| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dale" |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2006 11:46:15 PM |
| Object: |
Evolution Of Morality |
Insecure Christians are fond of claiming that their religion is important
because people would be immoral without it. For example, on a Yahoo message
board someone wrote the following,
"If we just evolved the idea of morals is flat out stupid - Obviously if I
kill my neighbor and take his job and wife I am doing a better at providing
for my survival and that is the theory of evolution - this happens all the
time in nature - Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
But I told him that isn't how evolution works. Evolution is about
populations.
Imagine two communities, one where people are immoral, killing their
neighbors and taking their wives, and another where people are moral,
refraining from murder and promiscuity. The immoral community will spend a
lot of energy on internal turmoil, they will lose productivity as people are
murdered, the males will be less interested in taking care of children not
their own.
Meanwhile in the moral community people are happy and productive. People can
generally rely on individuals to stick around and not be murdered, so they
can plan for future growth of their community. The males know which children
are theirs, and so have a large stake in their care.
It's pretty clear that after only a few generations, the moral community
will be much larger than the immoral one. It doesn't matter that immorality
can often benefit a person at the expense of others. What matters is which
population grows the fastest.
--
"I'm tryin' ta think, but nuttin' happens!" - Curly Howard
.
|
|
| User: "Gerard" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:26:55 AM |
|
|
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species. Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
Why is it that the central teachings which better serve human
civilizations' productivity come from religion and not nature?
Examples:
1. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to steal.
Wouldn't honesty and sharing be from nature, benefiting the good of the
species?
2. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to commit adultery. Which would cause
infidelity, enrage spouses, disrupt society, hurt the productivity or
advancement of the species.
Apparantly, acts of adultery are not natural to the human race, since
there appears to be a personality or ego or even, soul, which depends
on a solid emotional unity of a man and women. And as modern society
has shown us, the sexual drive alone, without insight to it's meaning,
leads to the many diseases and abortions today. Nature fails here, if
adhered to.
Restraining that drive for the sake of pro creation only, seems to
work to further the species. But it's the supernatural source which
teaches and reminds of this, not nature.
Peace
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
12 Feb 2006 12:15:29 AM |
|
|
"Gerard" <markgerardcat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139639215.399890.322160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species. Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
If you're going to contradict what I've said, you might at least have the
decency to argue against my points and give refutations of them.
And what makes you think people were immoral before 2000 years ago? You are
implying that everyone who has ever been outside the sphere of Catholicism
has or had no morals. That is a foolish and ridiculous proposition,
completely contradicted by the evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 08:23:55 AM |
|
|
Gerard wrote:
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species.
Christianity is by no means unique in this respect. All religions teach
that you shoudn't do to other people what you don't want them to do to
you. Everything else is decoration.
You evidently have little knowledge of any religion other than
Christianity (and that seems rather patchy). I suggest that you try to
learn.
Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
Not at all. We are a social animal, and such rules have evolved with
us. Every human society shares a similar set of rules, though they may
be dressed in a diffferent garb. There are considerable evolutionary
advantages to a social animal in living by such rules, and which can be
modelled surprisingly acurately by the "selfish gene" hypothesis.
Why is it that the central teachings which better serve human
civilizations' productivity come from religion and not nature?
They don't, unless all the different religions have secretly cooperated
to produce very similar sets of rules. Given the long history of
religious intollerance which dates back as long as religion itself,
that seems a unlikely scenario.
Examples:
1. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to steal.
There are few societies anywhere in the world which condone theft.
Wouldn't honesty and sharing be from nature, benefiting the good of the
species?
2. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to commit adultery. Which would cause
infidelity, enrage spouses, disrupt society, hurt the productivity or
advancement of the species.
There are few societies anywhere in the world which condone adultery -
a concept founded more on the concept of women as property than any
strict moral absolute, incidentally. Moreover, as has been shown in
studies of various other mammals, the tendency to monogamy is a trait
with a strong genetic component, and is rather weaker in homo sapiens
than in many other mammals and birds.
