Questions for those who don't believe in God

[LuvRPgrl]

Altruistic acts are not contrary to evolution. Passing on genes is the goal of evolution. To the extent that altruistic acts facilitate this, they are not contrary to evolution. Love, a pair bond, functions to provide a nurturing atmosphere which facilitates the socialization, and learning, and thus survivability of the offspring. The seven year itch is seven years long for a reason, that's the age a child is basically done forming his most basic core self.

Nope, evolution is that the INDIVIDUAL with the best survival skills for ITSELF will reproduce more and pass those traits on.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, when did I say they didn't?.

This is your statement:

Plants and animals don't sacrifice themselves for the good of the species. That is a human concept.

You previously wrote of animals which sacrificed themselves specifically before they reproduced. .

No, I said if they sacrafice themselves, then they cant reproduce (because they are now dead). I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Now you are changing the rules. But that's fine. An animal dieing to protect its young is neither an attempt to defend the whole species or a selfless act. Animals cannot perform selfless acts because they are animals. Only humans are capable of selfless acts. A female animal defends its young for selfish reasons; the young belongs to her, it's her offspring. Would a female animal die to protect some other animals young? No. .

Actually, they do. Plus the female stops protecting them once they get to a certain age, because its instinct. Ownership is a human quality, no animalistic. But how could sacraficing ones life to protect its litter be selfish? you say "because they belong to her", but once she is dead she can no longer enjoy them. So its not for HER benefit, but for the benefit of the litter.

What's more, more species of animals will in fact abandon their young when common sense tells them to do so. After all, it is better to run and make more offspring than to die in a futile attempt to protect the offspring you have, since your offspring will die right after you. The level of protection a female animals accords its young is directly proportional to the amount of energy and time that animal's young requires to become independent and how many young they have. A snake will abandon it's young if it is wounded because it can produce dozens of offspring in a short span of time that are immeadiately able to go off on their own. Primates spend a great deal of time on single offspring, and therefore defend those offspring more vigorously. Be even they will abandon their children sometimes..

examples of when they dont protect doesnt negate the fact that at times they do.

A gradually increasing area of habitation over millions of years..

Uh, yea. So the birds, when it gets cold, go farther south. Then at some time it stops getting cold. So why do they go back north? How do they know it will suddenly be warm there again? Why not just stay south? Why dont all birds do this?

They die in the attempt to have sex. They do not give up their life 'for the survival of the species'. They die because a.) they are selfish in their desire to breed, and b.) because they are weak and they failed..

Oh, they cant have sex in the ocean?

Where did I write that? I don't see it in my response to you..

That goes back to the "females will die protecting their newborns".

Well, I disagree. I see more similarities between us and other animals than I see differences. Nor do I see love and compasion as being contrary to evolution. Insanity is an illness, and in an animal society would most likely lead to that animal not reproducing. Humans, in our interactions with one another, do quite alot to block some aspects of natural selection. Feeding starving people in Africa, for instance.

Of course all animals will have similiarities. But the differrences between us and all animals, and any animal with ANY OTHER animal is so vastly huge, its got to be beyond anything that evolution can account for.

We can communicate abstract ideas
We have developed morals and values
We can commit acts of great evil
We produce art
We laugh and have a sense of humour
We develope activities solely for pleasure
We can write and read abstract ideas
We build things
We have shame in defecating and publis sex
We have prisons, WE IMPRISON SOME OF OUR SPECIES
We build homes that are quite complex
We wear clothing

 

[LuvRPgrl]

My previous response was a bit hurried, and so I'd like to elaborate on one point.



Many species migrate. The primary reasons for migration are the animals are in search of food or water, and/or an escape from predictable adverse weather, i.e. the change of the seasons.

Migration activity didn't just spontaneously appear for no reason. Migration of species originates either when a species' population reaches the point whereby its immeadiate surroundings are no longer sufficient to support it, or in response to gradual changes in average temperatures. The second refers to ice ages and the like, the first eventually results in the seasonal type of migration swallows engage in.

At some point in the past, the antecedents of swallows did not migrate. The population of the creatures however, eventually reached the carrying capacity of their normal habitat and so they began to search for more space and more food wherever they could find it. This would occur gradually over a great length of time until eventually the habitat area of the swallow reached so far north that during parts of the year the swallows were forced to retreat back to the south to escape the cold. Those who did not retreat (did not have the sense to flee south) died. Therefore all the remaining swallows that flew to the north, knew to fly back down south in the winter, because the stupid swallows were dead.

