Alturism: A weakness in creationist reasoning

[athon]

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

Given a topic to discuss, the best you can offer is 'it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory'. Rather than back it up with anything, you continue with more nonsense.

You want to know why those who believe such silly things aren't taken seriously? Because they avoid discussion, choosing mockery and derisive comments like that.

Make a solid comment and people might want to talk to you. Otherwise, you're nothing more than an annoying troll who brings nothing worthy to the discussion table.

Athon

 

[RandFan]

It would be very helpful if you could provide a link and cite the relevant evidence. Thanks.

Before I respond any further, I would like to ask, have you read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins? Do you have a copy at your disposal? I think this could be an interesting discussion if you did.

So, I guess the answers are no, no and no.

Thanks, I guess.

I'm curious lefty, why did you bother to invite me to this thread?

 

[RandFan]

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

This isn't argument. It's rhetoric.

 

[leftysergeant]

Are you familiar with the concept of play being a stimulus to brain development? I think that the extension of play into adult years, in some other form, keeps us interested in learning things. Learning things helps us adapt to a wider range of environments.

Being able to colonize everyplace from the middle of the Rub al khali to Antarctica and everyplace in between has proven to be of some survival value to the species.

 

[leftysergeant]

So, I guess the answers are no, no and no.

Thanks, I guess.

I'm curious lefty, why did you bother to invite me to this thread?

I am still looking for a source on Dawkins. I have never heard of him before.

I am trying not to draw any unfounded conclusions here, but, out of curiousity, are you using Dawkins to support a particular socio-political position?

I am drawing largely from my memory of books I have read by Richard Leakey, Donald Johanson and Stephen Jay Gould, and perhaps flavor my interpretations of these works with my own religious beliefs.

My belief in a natural process of evolution, to include the formation of self-replicating organic matter out of the primordial soup does not preclude my believing in a provident God. Evolution seems to me the way that a rational God would have gone about it. (I'm thinking of the "blind watch maker" version of God here.)

 

[athon]

Never heard of Dawkins? You've read Gould and Leaky, have an interest in evolution, and never heard of Dawkins? Sorry, I just find that rather amazing.

If you've read Gould, you must read Dawkins for an interesting contrast.

Athon

 

[plumjam]

Given a topic to discuss, the best you can offer is 'it's just interesting to watch how convoluted and improbable the 'explanations' become when people are clinging to a theory'. Rather than back it up with anything, you continue with more nonsense.

You want to know why those who believe such silly things aren't taken seriously? Because they avoid discussion, choosing mockery and derisive comments like that.

Make a solid comment and people might want to talk to you. Otherwise, you're nothing more than an annoying troll who brings nothing worthy to the discussion table.

Athon

yawn...
go through my old posts if you're so interested in my Randi Forum history

 

[plumjam]

This isn't argument. It's rhetoric.

yes, rhetoric always adds a certain 'je ne sais quoi', I find...
....
in fact.. come to think of it, it isn't rhetoric at all.. it's observation of the evidence.. which is much more sacred here. Someone should massage my feet with oil.

 

[leftysergeant]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

 

[articulett]

the woo just scream-- "notice me", "worship me", "respect me", "you are all so lucky to hear my woo-- the true woo!"

And randfan, like the gentleman you are, you actually labeled it as "rhetoric".

Plumjam-- you must hook up with maatorc. He thinks he's the next messiah too.

 

[athon]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Fair enough. It's just like saying 'I've seen a fair bit of magic; but I've never really gotten around to checking out this Houdini guy', is all.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

How much have you read on it? Do you understand the concept?

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature.

Memes function in any organism that has a culture. If it demonstrates a behaviour which can be passed on socially, the behaviour can be called a 'meme'. It is useful in drawing a parallel in terms of genetic change and social change, which share some similarities.

Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

So? Altruism is not necessarily a memetic phenomena. You're confusing two fields that Dawkins was describing. If you wish to discuss memetics, we can do that. Or the idea of a selfish gene, we can discuss that, too.

Athon

 

[plumjam]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

don't dare criticise Dawkins on here. You'll be excommunicated

 

[articulett]

My reading list covers such a wide variety of topics, and I just never got around to Dawkins.

Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique, and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?

