Does natural selection explain human behavior?

[Cypress]

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.

Great, now you're starting to see it my way.

Human conciousness results in aesthetics, religion, rationality, moral law and standards, abstract contemplation. Per the OP.

Darwinian principles cannot fully account for all manifestations of human conciousness.

That's why the OP made the case that we can't point to natural selection everytime we want to explain the causes of human behavior and mental life.

I think it's very possible we haven't even invented the science yet that can really explain why these immutable principles arise out of our conciousness.

 

[Kafka]

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.

social networks exist to provide security to the members of the social group. Activities which benefit others ensure the network is stable and mutually beneficial.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Yes, you're right that social sciences play a role in this

But I'm not sure they are actually explaining the fundamental question of why human conciousness produces these particular qualia, aesthetics, abstract reasoning.

There have been many pack animals in the history of life, as far as we know none of them used abstract contemplation, aesthetic appreciation, or thought about the meaning of life.

Neanderthals had bigger brains than us. Dolphins are probably as smart as some MAGAs.

I only took one sociology class, but it seemed a very descriptive and statistical science in terms of cultural relativism, structuralism, and general archetypes. But I don't remember any robust scientific explanation at the level of chemistry and biology for why exactly it is human conciousness produces those kind of behaviors.

If we are going to link it to evolution, it seems we need to be talking about it at the level of biology

 

[Cypress]

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.

Aristotle famously said that there is no doubt our eyesight is extremely useful and practical. But he wrote that what we really love about our eyesight is the pleasure it brings us.

That aesthetic pleasure has an ineffable quality about it that I don't think Darwinian principles or the physics of optics really adequately captures or explains

 

[Cypress]

social networks exist to provide security to the members of the social group. Activities which benefit others ensure the network is stable and mutually beneficial.

The principles of Darwinian evolution is to ensure your genetic information endures.

That might be accomplished by helping your siblings. Or by the retributive protection of the peers in your pack.

There is no evolutionary advantage to squandering resources on total strangers, or sending food to children in Somalia.

 

[Cypress]

social networks exist to provide security to the members of the social group. Activities which benefit others ensure the network is stable and mutually beneficial.

Not an adequate explanation.

Mozart does nothing to provide security, has no effect on propagating one's genetic code that couldn't better be accomplished in a thousand different ways, and building symphony halls and opera houses squanders substantial resources that could have been used in more evolutionary beneficial ways.

The goal of evolution first and foremost is not the preservation of a species as a whole. When male lions take over a pride they will kill cubs produced by other male lions. The goal of evolution is descent with modification by preservation and transmission of favorable genes.

There have been innumerable pack animals species in the history of life. None of them required highly abstract rational thought, art, religion, and behavior to maintain social networks. Pointing to brain size is not an adequate explanation. Neanderthals had larger brains than Homo Sapiens and there are other high mammals with sentient minds.

I'm willing to admit we don't have the answer yet, and we might not even have yet invented the science of mind that can give us the answer

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Great, now you're starting to see it my way.

Human conciousness results in aesthetics, religion, rationality, moral law and standards, abstract contemplation. Per the OP.

Darwinian principles cannot fully account for all manifestations of human conciousness.

That's why the OP made the case that we can't point to natural selection everytime we want to explain the causes of human behavior and mental life.

I think it's very possible we haven't even invented the science yet that can really explain why these immutable principles arise out of our conciousness.

It seems you read my first sentence and then stopped there thinking I agreed with you. The theory of evolution can't explain any mutation. The theory of evolution can only explain which mutations don't survive. Mutations which are not detrimental survive. Mutations which are detrimental can survive as long as they allow a species to still out compete others.

You start with a faulty premise. Natural selection doesn't have to explain anything that any species does. The theory only says that the ones with the best chance to survive will survive and pass on their attributes.
That means that in certain circumstances the species that has 3 good attributes and 100 bad attributes will survive vs the species that has 2 good attributes and 101 bad attributes. Then if the environment changes the other species may survive because one of the attributes needed to survive is no longer good/bad.

Let me see if I can make this clear.

