If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[TorturedSoul]

That makes people more evolved?



Perhaps the dots connect in your head. Seems like somewhat discombobulated facts sewn together to me.

Well you could always google the demographics yourself so you would know what I'm talking about.

 

[dad]

Well you could always google the demographics yourself so you would know what I'm talking about.

So these "suicide bombers and AIDS epidemics", are these in the 'more evolved' nations or the less?

 

[Golden Yak]

So these "suicide bombers and AIDS epidemics", are these in the 'more evolved' nations or the less?

'More evolved' doesn't really mean anything. More evolved =/= never have problems.

 

[Gene2memE]

Whether or not a few, some, most, or all of the current propositions in the Theory of Evolution are true, one thing for sure is that most of us lay people be we religious or atheists, that are not well read or taught in the natural sciences don't understand what the Theory of Evolution fundamentally suggests.

Many religious and atheists alike think--incorrectly--that the Theory of Evolution proposes that species "get better" through evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not propose this.

Correct.

Better in evolutionary terms simply means more adapted to the environment. As in: better able to survive to reproduce given the circumstances presented to the organism.

Atheists in particular tend to think their is an Intelligent Designer rationally directing the evolution of species--or humanity in particular--in a specific direction with a rational goal of both saving humanity as a species and improving humanity as a species. But the Theory of Evolution does not propose an Intelligent Designer directing the evolution of a species with a goal "in mind."

That's a mighty fine hay baler you've got there. What's that you're building? Why, it looks just like a man, made of straw.

Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of an atheist that proposes that the theory of evolution posits an intelligent designer. If you can, I can also show you an atheist that doesn't understand the theory of evolution.

So, for example, when a religious or atheist argues that homosexuality is evolutionarily caused for or so humanity want overpopulate they are in fact placing an Intelligent Designer in the driving seat, in the blue prints, of evolution. That Intelligent Designer they think is "nature." And "nature" they think has a mind and therefore nature can arrive at "conclusions" when a problem is presented before its great mind.

What a bizarre statement.

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that homosexuality exists in humans to prevent overpopulation, because an intelligent designer designed it thusly?

I know of no scientist, nor of any atheist, that has proposed that homosexuality is an evolutionary mechanism to reduce population.

However, I do know of several scientific papers that present evidence of just the opposite case - that the presence of homosexuals in family group or social group populations actually has a net benefit to the overall fertility rate in those groups.

See:
Maternal Inheritance and Familial Fecundity Factors in Male Homosexuality - Springer
http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/...pringer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2

 

[SuperCloud]

If war is a trait why would it not just survive, but grow wildly?

I was speaking of genetic traits. But one could hypothesize homosexuality, racism, and violence among humans are genetically influenced behaviors. And some have. At least with homosexuality and racism.

But I had an physical (biological) anthropology professor in class, after watching films on bonobos and chimpanzees, ask the class which in our individual opinions are humans more closely related to in behaviors?

Chimps are some mean creatures. Or they can be. Supposedly male chimps beat up female chimps like its a sport and recreation. Chimps also group hunt like humans and chimps can be violently cliquish.

Bonobos on the other hand are very peaceful. Females interrupt confrontations between males by having sex with them. Female bonobos are far less discriminating of male sexual mates than female humans. Female bonobos will also engage in sex with their male offsprings up until their children reach about age 6. Then it becomes taboo. So, pedophilia and incest is accepted among bonobos right along the homosexuality they engage in.

In my view humans are more violent than bonobos but less violent than chimps. Male chimps also have enormous sized testicles (though they are shorter in height than male humans, male chimps have much larger testicles than male humans) which may or may not help explain why male chimps can be so violent.

Of course, humans are the species to produce serial killers, that I know of. And the greater intelligence of humans has allowed us create incredibly destructive weapons of warfare and kill on a scale no other species can.

I don't think violence is a genetically inherited trait. Though, like language, violence may be contingent on a genetic capability for the thing.

 

[SuperCloud]

Correct.

Better in evolutionary terms simply means more adapted to the environment. As in: better able to survive to reproduce given the circumstances presented to the organism.

That has nothing to do with "getting better."

I'm in my 40s and only recently got my "wisdom teeth" removed. After years of my lower wisdom teeth frequently getting infected. And I'm happier than can be now that I got all 4 of my wisdom teeth removed by a dentist.

In evolutionary terms there was nothing "better" about having a need to get my wisdom teeth pulled out of my mouth and the frequent infections got when I still had them in.

That's a mighty fine hay baler you've got there. What's that you're building? Why, it looks just like a man, made of straw.

Do you even know what a "strawman argument" is? I was responding to dad, and trying to provide some explanations to him as to what the Theory of Evolution is and is not, and giving examples to him to try and explain that. I was not responding to you (I didn't even read 99% of the other posts in this thread), so, how could I be making a strawman argument?

Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of an atheist that proposes that the theory of evolution posits an intelligent designer. If you can, I can also show you an atheist that doesn't understand the theory of evolution.

