Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 2:59 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, edge, JoeT, JonF, PaulK, Taq, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,836 Year: 4,873/19,786 Month: 995/873 Week: 351/376 Day: 28/116 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   The implications of Evolution
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 1 of 95 (796300)
12-28-2016 4:09 PM


I think that theories concerning the implications of evolution are problematic as well as claims about the intentions of evolution.

This particularly includes evolutionary psychology. Also it concerns issues such as the meaning of life or the ramifications of evolution on our values and goals and possibilities.

I think that on one portrayal of evolution it makes us victims of intentionless coercive drives in the service of mindlessly propagating our genes.

On the other hands it seems suspect to make any claims about what evolution "intends" or "intended" because of issues including falsifiability and competing theories. Then there is the issue of spandrels in which case anything could be classed as a spandrel.

So for example it would be bizarre to claim we evolved to play the piano. Following from that it would be dubious to say people play the piano to attract mates. I speak as a gay person who plays the piano for his own pleasure.

If I am a gay person playing the piano for my own pleasure in my own company I am not doing anything in the service of evolution.

So in this sense the paradigm of evolution gets spread to thinly as if it should be the dominant explanation of anything. (In a reductionist spirit)

I also think the naturalistic fallacy is invoked a lot and people even talk about and try to enact programmes in service of improving our evolution. Things that evolved cannot scientifically be defined as good without crossing the is-ought barrier.

So it is one thing to say that altruism benefits the gene pool but another thing to claim that it is good and should be pursued.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-28-2016 5:11 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 5:15 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 12-28-2016 10:46 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2016 10:40 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 10:42 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 95 (796302)
12-28-2016 4:27 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The implications of Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 95 (796307)
12-28-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 4:09 PM


Syntax error near line 1: awk: bailing out
AndrewPD writes:

I think that theories concerning the implications of evolution are problematic as well as claims about the intentions of evolution.

You totally lost me there.

What theories concerning the implications of evolution even exist?

Who has ever claimed evolution has any intentions?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 4:09 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 5:49 PM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19811
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 95 (796308)
12-28-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 4:09 PM


Hi AndrewPD,

I think that theories concerning the implications of evolution are problematic as well as claims about the intentions of evolution.

Biological evolution has no "intentions" or goals. The only intentions involved are those of the individual organisms to survive and breed.

This particularly includes evolutionary psychology. ...

You may want to expand on this in a new thread, unless you want this thread to cover this topic.

... Also it concerns issues such as the meaning of life or the ramifications of evolution on our values and goals and possibilities.

These are philosophical issues not scientific issues.

I think that on one portrayal of evolution it makes us victims of intentionless coercive drives in the service of mindlessly propagating our genes.

Just as we are intentionless victims of gravity, in its mindlessly holding our bodies down.

The processes of evolution don't have a mind or a purpose, they just exist, the way gravity exists.

On the other hands it seems suspect to make any claims about what evolution "intends" or "intended" because of issues including falsifiability and competing theories. Then there is the issue of spandrels in which case anything could be classed as a spandrel.

(1) again, biological evolution has no "intentions" or goals. The only intentions involved are those of the individual organisms to survive and breed.

(2) the theory of (biological) evolution is falsifiable, it just happens to be very strongly supported by mountains of evidence demonstrating how it works and how it explains the diversity of life on earth, from the first fossil to the latest DNA sequence.

(3) what "competing theories" -- please describe and demonstrate how they operate.

(4) spandrels are non-functioning decorations, and most of your body is functional, so not full of spandrels.

It helps if you know what the theory of evolution is -- can you define it?

So for example it would be bizarre to claim we evolved to play the piano. ...

Indeed it would.

... Following from that it would be dubious to say people play the piano to attract mates. ...

Especially as most people do not play piano and have no trouble attracting mates.

But if we say that being entertaining is one way to attract mates, then we can propose that the ability to be entertaining would be selected for (sexual selection) and the ability would be improved from generation to generation.

What effect would such selection have on human beings? It would likely result in larger brains and better mental ability (ie better able to memorize music).

If I am a gay person playing the piano for my own pleasure in my own company I am not doing anything in the service of evolution.

And I like to read comics, and that is not doing anything in the service of evolution either. Not every action needs to engaged in for evolution, just those that affect survival and reproduction.