Natural selection doesn't explain the behavior of any species.

The only thing natural selection can do is try to explain why a species survived as opposed to another species.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not an adequate explanation.

Mozart does nothing to provide security, has no effect on propagating one's genetic code that couldn't better be accomplished in a thousand different ways, and building symphony halls and opera houses squanders substantial resources that could have been used in more evolutionary beneficial ways.

The goal of evolution first and foremost is not the preservation of a species as a whole. When male lions take over a pride they will kill cubs produced by other male lions. The goal of evolution is descent with modification by preservation and transmission of favorable genes.

There have been innumerable pack animals species in the history of life. None of them required highly abstract rational thought, art, religion, and behavior to maintain social networks. Pointing to brain size is not an adequate explanation. Neanderthals had larger brains than Homo Sapiens and there are other high mammals with sentient minds.

I'm willing to admit we don't have the answer yet, and we might not even have yet invented the science of mind that can give us the answer

Of course, large groups of people going to listen to a concert by Mozart is the same thing as small groups of people attacking each other with clubs and rocks.

But I am curious how you think building something other than a symphony hall is in any way more evolutionary beneficial.
Was figuring out how to build the atomic bomb beneficial in some evolutionary way? How did it it make us more likely to survive as a species?

Evolution has NO GOAL! You keep making this same mistake over and over and over and over.

 

[Cypress]

It seems you read my first sentence and then stopped there thinking I agreed with you. The theory of evolution can't explain any mutation. The theory of evolution can only explain which mutations don't survive. Mutations which are not detrimental survive. Mutations which are detrimental can survive as long as they allow a species to still out compete others.

You start with a faulty premise. Natural selection doesn't have to explain anything that any species does. The theory only says that the ones with the best chance to survive will survive and pass on their attributes.
That means that in certain circumstances the species that has 3 good attributes and 100 bad attributes will survive vs the species that has 2 good attributes and 101 bad attributes. Then if the environment changes the other species may survive because one of the attributes needed to survive is no longer good/bad.

Let me see if I can make this clear.

Natural selection doesn't explain the behavior of any species.

The only thing natural selection can do is try to explain why a species survived as opposed to another species.

Let me see if I can make this clear:
"Natural selection doesn't have to explain anything that any species does."

Yes, that has been my point since the original post.

In case you didn't notice, on this thread and elsewhere there is a school of thought that we can explain these types of human behaviors by invoking Darwinian principles.

I don't think we can with current science, and I have never seen a widely accepted scientific consensus published anywhere that states science has discovered and explained how religion, aesthetics, moral frameworks arise from human conciousness.

I think part of the problem is that science as it currently stands is intended to explain the objective and empirical. But what we are talking about is the subjective and irrational. Maybe what we need, and don't currently have, is a science of the subjective.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let me see if I can make this clear:
"Natural selection doesn't have to explain anything that any species does."

Yes, that has been my point since the original post.

In case you didn't notice, on this thread and elsewhere there is a school of thought that we can explain these types of human behaviors by invoking Darwinian principles.

I don't think we can with current science, and I have never seen a widely accepted scientific consensus published anywhere that states science has discovered and explained how religion, aesthetics, moral frameworks arise from human conciousness.

I think part of the problem is that science as it currently stands is intended to explain the objective and empirical. But what we are talking about is the subjective and irrational. Maybe what we need, and don't currently have, is a science of the subjective.

If that is your point then you certainly haven't been very clear about it since all your arguments have been about evolution having a goal and how human behavior doesn't meet that goal. Both arguments that only someone that has no clue about evolution would make.

 

[Cypress]

If that is your point then you certainly haven't been very clear about it since all your arguments have been about evolution having a goal and how human behavior doesn't meet that goal. Both arguments that only someone that has no clue about evolution would make.

Whether evolution includes teleological (ends-oriented) language is an open debate in the life sciences. A lot of biologists don't think teleological language should be used, others think teleological language is unavoidable. I posted on another thread citations to the biologists who think teleological language is unavoidable.

But that was not the point of this thread.

