Does natural selection explain human behavior?

Cypress said:
I will chalk you up as the type that believes science has explained everything about human conciousness, and that we can just point to Charles Darwin to explain everything about human culture and behavior.
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if you are Doc Dutch because you lie all the time.
 
Cypress said:
I will chalk you up as the type that believes science has explained everything about human conciousness, and that we can just point to Charles Darwin to explain everything about human culture and behavior.
Click to expand...

She strikes me as more of the type to simply be contrarian because she's hates the world, hates men and hates herself. She's a very unhappy person who has the choice of a bottle of wine, a warm bath and a razor blade or getting on JPP had venting her hatred to anyone she thinks she can hurt. Notice she doesn't post to me because I hurt back. LOL

FWIW, I do agree her venting is better than the razor blade, but getting therapy would be best of all. :thup:
 
Doc Dutch said:
She strikes me as more of the type to simply be contrarian because she's hates the world, hates men and hates herself. She's a very unhappy person who has the choice of a bottle of wine, a warm bath and a razor blade or getting on JPP had venting her hatred to anyone she thinks she can hurt. Notice she doesn't post to me because I hurt back. LOL

FWIW, I do agree her venting is better than the razor blade, but getting therapy would be best of all. :thup:
Click to expand...

To me, there seem to be three basic schools of thought here.

Everything about human conciousness and behavior is explained by Charles Darwin and Darwinian principles

Human conciousness, rationality, morals are imbued in us by divine Providence

We simply haven't yet invented a science or method to explain everything about human behaviors.


I am in the third group.

I think radical atheists generally find themselves in the first group, and holy rollers are ensconced in the second group.
 
Cypress said:
To me, there seem to be three basic schools of thought here.

Everything about human conciousness and behavior is explained by Charles Darwin and Darwinian principles

Human conciousness, rationality, morals are imbued in us by divine Providence

We simply haven't yet invented a science or method to explain everything about human behaviors.


I am in the third group.

I think radical atheists generally find themselves in the first group, and holy rollers are ensconced in the second group.
Click to expand...

Agreed. #MeToo. :thup:

There's too many unknowns and too many variables to draw a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Certainly social bonding serves a Darwinian purpose in terms of protection, resource sharing, infant rearing.

There are lots of pack animals in the world, but as far as we know there has never been a species capable of abstract thought the way humans do.

Their are also unique Human behaviors that have nothing to do with bonding: the wandering ascetic mystic in India, the solitary Christian monk in the Egyptian desert, the Greek natural philosopher contemplating the cosmos.

As far as we know, we are the only species that contemplates the meaning of life, creates art, creates religion, performs abstract reasoning.

Altruism in the mammalian world seems to only function in family groups or packs. That makes evolutionary sense. I've never heard of a lion pride bringing food to a different lion pride.

I really don't think we can point to Charles Darwin to explain it all. I am prepared to admit that science, as it currently stands, does not explain everything about everything. There may be a science of mind or a science of conciousness we haven't even invented yet that will provide better insights into the human behavior
Click to expand...

Sociology exists as a way to look at human behavior as a whole. The ascetics, monks, etc. are outliers. They are interesting but not really representative of us as a whole. Since we don't operate strictly on instinct like our fellow passengers, it would make sense that a lot of what we do serves no evolutionary purpose. So we look to sciences like anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc. to explain it.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed on altruism, even on a tribal or higher level much less species-wide.

Excellent point about social bonding. Human beings have been around for about 300,000 years. When trying to understand their behavior, I think it's important to look at their state of existence across the majority of that time: tribal cultures. Most of our history begins with writing which began with (or allowed) cities. If that is 10,000 years, then the other 290,000 years (the remaining 97% of human existence) was spent in tribal cultures.

IMO, the results of evolution would have occurred during that 97% of time, not the 3% we are experiencing as civilized humans.
Click to expand...

Social bonding is a survival trait for us relatively weak, hairless, vulnerable, delicious animals surrounded by predators who are faster, stronger, and armed with teeth and claws.

Our species H. sapiens sapiens, has been around for a pretty short time. There is fossil evidence that our fellow sapiens species (at one time there were seven different sapiens species existing at the same time) were also social creatures who lived in family and/or tribal groups, spanning hundreds of thousands of years. That argues strongly IMO for social bonding as a survival trait, or it would have otherwise disappeared.

Physically we have obviously evolved in the last few hundred thousand years, too. We're taller, stronger, have larger brain cases (smarter? Hard to measure that).
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Social bonding is a survival trait for us relatively weak, hairless, vulnerable, delicious animals surrounded by predators who are faster, stronger, and armed with teeth and claws.

Our species H. sapiens sapiens, has been around for a pretty short time. There is fossil evidence that our fellow sapiens species (at one time there were seven different sapiens species existing at the same time) were also social creatures who lived in family and/or tribal groups, spanning hundreds of thousands of years. That argues strongly IMO for social bonding as a survival trait, or it would have otherwise disappeared.

Physically we have obviously evolved in the last few hundred thousand years, too. We're taller, stronger, have larger brain cases (smarter? Hard to measure that).
Click to expand...
Agreed on social bonding as a matter of tribal survival.

In the history of the Earth, 300,000 years is, indeed, a relatively short time, but it's long enough for particular traits to evolve within a species.

Smarter ≠ Wiser. We are smart enough to develop nuclear weapons, but we may not be wise enough to avoid obliterating ourselves by using them.
 
Cypress said:
Sleeping in the sun not only feels good, there are physiological benefits to both humans and animals. We absorb Vitamin D from sunlight, and it probably has therapeutic pain relief benefits for older dogs with bone conditions.

I'm not an evolution denier.

