Science and Theology, the sequel

09/08/2008 11:05:53 AM · #751

Originally posted by RonB:

What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?

That's anybody's guess as it would be difficult to glean that sort of behavioral info from a fossil, but it's likely to at least predate rats.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/08/2008 07:01:53 PM · #752

Originally posted by RonB:

And that proves that morality is rooted in genetic evolution how?????
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?

We had a side discussion in another thread about a similar topic. I asked you whether you found more attractive (all other things being equal): people who were compassionate and altruistic, or people who are self-centred and greedy. You did not answer. Would you care to respond here?

David Ey

Nikon D80

09/08/2008 07:13:26 PM · #753

Yeah Ron, would you rather be hit on the head with a baseball bat swung by a Yankee player or a Atlanta player?

09/08/2008 08:24:57 PM · #754

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
And that proves that morality is rooted in genetic evolution how?????
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?

We had a side discussion in another thread about a similar topic. I asked you whether you found more attractive (all other things being equal): people who were compassionate and altruistic, or people who are self-centred and greedy. You did not answer. Would you care to respond here?

Ah. As Louis would say, that is a difficult question of great complexity. If I say that I found people who were compassionate and altruistic more attractive to me ( all other things being equal ), then I would be admitting to being self-centered and greedy, since I would be making judgements based on MY feelings, not theirs. If I were truly compassionate and altruistic, then I would have to say that I find EVERYONE attractive. In fact, the only one I know who can be THAT compassionate and altruistic is God.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/08/2008 08:39:30 PM · #755

Originally posted by David Ey:

Yeah Ron, would you rather be hit on the head with a baseball bat swung by a Yankee player or a Atlanta player?

As a former resident of Connecticut and a life-long Red Sox fan, I would prefer a bat swung by an Atlanta player. A Yankee player probably brought their bats from Fenway Park when their contract got bought out by Steinbrenner.
I think that that's how the Red Sox continue to make money in the most fan-friendly, beautiful, cozy MLB stadium in the U.S.A. - they sell players to the Yankees, at a profit.

BTW. Since last Thursday, the Red Sox hold the record for most consecutive sold-out home games in Major League Baseball. Every home game for more than 5 years.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

09/09/2008 12:21:38 PM · #756

Intelligent design as we speak: Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

09/10/2008 11:51:40 AM · #757

Originally posted by RonB:

Ah. As Louis would say, that is a difficult question of great complexity.

Hardly. If there were two sisters in front of you, one of whom was compassionate and altruistic, and the other was self-centred and greedy, all other things being equal which one would you want to marry?

09/11/2008 11:05:42 AM · #758

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?

That's anybody's guess as it would be difficult to glean that sort of behavioral info from a fossil, but it's likely to at least predate rats.

Merely difficult to glean from a fossil? or impossible to glean from a fossil?
And, if impossible, then what evidence can be offered as proof that altruism is genetic in origin?

09/11/2008 11:12:07 AM · #759

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?

That's anybody's guess as it would be difficult to glean that sort of behavioral info from a fossil, but it's likely to at least predate rats.

Merely difficult to glean from a fossil? or impossible to glean from a fossil?
And, if impossible, then what evidence can be offered as proof that altruism is genetic in origin?

1. Merely difficult. 2. See the link you just quoted. Genetics is not limited to fossils.

09/11/2008 11:58:53 AM · #760

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?

That's anybody's guess as it would be difficult to glean that sort of behavioral info from a fossil, but it's likely to at least predate rats.

Merely difficult to glean from a fossil? or impossible to glean from a fossil?
And, if impossible, then what evidence can be offered as proof that altruism is genetic in origin?

1. Merely difficult.

So you are claiming that, with some difficulty, that sort of behavioral info CAN be gleaned from a fossil? I'd be interested in seeing evidence to support that claim.

Originally posted by scalvert:

2. See the link you just quoted.

I didn't quote a link. If you mean the link that ~~Matthew~~ you included, that article doesn't offer any proof that altruism is genetic in origin. In fact, it says:

"In humans, this can be explained by cultural experience as well as by natural selection. But if similar reactions to anonymous experience can be found in non human animals, an evolutionary explanation would be far more likely."

Note: "IF" and "MORE LIKELY" are not terms normally associated with proven facts.

The article also says:

"This simple mechanism may promote the evolution of cooperation among unfamiliar non-relatives in many other animals."

"MAY" is not a term normally associated with proven facts.

{edited to correct attribution)

Message edited by author 2008-09-11 12:11:38.

09/11/2008 12:04:08 PM · #761

Originally posted by eqsite:

Intelligent design as we speak: Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

It is a quantum leap from constructing a new FORM of life using EXISTING nucleic acids, etc. to actually creating a living cell by combining RAW elements/chemicals.

09/11/2008 12:08:04 PM · #762

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
...it's likely to at least predate rats.

I didn't quote a link.

You quoted it again.

09/11/2008 12:08:47 PM · #763

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
Ah. As Louis would say, that is a difficult question of great complexity.

