Alturism: A weakness in creationist reasoning

[CapelDodger]

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

More remarkable than being able to "see" moral calculation - which is pretty damn' remarkable - is the fact that we have the concept and go looking in the first place. We're the first introspective species in the neighbourhood. All bets are off.

 

[dudalb]

Wow,a discussion about Altruism and Ayn Rand's name has yet to make an appreance.I am impressed.

 

[leftysergeant]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.

 

[supercorgi]

I'm not archaeologically well-versed...could I get a source on this please?

The famous Shanidar Cave

Social animals help their more vulnerable members, and as the vulnerable members grow up they help the new generation of vulnerable. http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

That is an amazing video. In some of these cases, I think it's maternal instinct gone wrong, where the animal identifies an offspring of another species as an offspring of their own species. For example, the crow that raised a kitten: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/kitten-and-crow-p1.php or the gorilla who protected the child that had fallen into her zoo habitat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binti_Jua

 

[Terry]

My take on homosexuality is that it is not of itself adaptive behavior, but comes as an inevitable result of something else that is highly adaptive. Pair-bonding, for instance.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.

It looks like it is much more complicated than that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearest animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

Bonobos are no closer kin to HomSap than the troglodytes, and I think it shows. I sort of wish we were more like bonobos, but if we were we'd be bush-meat to Pan troglodytes.

HomPongo will inherit the Earth, mark my words.

 

[athon]

My take on homosexuality is that it is not of itself adaptive behavior, but comes as an inevitable result of something else that is highly adaptive. Pair-bonding, for instance.

I agree. People treat homosexuality as if it is a single, 'all or none' trait which is universally identical amongst all who are classified as such. In truth, it's a much deeper and more complex social behaviour.

Additionally, not all genetic transfer is direct. My sister has a fifty percent chance of sharing any given gene I have. Her children have a twenty-five percent chance of sharing my genes and genetic combinations. If my homosexuality assists in social bonding, there's a good chance those genes will be successful by proxy. This is a form of kin selection. Bisexuality could form strong bonds social groups as well, of which homosexuality is at one extreme.

People who use the tired old 'homosexuality is unnatural' or 'anti evolution' obviously have never studied evolution.

Athon

 

[plumjam]

I've just been told that homosexuality is "an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings."

it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory

 

[articulett]

More remarkable than being able to "see" moral calculation - which is pretty damn' remarkable - is the fact that we have the concept and go looking in the first place. We're the first introspective species in the neighbourhood. All bets are off.

Damn straight we are! And we figured it through slow and steady progress in science-- no omniscient anything gave us a clue.

 

[articulett]

Even homosexuality may be a function of some drive to form closer bonds within a group. The ability to relate with persons ofo one's own sex on an emotional level, perhaps, but taken to an extreme. Going back to our nearestr animal kin, the bonobo, please note that the are AC/DC, the lot of them. The guys prefer the girls and the girls prefer each other.

And there is no more closely-knit animal society that side of the pongid/hominid divide.

Yes-- orgasms instead of aggression. It release oxytocin-- making participants closer and more trusting. As to the sex drive of males in general... it seems very strong and not necessarily very specific (any port in a storm)-- and more likely to be odd and not subject to threats of hell (witness pedophilia in the clergy).

It seems some homosexuality is related to hormonal influences in the mother and the fetus. Opposite sex twins have hormonal affects on eachother, in fact, in both animals and humans.

The brain is only partly developed in utero... it evolved to get it's programming from the environment it finds itself in. It has an instinct for language... but culture inculcates that language.

 

[athon]

I've just been told that homosexuality is "an epiphenomenon that actually might provide some selection advantage to one's siblings."

it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory

It's interesting how you have nothing else to say other than some derisive comment. I assume you don't understanding evolutionary theories, hence can only give a blanket refutation?

Who's clinging to what, I wonder?

Athon

 

[Just thinking]

You seem not to quite understand evolution, so please don't wink at me-- it reminds me of hammy.

I'll try to refrain.

You are correct in the first sentence. Of course turtles and other animals can survive fine without altruistic behavior. Such traits only develop in animals where a little bit of cooperation or empathy make for a slight survival or reproductive advantage. In mammals, it appears to be a byproduct of hormones related to bonding and mirror neurons--especially in primates.

Yes ... pair bonding is a strong instinct, but that does not define altruism, does it? Do we find animals in the wild fighting natural enemies as groups beyond what we would consider mere cooperation? Once one is taken down do the others continue to fight the enemy for it back in a wounded state, or do they allow nature to take its course with the hunter having its reward?

In insects and bacteria and slime mold it seems to be more with having the benefits of a society or group so that various members can take on different roles. And genetics doesn't code for specific traits really... just tendencies and preferences and inclinations-- we evolved to be "programmed" by our culture. Our ancestors who had better social skills survived preferentially--and for obvious reasons. Even in baboons you see this. The males who are jerks and don't make female friends, die young-- the youngsters come into power and drive the nasty old guy out.

Now this is beginning to get at the heart of what I'm getting at. We may very well be programmed to accept cultural behavior and pass it along from generation to generation. And that is evolutionarily derived. And it makes sense, as we can take those traits which work to our benefit the best and continue to use them ... and with our brains, refine them as well. Perhaps altruism is just that --- a cultural behavior that has been refined to what we define it as today. Starting out as pair bonding, or even parental bonding, we as humans could see the benefit of this behavior beyond its immediate payoff. And we could even apply it to more generalized behavior --- not because our genes wired us that way, but because they wired us to learn, and pass down what was now an accepted beneficial cultural behavior.

