Only 40% of Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution [Archive]

Goofball

08-11-2006, 23:24

and another 39% call it "absolutely false."

Yikes...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060811.wevolution0811/BNStory/Science/home

In evolution, Americans are big non-believers

SCOTT ROBERTS
Globe and Mail Update

It's a statistic that would have Charles Darwin turning in his grave - more than one third of Americans don't believe in evolution, according to a new study.
After tabulating surveys that covered 34 countries, researchers at the University of Michigan have found that U.S. citizens are much less likely to accept Darwinism than Europeans and the Japanese.
The study, published in Friday's issue of the journal Science, found that in countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and France, at least 80 per cent of adult believe that humans evolved from other species. In Japan, 78 per cent of adults believe in evolution.
But in the U.S. only 40 per cent of adults believe whole-heartedly in evolution, while 39 per cent called it “absolutely false” in the 2005 survey, which questioned 1,484 Americans and more than 33,000 people worldwide.
Related to this article

Latest Comments http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/icon/icon-comment.gif

While raised Catholic, I am not religious in anyway. I believe... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060811.wevolution0811/CommentStory/Science/home#comment333455)
Sorry Ewan but your statement, "No one has ever observed evolution... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060811.wevolution0811/CommentStory/Science/home#comment333452)
#18 You are full of yourself and display a shocking level of... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060811.wevolution0811/CommentStory/Science/home#comment333448)
29 reader comments (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060811.wevolution0811/CommentStory/Science/home#comments) | Join the conversation (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060811.wevolution0811/CommentStory/Science/home#comment)http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/icon/icon-digital-leaf-small-red.png
The study's authors say that after decades of debate it seems the American public is more confused than ever on the issue of evolution. Over the past 20 years, the number of Americans unsure about their stand on evolution has tripled from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent in 2005.
Jon Miller, the professor who authored the study, said religious fundamentalism in the United States has fuelled skepticism in evolution.
“When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it's clear we're way out in right field by ourselves,” said Mr. Miller. “There is a different protestant movement in this country, one that often rejects science. It's different than that of Europe and certainly of Canada.”
Although Canada wasn't surveyed in the study, Mr. Miller speculated that support for evolution would be much stronger here than in the United States and would likely align with countries like Britain and France.
Mr. Miller said a major shift in the American political spectrum is another reason for the figures.
“The Republicans have been taken over by religious conservatives,” he said. “Partly because of the fundamentalism, we have a more ideological politics than ever before. Now more than ever we're seeing the politicization of this issue and others like stem cells, the morning after pill and global warming. Republicans do it because it works.”
Mr. Miller said the results of the study are concerning and paint a grim portrait of American science education.
“It doesn't say anything very good about education here,” he said. “The findings should be of substantial concern to science educators in the United States because we've spent billions of dollars, we have a high percentage of young people going to college and taking science courses and yet we have a very ambivalent attitude on a subject that's a closed book almost everywhere in the world.”

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-11-2006, 23:42

This is news?

I'm sorry but we in Blighty have long despaired of our relatives over the pond.

scotchedpommes

08-12-2006, 00:08

Well, let us all hold our heads in disbelief some more. ~;)

[Or rather, knowing disgust, I should have said.]

Ice

08-12-2006, 00:09

I could have guessed this.

Kommodus

08-12-2006, 00:46

I agree that the US is lagging behind in science education, but why the focus on evolution? When people bemoan the poor quality of scientific education here, it's usually because they're concerned about us losing our technological edge in the world. Well then, why not shine the spotlight on fields that are more relevant to human progress - physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology? (Yes, I know evolution is a major part of biology; hang on and let me explain myself.)

Evolution is a broad term for a huge collection of theories spanning genetics, ecology, origins, etc. That vast majority of these theories - such as natural selection and genetic principles - are ideas that even the oft-maligned creationists have no problem with. These theories are well-evidenced, clearly understood, relevant to the present, and vital for progress in certain fields. But it seems as though some are only concerned with cramming the slightly shakier and oft-changing theories about the distant past, such as how birds evolved from reptiles and humans evolved from pre-human primates, down our collective throats.

This is what I don't understand - why the least relevant stuff gets the greatest coverage. Why not talk about how poorly we are doing in physics, mathematics, and biology (including all the important parts of evolution)? And if we're concerned about science education, why not focus on teaching those? Knowing how fish grew legs and climbed up on land won't help you build a better computer. It won't help you improve spaceflight, or grow better vegetables, or cure any disease - all it will do is give you some extra trivia knowledge you can lord over your more ignorant peers.

Yes, our education system is failing, but this isn't the litmus test for that.

scooter_the_shooter

08-12-2006, 00:53

I don't think evolution is real either....you expect me to believe I'm monkey....I got news for ya' I'm not:2thumbsup:

Strike For The South

08-12-2006, 02:18

I also fear for an America which loses its moral compas. There needs to be a balance like a seperation of church and state that may work.

Ice

08-12-2006, 02:29

I also fear for an America which loses its moral compas. There needs to be a balance like a seperation of church and state that may work.

What moral compas?

Ice

08-12-2006, 02:30

I don't think evolution is real either....you expect me to believe I'm monkey....I got news for ya' I'm not:2thumbsup:

Damn, you sure debunked evolution. If you are really up for a challenge, meet me in the chat tonight.

Lemur

08-12-2006, 02:44

I think we all need to have a good listen to The Monkey Song (http://www.daveamason.com/april/mp3/CrystalBernard%2Emp3) ...

Strike For The South

08-12-2006, 03:09

What moral compas? the one that helps us make moral decisons.

Ice

08-12-2006, 03:38

the one that helps us make moral decisons.

That never existed.

Don Corleone

08-12-2006, 03:41

Strike For The South

08-12-2006, 03:54

oh it matters. There are plenty of resonable and unreasonable people on both sides of the spectrum. This really dosnet prove or disprove anything Its justaurvey. 1000 out of the 300,000,000 in the USA

Xiahou

08-12-2006, 04:53

Well, I call shenanigans on the author of this study. Clearly the guy is pushing an agenda and is nothing close to an unbiased researcher. Look at these gems:

“When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it's clear we're way out in right field by ourselves,”
“The Republicans have been taken over by religious conservatives,” he said. “Partly because of the fundamentalism, we have a more ideological politics than ever before. Now more than ever we're seeing the politicization of this issue and others like stem cells, the morning after pill and global warming. Republicans do it because it works.”What a clown... US opinions on evolution have remained remarkably stable (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) over the years and Bush has little to do with it.

Joeokar

08-12-2006, 04:56

Well, I call shenanigans on the author of this study. Clearly the guy is pushing an agenda and is nothing close to an unbiased researcher. Look at these gems:
What a clown... US opinions on evolution have remained remarkably stable (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) over the years and Bush has little to do with it.
:2thumbsup: Theistic evolution here

Alexander the Pretty Good

08-12-2006, 05:35

Apathetic here! :2thumbsup:

Science is about microchips, genetics, ballistics, and nuclear fusion. We don't need no stinkin' evolution. ~;p

InsaneApache

08-12-2006, 06:25

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

“When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it's clear we're way out in right field by ourselves,”

Seems he was right though.

Navaros

08-12-2006, 08:21

Navaros

08-12-2006, 08:26

While we're debunking science with mere sarcastic remarks, I'd like to take this opportunity to lambast gravity: You suck, Gravity.

Evolution is far more "speculation, propaganda, and fundamental zealousness dedicated to sticking to a pre-conceived idea no matter what, even if evidence and conclusions must be fabricated to do so" rather than "science."

Just look the fundamental zealous tone throughout the article in the original post. In no way is that a balanced article that takes a neutral stance (as reporters are ethically obligated to do). Rather, it tries to push the writer's fundamental pro-evolution zeal down the readers' throats by implying that evolution is correct and something is "wrong" with people who don't believe in that crap.

InsaneApache

08-12-2006, 08:34

:wall: <<<<<< not again. :no: :sweatdrop:

Rodion Romanovich

08-12-2006, 08:44

Evolution is far more "speculation, propaganda, and fundamental zealousness dedicated to sticking to a pre-conceived idea no matter what, even if evidence and conclusions must be fabricated to do so" rather than "science."

Just look the fundamental zealous tone throughout the article in the original post. In no way is that a balanced article that takes a neutral stance (as reporters are ethically obligated to do). Rather, it tries to push the writer's fundamental pro-evolution zeal down the readers' throats by implying that evolution is correct and something is "wrong" with people who don't believe in that crap.

Please prove that Adam and Eve existed. Also explain how, if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, their children could take themselves wives from "somewhere else" when there were no other persons because all were supposedly stemming from Adam and Eve.

I wouldn't be nearly as amazed if the religious people would interpret Adam and Eve as not the first humans, but as the first humans who tasted the forbidden fruit (as the bible says - the bible never mentions them as the first humans but only as the first who sinned). But the fact that people believe in an illogical misinterpretation of the bible that suggests the human species was created by a massive incest program between someone called Adam and another called Eve, and their children, is just shocking.

You may also want to explain the existence of your caudal vertebra, and why whales have hands, among other things.

Also about the fruit flies - scientists have been able to alter the populations of fruit flies so that they change properties in many ways, according to which fruit flies reproduce and which aren't. That's a pretty good proof of evolution. Another good proof of evolution and genetics is how most children look so much like their parents. Try to explain all those things with creationism.

You might as well prod someone off a high rock and see him fall down to earth and die, and say "gravity doesn't exist".

Xiahou

08-12-2006, 08:52

40% are silly enough to believe in the nonsense theory of evolution - that's shocking. :skull:

At least 60% are smart enough to know better, so there is some hope left for the intelligence of mankind. ~:thumb:
Well, I think we know what collumn he's under.... :wink:

For myself, put me down under theistic evolution. :book:

Divinus Arma

08-12-2006, 09:08

Navaros

08-12-2006, 09:24

Evolution is a collection of theories, facts, and ongoing studies. It is subject to scientific method, peer review, and hundreds of years of a fundamental search for truth that has been a hallmark of the modern age.

Scientific method is not and cannot be applied to evolution because it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. Ie: not testable, not repeatable, not observable etc. etc.

Those "peer reviews" you speak of don't mean much since all those peers are stuck in their fundamentalist zealot mindset. This is why the history of the theory of evolution is filled with many tangible examples of outright hoaxes and fraud committed by scientists themselves, and which were gleefully accepted by those "peer review" you mention.

x-dANGEr

08-12-2006, 10:44

Evolution = Nonsense.

doc_bean

08-12-2006, 10:50

In a country where you can take out 'rapture insurance', this doesn't really surprise me. Although the results are possibly skewed in they only asked people in a certain region (say, the Bible Belt).

Rodion Romanovich

08-12-2006, 11:19

Theistic evolution 100%. Even the bible supports this: If man and woman were butt naked in the jungle and didn't know right from wrong, what the heck would they be? Animals.

As for the apple, who knows what real event actually occured. But something did occur, perhaps over time, which transformed us from "auto-pilot" to free-choice modern man with the ability to self-actualize. Theistic evolution would explain that it was God's intent to allow us this opportunity.

I believe the "apple" was God's intent to bring us to fullment as humanity. We should celebrate that day rather than curse it as "original sin". Original sin is nothing more than an instrument of control created by ancient religious establishment. It is impossible to do evil (disobediance to the Lord) when one has no awareness of the difference between evil and good. Animals cannot do evil.

1. animals certainly do have morals, just like humans, the only difference is that they can't talk about morals and that their morals differ from ours, often on a per-species basis, but sometimes even on per-population basis. Usually herd animals are more "good" according to human values than lonely-living animals, with more signs of altruism. But it's probably because we're herd animals that we consider herd animals to be more "good", because their morals resemble our own.

2. no animal, not even humans, has free will if the world is deterministic. Many experiments imply that the world indeed is deterministic, and even if the world is non-deterministic, any random system can mathematically show characteristics of determinism, which means free will can be considered non-existing no matter what. The only transformation mankind has gone through is, when our reasoning thinking abilities grew, we questioned the natural instinctive moral values, resulting in an immorality called civilization, which has repeatedly led to counter-reactions, where the bad things of civilization has been utilized for good ends, especially when the questioning of the natural instinctive moral values has led to understanding of why they exist - enlightenment, and a motivation for why they should be followed even from a totally egoistic point of view, because high morality, acceptance and peace is benefitial.

3. the historical advent corresponding to "original sin" is not at all something to celebrate, but something to be horribly sad about. However, the gradual development where we've started to reach enlightening and thereby counter the problems caused by the original sin, the questioning of morality instincts, is something that should be celebrated. That has once again brought us up to the same level as other animals.

4. Awareness is a necessity before an act can be punished by law, but awareness is not a necessity before an act can be called evil, it's whether it hurts someone or not that matters. That's why widespread enlightenment through science and education is the path of good that God wants us to follow, because only by making people reach full insight of the consequences of their actions, will they lose both excuses and desires to do evil. "The truth shall set you free", as the bible says.

Husar

08-12-2006, 11:45

Hey, I want to throw this in:
http://www.tenthdimension.com.nyud.net:8080/flash2.php
Klick the rotating numbers to the right...:2thumbsup:

Moros

08-12-2006, 11:46

Scientific method is not and cannot be applied to evolution because it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. Ie: not testable, not repeatable, not observable etc. etc.

Those "peer reviews" you speak of don't mean much since all those peers are stuck in their fundamentalist zealot mindset. This is why the history of the theory of evolution is filled with many tangible examples of outright hoaxes and fraud committed by scientists themselves, and which were gleefully accepted by those "peer review" you mention.
Have you read:

Also about the fruit flies - scientists have been able to alter the populations of fruit flies so that they change properties in many ways, according to which fruit flies reproduce and which aren't. That's a pretty good proof of evolution. Another good proof of evolution and genetics is how most children look so much like their parents. Try to explain all those things with creationism.

This might also be an intresting article for those that haven't read it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html

So it is observable not only by modern signs of evolution but also with the use of fossils. Not repeatable? Wth? what part of the theory don't you understand? not testable? yes it is ook at what Legio posted. So there goes your argument.
And here comes mine. Scientific Method.

Banquo's Ghost

08-12-2006, 12:20

This might also be an intresting article for those that haven't read it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html

Fundamentalist lies. After all, unless the finch actually changed into a pink elephant before my eyes and started reading from the Book of Armaments thus demonstrating the roots of gun culture, it is only micro-evolution. Which the Almighty designed to cover exactly this kind of deliberate brain-washing of the young and bewildered.

Hah. Evolution=pwned. :tongue:

:elephant:

Moros

08-12-2006, 12:32

I guess you were kidding. Tough you post doesn't really add much to the discussion, your signature adds so much more.

Banquo's Ghost

08-12-2006, 12:40

I guess you were kidding. Tough you post doesn't really add much to the discussion, your signature adds so much more.

Yes, Gert, I was kidding. I imagine my position on evolution is pretty well known by the Backroom by now, to the extent Navaros has done me the honour of mimicking my signature.

I have got a little bored, so I thought I would present the standard arguments of Nav and his band of creationist brothers.

:bow:

Ser Clegane

08-12-2006, 12:55

*contemplates posting the mandatory "Chick Tracts"* :thinking:

Don Corleone

08-12-2006, 13:03

Edit: We Mercans sho is dumb, ain't we? Good thing I got my sis, also wife, also aunt (get a lot of use out of her) to sort it all out for me.

Don Corleone

08-12-2006, 13:35

Edit: Forget it, I forgot where I was and who I was dealing with.

Moros

08-12-2006, 13:44

huh?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-12-2006, 21:03

1. animals certainly do have morals, just like humans, the only difference is that they can't talk about morals and that their morals differ from ours, often on a per-species basis, but sometimes even on per-population basis. Usually herd animals are more "good" according to human values than lonely-living animals, with more signs of altruism. But it's probably because we're herd animals that we consider herd animals to be more "good", because their morals resemble our own.

