why do you think natural selection has filled the world with religious people?

[keith99]

I said how would natural selection select for the long run. I know how it would be advantageous down the line but selection doesn't look to the future. If someone gives their lives and their genes for another's tribe those genes will be selected because yours perished and their maybe the weaker of the two are selected for.

I'll try again to put it in terms you might understand.

Cooperation can improve your long term chances of survival even when it decreases the immediate chances of survival.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'll try again to put it in terms you might understand.

Cooperation can improve your long term chances of survival even when it decreases the immediate chances of survival.

I'll try again as well. Sacrificing yourself for an unrelated tribe doesn't make sense in the long run as your genes are gone and theirs are passed on. They survive even if they may not have been as fit as you but now your genes are there to be more fit.

 

[SkyWriting]

why do you think evolution and natural selection has filled the world with religious people?

That's a fine question. If religion isn't "natural" then where did it come from?
If it is natural, then what's all the argueing about?

 

[keith99]

I'll try again as well. Sacrificing yourself for an unrelated tribe doesn't make sense in the long run as your genes are gone and theirs are passed on. They survive even if they may not have been as fit as you but now your genes are there to be more fit.

True, which is not what anyone except you is talking about. I'll also point out that in my first example the obvious next step was that there are limits on just how "altruistic" is a survival advantage. Save for ones identical twin anything with a better than 50% chance of your death is selected against.

NOTHING is ever selected for in unlimited measure. Everything has a downside. Size may be 'good' but too large has a down side. The 'ideal' size is selected for. Strength has a cost in terms of food needed. The balance is selected for.

Altruism is advantageous up to a point and the ideal level is selected for.

 

[keith99]

That's a fine question. If religion isn't "natural" then where did it come from?
If it is natural, then what's all the argueing about?

There are lots of ideas that are wrong. If religion is an incorrect adjustment to reality there will still be many who cling to it. Religion as an attempt to explain the unknown makes a lot of sense as a purely natural construct. Believers do not like that possibility.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How can something that benefits "our tribe" and "our species" in the "Long Run" be selected for?

By allowing more reproduction to occur in "our tribe" and "our species" rather than the "other tribe" or the "other species".

For some reason, the neandertals didn't keep up with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By allowing more reproduction to occur in "our tribe" and "our species" rather than the "other tribe" or the "other species".

For some reason, the neandertals didn't keep up with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

If you sacrifice your own genes for another tribe's their genes not yours and reproduction is in their tribe not yours.

 

[Skaloop]

If you sacrifice your own genes for another tribe's their genes not yours and reproduction is in their tribe not yours.

Altruism doesn't require the sacrifice of genes. Say I have food. Someone from another tribe has no food. It would benefit me to give them some of my food and avoid conflict rather than withhold my food and have them attack me and my tribe to get the food, causing the death of members of my tribe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Altruism doesn't require the sacrifice of genes. Say I have food. Someone from another tribe has no food. It would benefit me to give them some of my food and avoid conflict rather than withhold my food and have them attack me and my tribe to get the food, causing the death of members of my tribe.

That is natural selection, if you are attacked and you die, the winner's genes are going to be the ones selected. If you are attacked and win it is yours that will be selected.

 

[SteveB28]

That is natural selection, if you are attacked and you die, the winner's genes are going to be the ones selected. If you are attacked and win it is yours that will be selected.

My suggestion would be that some behaviours are inherited, while others are learnt. I'm not sure which category 'altruism' fits. However, I can see the sense in humans, having evolved bigger brains, developing an awareness that the security of the group also heightens the security of an individual within that group. So, there may not necessarily be a gene for altruism - it may instead be an example of what Dawkins refers to as an evolved 'meme', or societal value.

 

[mmksparbud]

What does nature do? Two top competitors fight--like 2 lions. They fight for the control of the pride. What does the winner do? He will kill all the cubs of the defeated one to get his own genes in, he could care less about the long term affects, it's going to be his genes that get passed on the and other guys are wiped out of next gene pool.
In nature, only the fittest survive. Mates are chosen for being the best of the pick, better looking, biggest, the strongest, smartest, the female chooses the best for her offspring. In humans, we will end up marrying and having children with the bottom of the barrel as far as genes are concerned if we think we love them!! There is no thought whatsoever for the benefit of the offspring or anyone else! And they don't even have to love the mate, don't even know enough about them to even like them sometimes before they end pregnant! "Best for the tribe in the long run"---not a chance!!

 

[SteveB28]

What does nature do? Two top competitors fight--like 2 lions. They fight for the control of the pride. What does the winner do? He will kill all the cubs of the defeated one to get his own genes in, he could care less about the long term affects, it's going to be his genes that get passed on the and other guys are wiped out of next gene pool.
In nature, only the fittest survive. Mates are chosen for being the best of the pick, better looking, biggest, the strongest, smartest, the female chooses the best for her offspring. In humans, we will end up marrying and having children with the bottom of the barrel as far as genes are concerned if we think we love them!! There is no thought whatsoever for the benefit of the offspring or anyone else! And they don't even have to love the mate, don't even know enough about them to even like them sometimes before they end pregnant! "Best for the tribe in the long run"---not a chance!!

Why do you think, then, that female lions hunt and rear their young in social groups?

 

[SkyWriting]

There are lots of ideas that are wrong. If religion is an incorrect adjustment to reality there will still be many who cling to it. Religion as an attempt to explain the unknown makes a lot of sense as a purely natural construct. Believers do not like that possibility.

So of all the animals in the animal kingdom, your saying that man knows the least about his environment, and constructing unseen forces help him to produce prolific and well adjusted offspring?

I'm not seeing support for your claim.
"Makes a lot of sense" seems like a statement with an adjenda.
"Can be shown by experiment" is what we are looking for.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is natural selection, if you are attacked and you die, the winner's genes are going to be the ones selected. If you are attacked and win it is yours that will be selected.

Farmers are not usually warriors. So when you attack a farmer, your food supply dries up.

 

[Skaloop]

That is natural selection, if you are attacked and you die, the winner's genes are going to be the ones selected. If you are attacked and win it is yours that will be selected.

Sure, so it's basically a 50-50 chance that your genes will be passed along. And it's 50-50 for the other guy, too. That's if there is an attack. Avoid that attack, through altruism, and both guys have their chances of passing along their genes increase.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, so it's basically a 50-50 chance that your genes will be passed along. And it's 50-50 for the other guy, too. That's if there is an attack. Avoid that attack, through altruism, and both guys have their chances of passing along their genes increase.

And you can have a hunting buddy and carry back bigger game to the fire.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'll try again as well. Sacrificing yourself for an unrelated tribe doesn't make sense in the long run as your genes are gone and theirs are passed on. They survive even if they may not have been as fit as you but now your genes are there to be more fit.

The survival of the group is what is important.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Farmers are not usually warriors. So when you attack a farmer, your food supply dries up.

That means that the "farmers" were giving you food from their own stock, which is altruism. Begs the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure, so it's basically a 50-50 chance that your genes will be passed along. And it's 50-50 for the other guy, too. That's if there is an attack. Avoid that attack, through altruism, and both guys have their chances of passing along their genes increase.

Kill him and it is 100%, just make sure you are more fit.

 

[Skaloop]

Kill him and it is 100%, just make sure you are more fit.

IF you kill him. Better to be altruistic and have nearly a 100% success rate than to engage someone and have a 50% success rate.

Even if you fight and win, there are drawbacks. Injuries, expended energy, etc.