Apparantly, acts of adultery are not natural to the human race, since
there appears to be a personality or ego or even, soul, which depends
on a solid emotional unity of a man and women.
Oh, please! The romantic view of marriage is a very recent phenomenon,
and not one with which the Roman Catholic Church was particularly
bothered until quite recently. In fact, most marriages for most of the
history of the Church were seen as strictly civil contracts, entered
into for reasons of security, the beating of children (pregnancy at the
altar was a requirement in some parts of the Roman Catholic world), and
acquisition of property.
And as modern society
has shown us, the sexual drive alone, without insight to it's meaning,
leads to the many diseases and abortions today.
Unike the case in the past when it led to many diseases, squallor, high
rates of infant mortality, death in childbirth, and all the other
wonderful aspects of medieval life.
Nature fails here, if
adhered to.
You have not made your case.
Restraining that drive for the sake of pro creation only, seems to
work to further the species.
What an extraordinary statement. What evidence do you have to support
this? Modern societies in which birth control is practiced widely are
in almost every case much more afluenent than those which don't.
But it's the supernatural source which
teaches and reminds of this, not nature.
An assertion which fails as every argument you have produced is based
on false assertions derived from your ignorance.
Peace
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 01:45:32 AM |
|
|
Gerard wrote:
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species. Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
Isn't it funny that a very large proportion of the human race managed
to learn this without the help of Christianity?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:42:31 PM |
|
|
On 2/11/06 1:26 AM, in article
1139639215.399890.322160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Gerard"
<markgerardcat@aol.com> wrote:
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species. Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
Why is it that the central teachings which better serve human
civilizations' productivity come from religion and not nature?
Examples:
1. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to steal.
Wouldn't honesty and sharing be from nature, benefiting the good of the
species?
Actually, laws about honesty and sharing are from an antiquity far preceding
the Catholic church -- or even the law of Moses!
Learn your history.
2. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to commit adultery. Which would cause
infidelity, enrage spouses, disrupt society, hurt the productivity or
advancement of the species.
The church is also not the origin of such laws. The Code of Hammurabi dealt
with this and the punishment for it.
Apparantly, acts of adultery are not natural to the human race, since
there appears to be a personality or ego or even, soul, which depends
on a solid emotional unity of a man and women.
Oh, it is natural enough. Promiscuity is natural to the Creation (if you had
not noticed!). God may have made them male and female (well, with some
exceptions), but he didn't make any of his creatures "marry" except for
humans.
And as modern society
has shown us, the sexual drive alone, without insight to it's meaning,
leads to the many diseases and abortions today. Nature fails here, if
adhered to.
Even without such sin, God's nature often fails. I have known perfectly
faithful parents whose children were stillborn, born with birth defects, or
who aborted midterm. It was not a result of sin. So if what you refer to is
a result of sin, why would God inflict such suffering on those who are His
own and who are obedient?
Restraining that drive for the sake of pro creation only, seems to
work to further the species. But it's the supernatural source which
teaches and reminds of this, not nature.
Look up dolphins. They have sex for the sake of having sex, not for
procreation only. They are also very intelligent.
Peace
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "nmp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:55:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:42:31 -0500, it was decided that Raymond Griffith
should write:
Look up dolphins. They have sex for the sake of having sex, not for
procreation only.
They are not the only ones too ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
12 Feb 2006 12:52:59 AM |
|
|
And you know the dolphin's intent during sex because....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nmp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 07:55:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:26:55 -0800, it was decided that Gerard should
write:
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species. Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
We need to be taught a lot of things, because we are such a complex
social animal. It takes us at least 18 years to become full members of our
society, that need not depend *too* much on the coaching and help of
others.
Why is it that the central teachings which better serve human
civilizations' productivity come from religion and not nature?
And where do these "central teachings" come from, you gather?
