Does natural selection explain human behavior?

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Physics is physics. The Stars burn regardless if we exist or not, whether we understand why they burn or not. Stating “I don’t understand” or “I don’t know” is not shoehorning. Humans have abstract thought. Why we have it isn’t understood, but we have it nonetheless.

History of life or only the history of mankind? Homo sapiens have only been around for about 300K years while life has existed far longer. We can only guess why life originated in the first place. Assuming we are the first or only intelligent life ever on the planet isn’t science. The evidence only indicates we are the only intelligent life as far as we know. Tree huggers talk about dolphins, whales and apes being “intelligent” but they are no where close to human beings in communication, tool making or, as far as we know, “abstract thought”. A termite mound or beehive are beautiful, complex structures that are built. While I doubt the bugs appreciate the beauty of their structures, they build them nonetheless. Presumably all through evolution.

There’s a lot of things that mankind doesn’t understand. Better, IMO, to simply admit “I don’t know” rather than try to conjure up reasons without a basis in fact. This is similar to the difference between Atheists/Theists and Agnostics. The Universe has rules. Just because we don’t understand them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

[Cypress]

Physics is physics. The Stars burn regardless if we exist or not, whether we understand why they burn or not. Stating “I don’t understand” or “I don’t know” is not shoehorning. Humans have abstract thought. Why we have it isn’t understood, but we have it nonetheless.

History of life or only the history of mankind? Homo sapiens have only been around for about 300K years while life has existed far longer. We can only guess why life originated in the first place. Assuming we are the first or only intelligent life ever on the planet isn’t science. The evidence only indicates we are the only intelligent life as far as we know. Tree huggers talk about dolphins, whales and apes being “intelligent” but they are no where close to human beings in communication, tool making or, as far as we know, “abstract thought”. A termite mound or beehive are beautiful, complex structures that are built. While I doubt the bugs appreciate the beauty of their structures, they build them nonetheless. Presumably all through evolution.

There’s a lot of things that mankind doesn’t understand. Better, IMO, to simply admit “I don’t know” rather than try to conjure up reasons without a basis in fact. This is similar to the difference between Atheists/Theists and Agnostics. The Universe has rules. Just because we don’t understand them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Yes, it's important to acknowledge what we don't know.

300 years ago we didn't know there was a science of chemistry.
200 years ago, we didn't know there was a science of genetics.
100 years ago, we didn't know there was a science of chaos.

I haven't seen anything in physics or evolutionary biology that had explanatory power for these manifestations of the human mind.

Maybe someday there is going to be a new type of science of mind we don't even concieve of yet that will provide some insights.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, it's important to acknowledge what we don't know.

300 years ago we didn't know there was a science of chemistry.
200 years ago, we didn't know there was a science of genetics.
100 years ago, we didn't know there was a science of chaos.

I haven't seen anything in physics or evolutionary biology that had explanatory power for these manifestations of the human mind.

Maybe someday there is going to be a new type of science of mind we don't even concieve of yet that will provide some insights.

Like we had success with the Apollo program and the Cancer Moonshot, we need a Mental Health program on the same scale. I think it would answer a lot of your questions...along with provide several more. LOL

 

[IBDaMann]

Humans are vicious.

Humans are sweet and loving, yes?

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.

You haven't been around that long so you couldn't possibly be aware of any such examples in the preceding billions of years, right?

Anomalies are something that begs for explanation.

... even if you have to pull it out of your ass, right? (... or off the internet)

We shouldn't expect our current theories, let alone one developed in the 19th century to give us all the answers to everything.

Goedell's incompleteness theorem explains that nothing can provide all the answers.

Asking questions and identifying uncertainty is how science and knowledge advances.

Nope. Only the creation of new science advances science.

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.

Too funny. It isn't necessarily an evolutionary advantage. I see you are still looking for the "why" in random events.

We seem to either be asking the wrong question,...

Yes you are!

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll , a plagiarizer, a bad-faith poster, a scientific illiterate -- as the links and posts below show

Yes, you are.

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 posters 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!!

​

 

[Yakuda]

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

Hence the problems we are facing in America today. We have more and more people now benefitting from a peace they did nothing to achieve or maintain. Now they "fight" demons of their own creation. We're so "intellectual" now we don't even know what the fuck a man or a woman is.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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

Agreed. It fits with Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs. People don't have much time for research and philosophical discussion if they are constantly under attack by predators, both two and four-legged, plus scavenging for food and water.