I think it was crystal clear from the original post that I was maintaining natural selection probably can't be invoked to explain abstract contemplation, aesthetics, certain moral standards

If that is your point then you certainly haven't been very clear about it

Does Natural Selection Explain Human Behavior

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.

 

[Cypress]

Of course, large groups of people going to listen to a concert by Mozart is the same thing as small groups of people attacking each other with clubs and rocks.

But I am curious how you think building something other than a symphony hall is in any way more evolutionary beneficial.
Was figuring out how to build the atomic bomb beneficial in some evolutionary way? How did it it make us more likely to survive as a species?

Evolution has NO GOAL! You keep making this same mistake over and over and over and over.

This isn't the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, or a peer review publication.

You can substitute whatever word you want for 'goal', because I am convinced you are smart enough to get the gist of what I mean --> the goal, ends, objective, etc. of natural selection is decent by modification by the preservation of favorable genes.

I agree that there are many traits specific to humans that serve no evolutionary ends. That's what makes our species seemingly unique. A lot of our behavior and subjective mental experiences can't be explained at the level of chemistry, physics, and evolutionary biology, the way all other animals can.

Even the invention of sciences like sociology and anthropology is an admission that human behavior doesn't conform simply to biology and Darwinian principles.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Whether evolution includes teleological (ends-oriented) language is an open debate in the life sciences. A lot of biologists don't think teleological language should be used, others think teleological language is unavoidable. I posted on another thread citations to the biologists who think teleological language is unavoidable.

But that was not the point of this thread.

I think it was crystal clear from the original post that I was maintaining natural selection probably can't be invoked to explain abstract contemplation, aesthetics, certain moral standards

Evolution is a tool. It has no specific goal, simply the survival of the species within a specific environment. The answers you are looking for won't be found in evolution, but in the rules of the Universe, which do seem geared toward more sophisticated, including intelligent, systems.

If we look at the Universe as a game with defined rules, then it's important for the players to understand the rules. Included in the rules are tools such as evolution.

Since we do not know all the rules, yet, how can we know why mankind is capable of abstract thought? Clearly it helps with our intelligence.

Declaring we will eventually know is only slightly less silly than saying we'll never know. Without understanding how the Universe works and all the rules involved in its operation, it would be silly to declare things are one way or another. Most of it remains a mystery.

 

[Cypress]

Evolution is a tool. It has no specific goal, simply the survival of the species within a specific environment. The answers you are looking for won't be found in evolution, but in the rules of the Universe, which do seem geared toward more sophisticated, including intelligent, systems.

If we look at the Universe as a game with defined rules, then it's important for the players to understand the rules. Included in the rules are tools such as evolution.

Since we do not know all the rules, yet, how can we know why mankind is capable of abstract thought? Clearly it helps with our intelligence.

Declaring we will eventually know is only slightly less silly than saying we'll never know. Without understanding how the Universe works and all the rules involved in its operation, it would be silly to declare things are one way or another. Most of it remains a mystery.

Thanks.

We are on the same page in some respects, particularly in acknowledging that pointing to Darwinian principles is not an adequate explanation for the human behaviors outlined in the OP, and there are substantial gaps in our knowledge.

I don't think evolution as a principle is to ensure the survival of a species as a whole. It only ensures the preservation of favorable genes. When a stronger lion defeats the weaker lion and takes over the pride, one of the first things it does is kill the cubs of the defeated male.

That not really an action to preserve the extant species as a whole.

 

[Kafka]

There is no evolutionary advantage to squandering resources on total strangers, or sending food to children in Somalia.

Wrong. There is a social advantage which stabilizes the social network from which animals like humans, bees, ants, chimpanzees etc. all derive benefit.

 

[Cypress]

Wrong. There is a social advantage which stabilizes the social network from which animals like humans, bees, ants, chimpanzees etc. all derive benefit.

Nope, mindlessly pointing to Darwinian principles to explain all human behaviors like those in the OP doesn't cut the mustard.

Humans invented the sciences of sociology and anthropology presicely because human behaviors cannot all be reduced and distilled to the principles of biology and natural selection, the way all other animal species typically can.