Go observe a band of chimpansees. All the teachings you talk about are
present in them, as well. They passionately like to steal from each other
as well, but the group will surely correct those who do it too much and
never give anything back. When the big dominant chimp has had enough of
your unruly behaviour, jumps in, knocks you on your head and forces you
to return what you stole to your little brother, or to himself, thus
restoring peace and order in the group, that is when you see morals
enforced.
Religion or any other moral framework are a continuation of such politics.
Yahweh tells the people in the Old Testament, on several occasions, to
kill the males of the neighbouring tribes and take their women. This is
unadulterated chimpansee warfare, plain and simple.
Examples:
1. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to steal.
Wouldn't honesty and sharing be from nature, benefiting the good of the
species?
It is and it does.
2. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to commit adultery. Which would cause
infidelity, enrage spouses, disrupt society, hurt the productivity or
advancement of the species.
Apparantly, acts of adultery are not natural to the human race,
Excuse me?
since there appears to be a personality or ego or even, soul, which
depends on a solid emotional unity of a man and women.
That's a part of it, too. But every medal has two sides, remember.
And as modern society has shown us, the sexual drive alone, without
insight to it's meaning, leads to the many diseases and abortions today.
Nature fails here, if adhered to.
Sexual drive alone has made our numbers great even against many natural
odds. The ancestors of modern humans would not have survived the African
savanna if they didn't make lots of babies - of which many or perhaps even
most probably died before reaching adulthood.
Heck, we wouldn't even have survived the plague.
Of course it can be argued that with our current population levels,
unchecked procreation is no longer beneficial to the species. That's
why you say that "nature fails here". That can be true, nobody ever
sais that nature is perfect, did they? Populations grow and prosper, until
there are no more resources for them left.
And that is why it is actually a Good Thing that sexuality can now be
enjoyed, with the aid of contraceptives, without necessarily resulting in
producing more offspring.
After all, the drive to do "it" will not go away any time soon. It won't
because sexuality obviously has many more functions in interhuman
relations than procreation alone.
Restraining that drive for the sake of pro creation only, seems to
work to further the species.
In the circumstances as mentioned above, on the savanna and in the face of
many natural dangers, restraining sexual drive would have only resulted in
the demise of the species.
But it's the supernatural source which teaches and reminds of this, not
nature.
There is no supernatural source that told Homo erectus and earlier
ancestors what to do. They did what came naturally. They probably took
care of each other the best they could, tried keeping the peace within
their groups, fought their little (but probably ugly) wars over whatever
they desired, and procreated. Etcetera. Gradually and slowly, they
became us. That means we aren't really that different. Everything they
were, we still are. Morals and all. We just know and understand more now,
added a layer of sophistication.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:49:47 AM |
|
|
Rubbish.
What is natural to us is to be faithful with our parter; this way we
can raise successfully out kids. I we are unfaithful to our partner,
then in the hard days, the kids may die from starvation. Thus the genes
of the unfaithful are not passed on. Faithfulness in natural and have
develpped over time through evolution.
It is the sexual drive that has caused us to be so successful as we
are. We need absolutely no church sponsored rules on sexuality.
Absolutely not. Those that are promiscoius and take risks, are at a
larger risk of becoming sterile or even die from sexual disease;
therefore nature imposes a natual limit on how promiscoius one should
be in our genes.
Church and major religions weakens our society. As the example from the
Bible belt told us. (by APOCALYPSE)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 01:34:03 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-02-11, Gerard <markgerardcat@aol.com> wrote:
The unique thing about Christian doctrines, as they were meant to be,
is that they teach that denial of certain natural instincts works to
further the human species. Isn't it funny that we, supposedly being
such a successfully evolved species, need to be taught this?
That's hardly a feature which is unique only to Christianity.
In my humble opinion, the most insidious and dangerous idea promoted
by Christianity is that human nature is evil, that we have to work to
combat this inherent sin that is passed from parent to child as a part
of our natural condition.