No problem with survival? Good -- carry on
No problem with reproduction? Good -- carry on

We humans (and some other species) have evolved so that the demands of survival and reproduction do not consume all our waking hours, and that leaves time for leisure pursuits, like piano playing (or crows sledding on a snowy roof on a plastic lid).

So in this sense the paradigm of evolution gets spread to thinly as if it should be the dominant explanation of anything. (In a reductionist spirit)

Evolution works on a generational time-scale.

I also think the naturalistic fallacy is invoked a lot and people even talk about and try to enact programmes in service of improving our evolution. Things that evolved cannot scientifically be defined as good without crossing the is-ought barrier.

Improves survival = good ... for the organism
Improves reproduction = good ... for the organism

But we don't have to be the top of the class, just good enough.

So it is one thing to say that altruism benefits the gene pool but another thing to claim that it is good and should be pursued.

And yet altruistic type behaviors exist in many species ... so it must be beneficial to the species. This has been studied with game theory, and you can read John Nash's article here

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 1 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 4:09 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 6:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 5 of 95 (796309)
12-28-2016 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
12-28-2016 5:11 PM


I am puzzled about how you could think no theory in the field of evolution is based on the idea that the basic framework of evolution carries implications.

The only theories within evolution that are not based on the idea that evolution has implications are the ones at the biochemical level.

I don't know where to start here so I'll post this link first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...sychology_and_massive_modularity

The idea is that if humans evolved then functions of the human body and in the EVP case the brain must have evolved to serve a survival function.

This TED talk on Homosexuality carries a lot of this type of claim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU

The assertion is that homosexuality must have survived because it provided an evolutionary benefit and that is seen as a green light to speculate widely on the possible benefits of homosexuality and of how it is subservient to the basic human "function" of continued reproduction. The underlying unelaborated assertion is that if evolution is true then Homosexuality must survive a survival purpose for a species.

Here are the unspoken premises.

Premise 1 Evolution by natural selection is true and describes the origin of any aspect of being human

Premise 2 All human attributes must be described as persisting due to survival benefits

Premise 3 Homosexuality is not a spandrel (ie a harmless trait that has limited impact on the species and could be described simply as a trait that was created without being adaptive)

Premise 4 Homosexuality must be explained primarily in terms of its survival value

Premise 5 All explanations must reduce to a mechanical materialist world view.

Premise five is one of the ones that leads to the demand that only certain types explanations are acceptable (those in a reductionist framework)
So for example theories about homosexuality have been disproved. But the theories had traction because they use vocabulary deemed acceptable.

So a theory can be deemed plausible based on the biases or unspoken/emergent premises of a field or ideology.

Edited by AndrewPD, : Spelling

Edited by AndrewPD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-28-2016 5:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2016 6:08 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 9 by jar, posted 12-28-2016 7:09 PM AndrewPD has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6734
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 95 (796310)
12-28-2016 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 5:49 PM


Bit confused, do you intend this thread to be about the evolution (or otherwise) of homosexuality?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 5:49 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 6:36 PM Tangle has responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 7 of 95 (796311)
12-28-2016 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
12-28-2016 5:15 PM


And yet altruistic type behaviors exist in many species ... so it must be beneficial to the species. This has been studied with game theory, and you can read John Nash's article here.

You are conflating beneficial with good.

Things that helps a species survive do not prove that that species has value or is intrinsically 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. So atheists for example and secularists argue that we can have morality without religion and cite the benefits of altruism as a groundwork. This is involves the naturalistic fallacy. There is no grounds for saying that anything in nature should be promoted or is objectively 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.

On the topic of Spandrels.

The vast majority of human activities are spandrel like. We can learn to do a vast range of activities that only occurred recently and didn't require us to develop new adaptions. If the human body was designed by evolution with specific functions in mind then it is hard to explain how we can do a wide range of novel things. 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. So in what sense can you describe the majority of what humans 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?

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 also think the nature and interpretation of evidence is controversial. Reality contains a huge amount of evidence how you interpret it is a different matter. 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.

This is the argument, that I agree with, that is used on religions. I think that having numerous religious sects makes it less plausible that any of them are right. I don't know the statistical terminology but if there are two religions they have a 50% chance of being right but with a thousand they have a 0.1% chance of being right.