2. no animal, not even humans, has free will if the world is deterministic. Many experiments imply that the world indeed is deterministic, and even if the world is non-deterministic, any random system can mathematically show characteristics of determinism, which means free will can be considered non-existing no matter what. The only transformation mankind has gone through is, when our reasoning thinking abilities grew, we questioned the natural instinctive moral values, resulting in an immorality called civilization, which has repeatedly led to counter-reactions, where the bad things of civilization has been utilized for good ends, especially when the questioning of the natural instinctive moral values has led to understanding of why they exist - enlightenment, and a motivation for why they should be followed even from a totally egoistic point of view, because high morality, acceptance and peace is benefitial.

3. the historical advent corresponding to "original sin" is not at all something to celebrate, but something to be horribly sad about. However, the gradual development where we've started to reach enlightening and thereby counter the problems caused by the original sin, the questioning of morality instincts, is something that should be celebrated. That has once again brought us up to the same level as other animals.

4. Awareness is a necessity before an act can be punished by law, but awareness is not a necessity before an act can be called evil, it's whether it hurts someone or not that matters. That's why widespread enlightenment through science and education is the path of good that God wants us to follow, because only by making people reach full insight of the consequences of their actions, will they lose both excuses and desires to do evil. "The truth shall set you free", as the bible says.

Uh huh?

1. I have seen no proof that animals actually have morals and make moral judgements. In any case morals in human society have been shown to be environment orientated and not inherent. Nor are we herd animals, we are pack hunters. In order for animals to develope morals they would require the reasoning ability to make complex abstract value judgements. What they have is species serving instinct. The fact that many of man's morals are counter-productive from a survival point of view is evidence they are more than instinct.

2. If the world is derterministic and we all all on rails then how did we ever progress? Or are you going fo the higher being?

3. Our society is more corrupt, repressed and miserable than it has ever been, when we fight and kill to take what we want we are in our we are in our natural state. We have now moved so far beyond our natural state that we sacrifice our own well-being and that of our species for an everchanging set of values, "morals."

4. Good and evil are value judgements, if something is unable to make these judgements it is neither good nor evil. The river that floods my town is not evil, it is merely a force of nature, as is an animal. Man is one of the few species that demonstates these value judgements and therefore one of the few that can be called good or evil.

As regards evolution, the simple facts of pre-history demonstrate that it operates, look at the dinasaurs, look at the developement of Wales and Dolphins. Look at man. If God had created everything why leave the dinosaurs and the prototype men lying around, he said "it is" so he can just as easily say "it isn't" and there wouldn't be anything left for us to find.

Shaun

08-13-2006, 02:48

Evolution = Nonsense.

No, its quite the opposite actually. Creationism = nonsense. Evolution makes a hell of a lot more sense than creationism too, its far more logical.
Take for example that human DNA can be traced right back to primates, and the fact that evolution is far more accepted amongst the scientific community.
Oh wait, such things like this are far too important to be left to the scientists! After all, a glorously false 2000 year old book is far more important with regards to science and logic!

Big_John

08-13-2006, 03:05

1. I have seen no proof that animals actually have morals and make moral judgements. In any case morals in human society have been shown to be environment orientated and not inherent. Nor are we herd animals, we are pack hunters. In order for animals to develope morals they would require the reasoning ability to make complex abstract value judgements. What they have is species serving instinct. The fact that many of man's morals are counter-productive from a survival point of view is evidence they are more than instinct.which of humanity's morals are "counter-productive" to survival?

2. If the world is derterministic and we all all on rails then how did we ever progress? Or are you going fo the higher being?why shouldn't any observed "progress" simply be the consequnce of the deterministic physical rules?

3. Our society is more corrupt, repressed and miserable than it has ever been, when we fight and kill to take what we want we are in our we are in our natural state. We have now moved so far beyond our natural state that we sacrifice our own well-being and that of our species for an everchanging set of values, "morals."how did you determine this? (how do you measure the corruption of society?)

4. Good and evil are value judgements, if something is unable to make these judgements it is neither good nor evil. The river that floods my town is not evil, it is merely a force of nature, as is an animal. Man is one of the few species that demonstates these value judgements and therefore one of the few that can be called good or evil.it is possible that human "morality" is simply a refined type of instinctual behavior, and not tremendously different than the social rules used by sheep, wolves, bees, etc. is it clear that human awareness has enabled humanity to mitigate, for itself, the influence of "animal" instinct in any significant way? (this is related to my first question in this post)

Moros

08-13-2006, 12:03

which of humanity's morals are "counter-productive" to survival?

Saving children before grown ups. No toher animal does that except the ants. But that is because those worker ants can't reproduce.

Fragony

08-13-2006, 12:14

Shaun

08-13-2006, 12:58

Moros

08-13-2006, 13:17

Has to be some force behind evolution, what are the chances that a species developes in a certain way? There are so many specialised creatures, like a lobster that actually shoots his prey with a click of it's claws (awesome isn't it), how could that just happen? A lobster doesn't say to his kids 'now listen carefully, this is important'. Does such a skill become automatically programmed in the genes the minute mr Lobster aquires this technique, passing it on to all his baby lobsters? And why do pigs still taste so good?
random mutations, when they have advantages, they might get sucessfull and will create a new species. to put it verry simple.

Why? Because evolution happens when things needed to be changed, and these changes happen over a very long time. Just because it sounds bizarre, dosent make evolution false, or in no way proves creationism true.
not always that slow, read the article I posted. Only 30 years or so.

If everything that was bizarre would indeed be false then there wouldn't be much left of physics, biology, chemistry,... But also Christianity (and most other faiths).

Rodion Romanovich

08-13-2006, 13:20

Uh huh?

1. I have seen no proof that animals actually have morals and make moral judgements. In any case morals in human society have been shown to be environment orientated and not inherent. Nor are we herd animals, we are pack hunters. In order for animals to develope morals they would require the reasoning ability to make complex abstract value judgements. What they have is species serving instinct. The fact that many of man's morals are counter-productive from a survival point of view is evidence they are more than instinct.

Morals in order to be fair, need to be deterministic, i.e. a given situation would have a predetermined judgement - otherwise morals would be unfair, and immoral. Therefore it's no surprise that a simple instinct based or even reflex-like network of neurons in a very simple brain can make moral judgements of actions and situations. What requires a more complex brain is abstract reasoning about moral judgement for hypothetical situations that haven't yet occured etc., which is where humans in some way stand out from most other animals, but it's quite likely that there are a few more animals who can plan, do abstract reason etc., for instance a gorilla was observed to use a stick to measure the depth of a river to see if the depth was small enough to allow her children to get past the river safely. It's likely that several monkeys then COULD have the ability to abstractly reason about morals in hypothetical situations. However consider this - if the environment is almost fixed, as it is for most animals except humans who keep changing the way society and civilization looks - then there's no need for a capacity to reason abstractly about morals in hypothetical situations, because environment is fixed and predictable, so that that reasoning can be programmed into the quite simple, deterministic and almost reflex-like neuron networks.

2. If the world is derterministic and we all all on rails then how did we ever progress? Or are you going fo the higher being?

Our progress is result of how evolution looks. Our reasoning capacities within the brain are fairly unique, and can indeed be self-destructive and non-benefitial for the species, but evolution DOES tolerate certain amounts of self-destructive behavior - that's how new species arise. When damaging mutations happen, if they are damaging enough there's very small chance that the coming generations will see development towards the same direction as the species it previously was, with the result that new species arise. Species are LOCAL MAXIMA in a problem solution space.

By the way - the fruit fly experiment would probably work better than it has done previously if the scientists start trying to mutate the fruit flies in a way that makes them less able to survive, rather than trying to strengthen features that might be benefitial. If they do that, the chances should be greater that they would move away from the "fruit fly local maximum" and in the next generations, when left to themselves to mate arbitrarily, would see mutations that actually moved them towards another local maximum than fruit fly, causing the fruit flies to become a new species in a matter of quite few generations. As much as popular science versions of evolution try to emphasize on the development of benefitial features to increase survival, the principle of nature to tolerate a quite fair amount of weakness is just as important for evolution, as it increases genetical variety and enables the creation of new species.

Anyway, this whole thing means that human technological progress isn't that odd even considering that it has had many disadvantageous effects for us.

3. Our society is more corrupt, repressed and miserable than it has ever been, when we fight and kill to take what we want we are in our we are in our natural state. We have now moved so far beyond our natural state that we sacrifice our own well-being and that of our species for an everchanging set of values, "morals."

You are almost echoing my message but with different words:
- the thing you call natural state is the state of early homo sapiens and early farming civilizations, up to the Medieval era and maybe just past the age of revolutions in Europe and America - indeed a cruel state. I choose to call that state civilization, because it builds up around a simple theme: questioning of instincts. Questioning of instinctive morality, questioning of power structure of the herd, questioning of where to live, questioning of how to spend the time not occupied by survival etc.

The most classical example of this throughout human history - you have power, your reasoning abilities tells you that you can quite easily without anyone stopping you abuse that power and get a lot of short-term enjoyment from it, thus you choose to abuse it. While the instincts give you a sense of vague fear about doing so, instincts and conscience can be suffocated by strong will and persuasion, and many people throughout history have made the mistake of abusing power. An enlightened man would realize why the instincts cause this fear - the man who absues power will be lynched or similar as soon as he loses his power - his survival depends on something as unpredictable and fragile as his own maintenance of the power position. Even the weakest member of the herd has greater chance of survival than such a man, no matter how strong he may be. But an unenlightened man doesn't understand that, he is too wise to see that the instincts lie about the short term, but too stupid to have a proper replacement for them that makes him realize that the instincts tell the truth about the long-term consequences.

- the thing I call natural state is the time before the questioning of instinctive morality and other instincts, something that probably started before the modern species of homo sapiens appeared, possibly when we were at a chimpanzee state or so. But the state before that was in many ways more functional, peaceful and morally stable than any of the civilizations homo sapiens have created - even compared to the best of our modern societies. Mankind still hasn't been able to use reasoning thinking to rebuild the stability and morality of almost completely instinct-driven societies. Instead we're still in a fairly irrational state of very short-sighted thinking, where, as history can confirm, consequences of seemingly insignificant decisions can be wars a 100 years afterwards because our reasoning abilities, unlike instincts, are very limited when it comes to predicting long-term consequences of our actions.

- the thing you call modern state, is almost the same as the concept I call enlightenment. I choose to call it enlightenment, because it's wisdom and not the current time or geographical location that makes European and American societies comparatively peaceful (but both Europe and America are still very primitive and underdeveloped). I also choose to call it enlightenment, because it doesn't make the concept coupled to our modern societies, which still lack a lot of enlightenment, and are still pretty cruel, corrupt and oppressive in many ways. What I'm talking about is a development where rationality and reasoning abilities are able to completely compensate the loss our species had from questioning instincts. The modern state faces many problems for morality: for instance morals change often, morals are usually somewhat arbitrary, many situations are so complex that different sides can't agree on the same moral judgement even when having the same moral axioms (see all existing conflicts and wars in the world), society changes constantly which requires a corresponding change of morals which is usually delayed or refused due to deeply rooted religious or cultural moral values, people lack good insight into society because society is so complex - thus people can't make very good moral judgements other than by norm ethics, which tend to, in civilization (because most norm ethics systems aren't adapted to a changing environment), conflict with consequence ethics. And finally, the greatest problem of them all - assume we have a man with absolute total wisdom. In most of our societies, if he ruthlessly looks at his alternatives and chooses after how benefitial they are, he will in way too many cases come to the conclusion that an immoral decision will be the most benefitital one. As long as that problem exists, the only way to make people follow moral rules is to make sure the truth is denied and hidden. This doesn't work very well in cases where the truth is painfully obvious and known to everyone. A society whose survival is based on denial of truth and irrationality is doomed to failure. That is the classical mistake made since the religious morality of the ancient world - pathetically appealing to people to act in a way that is irrational and hurts them in a society which favors evilness, rather than changing society so that it favors good, and spread enough enlightenment and wisdom that people will understand that acting evil will be of no use for them. While many people follow this irrationality, because they believe it to be true because it's similar to the instinctive morality (and thus feels good), it's enough that only a handful don't, for society to plunge into violence and chaos at regular intervals.

The forms of enlightenment required to compensate for human beings' tendency to question the instinctive moral values are as I see it the following:
a. a society form which doesn't favor immoral behavior and evil actions
b. enough education and enlightenment among the masses that they understand that a is true.

4. Good and evil are value judgements, if something is unable to make these judgements it is neither good nor evil. The river that floods my town is not evil, it is merely a force of nature, as is an animal. Man is one of the few species that demonstates these value judgements and therefore one of the few that can be called good or evil.

I could write a multi-page essay on this, but I'll try to be as brief as I can:

I assume we're using consequence ethics here, which IMO is the only sensible form of ethics in theoretical usage, whereas norm/rule ethics are better suited in a practical setting, once theory has made sure that through consequence ethics society has been made so that it benefits people who act good judged by the norm/rule ethics.

So, given consequence ethics, there are two judgements involved in determining whether a state or action is "good" or "evil". The first is about deciding, assuming we knew the full, absolute truth, whether the state or action would be positive or negative for mankind's survival. The second judgement is about determining, with the limited abilities of our senses, what action or state it actually is we are seeing/hearing/sensing/etc. Example: "is murder good or evil?" is the first form of judgement, and "was that I murder I saw?" is the second form of judgement. If you choose a certain person, you can mathematically decide whether a theoretical action or state is good or evil, and it's no longer a matter of what someone thinks (though the complexity of such a problem makes it almost impossible to make the judgement exactly true). I choose the concepts "good" and "evil" refer to whether a certain state or action, given a person (species can also do), is benefitial or not for that person according to such a mathetical calculation of utility. As I see it, the second form of judgement doesn't alter the action or state, just like the choice of word to denote an object doesn't affect the object. Whether the unaware thing that causes destruction can be called evil or not then depends on whether you choose the definition that good and evil refers to an action/state or a judgement of the second type of the action/state. Now when I look at common usages of the words "good" and "evil", I mostly see examples of the first, which is my definition (i.e. that the second form of judgement isn't mixed into the concept), for instance: "and he saw that it was good", refers to a state - so that a river rising too high might be denoted evil even if the river has no conscience, "action x is immoral" denotes and action, and "I think it's evil" refers to a judgement of the second form, but the judgement of the second form is clearly denoted by "I think", so that "evil" refers only to the first form of judgement. I therefore think that that is the most logical definition of "good" and "evil", i.e. whether it's benefitial or not for a given person/species, not whether that person's/species' instincts says it's bad or not. For that, I instead use the expression "x causes pain/happiness for y" or "x think y is good/evil" etc.

Which definition of "good" and "evil" is chosen doesn't matter, as long as the philosophical discussion agrees on which definition is used during that discussion. But if you choose to use good and evil to denote a judgement of the second type, then I'm afraid it becomes necessary to make up two new concepts to refer to states and actions that are negative or positive given a certain person or species, for the sake of clarity.

======

look at the developement of Wales

:laugh4:

Rodion Romanovich

08-13-2006, 13:26

Saving children before grown ups. No toher animal does that except the ants. But that is because those worker ants can't reproduce.

That might be because most animals don't get into a situation where the older individuals are capable of surviving while the children aren't capable of survival if nothing is done, while an action of sacrifice from an older individual would save the child. Bears don't use ferries or get buried below their own houses during earthquakes that often, if you know what I mean... That doesn't mean animals don't care about their offspring - try walking between a female bear and her offspring for instance. Or do the same for almost any mammal... And it's also common for plenty of birds fly around and play injured to draw the attention of predators away from the eggs in their nests. It's simply seldom the case for other animals that there is a form of sacrifice that would work for enabling the offpsring to survive. That humans can often favor the survival of the young seems rational for humans, whether it's instinct or reasoning that has made us come to that conclusion is difficult to tell.