Why is it that the central teachings which better serve human
civilizations' productivity come from religion and not nature?
Examples:
1. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to steal.
The funny thing is that there are societies where the concept of property
is essentially non-existent, so the crime of theft similarly doesn't
exist. Personal property is simply a concept which never occurred to them.
And of course laws governing property go back at least 1700 years before
Christianity emerges. Ever here of the Code of Hammurabi?
Wouldn't honesty and sharing be from nature, benefiting the good of the
species?
It is.
2. We are told by the church, and governmental laws influenced through
the centuries by Catholicism, not to commit adultery. Which would cause
infidelity, enrage spouses, disrupt society, hurt the productivity or
advancement of the species.
Again, the Code of Hammurabi forbade adultery, with a harsher and
therefore likely more effective punishment.
Apparantly, acts of adultery are not natural to the human race,
One or both partners in half of all marriages will cheat on their spouses
sometime in a marriage. If not "natural", it suggests that adultery is
certainly not uncommon.
since
there appears to be a personality or ego or even, soul, which depends
on a solid emotional unity of a man and women. And as modern society
has shown us, the sexual drive alone, without insight to it's meaning,
leads to the many diseases and abortions today. Nature fails here, if
adhered to.
What piffle. If this were true, we'd expect regions of the U.S. which
were predominantly Christian would have lower abortion rates, lower rates
of venereal disease, lower teen pregnancy. Guess what, just the reverse
happens.
Restraining that drive for the sake of pro creation only, seems to
work to further the species. But it's the supernatural source which
teaches and reminds of this, not nature.
Drivel.
Mark
Peace
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:32:01 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:HSeHf.27143$Jd.3297@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Insecure Christians are fond of claiming that their religion is important
because people would be immoral without it. For example, on a Yahoo
message
board someone wrote the following,
"If we just evolved the idea of morals is flat out stupid - Obviously if I
kill my neighbor and take his job and wife I am doing a better at
providing
for my survival and that is the theory of evolution - this happens all the
time in nature - Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
What fucking world does this idiot live in?
That kind of behavior pretty much guarantees that your life, and everyone
elses, will be nasty, brutish, and short. This is in no one's best interest.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 03:08:26 AM |
|
|
I would say the idiot has no feeling of natural morality; one of the
guys that would be weeded out by evolution.
Q: Now that we have well built welfare systems (at least here in
Europe) that guarantees everyone an income and thus the ability to
multiply, will this welfare system lead to decline in the inherited
morals? What kind of time scale are we talking about?
Q: On timescales when releasing evolutionary pressure. The evolutionary
pressure for dogs to smell well has been removed ever since humans have
"spoon fed" them. Why can dogs still smell so well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nmp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 07:00:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:08:26 -0800, it was decided that qqq123 should
write:
I would say the idiot has no feeling of natural morality; one of the
guys that would be weeded out by evolution.
Q: Now that we have well built welfare systems (at least here in
Europe) that guarantees everyone an income and thus the ability to
multiply, will this welfare system lead to decline in the inherited
morals?
I think a welfare system is the expression of very *highly* developed
morals. In other words, a society that doesn't have it is not as
civilized as one that has. The idea behind it is that people take
care for each other, especially the unfortunate ones. I see
absolutely nothing wrong with that. Of course, the practice is difficult
and sometimes creates it's own problems. But that says nothing about the
desirability of such a system per se.
What kind of time scale are we talking about?
For evolution in humans to make a noticable difference? Don't know.
Probably many thousands of years.
Q: On timescales when releasing evolutionary pressure. The evolutionary
pressure for dogs to smell well has been removed ever since humans have
"spoon fed" them. Why can dogs still smell so well?
