Does natural selection explain human behavior?

[IBDaMann]

Not really. The vast majority of actual evolutionary biologists would be very quick to point out that evolution has no 'goal'

Correct. Cypress is denying Darwinism on theological grounds, insisting there must be a "why" (a grand plan with an concrete objective). Darwinism is nature's response to random events, hence evolution is the outcome of random events and cannot be predicted. Cypress cannot grasp this concept, owing to the fact that he was probably chained to a bed until he was seven and then subsequently raised by wild animals.

Sure, there are some folks who probably want to shoehorn some sort of quasi-religious or extraneously philosophical views on evolution,

You get it, but in Cypress' case, he is trying to make lame excuses for rejecting evolution entirely. If he doesn't appreciate Darwin's theory, Cypress should just do what other Christians do and simply declare that they reject the theory out of hand because it runs counter to their religious beliefs and be done with it. However, as always, Cypress is leveraging this topic as an opportunity to role-play a wise philosopher, and we're supposed to treat his gibber-babble as profound wisdom that is somehow beyond our comprehension.

but there's nothing within evolution that points to a "goal" except for survival and propagation of the genes. That's it.

He's not buying it ... because he doesn't fully understand it, for one thing. Cypress insists that there is a "why" in random events. You might be shocked to learn that Cypress is a moron.

Evolution is a SIEVE. It is a passive filter which only weeds out those things which keep the genes from being passed on.

This is not accurate. There really is no such thing as a characteristic that prevents genes from being passed on except in unique, individual cases (e.g. sterility, blindness at birth, etc) and evolution does not/cannot eliminate that. Homosexuality has not been eradicated by evolution. People/animals are still born with debilitating birth defects. Evolution has not made this go away.

Rather than speak of evolution as a filter, it is better to recognize evolution as a gate that allows statistically advantageous characteristics to pass through to the next generation, ... along with all of the accompanying characteristics, whether they are beneficial or not. Again, the other characteristics are not filtered out somehow; the advantageous characteristics afford all the other characteristics a free pass into the next generation.

 

[Cypress]

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.

I'm not getting drawn into a debate with a poster who hypothesizes that ant ethics are the same as human ethics, and that orangutans may be doing calculus.

The queen ant is the egg laying reproductive source of genetic information in the colony, the colony are her offspring, and it makes sense in the Darwinian framework that sterile offspring are going to protect the queen - the source of reproductive genetic information - at all costs.

Now, I'm getting off the Perry merry-go-round before you start screaming at me in all caps.

 

[Cypress]

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

Yes you are, as the posts below prove.

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!!

​

t

 

[Cypress]

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

Yes you are, as the posts below prove.

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!!

​

 

[Cypress]

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.

Don't you know ant ethics and behavior is basically the same as human? Maybe ants are even doing calculus and wondering about the meaning of life!

To me, the very simple fact that the social sciences of anthropology and sociology were invented is a ringing admission that we can't point to Darwinian principles to explain all human behavior.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Don't you know ant ethics and behavior is basically the same as human? Maybe ants are even doing calculus and wondering about the meaning of life!

To me, the very simple fact that the social sciences of anthropology and sociology were invented is a ringing admission that we can't point to Darwinian principles to explain all human behavior.

I heard ants are also GeoChem PhDs too!

A slight disagreement on the Darwinian thing. Evolution is a process of adaptation for species survival. The social behavior of a species is a result of that process. Consider that Pandas are anti-social and that the female kicks out the male shortly after mating since the males will eat the offspring. Humans, and other simians, band together for mutual protection of the group, including the offspring. Why the difference? IDK but am guessing it's part of the randomness/hit'n'miss nature of evolution. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, the species dies off.

 

[Cypress]

I heard ants are also GeoChem PhDs too!

A slight disagreement on the Darwinian thing. Evolution is a process of adaptation for species survival. The social behavior of a species is a result of that process. Consider that Pandas are anti-social and that the female kicks out the male shortly after mating since the males will eat the offspring. Humans, and other simians, band together for mutual protection of the group, including the offspring. Why the difference? IDK but am guessing it's part of the randomness/hit'n'miss nature of evolution. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, the species dies off.

