The God Delusion

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Neither is posting "humans are special, they are special".

Ask human beings what their motivation for altruistic acts are. I betcha you won't find many answers that look like "indirect reciprocal altruism".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, how do you "know" that there ain't a God?

One can never unequivocally know there is no God, however, there is no evidence either way. I see no evidence for God so I reject it.

There is evidence for "angry genes", which in principle allows a "hero gene". All current models of evolution only allow selfish behaviour, i.e. a behaviour that reduces the fitness of the individual carrying the gene (i.e. unconditional altruism) for that behaviour will be outcompeted by another allele which promotes the fitness of that individual and hence it's own reproduction.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ask human beings what their motivation for altruistic acts are. I betcha you won't find many answers that look like "indirect reciprocal altruism".

Doesn't matter. They probably don't know it. In fact, it may be of evolutionary advantage if they don't know it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Doesn't matter. They probably don't know it. In fact, it may be of evolutionary advantage if they don't know it.

I sense the existence of an evolutionary Secret Decoder Ring...

😉

Originally posted by scottishinnz
One can never unequivocally know there is no God, however, there is no evidence either way. I see no evidence for God so I reject it.

There is evidence for "angry genes", which in principle allows a "hero gene". All current models of evolution only allow selfish behaviour, i.e. a behaviour that reduces the fitness of the individual carrying the gen ...[text shortened]... other allele which promotes the fitness of that individual and hence it's own reproduction.

You know that statement isn't true but you keep repeating it. Fascinating. In fact, there is still lively debate about gene centered theory itself.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Doesn't matter. They probably don't know it. In fact, it may be of evolutionary advantage if they don't know it.

Well it's just swell that we have people like you who know other people's motivations far better than they do.

EDIT: Wait a minute - are you claiming that people don't know that they're acting altruistically because they are expecting a benefit in the future? In what way then is this altruism reciprocal?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You know that statement isn't true but you keep repeating it. Fascinating. In fact, there is still lively debate about gene centered theory itself.

And you press on, not only after you've been beaten (again), but embarrassed.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And you press on, not only after you've been beaten (again), but embarrassed.

Arrogance again. Are you claiming that every scientist believes wholeheartedly in gene centered evolutionary theory?

EDIT: From wiki "Selfish Gene"

[edit] Challenges to the "Selfish Gene"
Prominent among the opponents of this gene-centric view of evolution are paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and philosopher Elliot Sober, who dispute the theory's applicability and fruitfulness. Gould in particular calls the position "strict adaptationism" and "ultra-Darwinism", describing it as "reductionist" and "fundamentalist". He sees it as leading to a simplistic "algorithmic" theory of evolution, or even to the re-introduction of a teleological principle.[1]

Critics of the "Selfish Gene" point to the universally acknowledged dependence of genotypes on phenotypical expression, (which is seldom gene-specific), and the plurality of evolutionary forces outside adaptation and natural selection. Gould further refers to so-called macroevolutionary processes, which might be described as the evolution of evolution,[citation needed] (as through evolutionary contingency).[citation needed]

Such challenges may be phenomenological in character, derived, in part, from common-sense analysis of the "experience" of evolution. Interestingly, Dawkins has further extended the selfish gene concept to psycho-sociology with the notion of "memes"--which might be described as a bid to make sociology as "fundamental" a science as particle physics or genetics. Memes are, of course, open to many of the same questions asked of the selfish gene, and then some.

You were saying? And I could pull up the "group selection" article if you want.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Arrogance again. Are you claiming that every scientist believes wholeheartedly in gene centered evolutionary theory?

Not every scientist. Not every scientist believes in String Theory either. Some believe that God exists, and others believe that the world is flat. One even believes that water understands emotions. There is no accounting for what people chose to believe, but that is quite irrespective of the truth. Darwinian evolution is the only show in town, and it's gene centred at it's core.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Arrogance again. Are you claiming that every scientist believes wholeheartedly in gene centered evolutionary theory?

EDIT: From wiki "Selfish Gene"

[edit] Challenges to the "Selfish Gene"
Prominent among the opponents of this gene-centric view of evolution are paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and philosopher Elliot Sober, who dispute the theory's saying? And I could pull up the "group selection" article if you want.

So what? Gould has yet to demonstrate a mechanism by which such a random entity as the individual can be the unit of selection, and I doubt an answer will manifest any time soon.

Oh, and feel free to pull group selectionism if you want - maybe you want to fall back to Lamarkism as well?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I sense the existence of an evolutionary Secret Decoder Ring...

😉

Yes, it's called "The Selfish Gene".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So what? Gould has yet to demonstrate a mechanism by which such a random entity as the individual can be the unit of selection, and I doubt an answer will manifest any time soon.

Oh, and feel free to pull group selectionism if you want - maybe you want to fall back to Lamarkism as well?

So this statement is a falsehood:

SS: All current models of evolution only allow selfish behaviour,

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, it's called "The Selfish Gene".

I'm beginning to think that Ivanhoe was right and "Secular Fundamentalists" do exist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So this statement is a falsehood:

SS: All current models of evolution only allow selfish behaviour,

Well then, explain to me how an adaptation which lowers the reproductive fitness of any organism it inhabits comes to evolve?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well then, explain to me how an adaptation which lowers the reproductive fitness of any organism it inhabits comes to evolve?

That's a Strawman. Altruism does not lead to a lesser chance of reproduction of the group as a whole; in fact, it increases it.