Does natural selection explain human behavior?

[Cypress]

Much purely abstract thought seems to serve no evolutionary purpose.

Substantial resources are squandered in the development of artifacts of aesthetic beauty, not seemingly necessary for evolutionary ends.

We intentionally sacrifice our most important interests for the charitable benefit of strangers and people unrelated to us.

 

[AProudLefty]

Every time they go through periods of relative safety, they are able to pursue intellectual activities.

 

[IBDaMann]

Much purely abstract thought seems to serve no evolutionary purpose.

Substantial resources are squandered in the development of artifacts of aesthetic beauty, not seemingly necessary for evolutionary ends.

We intentionally sacrifice our most important interests for the charitable benefit of strangers and people unrelated to us.

What is Cypress' official position on the matter?

Would Cypress mock someone for pointing out that Darwin's theory of evolution is not science?

 

[Cypress]

Every time they go through periods of relative safety, they are able to pursue intellectual activities.

Good point, but I don't think the Paleolithic was a particularly safe era, but humans were creating cave art and ritualistic practice that don't seem to have evolutionary ends.

Even ancient Greece was a violent place, with city states in a nearly constant state of warfare, but they were creating theatrical drama, art, philosophy.

I don't think this is linked to natural selection, but there is probably a science of mind and psychology we have not yet discovered

 

[IBDaMann]

Much purely abstract thought seems to serve no evolutionary purpose.

Substantial resources are squandered in the development of artifacts of aesthetic beauty, not seemingly necessary for evolutionary ends.

We intentionally sacrifice our most important interests for the charitable benefit of strangers and people unrelated to us.

The questions you are asking are firmly rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution theory. Those who don't understand evolution ask for the "why" of things that appear to have no purpose. That kind of question is for religions who believe in an omniscient omnipotent creator,i.e. "Why did Allah give us appendices and headaches?"

Someone well versed in evolution theory knows that specific features/attributes afford statistical advantages in getting one's genes into the next generation, i.e. those beneficial features/attributes PLUS all of the non-beneficial features/attributes.

Those who are well versed in the theory know that evolution is stochastic, i.e. comprised of random parameters. A rational person does not ask for a "why" of something that is random.

 

[Cypress]

The questions you are asking are firmly rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution theory. Those who don't understand evolution ask for the "why" of things that appear to have no purpose. That kind of question is for religions who believe in an omniscient omnipotent creator,i.e. "Why did Allah give us appendices and headaches?"

Someone well versed in evolution theory knows that specific features/attributes afford statistical advantages in getting one's genes into the next generation, i.e. those beneficial features/attributes PLUS all of the non-beneficial features/attributes.

Those who are well versed in the theory know that evolution is stochastic, i.e. comprised of random parameters. A rational person does not ask for a "why" of something that is random.

^^^

An overly verbose explosion of verbal diarrhea which in the words of Shakespeare are full of sound fury, but signifying nothing.

Your explosion of verbal diarrhea has no explanatory power, and can't even explain why chimpanzees aren't expending resource creating art, or why Aardvarks aren't contemplating the night sky lost in abstract thought.

Verbal diarrhea that amounts to making the argument: "It is that way because....just because... because it just is!" doesn't even remotely begin to cut the mustard

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

Your explosion of verbal diarrhea has no explanatory power,

Too funny! Of course you are still trying to explain the "why" of random events. I appreciate your embelishment on your mathematical incompetence. I just finished explaining to you why there is no such explanation and, as always, you are too stupid to learn. Even when something is slowly and clearly explained to you, it is beyond your grasp. This explains "why" you are relegated to copy-pasting off the internet. It explains "why" you can't answer any questions posed to you, i.e. your thought-masters haven't told you what to copy-paste as an answer.

I just finished explaining it to you. This is just another example to add to the list.

... and can't even explain why chimpanzees aren't expending resource creating art, or why Aardvarks aren't contemplating the night sky lost in abstract thought.

Too funny! I explained very clearly that one must focus on the beneficial attributes/features that afford statistical advantage, not on behavior or "unnecessary" features/attributes. You were not able to grasp this lesson because you are mathematically incompetent, logically inept and philosophically bankrupt.

Verbal diarrhea that amounts to ...

Verbal diarrhea comprised solely of stupid questions that aren't even representative of your position. Your posts are nothing but mindless queries that you copy-pasted from the internet, queries that you naively perceived as being "profound" but are really only stupid. If you had paid attention in school you might have been able to filter out 98% of everything you copy-paste as being only a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Cypress]

^^^
A noted expert at producing verbal diarrhea which can't actually explain anything about these forms of human behavior.
And these behaviors certainly can't be linked to Darwinian evolution in any way i can see.

Just blurting out the equivalent of "It's that way... because.... because it just is!" is not an explanation, and would be given a failing grade even in 7th grade science class.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

... producing verbal diarrhea which can't actually explain anything about these forms of human behavior.

