishness is good, or that reproduction is very meaningful, but that the ideologist uses it as a startingpoint to derive morality / insight from, for day to day decisions.
Examples of Darwinist ideology are the textbook of the Scopes trial, the chapter on Darwinism in the schoolbook of the Hitleryouth and possibly also the opening chapter about differences among people, Galton's and various others attempts to build a religion around Natural Selection, Dawkins meandering about selfish genes etc.
Obviously that there are more theistic evolutionists then atheist evolutionist says nothing. How can you be so stupid to suppose it does?
edited to add:
To define Darwinist theory can be a tricky business, because you can easily be accused of misrepresentation. I think the "official" definition is now differential reproductive success of variants. However after some questioning of Darwinists it's always added that competition must be a part of the equation, so it becomes differential reproductive success of competing variants. Where the variants can be variant allelles, traits, individuals, matingcouple, populations or species.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-26-2004 9:28 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-27-2004 9:14 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 265 (89017)
02-27-2004 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Syamsu
02-25-2004 10:35 PM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
Umm, you asked for a book on evolution that started from a basic concept, then built layers of conceptual framework around it. I gave you that. It's up to you to actually READ the thing.
Oh so then you could tell me, or reference me if selection should be the one or the other reproduces, or if it should be the one reproduces or not.
Did you drink a couple liters of tuak before you wrote that? The above quoted sentence is nearly incomprehensible. As I and numerous others have explained to you in multiple threads repeatedly over many months in many different ways (despairingly seeking some way of getting you to comprehend your errors), selection operates at the level of the individual organism, evolution operates at the level of the population or lineage. Populations persist because individuals within it reproduce. Competition MAY be one of the factors that determine reproductive success. Other factors, whether environmental factors (other than competition - which is considered part of the environment in which the organism lives) or the sheer luck of the draw, can ALSO determine reproductive success. Your continued insistence that there's something else going on is tiresome.
You see in a systematic overview I could see exactly the place of selection in the context of the system of knowledge built around reproduction.
Read the book I recommended. Then get back to me.
But you already answered this before, but then you weren't so happy that I quoted you as saying that selection is reproduction or no reproduction for the one.
If I already answered it, then why are you continuing to bring it up? If I objected to anything you wrote (which would be unsurprising given your history), it was likely because you utterly and deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented what was written. In any case, I have NEVER stated that "selection is reproduction...". I know I never said that because it would indicate I completely misunderstand what selection is all about, and to my knowledge I haven't been that far out in left field in any post I've made in this forum.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 10:35 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 2:40 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 265 (89019)
02-27-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Syamsu
02-26-2004 11:04 PM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
quote:
selfidentification with hereditary material
Are you trying to say that identifying with one's heritage is an idea that sprouted out of Darwinism? Because people were going on about pure blood and holy blood and what-not for centuries before Darwin came along.
quote:
awareness of selection as a law / process of nature that determines the fate / success of human society, and personal fate
How is this an ideology? It sounds more like "observing natural selection in action."
If you think natural selection is false, by all means argue against it. But calling it an ideology to watch it happen, and acknowledge that it happens is just silly.
quote:
extreme (Darwinist/scientific) rationalism in making valuejudgements, as opposed to making valuejudgements based on emotions
Making rational judgements instead of emotional ones is an ideology now?
We've got to protect the world from all this rational thought!
quote:
Obviously that there are more theistic evolutionists then atheist evolutionist says nothing. How can you be so stupid to suppose it does?
Syamsu... YOU said that statistically, Darwinism would drive people away from God. I pointed out that statistically, your statement was false. Here are your exact words:
quote:
It says that statistically people who accept Darwinism tend afterwards not to believe in God whole, or deny the existence of God someplace.
You might want to try remembering your own arguments before you go tossing around the word stupid.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Syamsu, posted 02-26-2004 11:04 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 2:04 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 154 of 265 (89195)
02-28-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dan Carroll
02-27-2004 9:14 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
*sigh* as before, I've already proven the existence of Darwinist ideology by referring to the works of historians about the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism and then Nazism.
That you keep on deluding yourself that Darwinist ideology doesn't exist is probably a defense mechanism to protect some beliefs you have about evolution theory or science. Anyway, it's not my responsibility to deal with such delusion as if it were a rational argument.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-27-2004 9:14 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2004 8:49 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 155 of 265 (89203)
02-28-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Quetzal
02-27-2004 9:03 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
I will keep it in mind next time I go to Surabaya or Singapore. Obviously the Nganjuk library doesn't carry that title.
But I don't have much reason to expect what is in it what you say is in it, because I have a longtime interest in the structure of natural selection theory, and the issues about the structure I talk about are not solved anywhere in all my reading on it. For instance in reviews of Gould's last book (reviews by evolutionists), once again the disarry of the structure of natural selection theory is shown up, going back to Popper's critique of it as a metaphysical research program.
So far you have referenced an author that says the study of extinction is underdeveloped, and another author who indicates the study of biodiversity has been recently developed. You also side with commentary that Darwinist ideology doesn't exist, or that the relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is meaningless. Obviously that kind of thing is not likely to change my mind, but rather tends to validate the position I already have.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Quetzal, posted 02-27-2004 9:03 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-28-2004 3:16 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 265 (89205)
02-28-2004 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Syamsu
02-28-2004 2:40 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
Syamsu,
I have long sensed that teaching evolution resulted in lower fitness in the students taught: lowered reproductive potential, increased arrogant and dogmatic opinionation, decreased rational thinking. I suspect that it also lowers the faith levels, which have been shown to be correlated with health and happiness. This relationship intriqued me because I was studying deception and fitness in birds, mostly finding that competitors who wished to lower the fitness in those with whom they were competing might do so by deceiving them. When the deceived believed something that wasn't true, their fitness declined. I kept wondering, if evolution is true, why doesn't understanding it increase, rather than lower fitness?
Anyway, this note by you:
For instance in reviews of Gould's last book (reviews by evolutionists), once again the disarry of the structure of natural selection theory is shown up, going back to Popper's critique of it as a metaphysical research program.
rung a bell, and I wonder if you could direct me to where I might review it? I thought I had read something about Popper's critigue, but couldn't remember.
I haven't read all of your debate here, but thought you might enjoy an old preacher's proverb:
"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, it's the one that's hit that hollars."
You are on to something. Hope you get it.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 2:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 3:35 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 265 (89210)
02-28-2004 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-28-2004 3:16 AM