They have not been with humans for long enough already. Think many
thousands of years again. Also, they were not always "spoonfed" from cans
like you can buy at supermarkets. They almost always had to work for
their living with humans. And of course, it is precisely their noses that
were most useful to us when hunting and tracking. Early humans must have
recognized this and other qualities of dogs extremely well - and perhaps
they thought that puppies were cute, too.
Of all the animals, dogs are Man's Best Friend, aren't they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 07:20:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:00:15 +0100, nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:08:26 -0800, it was decided that qqq123 should
write:
I would say the idiot has no feeling of natural morality; one of the
guys that would be weeded out by evolution.
Q: Now that we have well built welfare systems (at least here in
Europe) that guarantees everyone an income and thus the ability to
multiply, will this welfare system lead to decline in the inherited
morals?
I think a welfare system is the expression of very *highly* developed
morals. In other words, a society that doesn't have it is not as
civilized as one that has. The idea behind it is that people take
care for each other, especially the unfortunate ones. I see
absolutely nothing wrong with that. Of course, the practice is difficult
and sometimes creates it's own problems. But that says nothing about the
desirability of such a system per se.
there's more to it than that. social welfare structures recognize the
inherent riskiness of business, and spread the risk. here in the
states 30,000 ford employees are losing their jobs over the next few
years. it's ridiculous to pretend that that 'market' is so efficient
that no costs will accrue to these displaced workers.
conservatives portray themselves as 'pro family'...except that this
generally means families bear the entire burdens of society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 03:50:28 AM |
|
|
qqq123 wrote:
Q: Now that we have well built welfare systems (at least here in
Europe) that guarantees everyone an income and thus the ability to
multiply, will this welfare system lead to decline in the inherited
morals? What kind of time scale are we talking about?
Morals do not automatically spring into existence in an individual
human; they are not "inherited" in that sense. Morality must be taught
to young children, primarily by example by moral adults. Good luck
with your welfare system. The work ethic seems to be rather important
in the scheme of things.
Q: On timescales when releasing evolutionary pressure. The evolutionary
pressure for dogs to smell well has been removed ever since humans have
"spoon fed" them. Why can dogs still smell so well?
A trait will disappear from the species when it becomes a liability; it
does not fade away with disuse. Lap dogs still get along nicely with
their sense of smell. Then there are some bloodhounds and police dogs,
bomb sniffers, etc. that are selected (by humans) for superior
performance in that trait.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 10:46:50 AM |
|
|
In message <1139651428.491113.302390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"DougC" <prigator@aol.com> wrote:
qqq123 wrote:
Q: On timescales when releasing evolutionary pressure. The
evolutionary pressure for dogs to smell well has been removed ever
since humans have "spoon fed" them. Why can dogs still smell so
well?
A trait will disappear from the species when it becomes a liability;
it does not fade away with disuse. Lap dogs still get along nicely
with their sense of smell.
But the dog's highly sophisticated smelling apparatus come with an
economic cost, so simply by being there it is a liability.
Presumably a dog or ***** with a somewhat reduced sense of smell would
be able to devote more energy to raising offspring, as there is no
longer such a pressing need to use the sense of smell. Of course, dog
breeding is so heavily influenced by mankind that any such benefit is
swamped by other factors.
Then there are some bloodhounds and police dogs,
bomb sniffers, etc. that are selected (by humans) for superior
performance in that trait.
Is there any evidence one way or another for whether any particular
breed of modern dog has a better or worse (as in "more sensitive"
and/or "more disciminating") sense of smell than wolves?
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 11:46:35 PM |
|
|
Nick Roberts wrote:
A trait will disappear from the species when it becomes a liability;
it does not fade away with disuse. Lap dogs still get along nicely
with their sense of smell.
But the dog's highly sophisticated smelling apparatus come with an
economic cost, so simply by being there it is a liability.
What economic cost?
Presumably a dog or ***** with a somewhat reduced sense of smell would
be able to devote more energy to raising offspring, as there is no
longer such a pressing need to use the sense of smell.