If this occurs long enough, a mechanism becomes ingrained in the bird's mind. And that mechanism is this:

after a certain period of time and/or when certain environmental conditions become a certain way, you must fly south.

In reality, this external expression is nothing more magical than a genetically determined complex collection of biochemical cascade reactions. Those without this mechanism intact die. And that is what we call 'instinct'.

Likewise, salmon who do not swim upstream, will not breed. Therefore the only salmon who exist are the ones who have the 'compulsion' to swim upstream. Those who do not have this 'instinct' will die, will not breed, and thus will not pass along their deficiency.

That is natural selection and 'instinct' is a big part of it.

Are you saying that learned behavior can be inheireted?
So, if I walked everyday to the liquor store, and had my son do that, and his son, eventually one of my great great, great.....etc. grandsons will just automatically walk to the liquor store?
hahhahahah, thats pretty funny.
And again, why would they go back north each year. If its because the south cant sustain that many, then how did they all survive during the time they flew south? I mean its a 3-6 month period? If there isnt enough food to sustain all of them, they would die off.
Why dont other birds do the same thing? I mean, if the southern region wont sustain all the birds, why dont other species of birds flock south and north.?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is your statement:

Plants and animals don't sacrifice themselves for the good of the species. That is a human concept.



No, I said if they sacrafice themselves, then they cant reproduce (because they are now dead). I think you misunderstood what I wrote.



Actually, they do. Plus the female stops protecting them once they get to a certain age, because its instinct. Ownership is a human quality, no animalistic. But how could sacraficing ones life to protect its litter be selfish? you say "because they belong to her", but once she is dead she can no longer enjoy them. So its not for HER benefit, but for the benefit of the litter.



examples of when they dont protect doesnt negate the fact that at times they do.




Uh, yea. So the birds, when it gets cold, go farther south. Then at some time it stops getting cold. So why do they go back north? How do they know it will suddenly be warm there again? Why not just stay south? Why dont all birds do this?


Oh, they cant have sex in the ocean?


That goes back to the "females will die protecting their newborns".



Of course all animals will have similiarities. But the differrences between us and all animals, and any animal with ANY OTHER animal is so vastly huge, its got to be beyond anything that evolution can account for.

We can communicate abstract ideas
We have developed morals and values
We can commit acts of great evil
We produce art
We laugh and have a sense of humour
We develope activities solely for pleasure
We can write and read abstract ideas
We build things
We have shame in defecating and publis sex
We have prisons, WE IMPRISON SOME OF OUR SPECIES
We build homes that are quite complex
We wear clothing

The capacity to do these cultural things, are a byproduct of advance intelligence, due to the evolution of our brains.

 

[Zhukov]

This is your statement:

Plants and animals don't sacrifice themselves for the good of the species. That is a human concept.

Yes, and I thought that I just explained that a female protecting her offspring, even unto her own death is not sacrificing itself for the good of the species....

No, I said if they sacrafice themselves, then they cant reproduce (because they are now dead). I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

No, I didn't misunderstand at all. You wrote:

"survival of the species is actually counterproductive to survival of the individual. Survival of the species requires individual sacrafices, which often lead to the premature death of the individual. This premature death, would seem to lend to the notion that the ones who dont defend the species will spred more seed, and hence, become more of the evolutionary force in the species."

When I argue that point, what then is your first retort?

"sorry, but female animals defend their young to the death."

So to defend your argument that natural selection is counter-intuitive, because animals which sacrifice themselves to defend their species will disproportionately die before they reproduce you talk about an animal which has obviously reproduced? No, I think I understood what you wrote, and I don't think you are being consistent with your argument.

Now, to be clear, what you wrote: "survival of the species is actually counterproductive to survival of the individual.....et cetera", is a convulted string of sentences to be sure, however the point you are trying to make (it seems to me [and this all beside the fact that no animal acts with the belief that it is defending it's species anyway]) is that natural selection is illogical because animals which stick up for themselves die in disproportionate numbers, and therefore won't reproduce nearly as much as selfish animals, correct?

Well, this is inaccurate on all sorts of levels. Not least of which because different plants and animals defend themselves in different ways. Some plants defend themselves by being poisonous, i.e. "I'm poisonous, don't eat me." This fact flies in the face of your idea that 'survival of the species' even requires self-sacrifice to begin with. It protects itself, insures offsrping, and sacrifices nothing.