I kept wondering, if evolution is true, why doesn't understanding it increase, rather than lower fitness?
Who do you think has greater reproductive opportunity? The Bible-thumpin' literalist creationists, or the libertine, sexually deviant arrogant atheist evolutionists? Isn't sexual fornication exactly what creationists think evolution leads to? Answers in Genesis seems to think so, judging from the article my mom clipped for me the other day.
I'll tell you this - I get way more play now than I ever got in church. I don't understand how you come to this "lower fitness" conclusion. Maybe you could cite your data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-28-2004 3:16 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2004 10:30 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 165 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-29-2004 8:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 158 of 265 (89250)
02-28-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu
02-25-2004 10:22 PM


More out of context rambling. Have you no shame?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 10:22 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 11:29 AM mark24 has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 159 of 265 (89251)
02-28-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
02-28-2004 3:35 AM


the illusion of the thumb and finger
Hey roady,
I think the reason is clear in Gould's acceptance of his 1998 student's will to use Nietsche. Gould seems to have accepted that FORM will be DOMINATED by a "quirky functional shift" and that THIS more than anything else is what he wants students of evolution to follow up on. In this same discussion he brings up DARWIN'S BAT,BIRD,REPTILE wing AGANINST 5%wing creationists in general and NOT necessarily Eldredge's MIVart in particular yet I will hope to show that at future times this teaching lowers rather than increases the sudents understanding of fitness over time BECAUSE it has been accepted as well since the late 70s that RNA secondary strucutres solidity is LESS important than WHEN said wing or other strucutre encoded forms. I hope this clears up the sociology when not indicating a direction for the biology to follow. I will likely be in a position to show that Gould misused the word "preadaption" for the unknown divisons that any subtraction of point data (collection locality GISed etc) in determinnig a allopatric speciation geometry (panbiogeographically) may involve. This unknown however will not be Mivart's that Darwin winged with a red-bull''. I will suggest this WITHIN Gould's allopatry of reptile surface to volume ratios without having to employ (opps lost the word) should the molecular evidence come along for the ride continguously. My guess is that "thermoregulation" is not the "original" context but only the content of thermal vs voltaic chemical bonds' electricity routing fORMS not functions. But that last will requrie some thermodynamics.I was quite shocked to get an elctrostatic charge from running water yesterday. So what was TAUGHT as wing analogy may indeed be wing homolgy as I proceed if I am not physically rebuffed. I could be wrong. 5% will look more like Darwin's difficulty and not mine.
To continue this specifically would be laborious as I would need involve Kripke, Putnam and Two Books of Mayr when NOT Nozik. The argument will deny that what is stronger is not what was first but that what is thought of as first was stronger and will look like the putting of one's thumb and first finger through a circle of the other hands's same formed with the exclaim of evos that what is 'seen' is the first finger no matter if the thumb was (or was not first) even if the thumb is also stronger. I wil explain this interms of transcription later and the degree of fredomm that winged eucaryotes may have lost to procaryotes as they thermally ascended this electric "atmosphere". All in good time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 3:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 160 of 265 (89262)
02-28-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by mark24
02-28-2004 10:26 AM