My two cents: Religion, music, philosophy, abstract contemplation, aesthetic appreciation isn't necessary for social groupings and don't serve evolutionary ends.

No other pack animal in Earth history needed those as evolutionary advantages. Anomalies need explanation. Neanderthals and the earliest Homo Sapiens had larger brains than us, and all other hominids did not need those.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My two cents: Religion, music, philosophy, abstract contemplation, aesthetic appreciation isn't necessary for social groupings and don't serve evolutionary ends.

No other pack animal in Earth history needed those as evolutionary advantages. Anomalies need explanation. Neanderthals and the earliest Homo Sapiens had larger brains than us, and all other hominids did not need those.

How do you know? All allow social bonding and social bonding among humans enhances survival of the tribe.
BTW, what is the group of humans called? It's not on this list: https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/animal-group-names

Agreed a fuller understanding is needed. There are too many unknowns to draw a conclusion.

 

[Cypress]

How do you know? All allow social bonding and social bonding among humans enhances survival of the tribe.
BTW, what is the group of humans called? It's not on this list: https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/animal-group-names

Agreed a fuller understanding is needed. There are too many unknowns to draw a conclusion.

You're right. I don't know the answer, and I have more questions than answers.

I've never seen anywhere in the literature a widespread consensus that science has explained all human behaviors at the level of biochemistry and Darwinian principles.

That's good enough for me to think we have massive gaps in our knowledge about this.

I like the idea of linking Human behaviors to genetic mutations. But human behaviors seem to evolve much faster than Darwinian timescales. One thing I learned from philosophy and formal logic is that what scientists call an explanation sometimes isn't really an explanation. There is a tenuous correlation between the FOXP2 gene and complex human language. But a correlation is not an explanation. We have no idea why a genetic mutation would actually cause complex language.

I also have doubts that Science as we currently concieve it is prepared to explain subjective human behaviors. Science is based on the objective and the empirical. We don't yet have a science of the subjective and irrational, and maybe that's what we need

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're right. I don't know the answer, and I have more questions than answers.

I've never seen anywhere in the literature a widespread consensus that science has explained all human behaviors at the level of biochemistry and Darwinian principles.
That's good enough for me to think we have massive gaps in our knowledge about this.

I like the idea of linking Human behaviors to genetic mutations. But human behaviors seem to evolve much faster than Darwinian timescales. One thing I learned from philosophy and formal logic is that what scientists call an explanation sometimes isn't really an explanation. There is a tenuous correlation between the FOXP2 gene and complex human language. But a correlation is not an explanation.

We have no idea why a genetic mutation would actually cause complex language.

I also have doubts that Science as we currently concieve it is prepared to explain subjective human behaviors. Science is based on the objective and the empirical. We don't yet have a science of the subjective and irrational, and maybe that's what we need

Agreed there are more questions than answers.

Me neither. Too many gaps in our knowledge.

I think the correlations are the baby steps to learning the answer. We don't even know for certain why some people are gay or if mankind has any form of free will.

I can see how a tribe of people who have more sophisticated languages would be more efficient and effective in surviving in the wild, especially against other humans, than those who were more primitive or lacking in communication and, therefore, coordination.

Too early to tell, but objective and empirical is the foundation of science.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed there are more questions than answers.

Me neither. Too many gaps in our knowledge.

I think the correlations are the baby steps to learning the answer. We don't even know for certain why some people are gay or if mankind has any form of free will.

I can see how a tribe of people who have more sophisticated languages would be more efficient and effective in surviving in the wild, especially against other humans, than those who were more primitive or lacking in communication and, therefore, coordination.

Too early to tell, but objective and empirical is the foundation of science.

Aggreed that complex language serves evolutionary ends. And serves it well.

Gothic cathedrals, cave art, and Italian Renassaince art, I am more dubious about.

Maybe we don't need a new conception of science. I'm just speculating

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Aggreed that complex language serves evolutionary ends. And serves it well.

Gothic cathedrals, cave art, and Italian Renassaince art, I am more dubious about.