Many, and I do mean many, species' primary survival tactic is simple avoidance. A pride of lions don't attack the antelope which tries to defend itself. They attack to slow one. They cull the herd. The antelope on the other hand simply run, the old and the young be damned.

What of the others who's primary defense isn't avoidance? What of the predators? Well not only do they exhibit aggressive behavior toward those who would threaten their offspring, males exhibit aggressive behavior toward other males who try to encroach on their harem. Back to the lions. The male lion which does not engage in aggression against other males will lose it's females and will not reproduce. Therefore, in the world of predatious animals there aggressiveness and strength is directly related to how much tang they get.

But how could sacraficing ones life to protect its litter be selfish? you say "because they belong to her", but once she is dead she can no longer enjoy them. So its not for HER benefit, but for the benefit of the litter.

As I stated earlier, most animals actually don't defend their offspring to the death. They will go quite a ways, but if the receive a greivous injury they will often flee.

Alright, I'm out of time, and won't be back for a bit and though I'd be happy to address the other points later, let me say this:

I have no problem with people who believe there is a god who created the Universe, and set things in motion so that what would happen is both what seems to have happened and what has happened. I don't happen to agree with them, but that's fine.

I don't have too much of a problem with people who believe in a god, and who believe in the mechanisms of natural selection but don't believe in macroevolution. I don't agree with them either, even more so because it seems to me macroevolution naturally follows from natural selection, but again that's fine, because you can't observe macroevolution.

I do have a problem with people who even deny that the observable phenomenon known as natural selection does happen.

Now ask yourself if you are even open to the idea of learning about the mechanisms of natural selection or if you have made up your mind up. I will happily explain the concepts of natural selection if you are interested, because there are answers to most if not all of the questions you've asked, but I am not all that interested in wasting my time explaining these things to someone who only feigns interest for the sake of an argument.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The capacity to do these cultural things, are a byproduct of advance intelligence, due to the evolution of our brains.

and committing murder, making art, thinking of how big the universe is, contemplating the existence of God, ALL make our survival much better, just how?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, and I thought that I just explained that a female protecting her offspring, even unto her own death is not sacrificing itself for the good of the species.....

and I countered why it is survival of the species when the mother protects the young. Another animal that could be introduced to the litter would be protected, sometimes, by the mother also. It ISNT HERS. The pups, when they mature, would no longer be defended by her, but they are still hers. And lastly, animals dont understand ownership, and the existence of the pups doesnt make her life any better

No, I didn't misunderstand at all. You wrote:

"survival of the species is actually counterproductive to survival of the individual. Survival of the species requires individual sacrafices, which often lead to the premature death of the individual. This premature death, would seem to lend to the notion that the ones who dont defend the species will spred more seed, and hence, become more of the evolutionary force in the species."

When I argue that point, what then is your first retort?

"sorry, but female animals defend their young to the death.".

Yes you did misunderstand, because you blatantly claimed I stated "Originally Posted by Zhukov
You previously wrote of animals which sacrificed themselves specifically before they reproduced." BUT I NEVER made any such statement or implied such.

So to defend your argument that natural selection is counter-intuitive, because animals which sacrifice themselves to defend their species will disproportionately die before they reproduce you talk about an animal which has obviously reproduced? No, I think I understood what you wrote, and I don't think you are being consistent with your argument..

again, I didnt say anything about disproportionate death rates.

Now, to be clear, what you wrote: "survival of the species is actually counterproductive to survival of the individual.....et cetera", is a convulted string of sentences to be sure,.

Because you say so? It makes perfect sense to me. Evolutions top ideal is "survival of the individual, the best man wins" so to speak, while animals display "survival of the species" behavior, which is counterproductive to "survival of the individual".

however the point you are trying to make (it seems to me [and this all beside the fact that no animal acts with the belief that it is defending it's species anyway]) is that natural selection is illogical because animals which stick up for themselves die in disproportionate numbers, and therefore won't reproduce nearly as much as selfish animals, correct?.

I agree they dont act with any belief. They act on instinct, or PROGRAMMED (by a creator) thinking.
And no, thats not my arguement. Im saying if evolution were true, then survival of the species behavior which would weaken an animals survival of the individual abilities, just wouldnt occur. There is no reason for it. When things occur "naturally" there is no planning for the future, because there is nothing exisiting that is aware of the future. Hence, any behavior which will benefit the animal in the future at the expense of current health or survival abilities, just wont happen.
Just like animals dont eat "health food" like humans do.
This also plays into the question, if the single cell developed on accident in a primordial soup, then why did it form DNA, when DNA's sole existence is reproduction? How would the cell and chemicals "know" it was going to, or needed to reproduce.