That needs explaining. Is that your "economic cost" that diverts
energy? You have completely lost me there. Please be specific.
Is there any evidence one way or another for whether any particular
breed of modern dog has a better or worse (as in "more sensitive"
and/or "more disciminating") sense of smell than wolves?
Wolves are not as cooperative in the testing procedure. Is this
relevant to your point about economic cost?
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
13 Feb 2006 01:34:41 PM |
|
|
In message <1139723195.022499.27760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"DougC" <prigator@aol.com> wrote:
Nick Roberts wrote:
A trait will disappear from the species when it becomes a
liability; it does not fade away with disuse. Lap dogs still get
along nicely with their sense of smell.
But the dog's highly sophisticated smelling apparatus come with an
economic cost, so simply by being there it is a liability.
What economic cost?
The economic cost associated with the growth and maintenance of a
nerve-intensive organ - i.e. the expenditure of energy.
Think of the dog's sense of smell as equivalent to a cave fishes eyes -
many cave fishes lose functioning eyes simply because they serve no
purpose, so rather than expend energy on maintaining an organ that
confers no benefit, they lose it (very sloppily put and goal-oriented,
but I hope you can see what I mean).
Presumably a dog or ***** with a somewhat reduced sense of smell
would be able to devote more energy to raising offspring, as there
is no longer such a pressing need to use the sense of smell.
That needs explaining. Is that your "economic cost" that diverts
energy? You have completely lost me there. Please be specific.
See my example of blind cave fishes above.
Is there any evidence one way or another for whether any particular
breed of modern dog has a better or worse (as in "more sensitive"
and/or "more disciminating") sense of smell than wolves?
Wolves are not as cooperative in the testing procedure. Is this
relevant to your point about economic cost?
Do you mean is "wolves are non-cooperative" relevant to economic cost?
If this is what you mean, then no. The economic cost is there whether
it is measured or not. I was just wondering off-the-cuff, as it were,
if there was any evidence one way or another about sensitivity of dogs
cf wolves.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that any potential benefit that could
accrue to dogs by a reduction in sensitivity is more than outweighed by
the highly artificial nature of dog breeding, but I'm curious to know
whether there is any evidence one way or the other.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
14 Feb 2006 03:12:58 PM |
|
|
Nick Roberts wrote:
Think of the dog's sense of smell as equivalent to a cave fishes eyes -
many cave fishes lose functioning eyes simply because they serve no
purpose, so rather than expend energy on maintaining an organ that
confers no benefit, they lose it (very sloppily put and goal-oriented,
but I hope you can see what I mean).
That is assuming that a species of fish with eyes blundered into a
lightless cave and then shed the eyes over time.
Consider the proposition that the fish evolved in the cave where eyes
were never an advantage in finding food or escaping predators. Eyes
would never evolve in those conditions. Cave fish are not just common
perch minus eyes.
The amount of energy necessary to maintain an existing organ is
negligible, not enough to threaten survival.
Observe the probiscus monkey, with a superfluous appendage that cannot
serve any function, much less contribute to survival, yet it is solidly
in the genes in the wild. Other monkeys in the same enviornment do well
without it. "Why" is the subject for another thread.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
15 Feb 2006 02:55:20 PM |
|
|
In message <1139951578.647211.199170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"DougC" <prigator@aol.com> wrote:
Nick Roberts wrote:
Think of the dog's sense of smell as equivalent to a cave fishes
eyes - many cave fishes lose functioning eyes simply because they
serve no purpose, so rather than expend energy on maintaining an
organ that confers no benefit, they lose it (very sloppily put and
goal-oriented, but I hope you can see what I mean).
That is assuming that a species of fish with eyes blundered into a
lightless cave and then shed the eyes over time.
Consider the proposition that the fish evolved in the cave where eyes
were never an advantage in finding food or escaping predators. Eyes
would never evolve in those conditions. Cave fish are not just
common perch minus eyes.