The mere existence of sociology and anthropology is an admission that the premise in the original post is correct.

 

[Kafka]

Nope, mindlessly pointing to Darwinian principles to explain all human behaviors like those in the OP doesn't cut the mustard.

Humans invented the sciences of sociology and anthropology presicely because human behaviors cannot all be reduced and distilled to the principles of biology and natural selection, the way all other animal species typically can.

The mere existence of sociology and anthropology is an admission that the premise in the original post is correct.

A single human would be dead in about 15 minutes on the savannah. Even with their enormous brains. The reason humans survive is because they are social animals like ants and bees.

Ants give up everything for the good of the whole. A bee will give up its life for the queen. There is clearly no "thinking" involved, but the existence of that self-sacrifice for a being they don't even have a personal relationship with is how the whole colony survives.

Humans have more choice in the matter (and that's how we end up with horrible people) but the instinct and drive is still there. We see the same thing in chimp and bonobo groups.

There's even some thought that humans learned a lot about hunting in a group from watching the behavior of wolf packs.

Social networks exist because they provide a survival advantage. Arguably it is ingrained in the creature.

 

[Kafka]

Whether evolution includes teleological (ends-oriented) language is an open debate in the life sciences.

Not really. The vast majority of actual evolutionary biologists would be very quick to point out that evolution has no 'goal' (and you can see it if you do a quick search of the literature).

Sure, there are some folks who probably want to shoehorn some sort of quasi-religious or extraneously philosophical views on evolution, but there's nothing within evolution that points to a "goal" except for survival and propagation of the genes. That's it.

Evolution is a SIEVE. It is a passive filter which only weeds out those things which keep the genes from being passed on. The seive doesn't create small particles, it only lets them pass through.

This is why we still have single celled life forms which make up a vast chunk of all life and why we have maladapted individuals in our society. If their genes can be passed along, their genetics will survive. There is no part of evolution that is a "positive force" driving anything.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A single human would be dead in about 15 minutes on the savannah. Even with their enormous brains. The reason humans survive is because they are social animals like ants and bees.

Ants give up everything for the good of the whole. A bee will give up its life for the queen. There is clearly no "thinking" involved, but the existence of that self-sacrifice for a being they don't even have a personal relationship with is how the whole colony survives.

Humans have more choice in the matter (and that's how we end up with horrible people) but the instinct and drive is still there. We see the same thing in chimp and bonobo groups.

There's even some thought that humans learned a lot about hunting in a group from watching the behavior of wolf packs.

Social networks exist because they provide a survival advantage. Arguably it is ingrained in the creature.

Very interesting insights into your psyche, Perry. Especially your projections on your ability to survive alone in the wild and comparing yourself to bees and ants.

More to the subject is that you overlook the fact Humans have choices over bees and ants then you prove you do know the difference by calling yourself "horrible people". Interesting.

Yes, there is safety in numbers. A human with a tribe is more likely to survive than one without but, unlike your ants and bees, a human can survive alone in the wilderness by using the best survival tool it has, their brain.

 

[IBDaMann]

Whether evolution includes teleological (ends-oriented) language is an open debate in the life sciences.

Nope. There is no such science whose models indicate that physical laws somehow adjust to attain a predetermined outcome. Hence, there is no such "debate."

In other words, science is always CAUSE being the independent variables and EFFECT being the dependent variables, never the other way around.

A lot of biologists don't think teleological language should be used

They're probably not looking at it from a religious point of view.

... others think teleological language is unavoidable.

This is a religious position, not a scientific one. Christians believe that everything happens according to God's plan, i.e. the end result is predetermined, and the causes will adjust, as necessary, to achieve that end result which must occur.

But that was not the point of this thread.

Well, you sure wasted enough bandwidth belaboring this point. It's a little late to back out now.

I think it was crystal clear from the original post that I was maintaining natural selection probably can't be invoked to explain abstract contemplation, aesthetics, certain moral standards

But you contradict yourself, as usual. You don't ever take the science point of view, only the religious position which insists that there is a "why" in all of these random events. That is the position of a profoundly religious science denier.