Well, you might want to try reading the tops in the field on the field of genetics and neurology... or at least look at the links provided in order to have some credibility on the subject-- Steven Jones, Dawkins, Shermer, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, etc. Or watch them on you tube. Dawkins is as non-woo as Randy and your pre judgement of memes shows that you, not only haven't read him, but you are don't really know what you are talking about. It's not a "theory"-- it's just a way of showing how information systems evolve-- whether it's culture, fads, religions, or the internet... I don't trust people who talk like you do. Those who seem to have this dislike of Dawkins without having read him tend to be those who have "intelligent design" ideas that are not supported by evidence. Moreover, they tend to be hard to follow and insert silly emoticons. They seem to judge science without even investigating the evidence while proffering vague opinions as facts without a smidgen of evidence in support.

But maybe I've been around religious apologist types too much and see it when it isn't there. But why the smarmy wink? I don't consider you more knowledgable than me or Dawkins or others on this thread. Is there a reason we should.

 

[articulett]

don't dare criticise Dawkins on here. You'll be excommunicated

It's the hammy wink and everything.... and associating respect of scientists who tell the truth as being similar to invisible savior worship of people who offer nothing testable.

Faith does not equal Facts even though someone dumped that notion in your head. And it's religionists that excommunicate to manipulate people into believing stuff for which there is no evidence. Dawkins is always more than willing to provide evidence-- but the smarmy creationists don't want any of it-- they just want to convince themselves that he doesn't know what he's talking about although it is they who haven't an iota of evidence for their everlasting parade of inane claims.

Respect for the massive amount of true measurable useful data has brought to the world is not the same as is not the same as worshiping invisible people because some all loving guy killed his kid (who was really him) and yada yada yada.

But of course-- the woo mind is impenetrable-- too certain they know all--

 

[plumjam]

It's the hammy wink and everything.... and associating respect of scientists who tell the truth as being similar to invisible savior worship of people who offer nothing testable.

Faith does not equal Facts even though someone dumped that notion in your head. And it's religionists that excommunicate to manipulate people into believing stuff for which there is no evidence. Dawkins is always more than willing to provide evidence-- but the smarmy creationists don't want any of it-- they just want to convince themselves that he doesn't know what he's talking about although it is they who haven't an iota of evidence for their everlasting parade of inane claims.

Respect for the massive amount of true measurable useful data has brought to the world is not the same as is not the same as worshiping invisible people because some all loving guy killed his kid (who was really him) and yada yada yada.

But of course-- the woo mind is impenetrable-- too certain they know all--

lol.. you're so easily provoked that I almost feel guilty

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

That's nice. Would you like to ask how it works rather than deciding ahead of time that there is no explanation? If you have no intellectual curiosity or no interest in actual biology and simply want to gainsay, that's fine.

How you could decide that the explanations are convoluted and improbable when you haven't even been given the explanation is beyond me. I have seen plenty of people respond in just such fashion when they have an obvious agenda. What is your agenda? Are you even aware of it?

 

[strathmeyer]

with this characterisation of Darwinism in mind I'm wondering whether anyone can cast light on the origination and perpetuation, in humans, of the following phenomena:

homosexuality
choosing a life of celibacy
suicide
couples choosing to remain childless despite having plenty of resources


If you're using Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of human altruism, then you must be similarly able to use Darwinism to explain the origin and perpetuation of these phenomena.

Can you explain what about the perpetuation of these phenomena isn't made clear to you by the explanation of the perpetuation of altruism?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Homosexuality can also be seen as a by-product of the shift of sexuality from a pure vehicle of reproduction to a social activity, which has occurred in humans. The advantage of sex as a social activity is to bond the males and females together as a family group with sufficient strength to endure the unusual long time needed to rear human children.

Since family groups are often diffuse in primitive societies, a minority of homeosexual relations don't detract from this. In fact, homosexuals are perfectly capable of conceiving and rearing children, except in the fairly rare cases where some are so strongly oriented that it prevents them from having an occasional heterosexual intercourse.

Hans

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Homosexuality can also be seen as a by-product of the shift of sexuality from a pure vehicle of reproduction to a social activity, which has occurred in humans. The advantage of sex as a social activity is to bond the males and females together as a family group with sufficient strength to endure the unusual long time needed to rear human children.

Since family groups are often diffuse in primitive societies, a minority of homeosexual relations don't detract from this. In fact, homosexuals are perfectly capable of conceiving and rearing children, except in the fairly rare cases where some are so strongly oriented that it prevents them from having an occasional heterosexual intercourse.

Hans

I think that is a potentially dangerous view because it seems to imply, at least to me, that homosexuality is a choice. While there may be some choice involved, I think it is more of an orientation.

 

[articulett]

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

Not to the majority if not all the respected members of this community.
You are typical woo. All preaching, no evidence, no listening.