They are, however, frequently close relatives to species that have
perfectly functional eyes. And many (most?) cave fishes have structures
that are recognisably the remnants of eyes.
The amount of energy necessary to maintain an existing organ is
negligible, not enough to threaten survival.
I didn't say that it thretened survival, but that it came with an
economic cost. Surely natural selection is all about such very small
edges of one allele over another, rather than anything major?
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 05:03:45 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
"Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
Isn't this a true statement?
Of couse moral ideas with an unproven God are also just opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
12 Feb 2006 12:19:23 AM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139655825.859624.65110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dale wrote:
"Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
I did not write that. You've attributed someone else's words to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
12 Feb 2006 06:45:43 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139655825.859624.65110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dale wrote:
"Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
I did not write that. You've attributed someone else's words to me.
*sigh* You're the second person to "discover" that. The other person
was able to find that out because YOUR ORIGINAL POST HASN'T GONE AWAY.
This is why it's okay to snip. And brevity rules.
You were arguing against the person who said that. I was trying to
argue with you that maybe some of what that person said was true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
12 Feb 2006 03:12:58 PM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139748343.387190.188010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dale wrote:
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139655825.859624.65110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dale wrote:
"Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
I did not write that. You've attributed someone else's words to me.
*sigh* You're the second person to "discover" that. The other person
was able to find that out because YOUR ORIGINAL POST HASN'T GONE AWAY.
This is why it's okay to snip. And brevity rules.
Clarity trumps brevity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
13 Feb 2006 01:36:32 PM |
|
|
In message <1139748343.387190.188010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dale wrote:
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139655825.859624.65110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dale wrote:
"Moral ideas without God is just an opinion nothing more."
I did not write that. You've attributed someone else's words to me.
*sigh* You're the second person to "discover" that. The other person
was able to find that out because YOUR ORIGINAL POST HASN'T GONE
AWAY. This is why it's okay to snip. And brevity rules.
Yes, it's OK to snip. But mis-attribution is still a sin. Even if only
a venial one.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 05:20:01 AM |
|
|
Of course, Dale did not write that - he quoted another person.
The statement is not true.
We can say with a certain degree of certainty that no God exist or if
there is a God, God does not interfere with our affairs; humans are at
guilt for all evil, for good or bad.
Therefore, since there has been no divine interference, morals
developed independently, thus.
Thus "moral ideas without God" is more than an opinion, it is a deduced
fact with certain certitude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 06:57:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Of course, Dale did not write that - he quoted another person.
Hence the quotation marks.
We can say with a certain degree of certainty...
Is this "degree" 80% of absolutely true? 60% of absolutely true?
Thus "moral ideas without God" is more than an opinion, it is a deduced
fact with certain certitude.
I'll go along with this for the existence of the concept of morality at
all, but isn't any one person's code just opinion? If I say that
polygamy is good, who are you to tell me different?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 08:25:25 AM |
|
|
If no god exists, why do you continue to perpetuate religious notions
of good and evil.
Humans are responsible for their individauls actions -- that is to say
that humans are in control of their own actions. Judgments as to the
morality of those actions are a purely human invention. Why do you need
to judge my actions or anyone elses?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 09:37:55 AM |
|
|
Judgment of others is good. It is what have made man so successful
through evolution in weeding out the bad seeds over time.
If you hurt me, I hurt you OR my friends hurt you OR my society
responds (judicial system and police). First of course, I, my friends,
or police and judical system have to make a judgement as if you have
hurt me in the first place. Without judgement there is no justice.
Without justice all ultimately suffer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:36:52 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
Imagine two communities, one where people are immoral, killing their
neighbors and taking their wives, and another where people are moral,
refraining from murder and promiscuity.
It's pretty clear that after only a few generations, the moral community
will be much larger than the immoral one. It doesn't matter that immorality
can often benefit a person at the expense of others. What matters is which
population grows the fastest.