Maybe we don't need a new conception of science. I'm just speculating

That goes back to the cross-species appreciation of beauty. Animals like bright and shiny things. Humans, being more sophisticated, like more sophisticated forms of bright and shiny things.



https://www.birdnature.com/birds-that-collect-aka-steal-shiny-things-and-why/
11 Birds That “Collect,” Aka “Steal” Shiny Things (and Why)

Magpies are birds that are known for their intelligence and cunning when it comes to collecting shiny, glittery things.

Some experts believe they also enjoy the challenge of getting their hands on something that is out of reach.

 

[Cypress]

That goes back to the cross-species appreciation of beauty. Animals like bright and shiny things. Humans, being more sophisticated, like more sophisticated forms of bright and shiny things.



https://www.birdnature.com/birds-that-collect-aka-steal-shiny-things-and-why/
11 Birds That “Collect,” Aka “Steal” Shiny Things (and Why)

Not a bad hypothesis, but I'm not sure it's a good analogy.

Fish chase shiny lures and cats chase laser pointers because their prey instinct kicks in. Some people seem to claim birds collect shiny things to decorate their nest to attract mates. Elaborate Male peacock colors are intended to attract mates

That's straight out of a Darwinian framework, and I'm not sure it amounts to a pure aesthetic appreciation just for the sake of itself

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not a bad hypothesis, but I'm not sure it's a good analogy.

Fish chase shiny lures and cats chase laser pointers because their prey instinct kicks in. Some people seem to claim birds collect shiny things to decorate their nest to attract mates. Elaborate Male peacock colors are intended to attract mates

That's straight out of a Darwinian framework, and I'm not sure it amounts to a pure aesthetic appreciation just for the sake of itself

The fish and cat are reacting to hunter-prey instincts, although the cat habit of playing with prey is a little different.

Collecting itself serves no evolutionary purpose. Using it for decoration could be considered evolutionary since, if it works, those critters are more likely to mate and reproduce. If that is how it started in humans, then the cathedral would be a by-product. If decorating one's cave helps attract mates and, therefore, eventually all humans have the trait, then using the trait to attract parishioners is simply a more advanced use of the trait.

 

[Cypress]

The fish and cat are reacting to hunter-prey instincts, although the cat habit of playing with prey is a little different.

Collecting itself serves no evolutionary purpose. Using it for decoration could be considered evolutionary since, if it works, those critters are more likely to mate and reproduce. If that is how it started in humans, then the cathedral would be a by-product. If decorating one's cave helps attract mates and, therefore, eventually all humans have the trait, then using the trait to attract parishioners is simply a more advanced use of the trait.

We're probably saying the same things in slightly different words.

But social cohesion of pack animals doesn't depend on religious, aesthetic appreciation, abstract contemplation. I don't think can point to brain size to explain it, at least one hominid species had a bigger brain than Homo Sapiens.

I don't think attracting parishioners has any advantageous evolutionary ends. A Christian does not have an evolutionary advantage over a Sikh. A lot of religious art was never shared with the public in antiquity and the middle ages.

If you saying the complexity of the human brain just manifested behaviors over time that don't really have an evolutionary end or advantage, that is basically what I am saying in the original post in different words

 

[Kafka]

I'm not getting drawn into a debate with a poster who hypothesizes that ant ethics are the same as human ethics, and that orangutans may be doing calculus.

No, you aren't drawn into a debate with anyone who so much as causes you to question your ex cathedra assumptions.

Now, I'm getting off the Perry merry-go-round before you start screaming at me in all caps.

You are a bully and I won't sit around being bullied by weak-minded fake intellectuals who can't defend their own positions.

 

[Kafka]

I heard ants are also GeoChem PhDs too!

And here we go....

Usual bully behavior.

And like the bullies you are you can't take it when someone points out your shit.

Why don't you go make some bets.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We're probably saying the same things in slightly different words.

But social cohesion of pack animals doesn't depend on religious, aesthetic appreciation, abstract contemplation. I don't think can point to brain size to explain it, at least one hominid species had a bigger brain than Homo Sapiens.

I don't think attracting parishioners has any advantageous evolutionary ends. A Christian does not have an evolutionary advantage over a Sikh. A lot of religious art was never shared with the public in antiquity and the middle ages.