Too funny! This is what doubling down on stupid looks like. Cypress can't understand a topic even when it is explained to him.

"It's that way... because.... because it just is!"

Too funny! I neither wrote nor implied anything of the sort. Your inability to read has you confusing other people's posts with mine.

... would be given a failing grade even in 7th grade science class.

Too funny! You don't even know what is taught in a 7th-grade science class.

 

[Cypress]

Given your penchant for plagiarism, it's hardly surprising you feel compelled to copy the style and tone of my posts.

The funniest thing about your verbal diarrhea is that it didn't have any explanatory power for these human behaviors, even though you thought if you spewed out enough words it would look like it did. That's to be expected from a MAGA moron who thought the periodic table was the definitive last word on the nature and structure of matter.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

[having run out of places to hide, surrenders]

Your king is tipped, but you demonstrated a seamless effort in avoiding any indication of your own independent position and of any original thoughts.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Much purely abstract thought seems to serve no evolutionary purpose.

Substantial resources are squandered in the development of artifacts of aesthetic beauty, not seemingly necessary for evolutionary ends.

We intentionally sacrifice our most important interests for the charitable benefit of strangers and people unrelated to us.

Murphy’s Laws of Combat #73 If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

IOW, “results count”.

Random mutations produce random results. Some work, some don’t. Some species survive in their environment, some don’t. The dinosaurs survived for millions of years until a random space rock changed the environmental conditions too quickly for them to adapt.

In short, my understanding is that “evolutionary ends” is simple survival. It doesn’t have to be perfect or pretty. It only has to work. Abstract thought and appreciation of beauty may simply be a by-product of a mutation that allowed our species to survive its environment the past few hundred thousand years.

 

[Cypress]

Murphy’s Laws of Combat #73 If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

IOW, “results count”.

Random mutations produce random results. Some work, some don’t. Some species survive in their environment, some don’t. The dinosaur survived for millions of years until a random space rock changed the environmental conditions too quickly for them to adapt.

In short, my understanding is that “evolutionary ends” is simple survival. It doesn’t have to be perfect or pretty. It only has to work. Abstract thought and appreciation of beauty may simply be a by-product of a mutation that allowed our species to survive its environment the past few hundred thousand years.

If they have an evolutionary benefit, I would expect to see them in other sentient species. As far as I know, chimpanzees don't paint, and dogs don't seem to respond to Mozart.

Alfred Wallace himself, the co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection along with Darwin, didn't think natural selection explained the abstract intellectual, aesthetic, and moral dimensions of human life.

It might be genetics, but Darwin didn't know anything about genes and it was not part of the theory of natural selection.

I think most likely we just do not yet have a science of mind that can explain these human behaviors, and there's no reason to think 170 years ago Darwin and Wallace came up with a theory that explained everything about human evolution and human psychology.

 

[IBDaMann]

If they have an evolutionary benefit, I would expect to see them in other sentient species.

... because you haven't the vaguest understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution. You're still looking for the "why" in random events. Stupid. You fail to grasp even that which is carefully explained to you.

Alfred Wallace himself, the co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection along with Darwin,

Darwin's theory had no co-founder. On the Origin of Species had no co-author.

Darwin didn't know anything about genes and it was not part of the theory of natural selection.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science; it does not address "how" and cannot address "why." You should read Darwin's book instead of copy-pasting bogus commentary and pretending that it's Darwin's theory.

 

[Commander Dutch]

If they have an evolutionary benefit, I would expect to see them in other sentient species. As far as I know, chimpanzees don't paint, and dogs don't seem to respond to Mozart.

Alfred Wallace himself, the co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection along with Darwin, didn't think natural selection explained the abstract intellectual, aesthetic, and moral dimensions of human life.

It might be genetics, but Darwin didn't know anything about genes and it was not part of the theory of natural selection.

I think most likely we just do not yet have a science of mind that can explain these human behaviors, and there's no reason to think 170 years ago Darwin and Wallace came up with a theory that explained everything about human evolution and human psychology.

I think you are underestimating the viciousness of the human species. Consider that the reason there are no other species as intelligent as ours because we killed them off with more efficiency than we killed off branches of our own species. In short, Homo sapiens sapiens eliminated the competition.

I’m not expert enough on evolution to contradict Wallace, but I am an expert on appreciating effective results. “It is what it is”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but after our repeated conversations in this area it seems you keep looking for “miracles”, proof of the existence of God. The hand of God on mankind. While I believe in a force behind existence and there is more to existence than the Natural Universe, I also don’t believe in miracles…much to the disagreement of my wife who believes in the power of prayer and miracles. IMO, God created the Universe and for God to violate the rules of our Universe is cheating. God doesn’t cheat.

 

[Commander Dutch]

A FUCKING MORON
THAT IS MOSTLY WHAT I AM
I’M ALSO A TROLL​

Good one, Sybil, and agreed!