Hardly. If there were two sisters in front of you, one of whom was compassionate and altruistic, and the other was self-centred and greedy, all other things being equal which one would you want to marry?

Neither of them. I believe that marriage is a social construct ( though you may argue that it is genetic in origin ). My genetic disposition would be to engage in procreative endeavors with each of them - in order to pass on MY genetic material. :-)

09/11/2008 12:16:47 PM · #764

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Intelligent design as we speak: Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

It is a quantum leap from constructing a new FORM of life using EXISTING nucleic acids, etc. to actually creating a living cell by combining RAW elements/chemicals.

We can already create nucleic acids from chemicals, so creating life from nucleic acids is the "missing link" between chemicals and life.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/11/2008 12:20:21 PM · #765

Originally posted by RonB:

"IF" and "MORE LIKELY" are not terms normally associated with proven facts. ..."MAY" is not a term normally associated with proven facts.

They are terms very commonly associated with evidence, which is what you asked for.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

09/11/2008 12:22:13 PM · #766

Originally posted by RonB:

"In humans, this can be explained by cultural experience as well as by natural selection. But if similar reactions to anonymous experience can be found in non human animals, an evolutionary explanation would be far more likely."

Note: "IF" and "MORE LIKELY" are not terms normally associated with proven facts.

The article also says:

"This simple mechanism may promote the evolution of cooperation among unfamiliar non-relatives in many other animals."

"MAY" is not a term normally associated with proven facts.

{edited to correct attribution)

Using your "standard of proof", Smoking doesn't cause cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc. Your strategy is no different than the one used by the tobacco industry for years to claim that smoking wasn't proven harmful.

You sound like a tobacco lobbyist.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/11/2008 12:31:03 PM · #767

Originally posted by RonB:

Perhaps. But if nucleic acids can be formed by natural processes, and if natural processes can be shown to create self-replicating components based on those nucleic acids, then it demonstrates one method by which life might have arose from purely natural phenomena. It by no means proves that this is how it happens, but it does offer a plausible mechanism by which it might have happend.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

09/11/2008 01:05:16 PM · #768

Some stuff on altruism and heritability

09/13/2008 08:57:09 AM · #769

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Matthew:
If there were two sisters in front of you, one of whom was compassionate and altruistic, and the other was self-centred and greedy, all other things being equal which one would you want to marry?

Neither of them. I believe that marriage is a social construct ( though you may argue that it is genetic in origin ). My genetic disposition would be to engage in procreative endeavors with each of them - in order to pass on MY genetic material. :-)

I think that you are dodging the question because there is an obvious flaw in your argument. You argue that altruism and selflessness carry no evolutionary advantages. The thrust of my example was that there are a lot of people who find those traits attractive in a mate.

There may be a cost associated with being altruistic etc, but like a peacock's tail it is something that can be promoted in the right environment because it attracts mates.

Similarly, there is a genetic cost to being faithful to your mate, because your genes don't get spread so far, but an evolutionary advantage to your offspring if they have two protector parents.

09/13/2008 06:57:02 PM · #770

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Matthew:
If there were two sisters in front of you, one of whom was compassionate and altruistic, and the other was self-centred and greedy, all other things being equal which one would you want to marry?

Neither of them. I believe that marriage is a social construct ( though you may argue that it is genetic in origin ). My genetic disposition would be to engage in procreative endeavors with each of them - in order to pass on MY genetic material. :-)

I think that you are dodging the question because there is an obvious flaw in your argument. You argue that altruism and selflessness carry no evolutionary advantages. The thrust of my example was that there are a lot of people who find those traits attractive in a mate.

But doesn't that then require an assumption that there is a genetic basis for "attraction" other than physical attributes, e.g. pheremones, size, shape, etc.?

09/15/2008 06:38:38 PM · #771

Originally posted by RonB:

But doesn't that then require an assumption that there is a genetic basis for "attraction" other than physical attributes, e.g. pheremones, size, shape, etc.?

It is a fairly basic premise that sexually reproducing organisms will be more successful if they are attracted procreationally to others. A tendency to be attracted to other organisms that exhibit symptoms of genetic superiority should also be a fairly self-obvious tenet.

09/16/2008 06:46:36 PM · #772

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
But doesn't that then require an assumption that there is a genetic basis for "attraction" other than physical attributes, e.g. pheremones, size, shape, etc.?

It is a fairly basic premise that sexually reproducing organisms will be more successful if they are attracted procreationally to others. A tendency to be attracted to other organisms that exhibit symptoms of genetic superiority should also be a fairly self-obvious tenet.

So are we to assume then that the fact that there are more non-atheists than atheists in the world is evidence that religious belief is a symptom of genetic superiority?

09/16/2008 06:54:45 PM · #773

Originally posted by RonB:

So are we to assume then that the fact that there are more non-atheists than atheists in the world is evidence that religious belief is a symptom of genetic superiority?

More likely that the need for acceptance holds an advantage over independent thought in social animals.