Well, this is inaccurate on all sorts of levels. Not least of which because different plants and animals defend themselves in different ways. Some plants defend themselves by being poisonous, i.e. "I'm poisonous, don't eat me." This fact flies in the face of your idea that 'survival of the species' even requires self-sacrifice to begin with. It protects itself, insures offsrping, and sacrifices nothing.

Many, and I do mean many, species' primary survival tactic is simple avoidance. A pride of lions don't attack the antelope which tries to defend itself. They attack to slow one. They cull the herd. The antelope on the other hand simply run, the old and the young be damned.

What of the others who's primary defense isn't avoidance? What of the predators? Well not only do they exhibit aggressive behavior toward those who would threaten their offspring, males exhibit aggressive behavior toward other males who try to encroach on their harem. Back to the lions. The male lion which does not engage in aggression against other males will lose it's females and will not reproduce. Therefore, in the world of predatious animals there aggressiveness and strength is directly related to how much tang they get..

AGAIN, examples of animals that dont defend their young to the death doesnt answer why the ones that behave that way, do.

As I stated earlier, most animals actually don't defend their offspring to the death. They will go quite a ways, but if the receive a greivous injury they will often flee..

But yet some do.

Alright, I'm out of time, and won't be back for a bit and though I'd be happy to address the other points later, let me say this:

I have no problem with people who believe there is a god who created the Universe, and set things in motion so that what would happen is both what seems to have happened and what has happened. I don't happen to agree with them, but that's fine.

I don't have too much of a problem with people who believe in a god, and who believe in the mechanisms of natural selection but don't believe in macroevolution. I don't agree with them either, even more so because it seems to me macroevolution naturally follows from natural selection, but again that's fine, because you can't observe macroevolution.

I do have a problem with people who even deny that the observable phenomenon known as natural selection does happen..

Not buying into the notion that all species arrived from natural selection doesnt mean one doesnt accept that SOME natural selection has and does occur.

Now ask yourself if you are even open to the idea of learning about the mechanisms of natural selection or if you have made up your mind up. I will happily explain the concepts of natural selection if you are interested, because there are answers to most if not all of the questions you've asked, but I am not all that interested in wasting my time explaining these things to someone who only feigns interest for the sake of an argument.

HA! Ask your self that same question. Are you open to the idea that evolution is a bogus concept?

I use to buy into evolution. I became a Christian. I then argued with other Christians, defending evolution. My spiritual beliefs, nor ANYTHING ELSE in my life depends on evolution not being true. My ONLY REASON FOR NOT BELIEVING IT, is that I want to know the truth.

 

[jAZ]

Why are we here? Seriously.. why? If you say because of Evolution - fine, but why? Why'd it happen?

If humans are an accident that happened in the Universe then where does your sense of self-preservation come from? Why do you care if the human race continues on after you're dead?

I mean, we're all just here by chance, right?

An even better question is, if there is a God... why is "he" here?

 

[manu1959]

An even better question is, if there is a God... why is "he" here?

if not here....where should she be?

 

[no1tovote4]

An even better question is, if there is a God... why is "he" here?

LOL. Why would that be a better question?

 

[jAZ]

LOL. Why would that be a better question?

It shows that the mere question of "why" doesn't prove or disprove the existance of God. Some questions are just unanswerable philosophic musings. Don't read too much into them.

 

[jAZ]

if not here....where should she be?

Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen cooking me a pot pie!?

http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/spark.cgi?Episode_101_Cartman_Gets_An_Anal_Probe=101_chiknpie.wav

 

[no1tovote4]

Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen cooking me a pot pie!?

http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/spark.cgi?Episode_101_Cartman_Gets_An_Anal_Probe=101_chiknpie.wav

Mmmmm... God would be a very good cook...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and committing murder, making art, thinking of how big the universe is, contemplating the existence of God, ALL make our survival much better, just how?

Now, you're just being absurd. Not EVERY cognitive act increases our survival, but many of them do. That's irrefutable. Do you think our intelligence DECREASES our odds of survival?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Now, you're just being absurd. Not EVERY cognitive act increases our survival, but many of them do. That's irrefutable. Do you think our intelligence DECREASES our odds of survival?