I also don't think you need a competing theory to doubt another theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 5:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 7:19 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:05 PM AndrewPD has responded

    
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 8 of 95 (796313)
12-28-2016 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tangle
12-28-2016 6:08 PM


This thread is intended to be about what implications if any evolution has.

I am discussing explanations of homosexuality because someone questioned whether people actually claimed evolution has implications. So I am highlighting that people think that if we evolved then the *implication* is that homosexuality must be an evolutionary by product with adaptive value.

The general explanation is that all sexuality has an implicit evolutionary motive.

I am questioning how valid this assumption is and even if we accepted that sexuality was solely a productive of evolutionary strategies that doesn't mean we will ever have a valid theory. This relates to the allegation of "Just so Stories". An explanation that intends to sound plausible is just that. It intends to sound plausible.... But they are easily created hence the wide range of theories to explain homosexuality as an evolutionary adaption.

My general belief is that evolution as it is presently defined and promoted has very negative ramifications that are being ignored. For example say someone proved to you that you were living in the matrix, the equivalent would be finding out you lived in Matrix and completely ignoring that fact from then on.

An example of real life negative ramifications of the theory is Social Darwinism and The Nazis and Lamarckism . The way people interpreted evolution is that evolution was trying to weed out weak humans and that humans were on a journey of fine tuning in a hierarchy. This illustrates how a theory is not just a case of describing facts but has implications in various ways.

When evolution was portrayed as weeding out the weak it was used as a justification for genocide.

So there will be implications for any theory of evolution, but what are they and why should people feel free to expound these theories without reservation (in an arguably pernicious way)?

Among other alleged implications of evolution is that there are no gods/no creator, no purpose or meaning to life and that certain views are invalidated because they are not framed in the evolutionary (or general scientific) paradigm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2016 6:08 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 12-29-2016 5:01 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 95 (796314)
12-28-2016 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 5:49 PM


Still totally lost.
You seem to be wandering off into areas totally unrelated to either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

For example you five premises.

quote:
Here are the unspoken premises.

Premise 1 Evolution by natural selection is true and describes the origin of any aspect of being human

Premise 2 All human attributes must be described as persisting due to survival benefits

Premise 3 Homosexuality is not a spandrel (ie a harmless trait that has limited impact on the species and could be described simply as a trait that was created without being adaptive)

Premise 4 Homosexuality must be explained primarily in terms of its survival value

Premise 5 All explanations must reduce to a mechanical materialist world view.


Every one of those statements seems to be utter nonsense, unsupported assertions and factually false. In addition, not one of them is in anyway related to either the fact of evolution or to the Theory of Evolution.

AndrewPD writes:

So a theory can be deemed plausible based on the biases or unspoken/emergent premises of a field or ideology.

Zoom. There you go again.

What theory? Do you even know what a Theory is?

Are you trying to open some discussion about stuff like whether or not homosexuality is somehow wrong? Is that your problem?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 5:49 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:18 PM jar has responded
 Message 11 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:19 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 10 of 95 (796315)
12-28-2016 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
12-28-2016 7:09 PM


Those were not my premises but the unspoken premises in the Ted Talk video In linked to.

If you watch it then I can discuss it further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 12-28-2016 7:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-28-2016 7:50 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

    
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 11 of 95 (796316)
12-28-2016 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
12-28-2016 7:09 PM


Re: Still totally lost.
What theory? Do you even know what a Theory is?

Any theory. There are a huge number of theories about a huge number of things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 12-28-2016 7:09 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19811
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 12 of 95 (796317)
12-28-2016 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 6:19 PM


You are conflating beneficial with good.

It's a good working definition of "good" -- if you don't like then you will need to submit your definition of what "good" means.

Things that helps a species survive do not prove that that species has value or is intrinsically good. ...

Curiously, I didn't say it was. Nor did I say it was necessarily good for the species. What I did say was "good ... for the organism" ... which is a rather limited "good" imho.

... 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. ...

Nonsense. 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.

... So atheists for example and secularists argue that we can have morality without religion ...

Which is quite evidently obvious: the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an example of a rather universal moral code across all religions and non-religions.

In fact I would say that morals that don't derive from religions are better than those that do (especially when those religious morals tend to lead people into killing others in horrid ways, like stoning).