A few years into the Iraq War when the Bush Administration was being hammered for the lack of both WMDs and "freeing those people", Rumsfeld was asked about it at a press conferenece. I wasn't a fan of Rumsfeld due to his major mistakes, but this comment stuck with me. It parallels something Fareed Zakeria stated when discussing democracy.

Rumself said something like "It's hard to establish a democracy when you don't have electricity and clean water". This goes directly to your point, APL, and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Most of the world is still stuck on the lower two levels of physiological and security needs.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4136760

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the best-known theories of motivation. Maslow's theory states that our actions are motivated by certain physiological and psychological needs that progress from basic to complex.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hence the problems we are facing in America today. We have more and more people now benefitting from a peace they did nothing to achieve or maintain. Now they "fight" demons of their own creation. We're so "intellectual" now we don't even know what the fuck a man or a woman is.

Mostly agreed. It's also another reason why I support the draft but would include a non-military option such as Peace Corps. Too many people are sitting around fat, dumb and happy then start bitching about why they aren't fatter and happier. It's because they are too fucking stupid to realize how good they've got it. A draft would help give them a reality check, plus the opportunity of training and education.

Yes, the extremist dumbfucks on both sides are creating demons that don't exist in reality or are nowhere close to being as serious as they claim. Your man and woman comment is ignorant and puts you on with these same people. Why do you think it's your place to tell a person how they feel or who to love, Yak?

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. It fits with Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs. People don't have much time for research and philosophical discussion if they are constantly under attack by predators, both two and four-legged, plus scavenging for food and water.

A few years into the Iraq War when the Bush Administration was being hammered for the lack of both WMDs and "freeing those people", Rumsfeld was asked about it at a press conferenece. I wasn't a fan of Rumsfeld due to his major mistakes, but this comment stuck with me. It parallels something Fareed Zakeria stated when discussing democracy.

Rumself said something like "It's hard to establish a democracy when you don't have electricity and clean water". This goes directly to your point, APL, and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Most of the world is still stuck on the lower two levels of physiological and security needs.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4136760

It's true Agriculture and sedentary civilization obviously created opportunities for mathmatics, philosophy, an intellectual class.

But even in Paleolithic or nomadic societies, people were creating religion, elaborate cosmological stories, ritual, and symbolic art.

As best we can tell, those properties of the human mind are unique to our hominid genus, and can't really be explained by physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's true Agriculture and sedentary civilization obviously created opportunities for mathmatics, philosophy, an intellectual class.

But even in Paleolithic or nomadic societies, people were creating religion, elaborate cosmological stories, ritual, and symbolic art.

As best we can tell, those properties of the human mind are unique to our hominid genus, and can't really be explained by physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology.

Agreed about ancient, non-city/village societies. Campfire stories existed a couple thousand years before Moses allegedly wrote some down. Same with the art. They also decorated pottery, themselves and their weapons. My knowledge of them is very limited, but psychologically, I suspect a lot of that artwork had spiritual links.

Homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years, but I follow the theory that modern thinking man has only been around for about 30,000 years.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Paleolithic-Period/Paleolithic-art

The function or purpose of art in Paleolithic life remains a subject of debate. Some scholars see the human and animal representations as evidence of the use of magical rites to ensure success in hunting or to guarantee fertility. Others have suggested that Paleolithic artists’ accurate representations of animals’ coats may be an early attempt to produce a seasonal notation system. Another viewpoint, disregarding utility altogether, sees the art of Paleolithic peoples solely as an outgrowth of a basic human need to creatively record and reproduce aspects of the surrounding world.

Among the bone and ivory carvings dating to the Paleolithic are several examples of partial bone or ivory flutes, including one with five finger holes, found at Hohle Fels Cave, near Ulm, Germany, and dated to about 35,000 years ago. Those flutes give evidence of yet another art form practiced in prehistoric cultures.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed about ancient, non-city/village societies. Campfire stories existed a couple thousand years before Moses allegedly wrote some down. Same with the art. They also decorated pottery, themselves and their weapons. My knowledge of them is very limited, but psychologically, I suspect a lot of that artwork had spiritual links.

Homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years, but I follow the theory that modern thinking man has only been around for about 30,000 years.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Paleolithic-Period/Paleolithic-art

^^ Bingo. Yes, bone and Ivory statuettes, elaborate religious ritual, and symbolic art squander time and resources, and don't seem to serve a Darwinian evolutionary end.

How many species other than humans even bother to question the meaning of life? As you point out, that goes back to the stories underlying the Torah, and in Gilgamesh, and probably before that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

^^ Bingo. Yes, bone and Ivory statuettes, elaborate religious ritual, and symbolic art squander time and resources, and don't seem to serve a Darwinian evolutionary end.

How many species other than humans even bother to question the meaning of life? As you point out, that goes back to the stories underlying the Torah, and in Gilgamesh, and probably before that.

They do if they serve to protect the maker from predators and evil spells. Results count and all that counts in evolution is survival of the species.

The biggest fear of all is fear of the unknown. There were a lot of unknowns in the Paleoethic. Only mankind seems to have imaginary fears, probably from the same mind that conjured his tools, use of fire and planning ahead. Planning ahead means thinking about possible problems. It's possible the totems and other items were to ward off the bad possible problems and only keep the good possible outcomes. Imagination is a wonderful thing but it has a downside. Look at the MAGAts and their imaginary fears for an example.

The same numbers of species that use fire. Mankind is unique and the only intelligent, tool-making species on the planet. Both of us are curious about why. I believe it's because we killed off the competition over the past 300,000 years since that's what we do today. See Ukraine and Gaza for examples.

 

[IBDaMann]

How many species other than humans even bother to question the meaning of life?

Currently, seventeen. Half of them wish they "had it to do all over again." The other half are tired of "working for 'the man'."

 

[Cypress]

They do if they serve to protect the maker from predators and evil spells. Results count and all that counts in evolution is survival of the species.

The biggest fear of all is fear of the unknown. There were a lot of unknowns in the Paleoethic. Only mankind seems to have imaginary fears, probably from the same mind that conjured his tools, use of fire and planning ahead. Planning ahead means thinking about possible problems. It's possible the totems and other items were to ward off the bad possible problems and only keep the good possible outcomes. Imagination is a wonderful thing but it has a downside. Look at the MAGAts and their imaginary fears for an example.

The same numbers of species that use fire. Mankind is unique and the only intelligent, tool-making species on the planet. Both of us are curious about why. I believe it's because we killed off the competition over the past 300,000 years since that's what we do today. See Ukraine and Gaza for examples.

^^ Makes sense.

I read an article yesterday highlighting that genes don't determine behavior (kindness, religious belief, benevolence) -- that the concept biological or genetic 'determinism' in human behavior is largely discredited in mainstream science.

Genetics and natural selection are the very foundation of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis on evolution. So these kinds of human behaviors can't be explained away by pointing to Darwin or Mendel.

It's obviously a significant gap in our knowledge

 

[Dutch Uncle]

^^ Makes sense.

I read an article yesterday highlighting that genes don't determine behavior (kindness, religious belief, benevolence) -- that the concept biological or genetic 'determinism' in human behavior is largely discredited in mainstream science.

Genetics and natural selection are the very foundation of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis on evolution. So these kinds of human behaviors can't be explained away by pointing to Darwin or Mendel.

It's obviously a significant gap in our knowledge

Interesting but beyond my education. I think genes and environment help make us who we are but, as our Free Will discussions pointed out, there's the X factor of individual choice to consider.

Consider all the MAGAts on JPP. Some are clearly mentally ill and I won't fault a person who has no or little choice in their life. Most, however, do have choice and deliberately choose to do what they post. Pmp's attacks on you were a choice, even if he was upset over a personal tragedy. His return was a choice. Offering a mea culpa or not was a choice. Continuing to stand by his previous behavior is a choice.

Despite his grief or whatever bug was up his ass, Pmp doesn't strike me as being mentally handicapped and, therefore, was responsible for his choices. It's not genes or environment, it's his choice to behave as he chooses.

 

[Cypress]

Interesting but beyond my education. I think genes and environment help make us who we are but, as our Free Will discussions pointed out, there's the X factor of individual choice to consider.

Consider all the MAGAts on JPP. Some are clearly mentally ill and I won't fault a person who has no or little choice in their life. Most, however, do have choice and deliberately choose to do what they post. Pmp's attacks on you were a choice, even if he was upset over a personal tragedy. His return was a choice. Offering a mea culpa or not was a choice. Continuing to stand by his previous behavior is a choice.

