10 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not that at all. My response is, it's impossible because neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory does not allow it to evolve.
I have many times in this thread i.e. altruist groups would have a evolutionary advantage over non-altruistic ones. Your response is that altruism is impossible because you say so.
You still have not explained how altruists would exclude selfish individuals, except by withholding privilege, i.e. reciprocality.
10 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you saying Evolutionary theory doesn't operate for some species? What are the qualifiers then?
You prove that every single species, and ALL their behavior, evolves in the same manner.
[edit; yes. The mechanism is the same, differential reproduction and their resultant gene frequencies.]
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzStrawman, AGAIN. There's no need to "exclude"; altruistic groups (which would be the most successful) would teach the proper behavior to new members - offspring, etc. Contrary to your mechanistic views, people's behaviors are NOT merely the product of genes.
It's not that at all. My response is, it's impossible because neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory does not allow it to evolve.
You still have not explained how altruists would exclude selfish individuals, except by withholding privilege, i.e. reciprocality.
10 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, I'm not. I'm saying that your exclusively gene centered theory is simplistic and wrong. Please start making SOME attempt to actually read what I'm saying without filtering it through your preconceptions and biases.
Are you saying Evolutionary theory doesn't operate for some species? What are the qualifiers then?
[edit; yes. The mechanism is the same, differential reproduction and their resultant gene frequencies.]
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderSo they'd just tolerate selfish individuals then? Surely, that'd make the group less successful, although the selfish individual would prosper.
Strawman, AGAIN. There's no need to "exclude"; altruistic groups (which would be the most successful) would teach the proper behavior to new members - offspring, etc. Contrary to your mechanistic views, people's behaviors are NOT merely the product of genes.
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd yet, you've not given a single shred of tangible evidence.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that your exclusively gene centered theory is simplistic and wrong. Please start making SOME attempt to actually read what I'm saying without filtering it through your preconceptions and biases.
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnytime someone brings up studying the Bible within context, you pull out the secret decoder ring crap. What a complete laugh-riot for you to fall back on context when wanting someone to consider your side of the argument.
Got a point?
I'm all for context. You can't tell me that two contradictory exclusive statements are both correct though. For example. I am black. I am white. This IS NOT contextual - I must be one or the other! When talking about context specific words like "recent", "ancient", "near", "far" etc. then they must be defined. For example, a histor ...[text shortened]... about something 500,000,000 years old! That's five orders of magnitude difference!
10 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHave you ever raised a child? Do you know how to encourage them to share and act cooperatively with others? Or is it impossible because we are all "selfish" by nature?
So they'd just tolerate selfish individuals then? Surely, that'd make the group less successful, although the selfish individual would prosper.
More evidence; in human experience that most of us have engaged in.
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[Groan]
Anytime someone brings up studying the Bible within context, you pull out the secret decoder ring crap. What a complete laugh-riot for you to fall back on context when wanting someone to consider your side of the argument.
Look at these two statements;
EX 15:3, 17:16, NU 25:4, 32:14, IS 42:13 "God is a man of war--he is fierce and angry."
RO 15:33, 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 "God is a god of love and peace."
Both cannot be true, irrespective of context.
10 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderKin selection.
Have you ever raised a child? Do you know how to encourage them to share and act cooperatively with others? Or is it impossible because we are all "selfish" by nature?
More evidence; in human experience that most of us have engaged in.
[edit; "sharing", "cooperating". reciprocal altruism, selfish behaviours]
[edit 2; oh, and according to evolutionary theory, being non-selfish, being a good cooperator, may be a good way to increase the frequency of those genes in the population. So, whilst the behaviour seems unselfish, it has evolved to increase the frequency of one gene or set of genes relative to all other in the population.]