Rodion Romanovich

08-13-2006, 13:31

random mutations, when they have advantages, they might get sucessfull and will create a new species. to put it verry simple.

That's true, but it's often forgotten that just as important as the successful mutations is the fact that mother nature has such a high tolerance for weakness. If it weren't for that, very few new species would develop. That's what can allow a series of nonbenefitial (nonbenefitial in the short term sense) or neutral (again short term) mutations occur, followed by one good (again short term) mutation, and suddenly the species has changed so drastically that if it from that point would start striving towards in the short term increasing it's survivability, it would end up being something else than it was before the series of mutations occured. Mathematically, species are nothing but local maxima in "random local hill-climbing search". If you change drastically enough, you'll be closer to another local maximum, and end up close to it instead of the previous one - a new species has been formed.

Moros

08-13-2006, 13:40

That might be because most animals don't get into a situation where the older individuals are capable of surviving while the children aren't capable of survival if nothing is done, while an action of sacrifice from an older individual would save the child. Bears don't use ferries or get buried below their own houses during earthquakes that often, if you know what I mean... That doesn't mean animals don't care about their offspring - try walking between a female bear and her offspring for instance. Or do the same for almost any mammal... And it's also common for plenty of birds fly around and play injured to draw the attention of predators away from the eggs in their nests. It's simply seldom the case for other animals that there is a form of sacrifice that would work for enabling the offpsring to survive. That humans can often favor the survival of the young seems rational for humans, whether it's instinct or reasoning that has made us come to that conclusion is difficult to tell.
Yes there are times that animals could do that, they sometimes try to lure the predator away when they know the predator wouldn't stand a chance to get them (being one of the parents for example). But if it really is a fight between life and death, they'll leave their childs alone. And they better, if they die, their child will die anyway, and if the other parent might still take care of it surving rates for youngsters aren't that big. THerefore most animals won't. Because the grownups have more chance in reproducing themselves another few times then tat their yongsters will. There are exceptions like the ants I taked about. THe workerants can't reproduce anyway. In evolution it's not about the strongest animals but the strongest species, if you get my point.

hat's what popular science says today, but I think just as important as the successful mutations is the fact that mother nature has such a high tolerance for weakness. If it weren't for that, very few new species would develop. Therefore a series of hurting or neutral mutations may occur, followed by one good mutation, and suddenly the species has changed so drastically that if it from that point would start striving towards increasing it's survivability, it would end up being something else than it was before the series of mutations occured. Mathematically, species are nothing but local maxima in "random local hill-climbing search". If you change drastically enough, you'll be closer to another local maximum, and strive for it.
Yeah, that's completly true. I just wasn't in the mood to write it out that long. I just went for the really short simple awnser.

Fragony

08-13-2006, 13:50

You might want to read 'Van nature goed' van Frans de Waal Gertgregoor, it tries to explain altruism as a evolutionary strategy with primates, and it also has loads pictures of sexing bonobo's.

Big_John

08-13-2006, 14:06

Moros

08-13-2006, 14:17

Gert, the sacrificial behavior of parent animals is likely reflective of the individual reproductive strategies of that particular animal. selective pressures should lead to the selection of genes that cause animals to adopt the strategies that are statistically more likely to propagate the genes in question. i would be willing to bet that animals that have fewer offspring and invest a larger amount of energy in raising their offspring probably show more "sacrificial" behavior when protecting that investment. Legio correctly pointed out that this is broadly true of many birds and mammals. we can examine some examples of this and how sacrificial behavior may contribute to overall fitness of ones genes when i have more time. ~:)
Yes it is. Because they invested more but also these young are mor likely to survive and reproduce. Tough usually parents (animals ofcourse) will not sacrifice themselves that quickly. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but most won't. Most organisms don't even look after their reproduction. And only a part of those that do look after them would consider sacrificing themselves or put the life of their youngsters above theirs. But I bet that there are more examples like the ant wich act or sometimes act differently.

EDit: Fragony, perhaps I will. When I go the library next time. If they at least have it.

Fragony

08-13-2006, 14:25

Elephants will even risk their lifes for the offspring their buddies, I think it just has to do with a very low birthrate, making every newborn essential for the continuation of the entire tribe.

Moros

08-13-2006, 14:41

Yup. Elephant babies are verry big investments and don't get born that much. And they have a rather big chance of survival. And maybe it might also have to do that elepahnt have verry deep and strng family connections and feelings together with being verry sensitive and intelligent animals.

Reenk Roink

08-13-2006, 20:50

Only 40% of Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution

So? :shrug:

Moros

08-13-2006, 20:57

=> In Us:
Christianity Pwns Science.

Papewaio

08-14-2006, 02:30

I don't believe in Evolution.

The Spartan (Returns)

08-14-2006, 02:31

Evolution = Nonsense.seconded.

Hepcat

08-14-2006, 02:50

There is a lot more to it than just coming from monkeys!
One monkey didn't just wake up one morning being a person, it is a very slow process. It relies on mutations in the genes which everyone has, yes you are a mutant.

Though usually the mutation is so slight that it doesn't affect people, though it can get passed on to your children who in turn have their slight mutation combined with yours.

Through this very gradual change happens. That is fact.

That is a very quick explanation of what it basically is.

Though what my science teacher said was that you shouldn't mix science with faith. If you start using science to try and explain your faith then you are questioning your faith and subsequently aren't a believer. He also said that Biologists tend to be aethiests and Physicists tend to be religious because

Physicists say that the way the world is has a balance and order to it, Biologists tend to believe that the world is one big mess (He was a biologist).

Banquo's Ghost

08-14-2006, 08:46

Physicists say that the way the world is has a balance and order to it, Biologists tend to believe that the world is one big mess (He was a biologist).

That's because the First Rule of Biology is:

Under the most strictly controlled conditions of temperature, humidity and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases.

:embarassed:

BDC

08-14-2006, 08:53

Why do you need to believe in something (evolution) with evidence supporting it? You only need believe in a faith because there is no evidence for it, that's part of the point isn't it?

Moros

08-14-2006, 10:30

Physicists say that the way the world is has a balance and order to it, Biologists tend to believe that the world is one big mess (He was a biologist).
Entropy?:inquisitive:

Mithras

08-14-2006, 15:25

=> In Us:
Christianity Pwns Science.

I didnt realise that modern medicane, mechanics, electronics and all the benefits of the modern world and the realitive comfort we live in were in fact created by Jesus. (although you could be sarcastic here in which case I apoligise)

Science pwns everything. Its benefits far outshadow the half baked platitudes of long dead theologians writting about a man most of them never met.

Evolution = Nonsense

Creationism Critique of Evolution=farce

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2006, 15:55

Morals in order to be fair, need to be deterministic, i.e. a given situation would have a predetermined judgement - otherwise morals would be unfair, and immoral. Therefore it's no surprise that a simple instinct based or even reflex-like network of neurons in a very simple brain can make moral judgements of actions and situations. What requires a more complex brain is abstract reasoning about moral judgement for hypothetical situations that haven't yet occured etc., which is where humans in some way stand out from most other animals, but it's quite likely that there are a few more animals who can plan, do abstract reason etc., for instance a gorilla was observed to use a stick to measure the depth of a river to see if the depth was small enough to allow her children to get past the river safely. It's likely that several monkeys then COULD have the ability to abstractly reason about morals in hypothetical situations. However consider this - if the environment is almost fixed, as it is for most animals except humans who keep changing the way society and civilization looks - then there's no need for a capacity to reason abstractly about morals in hypothetical situations, because environment is fixed and predictable, so that that reasoning can be programmed into the quite simple, deterministic and almost reflex-like neuron networks.

Except that humanity doesn't have morals that serve the species, eample:

I kill you, your children and I take your wife. In some societies that is, or more often was, considered fair and perfectly fine. Its exactly what a lion does. In our society that is considered immoral but in evolutionary terms its counter-productive because if I don't kill you then you'll sire weak offspring and weaken the species as a whole.

In this example I'm taking it as given that you are weaker, maybe you're not, I've never met you.

Our progress is result of how evolution looks. Our reasoning capacities within the brain are fairly unique, and can indeed be self-destructive and non-benefitial for the species, but evolution DOES tolerate certain amounts of self-destructive behavior - that's how new species arise. When damaging mutations happen, if they are damaging enough there's very small chance that the coming generations will see development towards the same direction as the species it previously was, with the result that new species arise. Species are LOCAL MAXIMA in a problem solution space.

How have we evolved, our species has become preogressivly more sickly as we fail to adapt to the environment our big brains have created. Only 10% of people are actually keyed to deal with a population of over 150.

You are almost echoing my message but with different words:
- the thing you call natural state is the state of early homo sapiens and early farming civilizations, up to the Medieval era and maybe just past the age of revolutions in Europe and America - indeed a cruel state. I choose to call that state civilization, because it builds up around a simple theme: questioning of instincts. Questioning of instinctive morality, questioning of power structure of the herd, questioning of where to live, questioning of how to spend the time not occupied by survival etc.

Most of these societies were governed by strength, Germanic and Celtic warrior cultures were in terms of their developement still quite instinctive. Status was linked to strength and success, just as it is in nature.

The most classical example of this throughout human history - you have power, your reasoning abilities tells you that you can quite easily without anyone stopping you abuse that power and get a lot of short-term enjoyment from it, thus you choose to abuse it. While the instincts give you a sense of vague fear about doing so, instincts and conscience can be suffocated by strong will and persuasion, and many people throughout history have made the mistake of abusing power. An enlightened man would realize why the instincts cause this fear - the man who absues power will be lynched or similar as soon as he loses his power - his survival depends on something as unpredictable and fragile as his own maintenance of the power position. Even the weakest member of the herd has greater chance of survival than such a man, no matter how strong he may be. But an unenlightened man doesn't understand that, he is too wise to see that the instincts lie about the short term, but too stupid to have a proper replacement for them that makes him realize that the instincts tell the truth about the long-term consequences.

- the thing I call natural state is the time before the questioning of instinctive morality and other instincts, something that probably started before the modern species of homo sapiens appeared, possibly when we were at a chimpanzee state or so. But the state before that was in many ways more functional, peaceful and morally stable than any of the civilizations homo sapiens have created - even compared to the best of our modern societies. Mankind still hasn't been able to use reasoning thinking to rebuild the stability and morality of almost completely instinct-driven societies. Instead we're still in a fairly irrational state of very short-sighted thinking, where, as history can confirm, consequences of seemingly insignificant decisions can be wars a 100 years afterwards because our reasoning abilities, unlike instincts, are very limited when it comes to predicting long-term consequences of our actions.

- the thing you call modern state, is almost the same as the concept I call enlightenment. I choose to call it enlightenment, because it's wisdom and not the current time or geographical location that makes European and American societies comparatively peaceful (but both Europe and America are still very primitive and underdeveloped). I also choose to call it enlightenment, because it doesn't make the concept coupled to our modern societies, which still lack a lot of enlightenment, and are still pretty cruel, corrupt and oppressive in many ways. What I'm talking about is a development where rationality and reasoning abilities are able to completely compensate the loss our species had from questioning instincts. The modern state faces many problems for morality: for instance morals change often, morals are usually somewhat arbitrary, many situations are so complex that different sides can't agree on the same moral judgement even when having the same moral axioms (see all existing conflicts and wars in the world), society changes constantly which requires a corresponding change of morals which is usually delayed or refused due to deeply rooted religious or cultural moral values, people lack good insight into society because society is so complex - thus people can't make very good moral judgements other than by norm ethics, which tend to, in civilization (because most norm ethics systems aren't adapted to a changing environment), conflict with consequence ethics. And finally, the greatest problem of them all - assume we have a man with absolute total wisdom. In most of our societies, if he ruthlessly looks at his alternatives and chooses after how benefitial they are, he will in way too many cases come to the conclusion that an immoral decision will be the most benefitital one. As long as that problem exists, the only way to make people follow moral rules is to make sure the truth is denied and hidden. This doesn't work very well in cases where the truth is painfully obvious and known to everyone. A society whose survival is based on denial of truth and irrationality is doomed to failure. That is the classical mistake made since the religious morality of the ancient world - pathetically appealing to people to act in a way that is irrational and hurts them in a society which favors evilness, rather than changing society so that it favors good, and spread enough enlightenment and wisdom that people will understand that acting evil will be of no use for them. While many people follow this irrationality, because they believe it to be true because it's similar to the instinctive morality (and thus feels good), it's enough that only a handful don't, for society to plunge into violence and chaos at regular intervals.

The forms of enlightenment required to compensate for human beings' tendency to question the instinctive moral values are as I see it the following:
a. a society form which doesn't favor immoral behavior and evil actions
b. enough education and enlightenment among the masses that they understand that a is true.

I could write a multi-page essay on this, but I'll try to be as brief as I can:

I assume we're using consequence ethics here, which IMO is the only sensible form of ethics in theoretical usage, whereas norm/rule ethics are better suited in a practical setting, once theory has made sure that through consequence ethics society has been made so that it benefits people who act good judged by the norm/rule ethics.

So, given consequence ethics, there are two judgements involved in determining whether a state or action is "good" or "evil". The first is about deciding, assuming we knew the full, absolute truth, whether the state or action would be positive or negative for mankind's survival. The second judgement is about determining, with the limited abilities of our senses, what action or state it actually is we are seeing/hearing/sensing/etc. Example: "is murder good or evil?" is the first form of judgement, and "was that I murder I saw?" is the second form of judgement. If you choose a certain person, you can mathematically decide whether a theoretical action or state is good or evil, and it's no longer a matter of what someone thinks (though the complexity of such a problem makes it almost impossible to make the judgement exactly true). I choose the concepts "good" and "evil" refer to whether a certain state or action, given a person (species can also do), is benefitial or not for that person according to such a mathetical calculation of utility. As I see it, the second form of judgement doesn't alter the action or state, just like the choice of word to denote an object doesn't affect the object. Whether the unaware thing that causes destruction can be called evil or not then depends on whether you choose the definition that good and evil refers to an action/state or a judgement of the second type of the action/state. Now when I look at common usages of the words "good" and "evil", I mostly see examples of the first, which is my definition (i.e. that the second form of judgement isn't mixed into the concept), for instance: "and he saw that it was good", refers to a state - so that a river rising too high might be denoted evil even if the river has no conscience, "action x is immoral" denotes and action, and "I think it's evil" refers to a judgement of the second form, but the judgement of the second form is clearly denoted by "I think", so that "evil" refers only to the first form of judgement. I therefore think that that is the most logical definition of "good" and "evil", i.e. whether it's benefitial or not for a given person/species, not whether that person's/species' instincts says it's bad or not. For that, I instead use the expression "x causes pain/happiness for y" or "x think y is good/evil" etc.

Which definition of "good" and "evil" is chosen doesn't matter, as long as the philosophical discussion agrees on which definition is used during that discussion. But if you choose to use good and evil to denote a judgement of the second type, then I'm afraid it becomes necessary to make up two new concepts to refer to states and actions that are negative or positive given a certain person or species, for the sake of clarity.

In reply to that I say this:

Instict is survival of the fittest, the concience is demostratably a taught concept and an internalisation of a child's association of pain with "wrong" this is why many modern people do not demostrate a concience, they are not properly diciplined.

In short you have it backwards. In the winld he who has power uses it, until he is too weak and then he is replaced, that is nature. You over analyse humanity and assume that the natural state is what we term the "good" and that society has created out "bad" vices. Yet what is bad is defined by society, and therefore what is "good" must be the construct as it does not follow the natural urge of the pack animal.

You're trapped inside the box, watch a pack of lions to see man's natural state, or a pack of wolves, see how you like it.

Rodion Romanovich

08-14-2006, 16:34

Except that humanity doesn't have morals that serve the species

now you speak about cultural and religious moral systems, and they've been made by a mix of rationality and instinctive thinking. According to what I said about there's absolutely no guarantee (rather the opposite) that such morals would serve the species.

Its exactly what a lion does.

Lions have inbreeding problems and the species has entered an evolutionary dead end, where chances are great it'll make itself an extinct species.

In our society that is considered immoral but in evolutionary terms its counter-productive because if I don't kill you then you'll sire weak offspring and weaken the species as a whole.

Mother nature tolerates a lot of weakness, and in fact it's better to have good variety with many weak than having a few strong individuals reproducing. Killing the weak doesn't improve the next generation, rather the opposite. Plus in civilization societies, people have always had difficulties determining what "weak" truly is. A man who has big biceps and can lift 200 kg and is very fertile is much weaker than anyone else in the herd if he causes chaos, disorder and the death of his other herd members. Most of the removal of "weak" people in higher mammal societies is made by nature itself, not by other human beings. It's necessary to maintain peace and trust within the herd for it to operate successfully. The idea that evolutionary strength lies in physical strength, and that cooperation and altruism isn't benefitial, is a misconception of evolution that became popular around the time of the nazis, which also tried to implement that way of thinking into their society. The nazi society in itself is an interesting example of why physical/military strength has no use if people around you don't trust you because you attack them. Now if you're peaceful and nice, physical strength is a bonus, but if you abuse it you become weaker (from an evolutionary point of view) than the physically weakest in the entire herd.

In this example I'm taking it as given that you are weaker, maybe you're not, I've never met you.

The only form of "weak" person that is evolutionary benefitial to kill is someone who is weak by being a murderer, a warmonger or someone who abuses physical strength or power, because that's something that threatens to destroy the entire herd.

How have we evolved, our species has become preogressivly more sickly as we fail to adapt to the environment our big brains have created. Only 10% of people are actually keyed to deal with a population of over 150.

Correctly, our societies have become more sickly and violent because civilization, especially the early forms, used a not very well working power structure, which enabled weak leaders (i.e. weak in the sense of power abusing) to use power structure to fight rebellion (in the natural state rebels quite often would benefit from letting the removed leader survive except when he's so crazy about power that he'll try to retake it even when he's a worse leader than his replacement) and make it impossible to get rid of maniacs quickly. Such leaders remaining in power has created war after war, and for war the healthiest are chosen to take part, and to die or at least stay away from the women at home, so that every generation of war the weakest and most warmongering survive, while the healthy and those who have a feeling of duty are killed. This is "unnatural selection".

The inability of many to work in a society with over 150 people isn't a sign of weakness of sicklyness among humans, but yet another sign that we're not adapted to the societies we create. We keep trying to form persons after societies, rather than forming societies after persons, as if we put our society systems above the value of individual human beings.

Most of these societies were governed by strength, Germanic and Celtic warrior cultures were in terms of their developement still quite instinctive. Status was linked to strength and success, just as it is in nature.

Indeed, this is what I said. Almost complete instinct-based rule = natural state. Some not very deep rationality with a majority of instincts = early civilizations. Deeper but far from total rationality with many instincts left = modern societies. Enlightenment = much and deep rationality, but also a society adapted to how the instinctive behaviors are triggered, so that the society is safe against people who will never reach deep insight and enlightenment (and safe from for instance children, who tend to act much by instinct, and tend to be the most evil when they're making their first implementations of rational though, and usually but not always end up more benign when they reach deeper rational insight).

Instict is survival of the fittest

Again I must point out to you that it's important to understand what "fittest" truly means. A healthy and physically strong person who tends to abuse his power and strength is weaker than the physically weakest and most physically ill person in the entire herd. Herds need trust so they can implement long term Pareto optimal decisions for maximum survival chances. When trust disappears, people end up at a Nash equilibrium or a short term Pareto optimal solution.

the concience is demostratably a taught concept and an internalisation of a child's association of pain with "wrong" this is why many modern people do not demostrate a concience, they are not properly diciplined.

The conscience usually acts as a deterrent, by causing a fear when you reason about maybe committing a certain act. But I choose to also denote the other form of deterrent "conscience" - the deterrent caused by making sure the thought of a certain action never arises. An example: Let's say you stand in a queue at the post office. Do you think "maybe I should go fetch a machinegun and kill everyone in here?" That you never think that thought is just as much a part of the deterrent mechanisms from doing such a thing, as is the bad conscience you would get if you ever had the thought about machinegunning everyone. The deterrent through never really getting the thought of committing a vile action is instinctive, whereas the fear when reasoning about committing an evil action is acquired by a process of learning.

In short you have it backwards. In the winld he who has power uses it, until he is too weak and then he is replaced, that is nature.

For successful species, a leader remains in power only for as long as he doesn't abuse it, and for as long as he benefits the herd. If he abuses the power, or tries to control insignificant things that don't improve by having a central leadership, he's a problem for the herd and if the animal is a successful species it usually has a mechanism for removing that leader, sometimes even by teamwork. Think of this: every action that a leader is allowed to control, will affect 150 persons, while every action that a single individual is allowed to control will only affect 1 person. A leader must only control something if there's a huge benefit from having teamwork (such as forming a line during hunt etc.), or else he's a huge risk for the survival of the entire herd.

You over analyse humanity and assume that the natural state is what we term the "good" and that society has created out "bad" vices. Yet what is bad is defined by society, and therefore what is "good" must be the construct as it does not follow the natural urge of the pack animal.

You're trapped inside the box, watch a pack of lions to see man's natural state, or a pack of wolves, see how you like it.
I'm afraid it's you who base all your conclusions on a backwards early 20th century view on evolution which has been proved wrong. I think it's you who should look at animals, and perhaps look at some other animals than the lion species. Both wolves and lions are closely related to a number of species which aren't herd animals, which means they've either not had time to develop altruism and other herd strengthening behaviors, or they've reached an evolutionary dead end of inbreeding and other problems and have a great risk of self-extinction. Try looking at animals who have had herd behaviors for a longer period of time, and are omnivores or herbivores.

Remember in the natural state the following system is true - if a man hurts his herd by provoking others to violence, nature removes him for that evilness. If a man in natural state kills his herd mates, nature removes him for that evilness. If a man in natural state tries to be a judge, but judges unfairly, nature removes him for that evilness. In the long term perspective, nature punishes the evil individuals fairly, based on nothing but the truth about how destructive their behaviors are. If you try to understand how it works you'll see it all clearly. Surely some evil individuals will always arise through new mutations, but in the end the good always win. In the end, in the very, very, very long term. I recommend you to read some of the latest scientific works on altruism among herd animals, for a more updated version of the evolution model. With a long-term view on things it becomes extremely clear that altruism and trust are absolute keys to reproductive fitness.

What you are thinking about is the system that is created when the trust within the herd disappears and everything becomes a war. In war, the so-called Nash equilibrium is the most benefitial choice for surviving. However, a herd that can maintain the trust and choose the long-term Pareto optimal decisions is far more fit for survival than the warring Nash equilibrium herd. Funnily enough, this is more or less Jesus's message in the Bible: maintain the trust so that the Pareto optimal decisions can be followed, and avoid the fear and lack of trust that'll cause the Nash equilibrium, because it will be very destructive. Forgiveness and an attempt to with empathy understand that some things that look like attacks from others aren't, is key to maintaining the Pareto optimal state. AFAIK the bible doesn't really imply that you should turning the other cheek against major and deliberate malevolent threats, so then the biblical message turns out to be exactly the same as the lesson that evolution teaches us. The same recognition of the value of trust and ability to act long-term Pareto optimally can be seen in most other major religions as well. I'd say that isn't a coincidence, but rather a result of the fact that our instincts are such, and that the scientific truth is such. They probably didn't fully realize how clever their messages were, or exactly what their messages were (resulting in it being written down in vague phrasings), but it's still quite amazing.

Aenlic

08-14-2006, 16:50

That's because the First Rule of Biology is:

Under the most strictly controlled conditions of temperature, humidity and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases.

:embarassed:

Especially if it thinks it's being watched by a biologist!

danfda

08-14-2006, 19:03

Especially if it thinks it's being watched by a biologist!

No kidding!

At work I am currently trying to force a certain bacterial strain to "ingest" a plasmid (a little bit o' DNA) that would make it immune to a virus. Now, mind you, this is for a very expensive patent project for my company, and I need this bacteria to eat the DNA and grow all nicely within this week. And because I need this to happen this week, the bacteria has decided that it no longer wants to grow. Never mind that in the past months, this bacterial strain grew well pretty much no matter what I did (short of putting in antibiotics). Now, it decides to not grow.

Silly biology. :laugh4:

Also: The Spartan, papewaio, and others who said "evolution = nonsense," I hope you were kidding! :wall:

And that 40% of my wonderfully intelligent countrymen do not believe in evolution (though I can prove it in a test tube in 12 hours), well, that doesn't surprise me. Most of us still think there were WMD's in Iraq, and most of us voted for GWB. We really aren't a smart nation...

Moros

08-14-2006, 19:04

I didnt realise that modern medicane, mechanics, electronics and all the benefits of the modern world and the realitive comfort we live in were in fact created by Jesus. (although you could be sarcastic here in which case I apoligise)

Science pwns everything. Its benefits far outshadow the half baked platitudes of long dead theologians writting about a man most of them never met.

Creationism Critique of Evolution=farce
Believe me. I'm a science guy. Tough I disagree that science pwns. everything. It doesn't pwns man's stupidity.

Silver Rusher

08-14-2006, 19:23

I think we all need to have a good listen to The Monkey Song (http://www.daveamason.com/april/mp3/CrystalBernard%2Emp3) ...
That is disgusting.

Time for a little lesson here:

Evolution is a theory which has been proven time and time again and there isn't much evidence which goes against it.

The Bible is a book surrounded by and containing mere assumptions which have been disproven time and time again, but which people still believe because their parents gave them so much encouragement that it was true when they were growing up, likewise for them, thus continuing in a loop which goes back to the founding of the religion. The Bible is written by scores of different people, all of whom follow the first's good idea that he can gain power by taking real events (of his/her own life) and throwing made-up rubbish all over them with a connection to God. Moses is a good example of this. It is sad that so many people choose this presumptuous nonsense over a proven theory. :help:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2006, 20:15

Legio: If you're right about nature then why does every other species fight and kill and why is it that the physically weak are abandoned or picked off while the hardy and aggressive survive.

I can see absolutely no basis for what you're saying in lower pack-hunter animals, which is what we are. You can contest that if you want but you'll have to explain why our eyes are in the front first.

Rodion Romanovich

08-14-2006, 20:56

Legio: If you're right about nature then why does every other species fight and kill and why is it that the physically weak are abandoned or picked off while the hardy and aggressive survive.

You're judging all animals by the handful that gets mentioned most often? Do you realize what would happen if all animals would be as cruel and bloodthirsty as you seem to imply? That would be the same as judging human nature after what the most bloodthirsty leaders (who are remembered because of their cruelty, and due to leadership position ability to carry out massacres) do. Fighting within species, cannibalism etc. is destructive for the species, very few species have survived long while doing this, well except for the praying mantis where the female eats the male after mating. The reason it can do so and still survive is because it isn't dependent of trust within a herd, and it gets millions of children so population size -1 compared to +1000000 doesn't hurt it. Of course there will, even among herd mammals, be occasional crazy individuals that are able to survive for a while even despite being harmful to himself/herself and others by being cruel, power abusive or similar. But in the long term they are always removed.

I can see absolutely no basis for what you're saying in lower pack-hunter animals, which is what we are. You can contest that if you want but you'll have to explain why our eyes are in the front first.
Well we're more closely related to omnivore primates than carnivores. Chimps also have their eyes in the front, but aren't carnivores - they're omnivores. Are eyes being in the front your judgement of how much predator you are? Then try to explain killer whales and pandas, or pretty much every other of the smaller species that are closely related to carnivore species (i.e. certain dogs, bears, half bears, etc.).

The importance of altruism in evolution among many mammals is not really disputed anymore among scientists. The view that the most evil and violent survives is a long ago outdated misconception.

Let's put it this way: you have two herds, one in constant war and only few taking part in reproduction, the other in constant cooperation where almost all take part in reproduction for genetical variety. Which herd lives a thousand years later? The first will after thousand year, if it still exists, be heavily inbred, the most warmongering and aggressive will be better at surviving within that herd than the peaceful, meaning a constant escalation of cruelty and violence, so that if it still live it keeps fighting internally. In the second herd, pretty much all individuals from thousand years ago will have carried on genes to the current generation, they'll have stability, peace and genetical variety to account for problems or changes in the environment. So if you uagainst all odds happened to be one of the few to carry on your genes in that first herd, you're so inbred that it's basically incest to reproduce at all. Your herd size will probably be reduced because in the natural state it's difficult to increase population size quickly, it may take a few generations. Unless some other herd shows you mercy, you'll be chanceless. How big are your chances of successfully reproducing? Maybe if you take over another, healthy, herd, and mate with all the women there. But to defeat a healthy herd in cooperation is difficult, you're likely to lack the strength to defeat that, much stronger, herd. And if you against all odds manage to take over that herd, you'll spread your aggressive, inbred genes to that herd, which will either be lucky to get as little from you as possible, in which case it has great chance of surviving, or get more of you, in which case it's likely to go to the same fate as your previous herd. In either case, the violent herd loses, and the males of the peaceful herd you attacked will survive in the first case, or die in the second (less likely) case.

The problem of unenlightened civilizations is that that system is destroyed. People hesitate to rebel against massmurderers and warmongerers, and those dangerous people have better means of in the short term protecting themselves through fear, propaganda and persecution. It's unclear whether that gives them a genetical advantage or they just temporarily make the world hell for millions of people. But in any case the lack of a similar system to the one mentioned above makes earth a not so nice place to live, and makes the self-destruction of mankind very likely.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2006, 22:46

You're judging all animals by the handful that gets mentioned most often? Do you realize what would happen if all animals would be as cruel and bloodthirsty as you seem to imply? That would be the same as judging human nature after what the most bloodthirsty leaders (who are remembered because of their cruelty, and due to leadership position ability to carry out massacres) do. Fighting within species, cannibalism etc. is destructive for the species, very few species have survived long while doing this, well except for the praying mantis where the female eats the male after mating. The reason it can do so and still survive is because it isn't dependent of trust within a herd, and it gets millions of children so population size -1 compared to +1000000 doesn't hurt it. Of course there will, even among herd mammals, be occasional crazy individuals that are able to survive for a while even despite being harmful to himself/herself and others by being cruel, power abusive or similar. But in the long term they are always removed.

All animals are combative on one level or another, male rabbits fight for does, rams fight for ewes, Bull for Cows. Not to mention every wild species of cat or dog.

Well we're more closely related to omnivore primates than carnivores. Chimps also have their eyes in the front, but aren't carnivores - they're omnivores. Are eyes being in the front your judgement of how much predator you are? Then try to explain killer whales and pandas, or pretty much every other of the smaller species that are closely related to carnivore species (i.e. certain dogs, bears, half bears, etc.).

A species decended from a predatory animal will obviously still have a those characteristics, particually if its still close to the top of its food chain. Prey have eyes at the side for peripheral vision, predators have eyes in the front for judging distance.

The importance of altruism in evolution among many mammals is not really disputed anymore among scientists. The view that the most evil and violent survives is a long ago outdated misconception.

The word evil has no place, here it is a human concept and one which animals do not deserved to be tarred with. In many species combat is used to determine heirarchy, horses or sheep for example. Some of your beloved herd animals.

Let's put it this way: you have two herds, one in constant war and only few taking part in reproduction, the other in constant cooperation where almost all take part in reproduction for genetical variety. Which herd lives a thousand years later? The first will after thousand year, if it still exists, be heavily inbred, the most warmongering and aggressive will be better at surviving within that herd than the peaceful, meaning a constant escalation of cruelty and violence, so that if it still live it keeps fighting internally. In the second herd, pretty much all individuals from thousand years ago will have carried on genes to the current generation, they'll have stability, peace and genetical variety to account for problems or changes in the environment. So if you uagainst all odds happened to be one of the few to carry on your genes in that first herd, you're so inbred that it's basically incest to reproduce at all. Your herd size will probably be reduced because in the natural state it's difficult to increase population size quickly, it may take a few generations. Unless some other herd shows you mercy, you'll be chanceless. How big are your chances of successfully reproducing? Maybe if you take over another, healthy, herd, and mate with all the women there. But to defeat a healthy herd in cooperation is difficult, you're likely to lack the strength to defeat that, much stronger, herd. And if you against all odds manage to take over that herd, you'll spread your aggressive, inbred genes to that herd, which will either be lucky to get as little from you as possible, in which case it has great chance of surviving, or get more of you, in which case it's likely to go to the same fate as your previous herd. In either case, the violent herd loses, and the males of the peaceful herd you attacked will survive in the first case, or die in the second (less likely) case.

This model has two major flaws right off:

1. You assume that combat precludes reproduction, this is not the case. Norse society involved almost constant fighting of one form or another, far apart from the actual warfighting. Yet the race survives a thousand years later, without huge cross breeding, nor has the society collapsed internally.

2. Homo Sapians Sapians are a highly agressive primate which is badly inbred and has succeed in destroying all opposition. Yet we remain many thousands of years later. In breeding can be overcome fairly easily, because the defective offspring die and take their defective genes with them. You can see the truth of this in Pakistan. Currently large numbers of very sickly inbred children, that would have died, are being kept alive by modern healthcare.

In addition you assume that all members of the pack, I refuse to use the word herd to describe man, are always fighting. Humans have clearly evolved with men designed for fighting and women designed for holding society together.

As to your comments on Lions; in the first case they're inbred because large numbers of the population have been killed off and in the second they're right at the top of the food chain and have no presure to evolve firther.

The problem of unenlightened civilizations is that that system is destroyed. People hesitate to rebel against massmurderers and warmongerers, and those dangerous people have better means of in the short term protecting themselves through fear, propaganda and persecution. It's unclear whether that gives them a genetical advantage or they just temporarily make the world hell for millions of people. But in any case the lack of a similar system to the one mentioned above makes earth a not so nice place to live, and makes the self-destruction of mankind very likely.

All these horrid horrid men were chosen by their people, for the most part.

Rome: democracy, even after the Civil War Caesar wouldn't have gotten anywhere without his good old vets.

Germanic tribes: Democratically chosen warleaders and rulers.

Athens: Democratic.

England: The King's power rested on the good will of the nobles.

HRE: Elected Monarchs

France: Had lots of fun with revolutions.

Arabia: Complex networks of tribes that had to be courted and managed if you wanted to get anywhere.

In all the above cases the rulers were chosen for their force of character (the ability to hold their people together) and their martial skill (the ability to protect their people.)

Give me some examples of these truely evil societies you keep talking about. Generally civilisation collapses it is because of outside presure, in the past it has happened when one administration became geographically overstreched and physically unable to govern.

Papewaio

08-15-2006, 01:42

papewaio, and others who said "evolution = nonsense," I hope you were kidding! :wall:

Reread what I said, I will add italics for emphasis.

I don't believe in Evolution.

Hint:

Read my signature which has a gene vs meme theme.

Rodion Romanovich

08-15-2006, 09:53

All animals are combative on one level or another, male rabbits fight for does, rams fight for ewes, Bull for Cows. Not to mention every wild species of cat or dog.

Yes, but that isn't war, it's competition for status. Again think of the herd example I gave above - which herd will be most successful? The peaceful one of course! Now if the peaceful one can add competitive behavior as a means of choosing the strongest for reproduction, without breaking the peace and trust, it gets even stronger. If you look at the competitive behaviors of most animals, that's indeed what they do - they're able to draw a firm line between open war with the aim of destroying others, and an honorable fight where the opponent is allowed to surrender, and where the peace is reestablished as soon as the status fight is over. Open war on the other hand, is something the herd doesn't benefit from. Same goes for human societies. How many societies haven't been overrun because they've been weakened by internal fighting?

A species decended from a predatory animal will obviously still have a those characteristics, particually if its still close to the top of its food chain. Prey have eyes at the side for peripheral vision, predators have eyes in the front for judging distance.

What you fail to understand is that the evolutionary path a species has taken matters just as much as it's niche to how it looks. That's why there are rudiments etc. Some species have only recently begun their development into a new niche. Developments take extremely long time, especially if it's a development to counter long-term harmful behavior. If you think all animals you see are perfectly adapted to their niche, you're wrong. Some have only recently begun their branching from their neighboring species, some are on the way to extinction, and only a few are on the way to their survival. New species arise constantly, which makes up for the extincted species. In the long run, the non-self-destructive will triumph over the self-destructive.

The word evil has no place, here it is a human concept and one which animals do not deserved to be tarred with. In many species combat is used to determine heirarchy, horses or sheep for example. Some of your beloved herd animals.

Again see above - it's not combat, it's status fights with an "honor" concept, where the peace, trust and cooperation is reestablished after the fight.

This model has two major flaws right off:

1. You assume that combat precludes reproduction, this is not the case. Norse society involved almost constant fighting of one form or another, far apart from the actual warfighting. Yet the race survives a thousand years later, without huge cross breeding, nor has the society collapsed internally.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. If combat happens before reproduction, the individual taking part in the combat will obviously be removed. However, not so obvious, is the "herd evolution", in which entire herds can be hurt by the behavior of a few within the herd. If there's combat between the older individuals, and they hurt the herd's capability of hunting, cooperating etc., they'll hurt the herd. It doesn't hurt themselves as much as combat before reproduction does, but it does hurt them. The evolutionary pressure is a bit lower, but still strong. That means the development towards removing such warmongering individuals is a bit slower, but it's still present. Again you could also look at the natural examples - there's no COMBAT, no WAR, but there's status fighting - a status fighting after which they are capable of reestablishing peace and trust quickly. Notice that even humans in a "status fight" have that tendency - first they just look at each other, then they take turns hitting the other one hit at the time, then maybe there's a fight but there are seldom hits to the groin or face. Usually someone, or both, surrenders at an early stage of such a fight. However in human WAR, there's no trust, there's an aim at destroying the opponent. That's the form of self-destructive behavior that isn't benefitial.

2. Homo Sapians Sapians are a highly agressive primate which is badly inbred and has succeed in destroying all opposition. Yet we remain many thousands of years later.

A few thousand years is no time at all in an evolutionary perspective. Only very high evolutionary pressures can have effects in that period - which mankind has shown. The tendency to abandon long term Pareto optimality immediately favors Nash equilibrium behavior heavily, which has transformed the minds of most humans to become capable of Nash equilibrium tactics but makes them unable to understand long term Pareto optimality reasoning. We've essentially put ourselves in a state of constant war.

In breeding can be overcome fairly easily, because the defective offspring die and take their defective genes with them.

If people with the same ancestor have offspring about 10 generations after that ancestor, there's little enough inbreeding effect to account for a small number of offspring dying each generation. There are something like 100-300 individuals taking part in offspring in each generation. If the choice of partner isn't too bad, 50-150 partners is enough to choose from to prevent inbreeding. But that there's only 50-150 partners to choose from has also made demands on our abilities to choose partner, so that we instinctively feel more attracted to those who stand less chances of causing inbreeding when mating with us. There's also a tendency to be somewhat lightfooted to spread the risks by a limited amount of "swinging".

You can see the truth of this in Pakistan. Currently large numbers of very sickly inbred children, that would have died, are being kept alive by modern healthcare.

Pakistan has a culture where marriage between cousins is often tradition. No big surprise if that leads to inbreeding.

In addition you assume that all members of the pack, I refuse to use the word herd to describe man, are always fighting. Humans have clearly evolved with men designed for fighting and women designed for holding society together.

I don't understand what you mean here, it seems irrelevant to the discussion and can't be a response to anything I mentioned.

As to your comments on Lions; in the first case they're inbred because large numbers of the population have been killed off and in the second they're right at the top of the food chain and have no presure to evolve firther.

Of course they have a pressure that can make them extinct - the evolutionary time bomb of inbreeding. Being at the top of the food chain isn't as easy as you might think - eagles frequently take young lions, hyaenas can often defeat small groups of lions in internal strife, and steal prey that the lions hunted down. The more internal fighting and the more killing of other males' offspring that happens, the worse the inbreeding gets. In the short term, the lion that kills the offspring of other males will in a matter of generations totally dominate the herd genetically, but in the long run he's creating a situations which is very likely to lead to destruction. Remember that if a single male lion mates with all the females and no other males are allowed to do that, ALL the children of the next generation will be brothers and sisters, and brothers and sisters shouldn't reproduce or they'll cause heavy inbreeding, diseases etc.

All these horrid horrid men were chosen by their people, for the most part.
[/QUOTE=Wigferth Ironwall]
I think you shot yourself in the foot by that argument. A great number of historical civilizations have had "king by God's grace" who wasn't chosen but where the title was inherited. Many leaders have taken power by coups. Those are the horrible leaders I speak of. The leaders that have done a good job have of course not been a problem, but those are as a matter of fact quite few, less than 50% of leaders have shown any virtue. And as to your examples, a historian ought to know better:

Rome: hardly a democracy. Caesar following the will of his veterans for a while, at the expense of the people, later the praetorian guards and similar are strengthened as a form of secret police. Rebellions for freedom are crushed, and more land is conquered, putting more and more people displeased about the leadership within the borders of the empire. Rome promises local rulers to maintain control over provinces, but systematically removes such leaders and replaces them by own after one or more generations. There are no votes, and if someone except Caesar has any influence at all, it's a small group of rich patricians. Rome eventually develops into a military dictatorship in the 4th century. The hatred towards Rome among the tribes that had ended up inside it's borders after conquests eventually crushed the empire with extreme bloodshed.

England: The King's could only maintain power if he did what the nobles wanted. Thus the nobles, a small oligarchy of people with interests contrary to the average, productive parts of society, oppressed the average farmer. England ended up colonizing large parts of the world. After ww2, most colonies were lost, many of them with extreme bloodshed. England having plenty of soldiers away in their colonies prevented them from putting up a better defense in France in 1940. Most of Africa and much of Asia has ended up primitive, self-destructive, over-populated and disease-stricken societies as a result of that colonialism. England has felt a need to compensate those actions by foreign aid and allowing massive immigration, but many of the immigrants are people who come from the countries who were struck by English colonialism, and some of them still haven't forgotten it. The result is not only the recent domestic terrorism, but also the previous long era of IRA terrorism/freedom fight, which has killed many English people. To counter the problems of all the terrorism, the PM decides to increase the rights of the police and increase surveillance and population control, resulting in a gradual constitutional change towards dictatorship.

France: Had a leader who had the guts to call the productive layers of the population (i.e. the farmers) primitive for wanting the food they produced rather than being taxed to death. The leader's wife also was such a pathetic idiot that she said "but why can't they eat cookies?" when the population demanded bread. The king was advised to start listening to his people, but he didn't follow the advise until there were signs of violence and revolution on the way, in which case it was too late. He also didn't bother to be clear in his statements when he called together the people representatives, in his desire to remain nonchalant and authoritarian-looking. The end-result was the necessity for the survival of the people to execute the king. Once the executions started, and the trust was gone, as always it turned into a real bloodbath. Anyone who could theoretically be classified to belong to the group of the threatening, ended up executed. The revolution didn't end until a person who listened to the demands of the people got to power - Napoleon. Unfortunately Napoleon had large-scale foreign political plans, which involved attacking surrounding nations, breaking the trust and peace situation in the foreign political perspective, which eventually resulted in less and less internal support for him. In fact, he ended up causing so much problems all over Europe that he can be classified to belong to the group of destructive leaders. All casualties in the wars, both for France and others, removed the healthiest and most dutiful citizens of the involved countries, and was destructive for both their societies, and for the human species.

[QUOTE=Wigferth Ironwall]
In all the above cases the rulers were chosen for their force of character (the ability to hold their people together) and their martial skill (the ability to protect their people.)

As I explained above - when the long term Pareto optimality is abandoned by breaking of trust, Nash equilibrium strategy immediately becomes the most benefitial, until the mutual destruction is so great that the last chance of survival is peace no matter what. That still doesn't mean the long term Pareto optimal strategy is less benefitial - on the contrary if the long term Pareto optimal strategy can be maintained it'll be extremely much more benefitial than a Nash equilibrium.

Give me some examples of these truely evil societies you keep talking about. Generally civilisation collapses it is because of outside presure, in the past it has happened when one administration became geographically overstreched and physically unable to govern.
It's not just the leadership that causes overstretching that is a weakness of a society. A constitution which makes it so that about every 10th leader of the country becomes such an overstretching, warmongering person is a harmful constitution. And if you look at historical societies and compare the abilities of relieving harmful leaders of their duty in an animal herd compared to in a historical society, you'll see an extreme difference.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2006, 16:44

Yes, but that isn't war, it's competition for status. Again think of the herd example I gave above - which herd will be most successful? The peaceful one of course! Now if the peaceful one can add competitive behavior as a means of choosing the strongest for reproduction, without breaking the peace and trust, it gets even stronger. If you look at the competitive behaviors of most animals, that's indeed what they do - they're able to draw a firm line between open war with the aim of destroying others, and an honorable fight where the opponent is allowed to surrender, and where the peace is reestablished as soon as the status fight is over. Open war on the other hand, is something the herd doesn't benefit from. Same goes for human societies. How many societies haven't been overrun because they've been weakened by internal fighting?

And if two herds can't share one waterhole what happens? One herd will be driven off. Thats war, human war has only become different in the last two hundred years or so. Prior to that battlefield casualties were quite low, often below 20% for the losing side.

What you fail to understand is that the evolutionary path a species has taken matters just as much as it's niche to how it looks. That's why there are rudiments etc. Some species have only recently begun their development into a new niche. Developments take extremely long time, especially if it's a development to counter long-term harmful behavior. If you think all animals you see are perfectly adapted to their niche, you're wrong. Some have only recently begun their branching from their neighboring species, some are on the way to extinction, and only a few are on the way to their survival. New species arise constantly, which makes up for the extincted species. In the long run, the non-self-destructive will triumph over the self-destructive.

Which was precisely my point. An animal decended from a hunter-killer will still have those characteristics, which is some non hunters have eyes in the front of their heads. You defeat the point from your own last post.

Again see above - it's not combat, it's status fights with an "honor" concept, where the peace, trust and cooperation is reestablished after the fight.

You used the word "evil" now you use the word "honor." Both are human concepts and should not be applied to animals.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. If combat happens before reproduction, the individual taking part in the combat will obviously be removed. However, not so obvious, is the "herd evolution", in which entire herds can be hurt by the behavior of a few within the herd. If there's combat between the older individuals, and they hurt the herd's capability of hunting, cooperating etc., they'll hurt the herd. It doesn't hurt themselves as much as combat before reproduction does, but it does hurt them. The evolutionary pressure is a bit lower, but still strong. That means the development towards removing such warmongering individuals is a bit slower, but it's still present. Again you could also look at the natural examples - there's no COMBAT, no WAR, but there's status fighting - a status fighting after which they are capable of reestablishing peace and trust quickly. Notice that even humans in a "status fight" have that tendency - first they just look at each other, then they take turns hitting the other one hit at the time, then maybe there's a fight but there are seldom hits to the groin or face. Usually someone, or both, surrenders at an early stage of such a fight. However in human WAR, there's no trust, there's an aim at destroying the opponent. That's the form of self-destructive behavior that isn't benefitial.