Mark wrote:
babble, babble, babble.. and therefore it's perfectly valid for Dawkins to say we are born selfish and should teach altruism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 02-28-2004 10:26 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by mark24, posted 02-28-2004 4:13 PM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 161 of 265 (89289)
02-28-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Syamsu
02-28-2004 11:29 AM


Syamsu,
Don't be a twat all your life. You haven't read Dawkins & have no right whatsoever assuming you understand the context context. You can pull sound bites out of any book & make it look like XYZ is actually saying the opposite if you want.
But hey, Syamsu, you believe what you want, my days of arguing with someone who can't be arsed to read the texts he is criticising are over.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 11:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 11:27 PM mark24 has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 162 of 265 (89342)
02-28-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by mark24
02-28-2004 4:13 PM


Dawkins, Selfish Gene:
This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. (pseudoscientific assertion of real science) Cliche or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. (mixing up values with statements of facts) We are survival machines--robot vehicles (people and animals are especially not robots, plants are) blindly (deafly, stupidly, tastelessly) programmed to preserve the selfish molecules (reproduction cannot be construed to be selfish except in a semi Platonic sense) known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment (astonished at his own nonsense). Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. (one can never get used to mixing truth with fact like that, the emotionality associated to assertions of truth ensures that) One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others... (let the prozetylizing begin...)
Chapter 1 - Why are people ? (why is grammar?, why are complete sentences?)
Page 1
Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures (as opposed to us inferior creatures) from space ever visit earth (lunacy), the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization (conflation of values with facts), is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' (megalomania, as in Dawkins is the most superior and civilized creature on the planet, because he knows evolution theory so well) Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin. (false reference to authority: even Charles would *never* presume to know why people are here) To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth (conflation of value with fact), but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent (meandering) and tenable account of why we exist (curiously Darwin doesn't say why). Darwin made it possible for us to give a sensible answer to the curious child whose question heads this chapter. We no longer have to resort to superstition (in other places we don't know about we have to resort to superstitition) when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? (pseudoscience alert!) What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus:'The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.' (brutal swipe at traditional religion as part of humanity)
Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun (but then phycisists commonly disparrage the ideological zealots which dominate the discipline of evolution theory), but the full implications of Darwin's revolution have yet to be widely realized. Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance (Dawkins religion substitute). Philosophy and the subjects known as 'humanities' are still taught almost as if Darwin had never lived. (they tried Darwinism, but the results were bad) No doubt this will change in time. (let's have another round of social darwinism) In any case, this book is not intended as a general advocacy of Darwinism. (not intended but it is that) Instead, it will explore the consequences of the evolution theory for a particular issue. My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism. (implied false dichotomy between seflishness and altruism, there are more options then altruism and selfishness, like mutual benefit, or mutual harm)
Apart from its academic interest, the human importance of this subject is obvious. It touches every aspect of our social lives (Dawkins uses his theory in his social life), our loving and hating,(conflation of value with fact) fighting and cooperating, giving and stealing, our
Page 2
greed and our generosity. (Dawkins uses his theory to explain his own greed, fighting, hating, loving, stealing, giving in his social life) These are claims that could have been made for Lorenz's (warcriminal) On Aggression (another book'o'pseudoscience), Ardrey's The Social Contract, and Eibl-Eibesfeldt's Love and Hate. The trouble with these books is that their authors got it totally and utterly wrong. (totally wrong but Lorenz's work is much the same as Dawkins) They got it wrong because they misunderstood how evolution works. (evolution theory, the science which holds the truth, which distinguishes the superior civilized from the inferior uncivilized) They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good (conflation of value with fact) of the species (or the group) rather than the good (conflation) of the individual (or the gene). It is ironic that Ashley Montagu should criticize Lorenz as a 'direct descendant of the "nature red in tooth and claw" thinkers of the nineteenth century . . .'. (so actually others think that Lorenz is about the same as Dawkins) As I understand Lorenz's view of evolution, he would be very much at one with Montagu in rejecting the implications of Tennyson's famous phrase. Unlike both of them, I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably. ( false / inconsistency, selection is most fundametally about reproduction, not about killing the other, which Dawkins states at the top eventhough he says differently here)
Before beginning on my argument itself, I want to explain briefly what sort of an argument it is, and what sort of an argument it is not, If we were told that a man had lived a long and prosperous life in the world of Chicago gangsters, we would be entitled to make some guesses as to the sort of man he was, (being prosperous, the man was a lawyer no doubt) We might expect that he would have qualities such as toughness, a quick trigger finger, and the ability to attract loyal friends. These would not be infallible deductions, but you can make some inferences about a man's character (conflation of value with fact) if you know something about the conditions in which he has survived and prospered. (false defining, as character is the consequence of choice it is supremely unpredictable) The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. (again, plants are machines, animals and people have a nervous system) Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.(you measure that with the ruthlessness-meter ? this is about the point where it becomes a selfidulgence to read any further, so generally people should stop reading at this point)
I have no doubt that Dawkins, like Haeckel, will become to be seen as a liability to evolutionism, and that evolutionists will just make up stories that Dawkins isn't actually a very ifluential evolution scientist, like they did with Haeckel.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by mark24, posted 02-28-2004 4:13 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 02-29-2004 5:30 AM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 163 of 265 (89371)
02-29-2004 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Syamsu
02-28-2004 11:27 PM


