Originally posted by no1marauderActually, it's E.O. Wilson's subject - it's called sociobiology. It's offshoot evolutionary psychology is interesting too. However, all the behaviour I've noted is well documented in the evolutionary biology literature.
I have no intention of disproving evolutionary theory. If you mean your explanation of altruistic behavior, however, I repeat what I've already said: More to the point, coming up with an explanation of some sort is not evidence supporting the explanation
Quite often on these pages, a Fundie will come up with contrived "explanations" and stick to them no matter how implausible they are. You are doing the same thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzA kid dropped a bag of candy in the store yesterday. I picked it up and handed to him. I really don't expect him to come back in 20 years and do something for me to even it up.
[b]Since we observe unconditional altruism on a daily basis, if it really couldn't evolve that would be a refutation of evolution.
Show me a single instance of unconditional altruism.[/b]
I've also saw someone give a jump to a stalled car of a stranger the other day. In most winters, people dig out cars of people they don't know stuck in the snow. Etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe behavior - i.e. altruism - is well documented. Your explanation is not.
Actually, it's E.O. Wilson's subject - it's called sociobiology. It's offshoot evolutionary psychology is interesting too. However, all the behaviour I've noted is well documented in the evolutionary biology literature.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDidn't know the kid. You haven't explained what "reciprocal benefit" I am expecting to receive.
Small, closely related group. Friends child? Ah, the evolution of niceness.
It seems to me that the fact that human beings show an unparalleled level of altruism is related to our ability to empathize with others. Guess that's a little too hard for self-proclaimed "experts" like yourself to grasp.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere was an entire "scientific discipline" devoted to reading the bumps on people's heads at one point in history. This particular "discipline" is really just people trying (without much success) to find facts which will fit their preconceptions.
Yes, there is only a whole scientific discipline devoted to it.
Originally posted by no1marauderWasnt that phrenology or some such? Ppopular back in the late 19th and into the 1930s...
There was an entire "scientific discipline" devoted to reading the bumps on people's heads at one point in history. This particular "discipline" is really just people trying (without much success) to find facts which will fit their preconceptions.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really are a vengeful individual who relies pretty much solely on ad hom attacks, aren't you?
Didn't know the kid. You haven't explained what "reciprocal benefit" I am expecting to receive.
It seems to me that the fact that human beings show an unparalleled level of altruism is related to our ability to empathize with others. Guess that's a little too hard for self-proclaimed "experts" like yourself to grasp.
Small group. Let's say 3,000 years ago. Small village, small nomadic group, whichever you prefer. The conditions we've spent pretty much our entire evolutionary history under. Chances are, you would know that individuals parents. Probably, they'd be friends. If not, then it represents a good way of developing a social network with those parents (remember, small group). You also, perhaps underestimate the importance of having relations with children as well. Do you remember your childhood heros? Adults that were nice to you as a kid probably? Yeah? So do I. Would I preferentially help these people out now? Yep. Would this represent a potential benefit to them? Yep. Did being nice to me as a kid improve relations between those people and my parents? Yep. Do other organisms in the animal world take care of each others children? Yep. Why? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Not likely.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere was a discipline of phrenology, but one could hardly call it scientific, since it could hardly be described as a logical, systematic study of a relationship between a cause and an effect.
There was an entire "scientific discipline" devoted to reading the bumps on people's heads at one point in history. This particular "discipline" is really just people trying (without much success) to find facts which will fit their preconceptions.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt would hardly be called scientific by todays standards, but then, it was thought to be exactly that.
There was a discipline of phrenology, but one could hardly call it scientific, since it could hardly be described as a logical, systematic study of a relationship between a cause and an effect.
A stone tied to a stick to make a club is hardly a technological advance in todays society, or even 3000 years ago, but when it was first done, it was a huge technological jump.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeAgreed.
It would hardly be called scientific by todays standards, but then, it was thought to be exactly that.
A stone tied to a stick to make a club is hardly a technological advance in todays society, or even 3000 years ago, but when it was first done, it was a huge technological jump.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would trust my memory in remebering the main idea and the important details.
Hows about I tell you something today, and you wait 60 years before writing it down. Would you trust your memory so much?
If you read the Gospels, they are simple stories. They are not filled with mindless details but rather the main event that happened.
We remember the important parts but we forget the minor details.
You have to realize that the stories were preserved through oral tradition. Back then, it was a lot more common to pass stories by means of speaking them so the people were better at remembering stories.