I already gave such an example. In the Philosophy of Biology an Intelligent Designer can be a human (person that builds a chair designing it for said goal to be sat on) or anything with intelligence that directs the direction of evolution for some specific goal.

And I've read many atheists that are as much laymen of science as most Christians, propose online in discussions about the causation of homosexuality that evolution ("nature" they mean) evolutionarily designed homosexuality for X purpose. They are unaware that are suggesting an Intelligent Designer but in fact they are doing just that.

There are no goals in mind with evolution as a process--no more than there was a goal for my irritatingly infected back molars commonly called wisdom teeth. There are only outcomes, traits that win out by surviving and those that don't, all at base revolving around sex and death.

What a bizarre statement.

It's not my belief nor my proposition. It is a belief and proposition I've heard or read before from others.

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that homosexuality exists in humans to prevent overpopulation, because an intelligent designer designed it thusly?

No, I never proposed such a thing. What I did propose was that anyone that proposes homosexuality was evolutionarily designed for X, Y, Z purpose (such as in the purpose to prevent human overpopulation) is in fact logically proposing an Intelligent Designer guiding, directing evolution. For many that Intelligent Designer is "Mother Nature" whom philosophically they seem to think is endowed with an actual mind.

I know of no scientist, nor of any atheist, that has proposed that homosexuality is an evolutionary mechanism to reduce population.

I never said scientists suggested a thing. Now you are building a strawman.

I said for those religious people and atheists that propose such a thing. And I have in fact read such people make such arguments before.

However, I do know of several scientific papers that present evidence of just the opposite case - that the presence of homosexuals in family group or social group populations actually has a net benefit to the overall fertility rate in those groups.

See:
Maternal Inheritance and Familial Fecundity Factors in Male Homosexuality - Springer
http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/...pringer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2

And? I know of a science paper that composed by a geneticist at Rutgers University that concluded in his paper that homosexuality is likely not genetically caused but a resulted of many nuanced factors.

Science papers are like theologians composing papers or racist cops in the American South composing papers. They are not much more than that. Some--very few--become groundbreaking and revolutionary at times.

https://genetics.rutgers.edu/faculty/faculty-list/userprofile/mcguire

McGuire, T. R. (1995). Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions. Journal of Homosexuality, 28: 115-145.

 

[dad]

'More evolved' doesn't really mean anything. More evolved =/= never have problems.

I tend to agree. Using war an an example, I see no people has evolved out of that.

 

[dad]

Correct.

Better in evolutionary terms simply means more adapted to the environment. As in: better able to survive to reproduce given the circumstances presented to the organism.

In the case of man and modern war, no one is adapted to survive.

However, I do know of several scientific papers that present evidence of just the opposite case - that the presence of homosexuals in family group or social group populations actually has a net benefit to the overall fertility rate in those groups.

Since they can't reproduce, how would you propose that that sort of person would be a net benefit?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Since they can't reproduce, how would you propose that that sort of person would be a net benefit?

A quick google found this:

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests

The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay.

 

[dad]

I was speaking of genetic traits. But one could hypothesize homosexuality, racism, and violence among humans are genetically influenced behaviors. And some have. At least with homosexuality and racism.

In what way would they consider racism a trait of evolution, but not the driving need for war?

But I had an physical (biological) anthropology professor in class, after watching films on bonobos and chimpanzees, ask the class which in our individual opinions are humans more closely related to in behaviors?

In my view humans are more violent than bonobos but less violent than chimps. Male chimps also have enormous sized testicles (though they are shorter in height than male humans, male chimps have much larger testicles than male humans) which may or may not help explain why male chimps can be so violent.

I guess the right whale is most warlike then?

"The male right whale can boast a twelve foot-long penis and the biggest testicles of any animal on earth - weighing in at one tonne.."

BBC - Earth - A whale with one-tonne testicles

Of course, humans are the species to produce serial killers, that I know of. And the greater intelligence of humans has allowed us create incredibly destructive weapons of warfare and kill on a scale no other species can.

I think evil has more to do with sin than intelligence. Man inherited sin, it is a trait!

I don't think violence is a genetically inherited trait.

Funny how so many deny that war or violence is related to claims of evolution here. Yet that idea is commonly propagated.


Example:

"4 Jan 2013 ... We, Too, Are Violent Animals. Those who doubt that human aggression is an evolved trait should spend more time with chimpanzees and ..."

Humans Aren't the Only Violent Animals - WSJ



Apparently this sort of behavior is rare among animals.


" Such behavior is rare among mammals. In fact, humans -- who are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than any other animal -- are the only other mammals known to inflict this level of lethal violence against others of their species. What causes this violence in chimps, and can they teach us anything about our own propensity to wage war? Some research has suggested that chimps are inherently peaceful, and that they turn violent only because of human interference. One landmark study conducted in the 1960s showed that began attacking each other only after Jane Goodall and other primatologists began handing out bananas. When the banana feeding stopped, so did the violence -- a fact that led some researchers to conclude that we are to blame for chimps' violent behavior. But other experts disagree...."