The problem with radical atheists is they think any discussion of uncertainty in science just gives ammunition to the Holy Rollers.

Scientists love unanswered questions, and I have never met a scientist who said we have figured out everything there is to know about human conciousness and behavior.

I don't think we yet have a science that explains human conciousness and subjective mental experience. I don't think it can be swept under the rug by saying Darwin explains it all. And there are plenty of scientists and philosophers that agree with me.
Click to expand...

Evolution cannot and never will explain human consciousness. Evolution only explains the process by which we became a species that survived. Evolution doesn't dictate how exactly a species will mutate. It only says the one best evolved for the current environment is the one most likely to survive.

I never said you were an evolution denier. I said you have some of the same misconceptions about what Darwin's theory says. Humans are not the end result of some intended evolution. They are an accident that happened to survive because they were better suited than the other accidents. Our traits don't exist because of evolution. We exist because our traits were better than species with other traits.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Sociology exists as a way to look at human behavior as a whole. The ascetics, monks, etc. are outliers. They are interesting but not really representative of us as a whole. Since we don't operate strictly on instinct like our fellow passengers, it would make sense that a lot of what we do serves no evolutionary purpose. So we look to sciences like anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc. to explain it.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, and gets back to the concept in the OP that Darwinian principles and biological evolution is not a science that can explain everything about human conciousness and behavior.

I also tend to think there are limits to what psychology and sociology can explain about human conciousness and behavior. They can describe relational or functional aspects of the way human minds concieve of beauty, music, art, religion, but they can't really explain why this is an immutable part of human nature, and why it is seemingly unique in the history of life
 
Cypress said:
That's a good point, and gets back to the concept in the OP that Darwinian principles and biological evolution is not a science that can explain everything about human conciousness and behavior.

I also tend to think there are limits to what psychology and sociology can explain about human conciousness and behavior. They can describe relational or functional aspects of the way human minds concieve of beauty, music, art, religion, but they can't really explain why this is an immutable part of human nature, and why it is seemingly unique in the history of life
Click to expand...

Yet. As of now, we don't know what the limits are.

I think there's a lot more to know and that can be explained but there's a chance some will remain outside the realm of science.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Yet. As of now, we don't know what the limits are.

I think there's a lot more to know and that can be explained but there's a chance some will remain outside the realm of science.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's fun to explore the unanswered questions, and someday we might have a science or method giving insight into why these immutable behaviors and mental constructions of the human mind exist.

As of now, I just don't think we can point to Darwin to explain why we have the universal declaration of human rights, or the human tendency to look for transcendent meaning in life.

You don't need either of those to have an orderly society or social grouping, they aren't logically neccessary for it
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Evolution cannot and never will explain human consciousness. Evolution only explains the process by which we became a species that survived. Evolution doesn't dictate how exactly a species will mutate. It only says the one best evolved for the current environment is the one most likely to survive.

I never said you were an evolution denier. I said you have some of the same misconceptions about what Darwin's theory says. Humans are not the end result of some intended evolution. They are an accident that happened to survive because they were better suited than the other accidents. Our traits don't exist because of evolution. We exist because our traits were better than species with other traits.
Click to expand...
Never is a big word. Unlikely is a better term, IMO, but I'd question that too. Remember the bit George Carlin did about plastic?* For all we know "consciousness" may be the end goal of the evolutionary process. Survival is the commonly accepted goal, but consciousness allows us to look forward and prevent an extinction event or the demise of the species.

Agreed humans aren't the end result. We're a link in the chain.

*https://genius.com/George-carlin-the-planet-is-fine-annotated
Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question: “Why are we here?” Plastic, assholes!
 
Doc Dutch said:
Never is a big word. Unlikely is a better term, IMO, but I'd question that too. Remember the bit George Carlin did about plastic?* For all we know "consciousness" may be the end goal of the evolutionary process. Survival is the commonly accepted goal, but consciousness allows us to look forward and prevent an extinction event or the demise of the species.

Agreed humans aren't the end result. We're a link in the chain.

*https://genius.com/George-carlin-the-planet-is-fine-annotated
Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question: “Why are we here?” Plastic, assholes!
Click to expand...

Never is not a big word. It is an accurate word. The theory of evolution will never explain human consciousness just like the theory of gravity will never explain human consciousness and the theory of General Relativity will never explain human consciousness. They have nothing to do with human consciousness.

The theory of evolution has no end goal. It explains the process. The process has no goal. It merely describes how the species with the best attributes at any given time is most likely to survive.
 
Cypress said:
We intentionally sacrifice our most important interests for the charitable benefit of strangers and people unrelated to us.
Click to expand...

^^^^This is how social animals gain a survival advantage. It's how ants work. It's how bees work. It's how humans work.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Never is not a big word. It is an accurate word. The theory of evolution will never explain human consciousness just like the theory of gravity will never explain human consciousness and the theory of General Relativity will never explain human consciousness. They have nothing to do with human consciousness.

The theory of evolution has no end goal. It explains the process. The process has no goal. It merely describes how the species with the best attributes at any given time is most likely to survive.
Click to expand...

Agreed evolution is a process but the laws that allow that process to exist are of unknown origin or purpose. Again, never is big word when describing things that have unknowns contained within them.
 
LiAlSi2O6 said:
^^^^This is how social animals gain a survival advantage. It's how ants work. It's how bees work. It's how humans work.
Click to expand...

No, altruism only ensures the survival of all or part of your genetic code when it's practiced between siblings, offspring, or possibly between associates in the pack where there might be a possiblity of reciprocation.

That's why you have never heard of one lion pride bringing food to another lion pride, or one chimpanzee troop bringing fruit to a rival chimpanzee troop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top