Darwin question

[Luddly Neddite]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

But animals kill each other, much like the lion kills his prey, but is this a crime?

Humans kill animals and usually is not a crime, so why is it a crime when people kill other people?

Is this just an imaginary morality created to try and keep society civil or does it go deeper than that?

Killing on the street is murder but kill that same person in war and suddenly, it's honorable. We say we're horrified at Muslim honor killings but christians have done the same. We've all heard of people who have killed someone who has harmed a family member and we've applauded that.

We're very good at rationalize and excusing our own actions but really, human seldom kill other humans for any ethical or moral reason.

Non-human animals kill for various reasons. There are a few examples of other animals who apparently kill for the fun of it, but that's mostly a fault in our makeup.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

Yes! There are so many examples of behavior that is obviously not part of the need to survive. Non- human animals do so many things that do not feed them or give them either territory or guarantee their genes live on.

And then, on the other side of that is the male lion who wins the battle for the harem and then kills all the cubs so he can mate immediately.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Votto]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

But animals kill each other, much like the lion kills his prey, but is this a crime?

Humans kill animals and usually is not a crime, so why is it a crime when people kill other people?

Is this just an imaginary morality created to try and keep society civil or does it go deeper than that?

Killing on the street is murder but kill that same person in war and suddenly, it's honorable. We say we're horrified at Muslim honor killings but christians have done the same. We've all heard of people who have killed someone who has harmed a family member and we've applauded that.

We're very good at rationalize and excusing our own actions but really, human seldom kill other humans for any ethical or moral reason.

Non-human animals kill for various reasons. There are a few examples of other animals who apparently kill for the fun of it, but that's mostly a fault in our makeup.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

People who kill do so because they see a need to do so.

For the fascist atheist who loves science, why not just kill off the defective gene pool? Why all this dribble about God and nobility?

 

[Old Rocks]

And what is the difference between the fascist atheist, the fascist christian, or the fascist muslim? All set out to kill anyone that does not follow their line.

 

[SixFoot]

I don't buy into classical Darwinism, or the current account of mankind's remote past. There is much yet to learn.

 

[SixFoot]

I am starting to hate you radical fucks as I much as I ever did the islamic state or the taliban...Probably because you're in my country and doing great damage to its freedom.

Clayton Bigsby approves. lol

 

[sealybobo]

Darwin wrote the following

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

In other words, if we killed off those who contribute to a weak gene pool, the human race would be better off. However, he then says that we have a noble nature that prevents us from doing so? Where is the science here? As he says, in the animal kingdom we have no issues with eugenics. The weak are stricken from the gene pool, yet we are suppose to allow humans to contribute to the demise of the human race by not regulating it?

What does "noble nature" have to do with science? It seems to me that this is simply an adaptation to the Christian culture from which he came, even though he rejected Christianity. However, chaps like Hitler had no problem simply embracing the science of eugenics, and hurling the anti-science aspect of having a "noble nature"

So if a woman can't get pregnant naturally she's not doing the human race any good by getting invetro fertilization. It'd be better if she didn't have that child who will pass on that gene.

All the kids with cancer should not be cured because they pass on the cencer gene.

 

[sealybobo]

Sad to see so many stupid fucking idiots wish to turn America into another backwards shit hole.

There's no evidence for god and with this kind of bullshit I'll say that he is probably a myth.

Consider it's the idiots who believe so yes it's probably a myth.

When they ask if I'm sure the answer is yes.

 

[sealybobo]

One way to look at it is to compare a primitive colony to an advanced western civilization. Even in primitive colonies that you would expect to be ruled by "only the strong survive" you will find that is not the case. The members of the colony will accommodate the old, weak and sick. I don't believe this is nobility, it is simple human compassion. You love your baby, you love Grandma.

In an advanced civilization, the responsibility of the sick shifts from individuals to the medical community. There is still the human compassion element as no one wants to see their loved ones suffer. But the difference is the medical community has a vested interest in caring for the sick. Individuals working within the medical community may be compassionate but they are part of a much larger entity that is not. The medical community at some level actually works together to keep the weak and sick people alive because it is profitable, not because it is noble. After all, without the weak and the sick what happens to hospitals, drug companies, nursing homes and professional caregivers?

Even the herd protects the one with a broken leg. If you believe that only the Strong survive is true as far as evolution goes doesn't mean you want to neuter your kid because he has the cancer gene.

 

[sealybobo]

Lol, the fucking bible somehow explains it better.

You people are truly backwards like the islamic state in way too many ways.

I have a serious question about evolution. For thousands of years men have ruled women. We have held them back. Today we are seeing more independent women. Women CEOs and senators. We see millions of single moms raising kids alone. They don't need us. And I'm also seeing more and more guys who don't think raising a family is worth it. So I think we are evolving to be less breeders than we once we're. Gone are the days it was good to have ten kids. I can't see those days ever coming back. And school is more expensive, healthcare, cuts to social security. This has to have an affect on our evolutionary path.

Will we become smarter because we have recently unlocked half of our potential? For thousands of years we didn't let women lead. We still don't really. Women are 50% of the population but make up very small percent of Senate and CEOs.

I hope we shrink the population. Notice the people on the starship never had kids until Wesley crusher on star trek? I wonder how many abortions were performed by his mom Dr Beverly crusher on the Enterprise?

If the masses have less kids and parents do a better job educating their kids we could be much much smarter in 100 years. But will we be?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

 

[anotherlife]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

Huh! Talking about evolution ...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

Huh! Talking about evolution ...

Yes that is what the OP is about. You have an opinion? We'd all love to hear your dissertation.

 

[anotherlife]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

Survival benefit, or ... the knowing of God, as described in the gospels.
Even the animals do ... as written.

 

[anotherlife]

By the way, evolution is used in programming, to optimize things. But guess what, if you write it like survival of fittest, then it fails and doesn't optimize. You don't get a better species by survival of fittest, in fact you destroy it.

 

[anotherlife]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

Huh! Talking about evolution ...

Yes that is what the OP is about. You have an opinion? We'd all love to hear your dissertation.

Evolution is just a part of God's process of creation. God has the templates of everything that has and will ever be created. Evolution is the seeing of the realization of these templates.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

Huh! Talking about evolution ...

Yes that is what the OP is about. You have an opinion? We'd all love to hear your dissertation.

Evolution is just a part of God's process of creation. God has the templates of everything that has and will ever be created. Evolution is the seeing of the realization of these templates.

Which 'god' out of the current 4,000 on Earth are you referring to? The one you believe in? Or one of the others.

 

[anotherlife]

Darwin was wrong about the so called "Savages" there is fossil evidence that even the Neanderthals took care of their infirmed.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

Huh! Talking about evolution ...

Yes that is what the OP is about. You have an opinion? We'd all love to hear your dissertation.

Evolution is just a part of God's process of creation. God has the templates of everything that has and will ever be created. Evolution is the seeing of the realization of these templates.

Which 'god' out of the current 4,000 on Earth are you referring to? The one you believe in? Or one of the others.

Can you prove that whatever you write or think is not just another belief?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've made quite a bit of progress in that time period. The horseless carriage was invented!

Huh! Talking about evolution ...

Yes that is what the OP is about. You have an opinion? We'd all love to hear your dissertation.

Evolution is just a part of God's process of creation. God has the templates of everything that has and will ever be created. Evolution is the seeing of the realization of these templates.

Which 'god' out of the current 4,000 on Earth are you referring to? The one you believe in? Or one of the others.

Can you prove that whatever you write or think is not just another belief?

Physics, biology, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, geology. The list is endless.