Syamsu,
I refer you to the text in my previous post. Particularly sentence one.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2004 11:27 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Syamsu, posted 02-29-2004 8:06 AM mark24 has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 164 of 265 (89383)
02-29-2004 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by mark24
02-29-2004 5:30 AM


And as before, I provide meaningful argumentation about Dawkins, such as the false dichotomy selfish vs altruist, the false emphasis on killing the other over emphasis on reproduction, while you only provide faulty representation of his writings and completely meaningless assertions of authority.
I read Dawkins blind watchmaker, the whole thing.
Dawkins:
-biology is the study of complexity, planets are simple things, organisms are complex things. I can't explain how the one is more complex then the other, I can't measure complexity, but still the one is more complex then the other, and that's what biology is about.-
To read, and become more stupid.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 02-29-2004 5:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by mark24, posted 02-29-2004 11:12 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 169 by Brad McFall, posted 02-29-2004 2:34 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 265 (89387)
02-29-2004 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
02-28-2004 3:35 AM


Crashfrog,
You ask,
Who do you think has greater reproductive opportunity? The Bible-thumpin' literalist creationists, or the libertine, sexually deviant arrogant atheist evolutionists? Isn't sexual fornication exactly what creationists think evolution leads to? Answers in Genesis seems to think so, judging from the article my mom clipped for me the other day.
Fitness (W) is defined as reproducing offspring. It equals 1 (maintainence) for two offspring in a sexual species, for four grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, etc. You have to have more than these figures to have a selective advantage. Genotypes which on average have lower figures than these, if the trend persists long enough, will go extinct. Genotypes with higher figures will increase in frequency, and eventually dominate the population.
There is no known genetic difference between those who choose to understand and believe evolution, and those who choose to believe in creation. But, generally, phenotypes, including behaviorial choices, are thought to probably have genetic bases. Your mother's interest in the matter reflects her desire to have grandchildren, perhaps, through you. Her fitness is to some degree dependent on yours, and she is likely genetically disposed to care, because that would selectively advantageous. (See Diamond's Why is Sex Fun?)
Fornication could produce higher fitness, if it produces reproducing offspring. However, in web-sites devoted to self-destructive behaviors, fornication (promiscuity), is on the list of associated behaviors. Most fornicators I have known have few children, and fewer grandchildren.
I wish there were data to this point, scientific studies. All I have are impressions gathered over the years, talking to people about their beliefs about evolution, creation, and child-bearing. The Plain People, Amish, Mennonites, have the highest recorded fitness, almost 4, (eight offspring that have eight offspring, each generation). Home Educators also have high values, but they haven't been around long enough to know if their great-great-grandchildren will stay with the program.
Gossip had it back in the seventies that there was a Harvard evolutionist who noted this problem, and decided that to avoid being a hypocrite, needed to reproduce. Robert Trivers. Just remembered the name. He supposedly went to some Caribean Island, got a fertile wife, and had a bunch of babies. Don't really know the truth of this story, or how it might have turned out. But it made me respect Trivers a lot more.
The creationist hypothesis, that evolutionists are demonized and hence deceived, carries out in the evolutionist's sexual behavior. Lots of sexual activity, but little or no fitness, classical deception. They don't need a genetic connection. But the rest of us wonder if there is any genetic, physiologic difference that underlies the behavioral differences we see in human sub-groups. I'm especially interested in dietary requirements and belief systems. Do, for example, tryptophan or vitamin C requirements, which are known to vary in humans, probably due to genetic differences, play a role in behavioral choices?
We probably agree, in wishing we knew more about all this.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2004 3:35 AM crashfrog 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