Can Evolution explain this? (Re: The biological evolution of religious belief)

This topic is incredible, where has it been hiding?I've read Jaynes's Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and have a bit to say about it. It is a topic unto itself.Cats leave food for their "masters" (hard to believe any cat thinks it has a master, in the way I understand it from the many I have owned). Maybe it is for all three reasons presented. As a gift, as a learning opportunity, and for random fun. Maybe, depending on the cat, it could be for all reasons at the same time. Who says the cats have to have only one reason for their behavior?(one of my cats shit on The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, was this an attempt at literary criticism?)Any mutation is theoretically possible, however, any mutation that requires an energy expenditure better be able to justify itself in the struggle for survival. Also evolution is small steps, not complete leaps to complex organs IMHREO (In my honestly reasonably educated opinion).I would imagine someone would have to define "what is religion" before ascribing it to animals, or indeed the human animal (would you prefer ape, how about primate?).Seems like in addition to defining what is religious belief, one must make some pretty overwhelming assumptions concerning what ancestral species may or may not be able to comprehend, possibly for quite a ways back.After all, if religious belief is caused by a longing for a nurturing parent, that could go back to the first nurturing parent (dinosaurs and proto-opossums!?). Besides, who really is Dr. Dolittle? how does one know what a cat really thinks? (experential evidence may be somewhat revealing, but by its very nature is limited at present time)What a topic. Let's rock.

Strange how the intelligent designer had the eye develop in the embryo of blindfish, only to have it degenerate. Another trick to fool the curious and support the dogmatic?

Yes, virusus mutate because if they did not, they would cease to exist once the last host died or developed the appropriate immune response to destroy such a virus.Under such conditions as most virusus exist, existance itself demands mutation. Smallpox failed to mutate rapidly enough to outrun the vaccine, that's why it no longer exists in the wild. Flu mutates rapidly, that's why it is still here......providing yet more evidence for the ToE. In fact, providing currently observable evolution in a human timescale.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-28-2006 09:47 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-29-2006 12:04 AM

How do you know that other mammals don't have conciousness or believe in God? Do you have evidence?After all, a simple dissection shows that the brains of mammals are wrinkled, crenulated if you prefer, just like humans. Check out a dolphin brain:“http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/comp_brain_size.JPG”Or a cat brain:“http://brainmuseum.org/...ns/carnivora/cat/brain/Cat6clr.jpg”The above is an example of evidence, as opposed to pronouncement.Perhaps the reason mammals are not commonly associated with religious belief is that they do not use such belief to interfere with the natural right of other dolphins to catch fish or for other cats to catch mice.It may be pompousness, rather than spirituality, that is the most defining human trait.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-28-2006 11:58 PM

As best I can tell, the implication of the above is that when a virus causes a human death it implies that the virus is better fitted to survive than the host. This case is at an individual and not a species level. At the individual level, the better fitted human for the purpose of surviving bird flu virus would be the one that lived long enough to pass on their genes. The better fitted virus would be the one that survives to continue infecting hosts.Survival of the fittest in the case of a single individual means the fittest within a species, not the fittest of all species put together. Survival of the fittest at the species level would then be one species versus another rather than one individual versus one case of infection. The levels of individual and species appear mixed and therefore meaningless in the previous post, if I understood the post properly.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-29-2006 09:32 PM

In post 64 I asked for evidence, not pronouncement. Please provide evidence.Actually, this could be a topic in itself. My basic research indicates these pronouncements are debatable.

NJ writes: I have often marvelled how the 300,000 incarnations of Vishnu are just like Jesus as described in the gospels. Ever been to an animal sacrifice thrown by the Jains? Maybe the weeks have something to do with the phases of the moon. Maybe it's something you could ask your wife about. Also, maybe the sun has something to do with the term 'day.' Maybe the earth's rotation around the sun has something to do with the term 'year.'What a coincidence indeed.