Morals are developed in societies so that everyone mostly operates on the same program. Different societies have different morals ... even if they worship the same god/s.

... and cite the benefits of altruism as a groundwork. This is involves the naturalistic fallacy. ...

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.

... There is no grounds for saying that anything in nature should be promoted or is objectively good.

I'd agree with that.

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.

Nope. That seems to be more religious based tenet than a facet of evolution. Again, I am not sure what you mean by evolution: could you define what evolution is and what the theory of evolution is?

... If the human body was designed by evolution with specific functions in mind ...

It wasn't.

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.

And it can be adapted to a new use.

I also think the nature and interpretation of evidence is controversial. Reality contains a huge amount of evidence how you interpret it is a different matter. 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.

what.other.theories?

... This is where competing theories for the same evidence occur (see my latest post on homosexuality) ...

If you are talking specifically about how homosexuality occurs then you are not talking about general biological evolution, but theoretical application to a specific case.

As far as naturally occurring, there are numerous examples of homosexual behaviors in other species, so it is not singularly a human behavior, and, as it occurs in nature, is by definition natural..

From an evolutionary viewpoint I would say there are at least 3 main possibilities:

  1. It is hard wired in the genes, and to survive must have a neutral or beneficial effect on the population as a whole, and it must have a means to be passed on (ie -- somewhat like sickle cell, recessive and rare, because numbers),
  2. There is a gene sequence that is susceptible to mutation, so it recurs,
  3. It is not genetic but developmental, caused by development irregularities in the womb during gestation, due to any number of environmental conditions

At this point I would say "we don't really know" what is correct (if any) -- but these would all be different evolution based theories, not ones in conflict with evolution.

This is the argument, that I agree with, that is used on religions. I think that having numerous religious sects makes it less plausible that any of them are right. I don't know the statistical terminology but if there are two religions they have a 50% chance of being right but with a thousand they have a 0.1% chance of being right.

Only if one of them must be right -- which is an assumption, not an evidenced fact. They also could all be as correct as the next, a partial vision seen through the cloudy glass murkily.

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 7 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 6:19 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 15 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:52 PM RAZD has responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 13 of 95 (796318)
12-28-2016 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
12-28-2016 7:19 PM


I have only read this far into your post yet

It's a good working definition of "good" -- if you don't like then you will need to submit your definition of what "good" means.

Beneficial means to benefit something/someone. The notion of good is controversial. Good often means "right" and "praiseworthy" or "desirable"

Beneficial means advantageous.

Therefore "Owning a collection of guns and and knives will be beneficial for a serial killer." "A dirty kitchen will be beneficial for the spread of salmonella."

Ethical theorists want to go from saying altruism is beneficial (for the pointless survival of our species) to claiming it is praiseworthy and or desirable. They also assert that altruism originated from the Dawkins style selfish gene but that despite this "self" interested origin it is still genuine.

Now if I injected a mean old man with a chemical that made him suddenly very charitable I would say that that undermined the nature of his charitably and freewill.

If my genes are coercing me to feel altruistic I don't see that as desirable or praiseworthy.

Neither "beneficial" or "good" are precise scientific language.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 7:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 95 (796319)
12-28-2016 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AndrewPD
12-28-2016 7:18 PM


Those were not my premises but the unspoken premises in the Ted Talk video In linked to.

If you watch it then I can discuss it further.

Regardless of the source they are still factually false and have nothing to do with either the fact of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution so yet again, what is your topic? What is it you want to discuss?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 7:18 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 15 of 95 (796320)
12-28-2016 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
12-28-2016 7:19 PM


Only if one of them must be right -- which is an assumption, not an evidenced fact. They also could all be as correct as the next, a partial vision seen through the cloudy glass murkily.

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

So for example the notion of homology. Things can be homologous and not related. The idea is that if evolution is right we should expect homology. That creates the interpretations of homologies until other evidence undermines a homology.

So the expectation of homology is a supposition or implication of the general theory. Theories about why we like music are also based on the idea that evolution will have implications for all human behaviour.

So here I am questioning the validity of making these further assumptions and implications.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 7:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2016 8:06 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 18 by AndrewPD, posted 12-28-2016 8:09 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2016 8:29 PM AndrewPD has responded

    
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019