If you saying the complexity of the human brain just manifested behaviors over time that don't really have an evolutionary end or advantage, that is basically what I am saying in the original post in different words

Complex topics, even those with differing opinions, are bound to have a lot of overlap, so I agree.

Comparative psychology shows that humans share a lot of traits with other animals. As for religion, BF Skinner had his religious pigeons. At a very basic level, that trait is shared by humans. You and I agree that those who look deeper into spirituality and go beyond the rote also go beyond any other animal species known to man. Those who go beyond the moral lessons of ancient wisdom and look for a both a deeper meaning and a deeper understanding of the Universe will keep looking while others are content to play with themselves, their money or their cars...when they aren't bragging about having a GeoChem PhD. LOL All that said, I see mankind's appreciation and curiosity of Universe as a side product of our evolution into the most intelligent species on the planet. You seem to postulate that this appreciation was the cause of our intelligent. IDK. It seems to be a chicken-or-the-egg question.

I don't know why some human behaviors are different than other animals. In many ways, most of our behaviors have comparative animal behaviors albeit ours almost always go a step above and well beyond. There are mysteries, but without evidence, they remain a mystery.

https://www.psychologistworld.com/superstition
Superstition
How Skinner's pigeon experiment revealed signs of superstition in pigeons.

Skinner conducted his research on a group of hungry pigeons whose body weights had been reduced to 75% of their normal weight when well-fed. For a few minutes each day, a mechanism fed the birds at regular intervals. What observers of the pigeons found showed the birds developing superstitious behavior, believing that by acting in a particular way, or committing a certain action, food would arrive...

...Skinner's Pigeon Experiment revealed that even pigeons can be conditioned to develop superstitious behaviours in belief that they will be fed. But superstition is more obvious in everyday human behavior; for example, avoiding 3 consecutive grates in a street, or walking under ladders.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

heard ants are also GeoChem PhDs too!

And here we go....

Usual bully behavior.

And like the bullies you are you can't take it when someone points out your shit.

Why don't you go make some bets.

^^^
Follows me wherever he goes. Perry can't help it.

Glad to see you recognize yourself, dumbass. You and I know you are a liar and that you got away with violating a thread ban. Fine. You're so fucking stupid you gloat about it and that, son, will get you banned again. I will make it my aim to see that happen, Perry, until you come clean and apologize.

 

[Cypress]

Complex topics, even those with differing opinions, are bound to have a lot of overlap, so I agree.

Comparative psychology shows that humans share a lot of traits with other animals. As for religion, BF Skinner had his religious pigeons. At a very basic level, that trait is shared by humans. You and I agree that those who look deeper into spirituality and go beyond the rote also go beyond any other animal species known to man. Those who go beyond the moral lessons of ancient wisdom and look for a both a deeper meaning and a deeper understanding of the Universe will keep looking while others are content to play with themselves, their money or their cars...when they aren't bragging about having a GeoChem PhD. LOL All that said, I see mankind's appreciation and curiosity of Universe as a side product of our evolution into the most intelligent species on the planet. You seem to postulate that this appreciation was the cause of our intelligent. IDK. It seems to be a chicken-or-the-egg question.

I don't know why some human behaviors are different than other animals. In many ways, most of our behaviors have comparative animal behaviors albeit ours almost always go a step above and well beyond. There are mysteries, but without evidence, they remain a mystery.

https://www.psychologistworld.com/superstition
Superstition
How Skinner's pigeon experiment revealed signs of superstition in pigeons.

Good points and nice summary.
Ants don't have human ethics, and bees don't get geochem PhDs.

Agreed, we are animals ourselves with instincts that can directly be traced to Darwininan principles. A lot of humans, and certainly most MAGAs, don't have much beyond the primitive instincts for food, shelter, self preservation, and sex.

But ants and Aardvarks don't have the ability to transcend their basic natures, like the Dali Llama or Saint Francis of Assisi can. That can't just be a Darwinian instinct, because it takes effort to transcend our base nature.


Why do humans have this ability for transcendence and abstract contemplation? It's an open question, and while I think it's possible the explanation is going to ultimately be either scientific or metaphysical, I don't think the explanation lies in pointing to natural selection or brain size.