Science, Creation & EvolutionMorality and evolutionismHi Tuppence, I see you have caught up with the thread. Please excuse me if the thread is going to be long, but I feel I must respond to some questions here. I don't want to pull this single quote out of its context. The point Tuppence tried to make is that 'automatic' responses of our body (sneezing, yawning, blinking etc) are not instincts. My point is that whether or not you want to lable them as 'instincts', they are 'built in' responses. I mentioned this to further explain the fact that we are not as much in control of our ourselves as we'd like to believe. The reactions I have mentioned are reactions that have nested themselves in our genetic make-up after thousands of generations (or more likely MILLIONS!). Cats sneeze, we sneeze, it's an 'automatic function' that has proven his worth in history and has been passed on to us by our ancestors; it was a trait that both our ancestors and the ancostors of cats shared. I feel quite confident that we would have seen the behaviour in our SHARED (cat's and human's ) ancestors if we could go back in time. Oh come on. I when I'm out (enjoying the Dutch bars and clubs) I can't point out any ('free'/single) girl that is not wearing make up or wearing pretty clothes. I go out too sometimes, dressing in 'simple' clothes, but its just to grab a beer with friends. If my goal is looking for girls, I dress more 'provocaticive.' And studies in socio-biology have led to same conclusion: Girls that are 'willing' (in sexual terms) are dressed more provovatively. (Doesn't necessarily means that every girl that is dressed sexy wants to have sex with you, but there is a tendency in single girls to dress sexier than girls that are NOT looking for a new partner). My sister takes time to put on make-up to buy sigarettes, because there is a 'cute' guy working at the gas station that sells them! Even if the goal is not 'direct sex' the instinct in us tells us that we would make a BETTER impression if we are 'prettier than normal.' Yes, I agree, some people 'don't like other people.' My farther doesn't like relatives to come by on his birthday, because it reminds him of how old he's getting. (Behaviour he's been displaying since my early youth, the crazy old bastard .) He is displaying 'hermit behaviour' with a reason (he doesn't want to be reminded of his age) but there are people that really don't like other people or really don;t want ot fit in with society. Though it might seem a bit harsh, I think that these people would have died first in an animal society (like that of lions, vampire bats etc). We NEED others for our survival, especially because we can't live off the wild anymore. To put it in quite extremist terms (which are not my opinions by the way) we would be better off (as a species) to get rid of anti-social individuals. We all know this but are affraid to admit it. The bum that is begging for spare change is not helping society; we would be better off without him! But since we are animals with the ability to think about our first instincts, we can decide NOT to shun these outcasts and help them anyway, (altruistically) because they are fellow humans. Religion is known for its altruistic behaviour (some christians even want to claim that altruism is a purely christian thing!) but it is a trait we see in a lot of social animals. I think humans are a bit more altruistic than penguins (blame it on empathy, intelligence or whatever you want) but we are definitely LESS altruistic than ants. Ants are slaves that NEVER ever complain, because their behaviour benefits the colony. I think that (in an evolutionary way) suicidal people think they are doing a favour to society by removing themselves from it. Either that or they just want (posthumous) attention. In most cases of suicides, we don;t see death but 'suicide attempts.' The attempts cause friends and family to pay attention to them. 'Lashing out' corresponds to the idea that a male needs to defend its social position (its status) when it is challenged. NOT responding means acknowledging defeat. An evolutionary no-no when it comes to getting the females. (It can be reversed: an independant female might attract more attention than a dependant one). Whether it concerns a bar-fight or a discussing on the internet, the reaction is the same. When some one doesn't respond to an argument, we assume we are 'victorious.' I think this is the reason that you Tuppence notified us (and I have done the same thing!) that you are going to be away for a few days, so you can't defend your arguments for a while. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, so why do you have a hard time acknowledging it? (I think I have an evolutionary answer ready, but I'll leave it to you to answer the question). I think this is the perfect opportunity to state that whenever I give an 'animal 'example, I am refering to programs I saw on the Discovery Channel (it might be different from the US version), the National Geographic Channel or Animal Planet (Channel) or I am refering to unbiased books about nature. I don't know if Holland broadcasts the same programs as the USA. Pease know that I never give examples that I have not witnessed myself! I feel an obligation to provide CORRECT examples! (What else whould I have to base my theories on? LIES! And I don't want to base them on lies!). When ever I mention lion, sea lions, the octopus, the altruistic vampire bat or whatever animal, be sure that the behaviour I descripe corresponds with material I have witnessed myself or read about from unbiased sources. I copy-pasted my definition from www.dictionary.com. If you want to file a complaint, talk to them. I think the definition is quite accurate (for -I quote- " A SIMPLE" - definition). Really Tuppence, do we need to discuss this?! You are right in stating that 'being adapted to the environment' does not mean you are great in the sack. But we have seen that the camel that de-hydrates the least has more fluids to use for reproductive cabalilities. And the bat that finds the most food is the healthiest individual. Though it might not mean that EVERY (food-wise) successful bat mates a lot, it does mean that the more successful bats get more attention. Every woman likes (successful) men that have their own business or are about to inherrit a lot of money: They judge their spouse-to-be on their material possessions (Charles Darwin himself was an example in this: He was not a pretty man to look at, but he did have TEN children. His wife accepted him because he was a successful and respected man. See Rober Wrights 'The Moral Animal' for more info on Darwin's private life.) I am sorry, I have not read your thread on 'junk DNA.' (But I will.) I however want to make clear (without reading the thread) that DNA is not like bricks. A fountain and a fireplace can be built, but are very different from each other. A chimpanzee and a human however are very closely related when it comes to social behaviour (and genetics!). Perhaps more similar than christians are willing to admit. Excuse me, I don't really get the 'lurching stomach' example. Ah! You have reached one the most important things obout evolution! Evolution favours the continuance of our species (which leads to protests AGAINST abortion) but evolution also tells us that a child is better off with experienced parents. A child that is TEN years of age CAN have a child! (Pregnant 9-year olds have been reported, far BEFORE the period starts!). You don't have to be a scientist to KNOW that people THIS young can't educate a child; they are being educated themselves! When we realise we can't raise a child, the only reasonable result might be killing and I think this is actualy in the best interest of the child. I once had sex with a girl that had to take a 'morning-after- pil '. I feared that I might have impregnated that girl. I am very glad I never had a child with that girl! It would have meant that I couldn't have gone to college and that I would have to bring in money to raise the child! In conclusion: Birthcontrol CAN indeed be in the best interest of the species! I would be very interested in talking to you too, Tuppence. Either now or twenty years from now. I admire your 'scientific stance'. I wish you would be more open to the evolutionary approach: It explains the motives behind our emotion/instincts/needs very logically by applying the theory of natural selection (evolution) to the issue. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame