While I do not have the time nor the interest right now to fully delve myself into writing a respone in regards to this subject I would like to recommend various Stanford articles with relevance to this discussion:

1) FitzPatrick, William, "Morality and Evolutionary Biology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/morality-biology

--> Special regards here to chapter 3 of the thesis, although a full reading will prevent drawing the wrong conclusions as Julkorn was want to do here

2) Doris, John and Stich, Stephen, "Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/moral-psych-emp

--> Notice article 5.3 titled "Altruism and Evolution"

3) Downes, Stephen M., "Evolutionary Psychology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/evolutionary-psychology

--> The WHOLE article since this seems to be the root of misunderstand people are having in this conversation that they falsely attribute causations and explanations which are not intended as such

4) Lewens, Tim, "Cultural Evolution", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/evolution-cultural

--> This delves deeper into the differentation between evolution, memes and group adaptation in a cultural and/or biological perspective



Would love to continue this conversation at a later time if and only when people have taken the time to enhance their understanding. But right now I'm going to sleep - good night :)

Edited 4/14/2014 23:55:49

Edited 4/15/2014 00:27:17

Well, well, Richard. Let me focus on this "if they deem it necessary". Would you say that your evolutionary heritage would have any stake in that process of "deeming"? And if so, how do you explain this mass-killing of your own offspring in the richest society of all that ever existed, in terms of Evolution? And if not, you are saying that we got minds of our own without any influence by Evolution, filled with utter stupidity in terms of Evolution or where is it that you are aiming? You got my point now, I presume.

At least in my view this is lacking proof to Evolution right there. Right on hand. That position can only be saved by withdrawing all things evolutionary back into Genetics. Right? No Selfish Gene influencing our behaviour in sight so far. Waiting... waiting....

Edited 4/15/2014 00:26:33

Edited 4/15/2014 00:27:10

Right. We agree on "unrelated to Evolution". Evolution, shoo, shoo! Back with you into Genetics! You got no hand in our minds! Hehe.

Ah, still need to read Aranka's a thousand sources. :(

You can't separate Genetics and Society with a clear line and you can't bleach the grey area out with a skylight.

Humans are more than capable of ignoring their instincts for a number of reasons, so just because you have a genetic hard wiring for reproduction, doesn't mean you'll end up wanting to. This also implies that we accept our existence is primarily to reproduce. This may be a part of it, but not necessarily the only purpose we serve, but let's leave the "meaning of life" out of this thread, it'll get even stickier than it is now.

Evolution would simply refer to these people as dead ends, I assume. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that those who survive are the fittest, in terms of health, intelligence, etc. It's simply referring to the dog-eat-dog reality we live in. There's always a few lingering oddities in our genetic code and perhaps our general behavior, that would be self-destructive.

You seem to be fighting from a perspective that our genes are getting better over the millennia, but I'd like to highlight that some of the most brilliant and influential figures in history have failed to reproduce. Well, offspring that is. They did oftentimes create lasting impressions through their works, which could be considered their offspring in a sense perhaps?

Lastly, humans are self-aware and have higher cognitive function. That means we can observe something and then choose to reject it i.e. Someone knows they're genetically wired for reproduction, but they have no desire to take responsibility of raising another life (the Selfish Gene you were talking about I guess?).

Taisho, you are observing all these contradictions to the statement, that we would be the highly refined result of a millennia-long process of selecting the fit for survival which should let you expect that this descent should show and could be proven in our behaviour. First this waning of cultures at their pinnacle of strength and wealth, now this about most brilliant figures having no offspring. You are adding to my initial three thoughts.

Though, you do not completely want to agree with me that this is a wrong statement, you do in effect at least agree that I was looking at evolutionary stupidity or at dead-ends as you call it when looking on abortionists and that we are currently looking on the downfall of Western Culture. You could even draw my conclusion from your observations that there is no such result of a selection process which leads to this that there is no selection process resulting in any noticeable progress, but, of course, you would not.

Then again, do you think that the development of higher cognitive functions and self-awareness is some sort of dead-end? Will the future belong to humans that are less self-aware and clever and more like slaves to their desire to reproduce and would not kill their offspring? And if so, isn't it plausible that this has already been some necessary step in-between animals and humans that was already reached and actually overcome? Aren't we today most fit for survival at least according to our potential? Isn't that a contradiction again? I'm getting tired now. Got to work tomorrow. :(

Edited 4/15/2014 01:23:11

Something I've always wondered is why some aethiests try very hard to make Christians lose their faith. If you are an aethiest, you aren't gaining anything from it, where with Christianity, you have the hope of something after death. Christians want all to know the Word so that others can go to heaven with us. But what do aethiests gain by pressing their religion( or lack of) on other people? It's always puzzled me.

And just so you guys know, I'm a 17 year old Boy who goes to a private, Lutheran high school in a rural town in the Midwest so the only way I learn about aethiests is from a very biased religion teacher who has no idea what he's saying half the time, and the Internet. I was starting to wonder about whether we (Christians) were being brainwashed by our parents and so I did a few days study on the Internet about why Creation is false compared to why evolution is false, and I ended up strengthening my faith in Creation and Jesus. I'm stronger in my faith now than ever, so please don't try to convert me, it will be a waste of your time. But I would like an answer to my question if you can provide it.

Maybe you are so brainwashed that you believe you came by that conclusion on your own?

You can't prove Christianity but there's no way to disprove it either. And because of that, I will never lose faith. I am happy in life, have my future mapped out and I am confident I am going to heaven.

Btw, you didn't answer my question.

Edited 4/19/2014 14:49:31

I was not supposed to answer your question, as you said yourself you are a 17 year old boy who is going on Lutheran high school. You never had a real reality check.

And maybe you wont ever have one. Most people live like that until they die. They never develop a real code of their own, but pick one the market they can find.

And believe me, most atheists just want to be left alone. They don`t want to enlighten you, nor convert you. They faced the same old stupidity and superstition a billion times before, most of them are just tired to talk about Fairy Tales and Imaginary Friends.

Edited 4/15/2014 02:36:48

Isn't that what you have done also? You picked atheism from the market and that's your "code". The truth is, you can't disprove Christianity. I choose to believe in Christianity; you choose to believe in atheism. It's a matter of faith. I will spread the Word of Christ because that's what I believe in and I care about others and want them to live happily after death like I will.

Edited 4/15/2014 02:45:40

Here is my question JSA.
If you meet an admitted atheist, do you try to convert them? If they reject your initial attempt, do you continue to try to convert?

This is evolutionary psychology, so far I haven't seen evopsych explain a single action or thought any human has ever had. Its a very new and confused field which addresses how the brain works, something we are still really really bad at understanding. You aren't going to get good answers to your questions.

I pray for all non-Christians. If I know someone is a strong athiest, and content with their opinion, i won't directly try to convert them. If they seem to not be satisfied with atheism, I will usually tell them about Jesus' love. If they aren't interested at all, I will back off and won't try to convert them unless they ask more about Jesus.

Christians are easy to pick on and often times ill equipped to face the blunt force of atheists and therefore make a mockery of themselves, because of their ignorance.

The irony is that most atheists regurgitate the same "propaganda" they condemn Christians of spouting, from the other side of the table. They are likewise ill equipped to attack our faith, because they themselves rely on faith based decision making.

A scientist and intellectual would know that the most logical course of action would be to set out to prove or disprove a theory by collecting evidence through observation, tests, etc. Naturally, this is a long and difficult process that will likely take centuries, if not millenia to resolve.

Also, Christians aren't necessarily supposed to convert people. Our job is to spread the Word, not shove it down people's throats.

I should add though, that a wise man would know that he cannot know anything for certain. When your entire life is based on faith, rejecting the possibility of things that cannot be seen seems illogical to me.

Edited 4/15/2014 03:47:59

you are observing all these contradictions to the statement, that we would be the highly refined result of a millennia-long process of selecting the fit for survival which should let you expect that this descent should show and could be proven in our behaviour...You are adding to my initial three thoughts.

That's the thing I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but rather adding my own perception based on my experience and readings. I recognize the contradiction that evolution purposes, but also our misinterpretation.

you do in effect at least agree that I was looking at evolutionary stupidity or at dead-ends as you call it when looking on abortionists and that we are currently looking on the downfall of Western Culture.

I think Darwin jumped the gun by claiming we all originate from the same species, but much of what he wrote about in Origin of Species is true, i.e. survival of the fittest. Fittest is an open-ended definition of whatever makes you most able to adapt to any particular type of environment. Sometimes the weak, dumb schlub has a better chance of surviving. Being smart tends to get you killed. So does being strong.

You could even draw my conclusion from your observations that there is no such result of a selection process which leads to this that there is no selection process resulting in any noticeable progress, but, of course, you would not.

I think one of the key factors of self-awareness is the ability to choose one's own path. This and the fact that everyone is indirectly at competition with everyone else. Beautiful girls may be dumb, but have sex appeal, whereas less attractive girls may be healthier or more social. There are so many factors at play, that narrowing it down to a few noticeable traits would be cutting out the bigger picture.

Then again, do you think that the development of higher cognitive functions and self-awareness is some sort of dead-end?

Not really. I think the ones who choose a selfish, nonproductive lifestyle are welcome to continue along their path, so long as they cause no harm to those around them. Hopefully their lifestyle will die out with them. For the rest of us who like to keep our brains turned on for the important stuff, we'll find a way.

Will the future belong to humans that are less self-aware and clever and more like slaves to their desire to reproduce and would not kill their offspring?

Herd mentality is a clever method of survival, which isn't exactly what you were getting at, but a good comparison to bring up. When two clans were at war with each other the clan that won claimed absolute victory and the clan that lost was either exterminated or absorbed. This way safety was more or less assured. Of course there's always new splits occurring within society and so the vicious cycle continues.

Anyways, smart people reproduce as well. In a society where raising children is less expensive and the society takes some of the burden of raising children off the parents (via affordable schools, daycare and extracurricular activities) affluent parents are more likely to have more children, than in societies where raising children is expensive. So a large factor in determining family size seems to be related to money (resources), understandably.

Children don't start adding to a family's wealth in Western Society until they're 16 (earliest) and often times use that wealth on themselves rather than share it with the rest of the family. This is a trend you're starting to see more in the East as well, but traditionally families were much closer and supported one another more, for reasons of safety and stability. Well, that can be related to a number of factors, most notably the increase individual liberties and wealth.

Aren't we today most fit for survival at least according to our potential?

If intelligence is defined as the ability to absorb and regurgitate information, we've certainly gotten better at it, but when it comes to critical thinking, not necessarily.

Also, we've always had great potential as a species, but evolution doesn't claim we're improving, only changing. Since our environment changes, so does the variety in the gene pool.

The problem with your reasoning and analysis is the problem most deeply religious people tend to have when trying to disprove evolution and prove their moral and omnipotent god is the truth. EVIDENCE. I suspect that is because religion forces the idea that you need to blindly believe in something (but i could be wrong of course).

Evolution has thousands upon thousands pieces of evidence to prove it's claim (these are objective, testable evidence, not subjective "I feel god" evidence), religion has nothing but vague "god of the gaps" arguments. Just because we haven't figured out something yet, doesn't mean god did it, or that we never will. EVIDENCE. You don't disprove evolution by philosophical and logical debates. EVIDENCE.

It's difficult to shred you're arguments because there are none. You are talking about a subject you have only superficial knowledge and trying to place weight where there is none. You are trying to oversimplify very complex social and physiological processes, so that you can trick someone into thinking you have evidence.

We learned from Evolution theorists that men tend to have several relationships and spread their offspring and that women want their men attached in order to have them defend them and their offspring.

Maybe YOU have learned that and learned it WRONG. It's far more complicated and there are way more factors involved than that.

Oh and the "dominating ideology in the Western World/First World to encourage abortion" is only in your head.

Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to ban religions. If it makes you feel good and makes you better human being, than by all means believe in what you will. Just don't try to stunt scientific theory that works on vague arguments without evidence because it doesn't fit with your personal belief.

Edited 4/15/2014 09:30:31

Julkorn has succeeded, he has made me very skeptical of evolution. If evolution is real, how could it produce such a complete fucking idiot as julkorn? Something as stupid as Julkorn can only be a product of sloppy Divine Creation.

Should I go on about this upcoming rule of PC? How does Evolution explain Political Correctness and its power, siphoning in all people, making them into obedient followers?

this is one of my favourite things that i have ever read. thank you julkorn, i love you and your 15th century mindset.

Now, why is it that men feel pain when a relationship ends? What is the evolutionary explanation for his pain?

Using evolution to try to explain interactions in a human society is like explaining cooking with quantum physics.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.