 

[Cypress]

I think you are underestimating the viciousness of the human species. Consider that the reason there are no other species as intelligent as ours because we killed them off with more efficiency than we killed off branches of our own species. In short, Homo sapiens sapiens eliminated the competition.

I’m not expert enough on evolution to contradict Wallace, but I am an expert on appreciating effective results. “It is what it is”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but after our repeated conversations in this area it seems you keep looking for “miracles”, proof of the existence of God. The hand of God on mankind. While I believe in a force behind existence and there is more to existence than the Natural Universe, I also don’t believe in miracles…much to the disagreement of my wife who believes in the power of prayer and miracles. IMO, God created the Universe and for God to violate the rules of our Universe is cheating. God doesn’t cheat.

Humans are vicious.

Certain human behaviors are also unique, in the four billion year old history of life. As far as I know, human inclinations for abstract intellect, aesthetics, and moral knowledge have never been duplicated in 3.8 billion years. Anomalies are something that begs for explanation.

I'm saying that there are areas of knowledge we don't yet have a science for. It has nothing to do with the Abrahamic God. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. We shouldn't expect our current theories, let alone one developed in the 19th century to give us all the answers to everything.

Acknowledging ignorance and scientific uncertainty is not acknowledgment of the God of Abraham. Asking questions and identifying uncertainty is how science and knowledge advances.

Even if we find a genetic mutation explaining our inclination for aesthetics, that doesn't explain the reason why this would be an evolutionary advantage. We seem to either be asking the wrong question, or there is a science of mind we have not yet discovered

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll, a plagiarizer, a bad-faith poster, a scientific illiterate

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[Commander Dutch]

Humans are vicious.

Certain human behaviors are also unique, in the four billion year old history of life. As far as I know, human inclinations for abstract intellect, aesthetics, and moral knowledge have never been duplicated in 3.8 billion years. Anomalies are something that begs for explanation.

I'm saying that there are areas of knowledge we don't yet have a science for. It has nothing to do with the Abrahamic God. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. We shouldn't expect our current theories, let alone one developed in the 19th century to give us all the answers to everything.

Acknowledging ignorance and scientific uncertainty is not acknowledgment of the God of Abraham. Asking questions and identifying uncertainty is how science and knowledge advances.

Even if we find a genetic mutation explaining our inclination for aesthetics, that doesn't explain the reason why this would be an evolutionary advantage. We seem to either be asking the wrong question, or there is a science of mind we have not yet discovered

While it could be either, I’m inclined to think “wrong question” for aforementioned reasons. The aesthetics being a side effect or by-product, not a goal, such as those inventions linked below.

Using the Red Queen theory, regardless if predator or prey, the smarter the critter, the more likely they’ll survive. Abstract thinking and visualization assist in “thinking ahead”. A chess player who can see 3 moves ahead will often beat a player who only sees 1 move ahead. If the penalty of losing the game was death, then it wouldn’t be long before all chess players would share the ability to think ahead. Using that trait outside the game of chess would be a “by-product”.

“I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.” Michelangelo

https://www.businessinsider.com/suc...6-3#listerine-started-out-as-an-anti-septic-2

William Russell Frisbie bought a bakery in Connecticut in the late 19th century, which he called the Frisbie Pie Company. After Frisbie's death, his company continued to flourish and it 1956 reached a peak production of 80,000 pies per day — according to the World Flying Disc Association. Pies and cookies made by the company came with plate-shaped tin bearing the name "Frisbee Pies."

Yale students discovered a second use for the tins, and began to hurl them around the university campus. As the flying disk approached its target, the thrower would shout "Frisbie" as a warning. The slightly different spelling "frisbee" is now used for the toy.

 

[Cypress]

While it could be either, I’m inclined to think “wrong question” for aforementioned reasons. The aesthetics being a side effect or by-product, not a goal, such as those inventions linked below.

Using the Red Queen theory, regardless if predator or prey, the smarter the critter, the more likely they’ll survive. Abstract thinking and visualization assist in “thinking ahead”. A chess player who can see 3 moves ahead will often beat a player who only sees 1 move ahead. If the penalty of losing the game was death, then it wouldn’t be long before all chess players would share the ability to think ahead. Using that trait outside the game of chess would be a “by-product”.

“I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.” Michelangelo

https://www.businessinsider.com/suc...6-3#listerine-started-out-as-an-anti-septic-2

To me, science has to come to terms with human mental experience on it's own terms. I don't think we can try to shoehorn abstract rationality and affinity for the aesthetic into a 170 year old theory of natural selection, or even Mendelian genetics.

Human mental experience and rationality is so unique in the history of life, I don't think we can sweep it under the rug by now invoking random genetic mutation that just came along for the ride. Squandering enormous resources to build gothic cathedrals or to bankroll Italian Renassaince artists cannot be shoehorned into any Darwinian scheme of evolutionary biology I can think of.

I just think rather than shoehorning into traditional modes of scientific thinking, we have to meet human mental experience on it's on terms, and that might ultimately require a science or philosophy that hasn't even been invented yet.