Despite his grief or whatever bug was up his ass, Pmp doesn't strike me as being mentally handicapped and, therefore, was responsible for his choices. It's not genes or environment, it's his choice to behave as he chooses.

That is how I understand it, genes can indirectly play a role in behavior and ethical choice, but there is no such thing as genetic determinism in human belief and behavior.

The physical reductionists are just plain wrong that we can points to existing physics, chemistry, and natural selection as explanations for these kind of human behaviors.

I think the materialistic determinists are wrong about free will being an illusion. They seem to be conflating the casual nature of Newtonian physics with human psychology. I don't think it is obvious that the two can be conflated.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That is how I understand it, genes can indirectly play a role in behavior and ethical choice, but there is no such thing as genetic determinism in human belief and behavior.

The physical reductionists are just plain wrong that we can points to existing physics, chemistry, and natural selection as explanations for these kind of human behaviors.

I think the materialistic determinists are wrong about free will being an illusion. They seem to be conflating the casual nature of Newtonian physics with human psychology. I don't think it is obvious that the two can be conflated.

Physical reductionists are free to guess and hypothesis just like everyone else but the only proof they have is the factual instances of human limitations which are primarily physical in nature. It doesn't explain why some people choose to do some things while others choose something else. Even identical twin studies show genetics only plays a part. Nailing down environmental influences present even more problems.


https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/second

The classical twin study design relies on studying twins raised in the same family environments. Monozygotic (identical) twins share all of their genes, while dizygotic (fraternal) twins share only about 50 percent of them. So, if a researcher compares the similarity between sets of identical twins to the similarity between sets of fraternal twins for a particular trait, then any excess likeness between the identical twins should be due to genes rather than environment.

Researchers use this method, and variations on it, to estimate the heritability of traits: The percentage of variance in a population due to genes. Modern twin studies also try to quantify the effect of a person's shared environment (family) and unique environment (the individual events that shape a life) on a trait....

...Twin researchers acknowledge that these and other limitations exist. But, they say, the limitations don't negate the usefulness of twin studies. For traits that are substantially influenced by heredity, the approximately two-fold difference in genetic similarity between the two types of twins should outweigh any complications,...

...And the extent to which different assumptions matter may depend on which trait is being studied. Studies have suggested, for example, that people are more likely to select mates with similar levels of intelligence than they are mates with similar levels of neuroticism, extraversion and other personality traits (see page 50). So, researchers who use twins to study intelligence might have to worry more about nonrandom mating than researchers who study personality....

...In the age of molecular genetics, meanwhile, the classical twin study design is only one aspect of genetics research. Twin studies estimate the heritability of a trait, but molecular genetics attempts to pinpoint the effects of a particular gene.

The future of twin research will involve combining traditional twin studies with molecular genetics research, according to Hewitt, who believes that day is already here.

 

[IBDaMann]

The biggest fear of all is fear of the unknown.

^^ Makes sense.

Too funny. So, the fear of death isn't the biggest fear? Human curiosity draws most people into the previously unknown. Only the suicidal are drawn to death.

-- that the concept biological or genetic 'determinism' in human behavior is largely discredited in mainstream science.

Too funny! A scientifically illiterate moron is asserting that science takes sides on unverifiable speculation.

Cypress, here's a hint. Science doesn't "discredit" anything. The scientific method falsifies things ... specifically, and exclusively, falsifiable things.

So these kinds of human behaviors can't be explained away by pointing to Darwin or Mendel.

Way too funny! You are still searching for a "why" in random events. This is why your comments haven't risen above the level of "stupid".

I'm thoroughly enjoying your posts. Comedy gold they are.

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll , a plagiarizer, a bad-faith poster, a scientific illiterate.
I'm thoroughly enjoying your posts

Yes, you are as proven by the posts below.

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 posters 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!!

​

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Too funny. So, the fear of death isn't the biggest fear?

Human curiosity draws most people into the previously unknown.

Only the suicidal are drawn to death

Not for normal people. For you, I can see why you fear death among all other fears, Sybil.

Agreed, but that's not what the phrase means.

Normal people recognize that death is part of the life cycle, Sybil. Death comes for us all. Only a nutjob thinks they'll live forever.