You are on the right track. The code of ethics in human communities
has always been very much the same, from primitive tribes to populous
nations. There are basic prohibitions against murder, adultry, theft,
etc. which have the effect of holding the community together. There is
a concept of honor distinguishing the "refined" from the "crass" and
putting value on honesty. These concepts always evolved in every
community that survived for long, independant of prevailing religions
at various times and places.
When a religion comes along, the priest (shaman/lama/prophet) always
claims that these same ethics are the inventions and commandments of
the deity. This is the old trick of watching the crowd to see which
way it is going and then getting in front of it to feign leadership.
There are millions of agnostics and atheists who are proud of a
reputation for honesty and plain dealing.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 12:36:21 AM |
|
|
EXCELENT POST!
The morals are in the genes, in other words. Those competing small
communities with good moral genes could cooperate much bettter. And
cooperation is one of the most (if not the most) successful and
powerful trait a human community can have. After all is is because of
cooperation that we have such living standards as we have today.
Those with bad morals were weeded out.
I would like say also this.
Revenge is a feeling. When someone does something imoral to somone in a
community, the community revenges after talking to each other onto that
individual; who gets lowered status or rejected from the community.
This reduces the chance of this individual to find the successfull
woman of his dreams; he does not have the status enough or is rejected.
Note I do not believe that bad seeds were killed off, maybe
occationally, but not on a big level. Like you do in some states in the
US.
HENCE, THE CONCEPT OF STATUS AND REVENGE (COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL)
MADE MORALS IN OUR GENES.
Thank nature for that!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "APOCALYPSE" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
10 Feb 2006 11:57:06 PM |
|
|
My post, where I said "world" I meant to say "USA" not to apply to the
whole world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Of Morality |
11 Feb 2006 07:31:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:46:15 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
Imagine two communities, one where people are immoral, killing their
neighbors and taking their wives, and another where people are moral,
refraining from murder and promiscuity. The immoral community will spend a
lot of energy on internal turmoil, they will lose productivity as people are
murdered, the males will be less interested in taking care of children not
their own.
Meanwhile in the moral community people are happy and productive. People can
generally rely on individuals to stick around and not be murdered, so they
can plan for future growth of their community. The males know which children
are theirs, and so have a large stake in their care.
It's pretty clear that after only a few generations, the moral community
will be much larger than the immoral one. It doesn't matter that immorality
can often benefit a person at the expense of others. What matters is which
population grows the fastest.
There's more to it than that, though. Evolution will still favor the
individual who has the most offspring, which means it will favor the
person who murders the neighbor and steals the neighbor's wife, *but
only if he can get away with it*. In other words, even in a community
of moral people, evolution still favors successful cheaters. But
then, the cheaters succeed at the cost of everyone else, so evolution
also favors ways to deal with cheaters. One of those ways is morals.
Proscriptions against adultery are an evolutionary advantage to the
majority within a community. Note that in a community where everybody
is good, the whole concept of morals would be unnecessary.
This subject has received a lot of study recently in the form of
people cooperating and/or competing with one another in experimentally
controlled games. My reading in this area is rudimentary, but
everything I have seen shows that people's behavior is consistent with
evolution. One of the recent findings was that most people are
willing to sacrifice of themselves in order to punish a cheater. (In
the game, as I recall, they spent some of their "money" to cause
another to lose an equal amount.) At first glance, that does not seem
rational; the person who pays for another to suffer is not himself
benefitting. But it turns out that such behavior prevents cheating
from becoming widespread in communities where everybody does not know
everybody else.
Note also that cheating is not always as simple as stealing or
adjultery. One common form of cheating is lying to improve your
reputation, for example claiming to be moral when you are not.
Another form is to set oneself as arbiter of moral laws and then
adjust them to your advantage. It is no wonder that politics and
formal religions attract a disproportionate number of cheaters.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