Why, do you have evidence for an alternative explanation (other than evolutionary benefit or byproduct) for such a trait? How does any alternative hypothesis fit the above links?

See last paragraph.

We can "see" where moral decisions are made in the brain... and we can change it via damage and hormones. We know a lot about the evolution of the brain. Reptiles, like turtles don't show the feelings of mammals--they don't even have the part of the brain associated with such feelings.

Yes ... and we can utilize psychological altruism over mere biological altruism as a result of these brains, which is the big step.

 

[articulett]

Did you watch the clip where the hippo attempts to save the baby impala-- I have a couple that shows gorillas (one male; one female) protecting a toddler that fell in their enclosure at a zoos. Have you read much about mirror neurons? Did you read those articles? Some degree of moral sense and altruism evolved-- the way mother mammals often nurture those of a different species-- cats going in burning buildings to save kittens... apes risking their lives to save friends that fell in zoo moats. Yes, some is definitely a cultural byproduct... but we evolved to be cultural--social-- we evolved to learn language, but the language has to be "programed" via culture.

We evolved to fill niches as well. Most mammals do most of their brain development in utero-- humans do much of it on the outside depending entirely on others while the brain develops.

I would say altruism is no more culture than language-- maybe less so, because it's more primal-- not really thought out... rather instinctive... like that man who jumped upon another man in the subway who had fallen from a seizure as a train was coming. There was no time to think... and he had his kids with him. But he jumped on the guy (a stranger) and lied over him as the subway passed safely over the both of them. He saved the guys limbs if not his life. But I bet he wouldn't have known he would do something like that before him. There had to be some extinct. When you have a kid, most people feel very strongly that they would rather die or suffer than have their kid do so-- it must be encoded on some level and then extended by culture or as a byproduct of the primal instinct (our love of baby looking animals). What humans see as cute is a byproduct of the evolutionary advantage of finding babies cute--especially one's own.

 

[leftysergeant]

When you have a kid, most people feel very strongly that they would rather die or suffer than have their kid do so-- it must be encoded on some level and then extended by culture or as a byproduct of the primal instinct (our love of baby looking animals). What humans see as cute is a byproduct of the evolutionary advantage of finding babies cute--especially one's own.

In deed. The more one resembles a baby bonobo, as opposed to, say an adult chimpanzee, the better one's chances of mating successfully and forming a relatively stable bonded pair.

 

[plumjam]

how about love?
you know,... like when you look into another conscious being's eyes and recognise that the essence of their being is identical to yours?
come on, even some of you cold scientists on here must feel love sometimes
yep, even without evidence or citations
go on, surprise me

 

[leftysergeant]

Er....

The ability to love is closely related to what we are discussing here, but the connection gets a bit nebulous.

Certainly, it is a trait conducive to the survival of the species.

And finding another person sexually attractive is a stimulus to that emotion.

As for its survival value to humans, just ask yourself whether, if you did not really find the female in your life attractive, emotionally comforting or whatever, would you want to put up with her squalling brat when you are trying to sleep?

 

[athon]

Er....

The ability to love is closely related to what we are discussing here, but the connection gets a bit nebulous.

Certainly, it is a trait conducive to the survival of the species.

And finding another person sexually attractive is a stimulus to that emotion.

As for its survival value to humans, just ask yourself whether, if you did not really find the female in your life attractive, emotionally comforting or whatever, would you want to put up with her squalling brat when you are trying to sleep?

Ignore him. Plumjam has no interest in discussing anything, so don't bite the bait he's putting out.

Athon

 

[plumjam]

Er....

The ability to love is closely related to what we are discussing here, but the connection gets a bit nebulous.

Certainly, it is a trait conducive to the survival of the species.

And finding another person sexually attractive is a stimulus to that emotion.

As for its survival value to humans, just ask yourself whether, if you did not really find the female in your life attractive, emotionally comforting or whatever, would you want to put up with her squalling brat when you are trying to sleep?

yep, i accept most of what you say.
I'm just wondering why it is that, if survival value is the supreme value in life (according to Darwinism), why don't we live our lives like that?
Sure, people like to have sex, but with most of it they do their best to stop the perpetuation of their genes (contraception, abortion, withdrawal, non-penetrative sex.. not to mention homosexuality, which I brought up in another post )
But that's just a minor point.
In a purely Darwin-formed living world why would it be that most people for most of the time derive meaning in life from (and therefore ascribe most importance to) forms of behaviour difficult to reconcile with Darwinism... such as religion, music, arts, crafts, a thousand and one hobbies that won't perpetuate their genes, philosophy, humour, watching sport, drinking beer, reality tv, surfing the net, dangerous sports, parachuting, rock climbing etc etc...
A Darwin Universe just would not have produced such incredibly complex phenomena, most of which have no discernible survival value.

 

[plumjam]

Ignore him. Plumjam has no interest in discussing anything, so don't bite the bait he's putting out.

Athon

seeing as I don't remember you offering to discuss anything with me, that's a slight exaggeration