Considering the millions upon millions of people who have been murdered and died in car accidents, yes, in some ways it does.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Considering the millions upon millions of people who have been murdered and died in car accidents, yes, in some ways it does.

It's undeniable though that IN GENERAL our intelligence has helped us increase our survivability. Don't be silly, man.

 

[jAZ]

It's undeniable though that IN GENERAL our intelligence has helped us increase our survivability. Don't be silly, man.

Clearly, our congitive evolution has helped us... but I'd say that there is a natural tipping point where it begins to hurt us.

It comes into play as we as humans start to be able gain control over greater and greater degrees of energy. The more energy we can control, the greater risks associated with those energies.

The obvious example is the nuclear power. It took thousands of years of cognitive evolution to be able to harness nuclear power. And while it benefits our society tremendously, it also has greater destructive power than we've ever know. Heck even with your example of driving a car (oil-based combustion). Fires, car crashes, and the like are all risks associated with greater control of sources of energy.

One interesting aspect of this phenomenon is the extension of these principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

The Kardashev scale talks about how civilizations conquer technology and harness energy, breaking it down to Tier 1 (harness all of the power available on a single planet, approximately 10^16 W), Tier 2 (harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 10^26 W), Tier 3 (harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 10^36 W).

The interesting thing is that we are our own greatest threat be being able to evolve between these tiers of civilization. As we harness the greater energy, we have greater ability to destroy ourselves.

 

[archangel]

Clearly, our congitive evolution has helped us... but I'd say that there is a natural tipping point where it begins to hurt us.

It comes into play as we as humans start to be able gain control over greater and greater degrees of energy. The more energy we can control, the greater risks associated with those energies.

The obvious example is the nuclear power. It took thousands of years of cognitive evolution to be able to harness nuclear power. And while it benefits our society tremendously, it also has greater destructive power than we've ever know. Heck even with your example of driving a car (oil-based combustion). Fires, car crashes, and the like are all risks associated with greater control of sources of energy.

One interesting aspect of this phenomenon is the extension of these principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

The Kardashev scale talks about how civilizations conquer technology and harness energy, breaking it down to Tier 1 (harness all of the power available on a single planet, approximately 10^16 W), Tier 2 (harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 10^26 W), Tier 3 (harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 10^36 W).

The interesting thing is that we are our own greatest threat be being able to evolve between these tiers of civilization. As we harness the greater energy, we have greater ability to destroy ourselves.

kinda sorta akin to the Frank Sinatra songs..."Thats Life" and "I did it my way"


Not quite sure where you are going with this,even though it was well written, I can't give ya points until I see your solution!

 

[jAZ]

kinda sorta akin to the Frank Sinatra songs..."Thats Life" and "I did it my way"


Not quite sure where you are going with this,even though it was well written, I can't give ya points until I see your solution!

What are you looking for in particular (I don't care about "points", but if my point is lost here or something else, let me know).

Basically I'm just saying that cognition has generally always benefited mankind. But at a certain point in the process of human evolution, we have reached a point where our cognition has the potental to harm our civilization.

We have reached a point where we literally have the ability to wipeout nearly all life on earth. That's powerful, and as humans our cognative handling of this role (not letting our emotions drive our choices) is critical to continue our existence and continue our trek up the evolutionary ladder.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Clearly, our congitive evolution has helped us... but I'd say that there is a natural tipping point where it begins to hurt us.

It comes into play as we as humans start to be able gain control over greater and greater degrees of energy. The more energy we can control, the greater risks associated with those energies.

The obvious example is the nuclear power. It took thousands of years of cognitive evolution to be able to harness nuclear power. And while it benefits our society tremendously, it also has greater destructive power than we've ever know. Heck even with your example of driving a car (oil-based combustion). Fires, car crashes, and the like are all risks associated with greater control of sources of energy.

One interesting aspect of this phenomenon is the extension of these principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

The Kardashev scale talks about how civilizations conquer technology and harness energy, breaking it down to Tier 1 (harness all of the power available on a single planet, approximately 10^16 W), Tier 2 (harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 10^26 W), Tier 3 (harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 10^36 W).

The interesting thing is that we are our own greatest threat be being able to evolve between these tiers of civilization. As we harness the greater energy, we have greater ability to destroy ourselves.

Don't worry about it.