A few thousand years is no time at all in an evolutionary perspective. Only very high evolutionary pressures can have effects in that period - which mankind has shown. The tendency to abandon long term Pareto optimality immediately favors Nash equilibrium behavior heavily, which has transformed the minds of most humans to become capable of Nash equilibrium tactics but makes them unable to understand long term Pareto optimality reasoning. We've essentially put ourselves in a state of constant war.

Man has been around a few hundred thousand years and it supposedly decended from 6,000 odd individuals. Status fighting is combat the same thing happens when two bulls lock horns as when two norsemen cross swords. War is caused by competion over resources, which also happens in nature, see the two herds example above.

If people with the same ancestor have offspring about 10 generations after that ancestor, there's little enough inbreeding effect to account for a small number of offspring dying each generation. There are something like 100-300 individuals taking part in offspring in each generation. If the choice of partner isn't too bad, 50-150 partners is enough to choose from to prevent inbreeding. But that there's only 50-150 partners to choose from has also made demands on our abilities to choose partner, so that we instinctively feel more attracted to those who stand less chances of causing inbreeding when mating with us. There's also a tendency to be somewhat lightfooted to spread the risks by a limited amount of "swinging".

Your point? What I meant was that in a smaller, less ideal population the inbreeding will eventually breed itself out, by which time the population will hopefully have expanded enough that they can spread it around a bit more.

Pakistan has a culture where marriage between cousins is often tradition. No big surprise if that leads to inbreeding.

Yet Pakistanis only have problems now because the sickly children survive. Despite inbreeding the population as a whole has not died out. That was my point.

I don't understand what you mean here, it seems irrelevant to the discussion and can't be a response to anything I mentioned.

Man is a highly developed killing machine, were it not for woman that is likely all he would do. Yet you seem to see the incesant warfare as a result of society, rather than nature. Or at least you did. You seem to have flipped now.

Of course they have a pressure that can make them extinct - the evolutionary time bomb of inbreeding. Being at the top of the food chain isn't as easy as you might think - eagles frequently take young lions, hyaenas can often defeat small groups of lions in internal strife, and steal prey that the lions hunted down. The more internal fighting and the more killing of other males' offspring that happens, the worse the inbreeding gets. In the short term, the lion that kills the offspring of other males will in a matter of generations totally dominate the herd genetically, but in the long run he's creating a situations which is very likely to lead to destruction. Remember that if a single male lion mates with all the females and no other males are allowed to do that, ALL the children of the next generation will be brothers and sisters, and brothers and sisters shouldn't reproduce or they'll cause heavy inbreeding, diseases etc.

Yes all the children of the next generation will be brothers and sisters but the males will be kicked out before they can chalenge daddy and he in turn will eventually be overthrown by a male kicked out of another pride. So the effect of inbreeding is mitigated.

I think you shot yourself in the foot by that argument. A great number of historical civilizations have had "king by God's grace" who wasn't chosen but where the title was inherited. Many leaders have taken power by coups. Those are the horrible leaders I speak of. The leaders that have done a good job have of course not been a problem, but those are as a matter of fact quite few, less than 50% of leaders have shown any virtue. And as to your examples, a historian ought to know better:

How about Cyrus, Darius, Alexander, Alfred? Just to name a few. I am ahistorian, you clearly are not.

Rome: hardly a democracy. Caesar following the will of his veterans for a while, at the expense of the people, later the praetorian guards and similar are strengthened as a form of secret police. Rebellions for freedom are crushed, and more land is conquered, putting more and more people displeased about the leadership within the borders of the empire. Rome promises local rulers to maintain control over provinces, but systematically removes such leaders and replaces them by own after one or more generations. There are no votes, and if someone except Caesar has any influence at all, it's a small group of rich patricians. Rome eventually develops into a military dictatorship in the 4th century. The hatred towards Rome among the tribes that had ended up inside it's borders after conquests eventually crushed the empire with extreme bloodshed.

Caesar, not to be confused with the Emperors had the support of a large number of the Patricians and the Plebs, Tiberius was forced to take the role of Princeps by the Senate and people, Claudius was demanded by the people in preference to democracy. Nerva-Marcus Auralius were designated successors who ruled with the blessing and full support of the Senate, Nerva was actually elected. Besides which the arguement is not whether they were good rulers, until Commodus the majoriety were, the point is that they were chosen. None of them siezed power alone. In many cases client kingdoms kept their rulers, until they rebelled and threatened Rome. As to conquest, it usually happened when Rome was threatened by another power and was the end result of the Roman way of war. Mercy was not a Roman concept, Caesar practiced it and it was one of the reasons he was killed. Generally Roman rule was no bad thing, unless you rebelled, which you would only do if you wanted "freedom" i.e. a local tyrant.

England: The King's could only maintain power if he did what the nobles wanted. Thus the nobles, a small oligarchy of people with interests contrary to the average, productive parts of society, oppressed the average farmer. England ended up colonizing large parts of the world. After ww2, most colonies were lost, many of them with extreme bloodshed. England having plenty of soldiers away in their colonies prevented them from putting up a better defense in France in 1940. Most of Africa and much of Asia has ended up primitive, self-destructive, over-populated and disease-stricken societies as a result of that colonialism. England has felt a need to compensate those actions by foreign aid and allowing massive immigration, but many of the immigrants are people who come from the countries who were struck by English colonialism, and some of them still haven't forgotten it. The result is not only the recent domestic terrorism, but also the previous long era of IRA terrorism/freedom fight, which has killed many English people. To counter the problems of all the terrorism, the PM decides to increase the rights of the police and increase surveillance and population control, resulting in a gradual constitutional change towards dictatorship.

You confue England and Britain, England ceased to be a seperate entity after the Act of Union. Until 1066 our kings wer elected and even afterward the king's power was held in check by the nobles. For much our history the nobles power has in tern rested on the commons. There was a black period between 1100 and 1300 where it really didn't but if we're going to talk about power, i.e. martial strength, you'll find our armies have always been peasants, not nobles.

France: Had a leader who had the guts to call the productive layers of the population (i.e. the farmers) primitive for wanting the food they produced rather than being taxed to death. The leader's wife also was such a pathetic idiot that she said "but why can't they eat cookies?" when the population demanded bread. The king was advised to start listening to his people, but he didn't follow the advise until there were signs of violence and revolution on the way, in which case it was too late. He also didn't bother to be clear in his statements when he called together the people representatives, in his desire to remain nonchalant and authoritarian-looking. The end-result was the necessity for the survival of the people to execute the king. Once the executions started, and the trust was gone, as always it turned into a real bloodbath. Anyone who could theoretically be classified to belong to the group of the threatening, ended up executed. The revolution didn't end until a person who listened to the demands of the people got to power - Napoleon. Unfortunately Napoleon had large-scale foreign political plans, which involved attacking surrounding nations, breaking the trust and peace situation in the foreign political perspective, which eventually resulted in less and less internal support for him. In fact, he ended up causing so much problems all over Europe that he can be classified to belong to the group of destructive leaders. All casualties in the wars, both for France and others, removed the healthiest and most dutiful citizens of the involved countries, and was destructive for both their societies, and for the human species.

At this time the armies of the great nations were generally made up of criminals and ne'er do wells who joined the army to escape poverty or punishment. Naploeon was no different to any of the other leaders of the day. There was no "trust" among the great nations and infact prior to his rise France was fighting with England anyway. If anything Napoleon brought peace because he managed to unify Catholic and Protestant countries against him and help bury the religious hatred of the previous centuries. Nor was the King a bad man, he was out of touch and not in control. Oh and the quotation is:

"Let them eat cake."

As I explained above - when the long term Pareto optimality is abandoned by breaking of trust, Nash equilibrium strategy immediately becomes the most benefitial, until the mutual destruction is so great that the last chance of survival is peace no matter what. That still doesn't mean the long term Pareto optimal strategy is less benefitial - on the contrary if the long term Pareto optimal strategy can be maintained it'll be extremely much more benefitial than a Nash equilibrium.

I wouldn't hold your breath for any great change, if I were you. Violence and conflict are either in our genetics or our soul. Despite which, or more likely because of, our societies have grown and flourished.

It's not just the leadership that causes overstretching that is a weakness of a society. A constitution which makes it so that about every 10th leader of the country becomes such an overstretching, warmongering person is a harmful constitution. And if you look at historical societies and compare the abilities of relieving harmful leaders of their duty in an animal herd compared to in a historical society, you'll see an extreme difference.

I think there's a spelling mistake here, or your gammar is wrong. That last part doesn't make sense.

Rodion Romanovich

08-15-2006, 18:14

And if two herds can't share one waterhole what happens? One herd will be driven off. Thats war, human war has only become different in the last two hundred years or so. Prior to that battlefield casualties were quite low, often below 20% for the losing side.

Animals have buffer zones, and some even patrol their boundaries. Animals know the importance of maintaining peace and avoiding large-scale conflicts between herds, and take precautions. Full herd vs herd fights is something that hasn't been observed often in nature, and the few observations that have been made have been made among, yes you guessed it, monkeys closely related to humans. It's never been observed among other animals though. Seriously, have you ever seen a pack of wolves kill each others with machineguns?

Which was precisely my point. An animal decended from a hunter-killer will still have those characteristics, which is some non hunters have eyes in the front of their heads. You defeat the point from your own last post.

Eh...excuse me? I gave plenty of examples of hunters without eyes in front, and of animals with eyes in front who weren't hunters. If you stem from hunters you might have kept eyes in front but not aggressiveness, if you stem from hebivores the first thing you get to adapt to a new life as hunter might be eyes in front. Also, why did a discussion on eyes in front start? I don't see how it related to the debate that a constant war and fear state is less benefitial than peace and cooperation.

You used the word "evil" now you use the word "honor." Both are human concepts and should not be applied to animals.

Why is evil and honor not allowed to use about animals? "Animal" is a human concept but that doesn't prevent me from using it about animals. Whether you like it or not, every animal has morality instincts and the more benefitial their behaviors are the better chances they stand of surviving, and altruism turns out to, especially for fragile herd animals like humans, be one of the most benefitial behaviors in the long run.

Man has been around a few hundred thousand years and it supposedly decended from 6,000 odd individuals. Status fighting is combat the same thing happens when two bulls lock horns as when two norsemen cross swords. War is caused by competion over resources, which also happens in nature, see the two herds example above.

You got that part right - exactly the same is what I've been claiming all along: status fighting and war are separate matters. Again, war is uncommon in nature, in fact only very few incidents among gorillas have been observed and no incidents at all for non-primates. Status fighting on the other hand is common. You can see how sometimes the status fights aren't really abandoned, and sometimes (albeit very seldom) are fought out to the death because neither side surrenders. But it's surprising how good most animals are at fighting these fights with a sense of honor, so that the loser accepts the lower status and they can go on with their cooperation as if the fight never took place. Again there are a few short term developments which haven't been corrected, which has resulted in a few exceptions - for instance deer have developed horns, probably quite recently in evolutionary terms, and their status fighting behavior hasn't caught up with the development, which means they tend to be overly aggressive and many deer die in such fights. But still, deaths in such fights are extremely rare even among animals such as deer.

Your point? What I meant was that in a smaller, less ideal population the inbreeding will eventually breed itself out, by which time the population will hopefully have expanded enough that they can spread it around a bit more.

In a small population, inbreeding tends to get worse than in larger groups. Inbreeding isn't just a property of an individual, but a property of a herd. If you and your sister constitute a herd, I can call that herd inbred, even if both of you are healthy. An inbred herd is an evolutionary time bomb. Only if it's very lucky will it survive the inbreeding, and it'll take maybe up to three hundred years or so for it to reach the same population as before, and maybe thousand years to get rid of the inbreeding problems. New mutations are a rare and precious thing that can't be afforded to be wasted. And if the herd happened to get into the inbreeding business by internal fighting and refusal to allow most males to take part in the reproduction for next generation, chances are great they'll remain inbred and never repair the damage made by the first fighting and inbreeding, because the survivors of the first problems are those who were least tolerant to other males reproducing, and most violent. It's a simple example of what can be called evolutionary time bomb - there are certain situations that cause a herd to favor the most self-destructive for a few generations, accelerating the destruction of the herd, until it reaches a point where it extincts itself. We should be thankful for that phenomenon, or both humans and other animals would be a lot more evil.

Yet Pakistanis only have problems now because the sickly children survive. Despite inbreeding the population as a whole has not died out. That was my point.

The reason why Pakistanis and others can survive despite inbreeding culture, is because 1. their population is much larger, thus the inbreeding levels of the herd as a whole don't get nearly as high nearly as fast as in a smaller herd, 2. the culture with cousins marrying is relatively new. The time it has been going on is a very short time in an evolutionary perspective.

Man is a highly developed killing machine, were it not for woman that is likely all he would do. Yet you seem to see the incesant warfare as a result of society, rather than nature. Or at least you did. You seem to have flipped now.

I've not flipped. I've always claimed, supported by most scientists in the field, that man is hardly a killing machine, but has gradually moved towards putting itself in a dangerous evolutionary dead end, but more importantly through society structure have enabled the evilness and violence to flourish for much longer before it can kill itself. For example if leaders like Hitler and Stalin would in the natural state only get to command a herd consisting of a few 100 humans, then they would self-destruct that herd and thus also themselves rather quickly, and peace would remain almost undisturbed. Now however, they get to command 50 million people, they can stay at home while innocents are sent to the battlefields to die for their countries, some of them can even live in luxury and carry out systematic rape to bring their genes to the next generation, and the inbreeding doesn't hurt them immediately because the herd is larger due to the globalization, movement of people and urbanization. At the same time, many Hitlers and Stalins never even get to power, and then their violence is never awaken, so that they end up having families and children and silently carry on their cruelty to another generation. That's what society does - it disrupts natural state systems that effectively and quickly countered the forms of self-destructive behavior that war and genocide is. It's difficult to say whether human beings have become evil enough to self-destruct, or whether they're still able to reverse the process.

Yes all the children of the next generation will be brothers and sisters but the males will be kicked out before they can chalenge daddy and he in turn will eventually be overthrown by a male kicked out of another pride. So the effect of inbreeding is mitigated.

So who will take over the herd? Some unknown outsider? There are usually quite few herds in a region, which means you get to choose between something like 5 herd, which is essentially like choosing between 5 individuals because of the inbreeding - less than you can choose from in a healthy not inbred herd.

How about Cyrus, Darius, Alexander, Alfred? Just to name a few. I am ahistorian, you clearly are not.

What about them? I don't see how a handful of examples of exception from the ordinary would have any significance to a debate concerning millions and million of regular people. I can see you're a historian - you believe in evil triumphing over good also in a medium long term, which is exactly what our societies, as opposed to the natural state, have enabled. You make a weak point in a discussion over evolution by looking only at a, from evolutionary perspective, extremely short period which is an exception from most rules, and thinking the rest of evolution works that way. When you discuss evolution you must keep in mind that what happens in 100-300 years - a long period in history - is a ridiculously short period - a second - in evolution. You may also want to check out what scientists in evolution say, because what I say is exactly what the leading experts in the field are saying.

As for your comments to my historical descriptions, you're trying to sound like you're arguing against them but you're not treally pointing out any specific errors in what I wrote and you're taking a historical perspective rather than an evolutionary, systemic and long-term utilitarian perspective, so the comments you have given are mostly irrelevant to the subject discussed here. We're not discussing history here - in such a debate I wouldn't fare that well against a historian such as yourself. We're at the most discussing systemic aspects of historical societies as a side-track of a discussion about evolution. For instance in such a debate it doesn't matter if a queen said "Let them have cakes" or "Give them cakes" or "Why not eat cakes?" or "Caketi-cakes are fun, better than bread, yippie-dippie-day", but it matters that she was ignorant, nonchalant and humiliated her own oppressed people. Nor does it in a systemic rough perspective matter to an argument about "breaking of trust" if a nation was at war with ONE other nation at before it ended up attacking 10 nations or more. Such details are insignificant in such a perspective. Russia for instance, that turned out to be crucial to defeating Nappy, at the beginning trusted Nappy and for a long time had an alliance with them IIRC. History provides the material for systemic discussions, and I'm aware of the most significant of the generalizations I do, even though, when I make the generalizations, it might sound like I forgot about one or more events. You don't need to show you know history better than me, I don't doubt it, but the key point this particular discussion is the systemic perspective and not the details. If you can point out a generalization to be wrong where for instance I say a majority of nations were NOT at war with the first nation, and you can prove that 6 nations out of 10 were actually at war with the first nation, then you're making a point. But if you in reply to my statement that "it was mostly peace" come with examples of 1 nations out of 10 that was at war with the first nation, then you're not really contributing to the systemic perspective discussion.

I think there's a spelling mistake here, or your gammar is wrong. That last part doesn't make sense.
No, it makes perfect sense, if you read what it says. But I say it again in other words:

If a society has a constitution that makes leaders who are destructive for that society and the people of that society come to power every once in a while - even if it's very seldom, then it'll be weaker than a society with a constitution that makes sure no self-destructive leaders come to power at all, and weaker than a society with a constitution that makes sure than when/if a self-destructive leader comes to power his influence is limited so that the damage he can do is limited. If you look at historical societies with a systemic, rough perspective and compare them to natural state society, you'll notice that: 1. the societies are larger so when/if bad leaders come to power they affect more people, 2. it's more difficult in society to remove a destructive, violent leader than it is to do so in the natural state, 3. leaders in human societies have great capabilities of protecting themselves in ways such that if they are hamrful, evil and violent they still stand good chances of getting an offspring and survive genetically even in the medium long term. Things that allow such things are - money (allowing power to be inherited), abuse of herd mentaliy through scare tactics, and armies and bodyguards.

Ice

08-15-2006, 19:12

Another evolution debate... oh boy. I think I'll stay out of this one.

BTW legio, thanks for honoring me with a place in your sig. :2thumbsup:

Rodion Romanovich

08-15-2006, 19:20

BTW legio, thanks for honoring me with a place in your sig. :2thumbsup:

You're welcome :bow:

Moros

08-15-2006, 19:22

Another evolution debate... oh boy. I think I'll stay out of this one.

BTW legio, thanks for honoring me with a place in your sig. :2thumbsup:
wise, verry wise.

I'm not going to join either. The posts are to long for me to read and reply to.

Silver Rusher

08-15-2006, 19:23

It's true, Legio and Wigferth's posts have been books in themselves.

Rodion Romanovich

08-15-2006, 19:45

I think I'll quit the debate too now, I've said almost everything there is to say, but I'll add one final comment before leaving: a violent or war-mongering man's greatest chance of evolutionary surviving lies in allowing any of his brothers that happens to be less violent or war-mongering to survive. Then most components of himself, except the violent or war-mongering part of him, survives to the next generation. The violent and war-mongering man should at the same time make sure not to not take part in the reproduction, and he'll then have yielded something that will remain within his herd forever, unlike what is the case if he starts destruction, which decreases the chances of his genes surviving at all drastically. Also, in the long term perspective, because every generation means a mix, for every generation the number of offspring that has genes from you almost doubles, while the percentage of your genes within each individual is halved. On average, 50% of your DNA will have come from the same parent that the same parts of the genomes of your brother came from, and within a species up to 99% of the DNA is exactly the same, which means on average 99.5% of your DNA is indentical to that of your brother. This means that in the long run, in a scenario where either you or your brother can take part in reproduction, it doesn't really matter much which one of you does so. In an even longer perspective, it doesn't matter if it's your or your cousins reproducing. And in a very long perspective, it doesn't matter which ones in your herd reproduces. In the ultimate long term perspective, the survival of your species is the only thing that matters. Because in the long term the new mutations will triumph over survival of one individual rather than another. What survives are good genes, DNA that is able to encapsulate itself in a being that does well in making sure the DNA will keep replicating over both the current generation and hundreds of generations to come. Evolution isn't about the survival of organisms as much as it is about the survival of DNA. There's also microscopic-level survival aspects - certain combinations of G,C,A,T are more easily mutated, and for critical functions a gene that produces proteins less benefitial for the organism might be preferable because they're not as easily mutated into producing another protein which is harmful or no protein at all. Unless any of the new posts contain any question which isn't answered by my posts above and this one, I'll consider this my last entry in this thread. The lesson to learn is that our reasoning abilities still haven't allowed the average human being to truly be able to understand what is evolutionary benefitial, and that many behaviors created by reasoning thinking is still less benefitial than the behaviors created by our instincts. But as mentioned before, instincts are primitive and don't adapt well, so when environment changes they misfire, because they're not triggered by causalities, but by correlations (i.e. certain sensory inputs are in a certain way triggers a certain behavior, not certain things are in certain ways triggers certain behavior, that means certain sensory inputs can exist in situations when they should cause the certain behavior that the instincts are programmed to unleash when sensing those particular inputs, resulting in non-benefitial behaviors). That's the case in modern societies - we can't be guided by our instincts, because they tend to misfire. On the other hand our reasoning abilities aren't still fully capable of carrying out as accurate thinking about long term consequences of our actions as the instincts have been hardwired to be able to do.

Silver Rusher

08-15-2006, 19:51

Shaun

08-15-2006, 20:04

seconded.

Well if you want to try and come up with a better theory, then be my guest. But so far Evolution is by far the most correct sounding theory.

GoreBag

08-15-2006, 20:07

As far as I'm concerned, we're all still animals. I rather like it that way, anyway.

Moros

08-15-2006, 20:52

We are aren't we? We're part of the animal kingdom (or whatever they call it in English) according to biology's classifications, no?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2006, 22:52

I believe we shifted onto evolution by accident, actually. My original contention was that man's natural state is violent and destructive and that as society curbs this to some degree it is a good thing but that Legio's vision of a peaceful future is essentially, for me, a distopia.

The reason I believe this is that if man is not in conflict with himself he will be in conflict with nothing.

As to use the words such as "evil" "honour" and "morality" these are all abstract and human concepts, as a result it is unfair to apply them to animals. Since you cannot demonstrate that an animal has any of these abtract traits you shouldn't apply them, because the animal may or may not have the trait. I believe passing such human judgements is unfair.

One final point, I did not say that animals fight wars, merely that they will fight over limited resources. Man has simply become much more efficiant at killing and being so numerous we can afford to lose a few thousant men every now and then.

Yay for us.:inquisitive:

Oh, and I don't believe good or evil triumph in the medium to long term.

Incongruous

08-16-2006, 05:37

Of course you can see evolution in action, just read up on studies about the galapagous island finches and beak length.

Fragony

08-16-2006, 08:35

There is a lot more to it than just coming from monkeys!

Tiny little misconception, according from the evolutiontheory didn't come from monkeys, we share an ancestor but developed in different ways.

Moros

08-16-2006, 09:24

Tiny little misconception, according from the evolutiontheory didn't come from monkeys, we share an ancestor but developed in different ways.
The Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the the probable ancestor of both the later humans and chimpanzees. I believe that's where it split up.

Here's a nice evolution tree I found. It's starts later tough, The S.T. isn't on it anymore as it starts with the genus Ardipithecus. (the kadabba isn't on there tough.)

edit: the link:http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Hepcat

08-16-2006, 09:38

Yes exactly, it is kind of hard to explain on the forums but I think we may be making people slowly realise that there is more to it than just coming from monkeys :2thumbsup:

Most of the time it isn't that people are stupid or pig headed about things like this, it is just that they don't know much about it.

Moros

08-16-2006, 15:59

Woot I forgot to post the link to that tree.

I doubt it's the part of knowledge. Most people here are fairly knowledged. IT's faith and the enviroment. We'll just blame the chinese! ~;)

danfda

08-16-2006, 18:50

Reread what I said, I will add italics for emphasis.

I don't believe in Evolution.

Hint:

Read my signature which has a gene vs meme theme.

Roger roger, nature v. nurture.

My bad. :oops:

The rest of my point remains valid, though. I can still prove evolution occurs in about 12 hours in a test tube. In fact, I just did it last night (no, nothing X-rated! :2thumbsup: ).

Papewaio

08-17-2006, 03:11

Patriarch of Constantinople

08-17-2006, 14:37

Thats only 79%. What about the rest of them?

Patriarch of Constantinople

08-17-2006, 14:45

danfda

08-17-2006, 16:42

GoreBag

08-17-2006, 18:43

Belief is faith based hence lack of facts or proof.

Hence I do not believe nor does any scientist believe in any scientific theory be it Gravity, Newtons or Einsteins one does not believe in it. One understands it, one can perform experiments on it and one can make predictions with the theory.

So any scientist worth his salt doesn't believe in evolution. It is testable therefore it isn't based on belief.

Nonsense. One can choose to disbelieve anything that one puts their mind to it. For instance, I'm not so sure about this whole gravity thing, since I've never experienced it beyond seeing things fall to the earth. Does the fact that things fall to the earth constitute gravity? No, it just means that things fall to the ground.

Besides, refusing to believe in something that seems to be fact shouldn't be new to you; you've played Dungeons and Dragons, haven't you?

Papewaio

08-18-2006, 01:16

Okay, so you were being lippy, and I missed it. :stupido2: I can appreciate that.

And pointing out that by using the term belief you are playing the game to a different set of rules then what science is based on. By entering that mindset you are playing into the hands of fundamentalists.

It is also showing that the debate is being incorrectly framed in the first
instance. It would be like asking someone to prove their belief system...

News Headlines:
"40% of Swedes have touched the Hammer of Thor."
"Priest of Thor charged with carnal Knowledge."

We don't measure faith by scientific means nor should we frame science understanding in the term of faith... it only leads to confusion and/or plays into the hands of those who seek confirmation of predetermined conclusions...which is neither scientific nor is it honest.

Claudius the God

08-20-2006, 09:21

I would much rather have evolved from the Great Apes as the Scientists have produced enourmous amounts of scientific data to conclude, than to have been created from dirt by a tyrannical "god" as the christians claim without a shread of evidence to support the notion...

Papewaio

08-20-2006, 23:56

Actually our Solar System was created from dust, our Solar system is the product of several other star deaths. Our Sun and Solar System is at least a third generation product as there are elements beyond Iron.

So in a round about way we are created from dirt, star dust to be precise.

JFC

08-21-2006, 12:51

I have some questions for the people who don't believe in Evolution.

1. Why does the Bible not mention Dinosuars?
2. Explain Dinosuars.
3. Explain Marsupials and why then they only inhabit Ausralasia.
Might have something to do with it being the first land mass to separate from Pangea
4. Animal Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
5. How it's a coincedence that Monkeys have opposable thumbs like Humans, finger nails and Omnivore teeth, but we have nothing in common.
6. Dinosuars

Fragony

08-21-2006, 13:08

The Bible also doesn't mention earl-grey tea but that still is what I am drinking right now.

Moros

08-21-2006, 13:38

The Bible also doesn't mention earl-grey tea but that still is what I am drinking right now.
Mathëus 3:33 ~;)

Now, seriously dinosaurs,.. aren't real proof against the bible nor the fact that monkeys resemble to people. a Mantis walks on two legs en has front legs which could have evolved into hands. That doesn't mean monky's and humans once were matises. Now does it? As we all know that it isn't true.

Banquo's Ghost

08-21-2006, 13:48

I have some questions for the people who don't believe in Evolution.

1. Why does the Bible not mention Dinosuars?
2. Explain Dinosuars.
3. Explain Marsupials and why then they only inhabit Ausralasia.
4. Animal Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
5. How it's a coincedence that Monkeys have opposable thumbs like Humans, finger nails and Omnivore teeth, but we have nothing in common.
6. Dinosuars

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit of amusement.

Creationists will always have an answer (usually linked at the one site www.answersincretinism.org) to your questions. The answers however are not subject to the same rational criteria as your questions are seeking, so nothing will be gained in the discussion.

For example, it's not necessary for the Bible to mention dinosaurs - it doesn't mention many things, as Fragony noted - non-mention doesn't prove or disprove their existence. Dinosaurs can easily be explained in their belief system because God can do anything, and doesn't need a rational reason open to human intepretation to do it.

Marsupials don't only inhabit Australasia - they are extant in South America (http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/INSTITUTOS/iadiza/ojeda/MARSUPIALES.htm) too. It's important when making these arguments to be accurate - creationists love nothing more to jump on such inaccuracy and extrapolate to 'evolution therefore sucks' with barely a whiff of conscience.

Point 4 is just a set of artificial human constructs, used for labelling and understanding. They're not all that different from 'fish that swim, the birds of the air and things that crawl on their belly' (apologies for the inaccurate paraphrase) as a taxonomic system. Taxonomy allows us to see patterns and relationships which can be tested through evolutionary theory. Labelling does not make a thing true - evidence does.

Point 5 seems to state the point from a creationist view. Coincidence and 'having things in common' are woolly concepts that should begin the thought process - and indeed did, leading to the answer - evolution. But from a creationist standpoint, there are also no such concepts as coincidence, because God planned it the way it is now observed.

It is not possible to argue constructively with the latter standpoint using logic and method, as you will always be trumped by deus ex machina. Though it is occasionally fun to indulge oneself.

Fragony

08-21-2006, 14:04

Also take this into consideration, if you were Noah, how would you get a pair of T-rex on your boat? He was probably ashamed that he couldn't, and that is why he doesn't mention them.

Goofball

08-21-2006, 14:35

Okay, speaking as a former predatory scavenging ape from the plains....

Criminy Goofball. You have Lebanon/Israel, Iran's nuclear bombs, North Korea's nuclear bombs, famines all across Africa, previously unheard of bad weather due to George Bush's dedication to increasing global warming [/sarcasm off], Prince Harry's new girlfriend, Brittney's home video that proves she's human after all and..... oh yeah, a plot to blow up 10 planes and kill thousands of people..... and THIS grabs your attention?

What the hell do you all care? Do a bunch of hicks in Missouri believing in 6 days and not a minute longer even remotely impact your life? Hey, if you think it does.. get a real one!!!

Sorry about the delay in replying, Don. I was sitting by a lake at a cottage with no computers in sight all of last week. Quite lovely really...

It matters to me because it demonstrates a disturbing trend: The most powerful nation in the world is sliding more and more toward religious fundamentalism. Your citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government.

We all know how much trouble religious zealots from piss-poor places with no real military might can cause.

I shudder to think what might happen if the trend toward religious fundamentalism continues in the U.S. Perhaps in 50 years or so when some other President gets elected on a faith based platform, he might just decide that us infidel Canadians need a little lesson taught to us...

Moros

08-21-2006, 15:40

Also take this into consideration, if you were Noah, how would you get a pair of T-rex on your boat? He was probably ashamed that he couldn't, and that is why he doesn't mention them.
:laugh4: :laugh4:
lol

Redleg

08-21-2006, 15:49

Sorry about the delay in replying, Don. I was sitting by a lake at a cottage with no computers in sight all of last week. Quite lovely really...

It matters to me because it demonstrates a disturbing trend: The most powerful nation in the world is sliding more and more toward religious fundamentalism. Your citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government.

A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area.

JFC

08-21-2006, 16:06

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit of amusement.

Creationists will always have an answer (usually linked at the one site www.answersincretinism.org) to your questions. The answers however are not subject to the same rational criteria as your questions are seeking, so nothing will be gained in the discussion.

For example, it's not necessary for the Bible to mention dinosaurs - it doesn't mention many things, as Fragony noted - non-mention doesn't prove or disprove their existence. Dinosaurs can easily be explained in their belief system because God can do anything, and doesn't need a rational reason open to human intepretation to do it.

Marsupials don't only inhabit Australasia - they are extant in South America (http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/INSTITUTOS/iadiza/ojeda/MARSUPIALES.htm) too. It's important when making these arguments to be accurate - creationists love nothing more to jump on such inaccuracy and extrapolate to 'evolution therefore sucks' with barely a whiff of conscience.

Point 4 is just a set of artificial human constructs, used for labelling and understanding. They're not all that different from 'fish that swim, the birds of the air and things that crawl on their belly' (apologies for the inaccurate paraphrase) as a taxonomic system. Taxonomy allows us to see patterns and relationships which can be tested through evolutionary theory. Labelling does not make a thing true - evidence does.

Point 5 seems to state the point from a creationist view. Coincidence and 'having things in common' are woolly concepts that should begin the thought process - and indeed did, leading to the answer - evolution. But from a creationist standpoint, there are also no such concepts as coincidence, because God planned it the way it is now observed.

It is not possible to argue constructively with the latter standpoint using logic and method, as you will always be trumped by deus ex machina. Though it is occasionally fun to indulge oneself.

So then how come the female sterile Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park stared laying eggs? Jeff Goldblum even stated that they would!

Goofball

08-21-2006, 17:13

It matters to me because it demonstrates a disturbing trend: The most powerful nation in the world is sliding more and more toward religious fundamentalism. Your citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government.A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area.

True. But how many states have implemented constitutional amendments (a process that as far as I know requires much more than a simple majority in most cases) or laws banning gay marriage?

At any rate Red, I did not say that fundamentalists made up the majority of the American populace. Thankfully, this is why things like whacko school trustees losing their jobs can still take place.

But my general feeling is that religious dogma and its acceptance into mainstream politics is on the rise in America.

Without the religious right, Bush would arguably not have been elected President in the first place.

Here's an article you may find interesting. It doesn't slam religion, but does note the dominance it has played in the formation of the current administration's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112301660.html

At any rate, you can't demand prrof of my initial statement, as it is my opinion. I'll provide arguments and articles to support it, but you are correct: it was a generalization and cannot be proven. However, I find it hard to believe that anybody who has been paying attention to American politics and news over the past 20 years would not agree that the religious right is increasing its influence over the governance of the country.

I'll leave you with this:

We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time.

danfda

08-21-2006, 17:24

a Mantis walks on two legs en has front legs which could have evolved into hands. That doesn't mean monky's and humans once were matises. Now does it? As we all know that it isn't true.

Naw, it just means that evolution tends to find the best solutions for problems and reuses them. Walking on two legs allows for a greater range of sight, which is a massive boon for the predatory mantis, and having front legs also makes grabbing and killing prey much easier. The fact that mantises have those features is not a coincidence, nor does it mean apes and mantises are descended from a close ancestor species. All that means is that evolution finds the simplest solutions, and copies and pastes them to other species. No Gods needed.

I'll leave you with this:

Originally Posted by George W. Bush January 2004 at a speech in New Orleans
We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time.

Ahh, that made my stomach turn!

Moros

08-21-2006, 18:22

Naw, it just means that evolution tends to find the best solutions for problems and reuses them. Walking on two legs allows for a greater range of sight, which is a massive boon for the predatory mantis, and having front legs also makes grabbing and killing prey much easier. The fact that mantises have those features is not a coincidence, nor does it mean apes and mantises are descended from a close ancestor species. All that means is that evolution finds the simplest solutions, and copies and pastes them to other species. No Gods needed.

Yes, I know that and believe that. But my point was just that two animals have similar features that doesn't mean that they have a common ancestor. (Unless you back verry, verry, verry far.)

danfda

08-21-2006, 18:24

Yeah, gertgregoor, after I posted I went back and reread the previous few posts, and the second time through I caught your hint o' sarcasm. I'm slow, what can I say. :laugh4:

Redleg

08-21-2006, 19:40

True. But how many states have implemented constitutional amendments (a process that as far as I know requires much more than a simple majority in most cases) or laws banning gay marriage?

You would have to demonstrate that each state that passed a constitutional ammendment to their constitution to define marriage did it out of religious reasoning. Another situation that you will be hard pressed to make a generalization about.

Now demonstrated to me what states have made laws banning gay marriage and have not had them overturned by their state supreme court as unconstitutional?

At any rate Red, I did not say that fundamentalists made up the majority of the American populace. Thankfully, this is why things like whacko school trustees losing their jobs can still take place.

Is this a quibble?

But my general feeling is that religious dogma and its acceptance into mainstream politics is on the rise in America.

Your feeling only matter's to you - you making another generalization that you have not demonstrated as fact.

Without the religious right, Bush would arguably not have been elected President in the first place.

With a viable democratic party candidate President Bush would not have been elected either.

Here's an article you may find interesting. It doesn't slam religion, but does note the dominance it has played in the formation of the current administration's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112301660.html

I will read the article in the next few days..

At any rate, you can't demand prrof of my initial statement, as it is my opinion. I'll provide arguments and articles to support it, but you are correct: it was a generalization and cannot be proven. However, I find it hard to believe that anybody who has been paying attention to American politics and news over the past 20 years would not agree that the religious right is increasing its influence over the governance of the country.

Try reading the statement once again - A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area. A generalization does indeed have difficultly in being proven correct.

I have seen patterns come and go - the extreme's in this country come into influence and out of influence every few years. Your generalization does not hold true when one looks at the country as a whole.

Notice not to long ago (less then 5 years) that there was a major movement to remove religios symbols from many local level governments. A certain amount of what you are percieving to be an increase in religious fundmentalism is the backlash from the secular fundmentalist movements of earlier days.

Edit: Just so some don't get confused about my postion on this subject: Creationism should not be taught in schools that are attempting to teach science according to the established principles of science. Its fine to teach creationism in a private religious school or in sunday school, but not in a school that is funded by the taxpayer. Personally I want my child to learn science taught by teaching the principles of science and how to use your own mind to draw your well founded conclusions.

Goofball

08-21-2006, 20:14

You would have to demonstrate that each state that passed a constitutional ammendment to their constitution to define marriage did it out of religious reasoning. Another situation that you will be hard pressed to make a generalization about.

Now demonstrated to me what states have made laws banning gay marriage and have not had them overturned by their state supreme court as unconstitutional?

Is this a quibble?

Your feeling only matter's to you - you making another generalization that you have not demonstrated as fact.

With a viable democratic party candidate President Bush would not have been elected either.

I will read the article in the next few days..

Try reading the statement once again - A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area. A generalization does indeed have difficultly in being proven correct.

I have seen patterns come and go - the extreme's in this country come into influence and out of influence every few years. Your generalization does not hold true when one looks at the country as a whole.

Notice not to long ago (less then 5 years) that there was a major movement to remove religios symbols from many local level governments. A certain amount of what you are percieving to be an increase in religious fundmentalism is the backlash from the secular fundmentalist movements of earlier days.

Edit: Just so some don't get confused about my postion on this subject: Creationism should not be taught in schools that are attempting to teach science according to the established principles of science. Its fine to teach creationism in a private religious school or in sunday school, but not in a school that is funded by the taxpayer. Personally I want my child to learn science taught by teaching the principles of science and how to use your own mind to draw your well founded conclusions.

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in a lengthy nitpicking contest.

You "win" your point: my statement was a generalizaion about a trend in American politics over the past twenty years or so. My statement cannot be proved. It was based on my own awareness and internal compilation and digestion of a broad spectrum of anecdotal evidence.

In summary: it is my opinion.

And no: you are, as you say, under no obligation to care about it.

Having said all of that, just as you could probably produce hundreds of articles supporting the idea that Christianity is under attack and in danger of extinction in the U.S., so could I also produce a like number of articles supporting the idea that within 5 years all Americans will be forced by the government to attend church at gunpoint.

The difference is that you put more weight in the former, while I put more weight in the latter.

That is how opinions are formed, and also is a demonstration of their inherent "value."

:coffeenews:

Redleg

08-21-2006, 20:26

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in a lengthy nitpicking contest.

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

You "win" your point: my statement was a generalizaion about a trend in American politics over the past twenty years or so. My statement cannot be proved. It was based on my own awareness and internal compilation and digestion of a broad spectrum of anecdotal evidence.

Then you missed my point - it was not about winning anything.

Having said all of that, just as you could probably produce hundreds of articles supporting the idea that Christianity is under attack and in danger of extinction in the U.S., so could I also produce a like number of articles supporting the idea that within 5 years all Americans will be forced by the government to attend church at gunpoint.

The difference is that you put more weight in the former, while I put more weight in the latter.

That is how opinions are formed, and also is a demonstration of their inherent "value."

:coffeenews:

Something else that you have gotten completely wrong. But its not to suprising since your basing most of your arguement off of emotional appeal.

You have something in common with those who advocate teaching creationism in school - arguements based upon gross generalizations and emotional appeal ....

Goofball

08-21-2006, 20:51

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in a lengthy nitpicking contest.
Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

Red! Are you honestly saying that the Backroom is not an appropriate forum for offering one's opinion?

You "win" your point: my statement was a generalizaion about a trend in American politics over the past twenty years or so. My statement cannot be proved. It was based on my own awareness and internal compilation and digestion of a broad spectrum of anecdotal evidence.Then you missed my point - it was not about winning anything.

No, it never is with you, is it?

~;)

Having said all of that, just as you could probably produce hundreds of articles supporting the idea that Christianity is under attack and in danger of extinction in the U.S., so could I also produce a like number of articles supporting the idea that within 5 years all Americans will be forced by the government to attend church at gunpoint.

The difference is that you put more weight in the former, while I put more weight in the latter.

That is how opinions are formed, and also is a demonstration of their inherent "value."

:coffeenews:Something else that you have gotten completely wrong. But its not to suprising since your basing most of your arguement off of emotional appeal.

You have something in common with those who advocate teaching creationism in school - arguements based upon gross generalizations and emotional appeal ....

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But all I really did was state my own opinion, state how and why I formed that opinion, and then acknowledge that my opinion was certainly not provable, nor worth any more than anybody else's opinion.

Again, please allow me to apologize for bogging down the Backroom with tearful and awkward emotion...

Redleg

08-21-2006, 23:28

Red! Are you honestly saying that the Backroom is not an appropriate forum for offering one's opinion?

That was not stated - what was stated is this.

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

A generalization that is unprovable normally can be associated with certain definitions, such as bigotry and prejudicial.

We have enough problems that one can find fault with many things without making a generalization that smacks more of bigotry and prejudicial intolerance of other people's belief systems because you don't like that particuler belief system.

Goofball

08-21-2006, 23:53

That was not stated - what was stated is this.

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

A generalization that is unprovable normally can be associated with certain definitions, such as bigotry and prejudicial.

We have enough problems that one can find fault with many things without making a generalization that smacks more of bigotry and prejudicial intolerance of other people's belief systems because you don't like that particuler belief system.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I haven't lost my touch folks. Even after an extended absence from the Backroom, I still managed to take Red through his well known, tried and true, patented "three stages of debate":

1. You're generalizing!

2. You're making emotional appeals!

3. Your statements are bigoted!

In the space of 4 posts, I went from being a generalizer to a purveyor of bigotry.

All because I said I believe that American citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government, then acknowledged that this was only my personal opinion supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

I'm glad to see you haven't changed, Red.

~:grouphug:

Redleg

08-22-2006, 00:01

All because I said I believe that American citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government, then acknowledged that this was only my personal opinion supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Glad to see you acknowledge that your statement was based upon prejudicial bigotry versus actual facts.

Whats wrong Goofy did I touch a nerve on your unprovable generalization?

Edit: And again there is normally only two stages - one being calling people on their generalization and thier emotional appeal. The other stage we haven't even reached yet.

Papewaio

08-22-2006, 07:03

Well this was going well.

Quite above average for an evolution debate.

So instead of locked and gone. I will give it a 12 to 24 hour timeout.

Papewaio

08-24-2006, 00:01

Reopened, play nicely. :balloon2:

BDC

08-24-2006, 12:19

I wonder what evolutionary pressures lead to baby pandas being so cute and amusing to humans?

Moros

08-24-2006, 12:22

I wonder what evolutionary pressures lead to baby pandas being so cute and amusing to humans?
Well that's verry simple. If they evolved to hidious beasts they would have been slained and killed already. Now however because of their cuteness, people even try to prevent them for extinction.

:sweatdrop:

Lemur

08-24-2006, 22:35

Let no one say that our government is unresponsive to the will of the people. Presto! Evolution is no longer an acceptable field for federal grants to low-income college students! (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24evo.html?ex=1314072000&en=51fe61534e0cf171&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

August 24, 2006

Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

By CORNELIA DEAN

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

An article about the issue was posted Tuesday on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Dr. Krauss said the omission would be “of great concern” if evolutionary biology had been singled out for removal, or if the change had been made without consulting with experts on biology. The grants are awarded under the National Smart Grant program, established this year by Congress. (Smart stands for Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent.)

The program provides $4,000 grants to third- or fourth-year, low-income students majoring in physical, life or computer sciences; mathematics; technology; engineering; or foreign languages deemed “critical” to national security.

The list of eligible majors (which is online at ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0606A.pdf) is drawn from the Education Department’s “Classification of Instructional Programs,” or CIP (pronounced “sip”), a voluminous and detailed classification of courses of study, arranged in a numbered system of sections and subsections.

Part 26, biological and biomedical sciences, has a number of sections, each of which has one or more subsections. Subsection 13 is ecology, evolution, systematics and population biology. This subsection itself has 10 sub-subsections. One of them is 26.1303 — evolutionary biology, “the scientific study of the genetic, developmental, functional, and morphological patterns and processes, and theoretical principles; and the emergence and mutation of organisms over time.”

Though references to evolution appear in listings of other fields of biological study, the evolutionary biology sub-subsection is missing from a list of “fields of study” on the National Smart Grant list — there is an empty space between line 26.1302 (marine biology and biological oceanography) and line 26.1304 (aquatic biology/limnology).

Students cannot simply list something else on an application form, said Mr. Nassirian of the registrars’ association. “Your declared major maps to a CIP code,” he said.

Mr. Nassirian said people at the Education Department had described the omission as “a clerical mistake.” But it is “odd,” he said, because applying the subject codes “is a fairly mechanical task. It is not supposed to be the subject of any kind of deliberation.”

“I am not at all certain that the omission of this particular major is unintentional,” he added. “But I have to take them at their word.”

Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. “It’s just awfully coincidental,” said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University.

Jeremy Gunn, who directs the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the change was not immediately reversed “we will certainly pursue this.”

Dr. Rissing said removing evolutionary biology from the list of acceptable majors would discourage students who needed the grants from pursuing the field, at a time when studies of how genes act and evolve are producing valuable insights into human health.

“This is not just some kind of nicety,” he said. “We are doing a terrible disservice to our students if this is yet another example of making sure science doesn’t offend anyone.”

Dr. Krauss of Case Western said he did not know what practical issues would arise from the omission of evolutionary biology from the list, given that students would still be eligible for grants if they declared a major in something else — biology, say.

“I am sure an enterprising student or program director could find a way to put themselves in another slot,” he said. “But why should they have to do that?”

Mr. Nassirian said he was not so sure. “Candidly, I don’t think most administrators know enough about this program” to help students overcome the apparent objection to evolutionary biology, he said. Undergraduates would be even less knowledgeable about the issue, he added.

Dr. Krauss said: “Removing that one major is not going to make the nation stupid, but if this really was removed, specifically removed, then I see it as part of a pattern to put ideology over knowledge. And, especially in the Department of Education, that should be abhorred.”