The God Delusion

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well, you can't have "recorded" history without writing and that happened somewhere around 5000 years ago.

Archaeological discoveries suggest that Egyptian hieroglyphs may be the oldest form of writing. The earliest evidence of an Egyptian hieroglyphic system is believed to be from about 3300 or 3200 bc. The Sumerians of Mesopotamia also were writing before 3000 bc.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573431_2/Writing.html

That was the point. Giving wiggle room for various means of dating, even going back to 10,000 years ago, a basic aspect of man's existence (media) suddenly springs forth in full bloom.

Kinda like man's supposedly evolved social skill of altruism.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You do appreciate that the earth is a minimum of 4.5 billion years old. In that context the last million years only represents 0.02% of the whole evolution of life. I'd say that's relatively recent, in the scheme of things.

You do appreciate that the geological age of the Earth has nothing to do with the discussion regarding altruism, don't you? I'd say that you're dodging the logical implications of your hero's argument in the passage.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That was the point. Giving wiggle room for various means of dating, even going back to 10,000 years ago, a basic aspect of man's existence (media) suddenly springs forth in full bloom.

Kinda like man's supposedly evolved social skill of altruism.

I wouldn't agree that writing is a "basic aspect of man's existence"; after all it's only been in the last 100 years that most men were even literate. There is media in non-literate cultures.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You do appreciate that the geological age of the Earth has nothing to do with the discussion regarding altruism, don't you? I'd say that you're dodging the logical implications of your hero's argument in the passage.

I'd say that you are again failing to define your terms of "recent" and "gradual" and other such words, so that you can attempt to propagate your position that things like altruism are merely cultural and not evolutionary.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'd say that you are again failing to define your terms of "recent" and "gradual" and other such words, so that you can attempt to propagate your position that things like altruism are merely cultural and not evolutionary.

I'd say you need to take an English course. The standard meaning of words can be located in a book called a "dictionary"; buy one. Of course, these are modified by context; if I say I "recently played in the NY State Chess Championship" only an idiot would think that the geological age of planet Earth was a relevant consideration in determining the approximate time I was referring to. Ditto when Dawkins is discussing a time when humans lived in villages or even existed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wouldn't agree that writing is a "basic aspect of man's existence"; after all it's only been in the last 100 years that most men were even literate. There is media in non-literate cultures.

I purposely chose the word 'media' over 'writing' for that reason.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I purposely chose the word 'media' over 'writing' for that reason.

I understand that but doesn't "recorded" imply "written" (at least prior to say less than a 100 years ago)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I understand that but doesn't "recorded" imply "written" (at least prior to say less than a 100 years ago)?

Perhaps, but certainly not intended as such. To me, recorded media is not limited to writing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps, but certainly not intended as such. To me, recorded media is not limited to writing.

OK.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd say you need to take an English course. The standard meaning of words can be located in a book called a "dictionary"; buy one. Of course, these are modified by context; if I say I "recently played in the NY State Chess Championship" only an idiot would think that the geological age of planet Earth was a relevant consideration in determining the appro ...[text shortened]... to. Ditto when Dawkins is discussing a time when humans lived in villages or even existed.

Context. And that's why your argument is fallacious. When talking about baseball games the only sensible context is the human lifetime. When talking about evolution, there are a number of sensible contexts, ranging from individual lifespans to billions of years. This is the importance of defining what you mean by "recent".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Context. And that's why your argument is fallacious. When talking about baseball games the only sensible context is the human lifetime. When talking about evolution, there are a number of sensible contexts, ranging from individual lifespans to billions of years. This is the importance of defining what you mean by "recent".

The context is talking about homo sapiens. Have they been around for billions of years?

And you know this anyway. Stop being such an a**hole.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'd say that you are again failing to define your terms of "recent" and "gradual" and other such words, so that you can attempt to propagate your position that things like altruism are merely cultural and not evolutionary.

BTW, that ain't my position.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Context. And that's why your argument is fallacious. When talking about baseball games the only sensible context is the human lifetime. When talking about evolution, there are a number of sensible contexts, ranging from individual lifespans to billions of years. This is the importance of defining what you mean by "recent".

CONTEXT?!? You have GOT to be kidding! Of all people, YOU are talking about context?!? Louis, baby, that is rich!

Originally posted by no1marauder
The context is talking about homo sapiens. Have they been around for billions of years?

And you know this anyway. Stop being such an a**hole.

I thought we were talking about the evolution of altruism. There is no requirement that it did not happen in our progenitors.

If abuse is all you can muster, why do you bother posting at all?

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, that ain't my position.

Then if it's evolutionary, it must promote the copying of the gene which encodes that response (or makes any given response more likely), and is selfish since it promotes an increase in its own frequency, at the expense of other alleles in the population.