Chimps May Look Cute, But Controversial New Study Says They're Natural-Born Killers - Worldnews.com



The contact with monkeys started probably either on the ark, or shortly after, depending on the kind of monkey, one assumes. Therefore, human influence cannot be ruled out as a source for heightened violence I would think. Cats apparently learned to live with man and adjust behavior accordingly.

Since there are said to be so few animals that engage in extreme violence to their own species, it would make sense that something affected them.

This all comes back to man's trait of war and where it came from. Evolution is not the best explanation.




Though, like language, violence may be contingent on a genetic capability for the thing.[/quote]

 

[dad]

A quick google found this:
The theory holds that the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males' female maternal relatives.

Oh, and what are those supposed factors?! Hopefully not just a high drive gone amok.

Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives' "gay man genes," though they aren't expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay.

Baloney. Lame excuse.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh, and what are those supposed factors?! Hopefully not just a high drive gone amok.

Maybe you should read the link.

Baloney. Lame excuse.

How would you know?

 

[dad]

Maybe you should read the link.

Maybe you should outline the factors said to be responsible since it is your link.

How would you know?

If you could prove the claimed homo heredity claims, you could talk. Since you can't, you may not talk. What is left then? What God says on the issue. He says it is sin. Not evolution. I agree. Not rocket science, that.

The bible also says war comes from sin. Not chimps.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Maybe you should outline the factors said to be responsible since it is your link.

If you are really too scared to read a very short link after asking the question then that is your problem.

If you could prove the claimed homo heredity claims, you could talk. Since you can't, you may not talk. What is left then? What God says on the issue. He says it is sin. Not evolution. I agree. Not rocket science, that.

Lol, well, your god created gay people then. Take it up with him.

The bible also says war comes from sin. Not chimps.

The bible contains a lot of things that are risible.

 

[dad]

If you are really too scared to read a very short link after asking the question then that is your problem.

You need to post the relevant bit. I bet it would get shot down fast. Not me who is scared.

Lol, well, your god created gay people then. Take it up with him.

I don't believe that. People gravitate toward various sins. Blame it on heredity...right..

The bible contains a lot of things that are risible.

I am evolved to laugh at different things. I gravitate toward the humor of God.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You need to post the relevant bit. I bet it would get shot down fast. Not me who is scared.

What is wrong with you?

I don't believe that. People gravitate toward various sins. Blame it on heredity...right..

Blame? Do you blame people for being born different heights or sexes or colours as well?

I am evolved to laugh at different things. I gravitate toward the humor of God.

Yeah, your god makes a great comedian.

 

[dad]

What is wrong with you?

off topic So will you post the few sentences from your link that supposedly evidence the genetic homopervertis thing?


Blame? Do you blame people for being born different heights or sexes or colours as well?[/quote] There is a difference between being born a man, and being born hellbent toward a certain sin.

Yeah, your god makes a great comedian.

Great. I like humor.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So your busted Noah had the same genetics claim won't be addressed. OK. Hahaha.

You asked the question and then refused to read the answer. There's something wrong with that, but that's really your problem.

There is a difference between being born a man, and being born hellbent toward a certain sin.

Born hellbent towards a certain sin? You mean being born gay? So by that logic you do, to use your odd terminology, 'blame' people for the sex, height, colour and everything else about the way they were born. Sounds like your god likes playing jokes on people. Let's hope he didn't play any of his jokes on you...

Great. I like humor.

Yeah, your god sure likes jokes.

 

[dad]

You asked the question and then refused to read the answer. There's something wrong with that, but that's really your problem.

There is no answer so if you claim there was one in the link, post the content briefly. You are busted.

Born hellbent towards a certain sin? You mean being born gay?

Homosexuality is a sin, but that is not news to you I wager. Come to think of it, why would a 'christian' president of a country be pushing that sin gung ho? Wake up people.

So by that logic you do, to use your odd terminology, 'blame' people for the sex, height, colour and everything else about the way they were born.

No. You may not hide behind some claim of predestination or heredity to sin. We are not made that way.

Sounds like your god likes playing jokes on people. Let's hope he didn't play any of his jokes on you...

Yeah, your god sure likes jokes.

Thanks. You guys provide a lot of material for them.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

There is no answer so if you claim there was one in the link, post the content briefly. You are busted.

As I said, if you won't read it then that's your problem.

Homosexuality is a sin, but that is not news to you I wager.

The word 'issues' springs to mind.

Come to think of it, why would a 'christian' president of a country be pushing that sin gung ho? Wake up people.

No idea what you're on about now.

No. You may not hide behind some claim of predestination or heredity to sin. We are not made that way.

So you think sexual orientation is a choice? Just out of interest, do you think yours was a choice?

Thanks. You guys provide a lot of material for them.

You might want to look closer to home.