My Bad Seed Challenge

[AV1611VET]

That too, is part of why it is a shame they committed suicide. If they were mentally ill, they could have been healed, or at least treated; given a chance to be productive and peaceful citizens. Even if this was not the case, the information would have been valuable for dealing with such criminals in the future.

Mentally ill!?

That's the last thing I would think, if I was an evolutionist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Mentally ill!?

That's the last thing I would think, if I was an evolutionist.

You and I are very different people. Why would mental illness be off the table if I supported evolution? Do you think flaws in mental functions are somehow irreconcilable with evolution? Quite the opposite, mental illness isn't that much of a barrier to reproduction if it isn't extremely severe. Consider this: Charles Manson is married.

 

[Hoghead1]

Mentally ill!?

That's the last thing I would think, if I was an evolutionist.

She's right, you know. Mental illness definitely can be seen as part of the evolutionary process. Actually "mental illness" can be seen as part of the adaptive process. Take depression. When an organism becomes old and ill and maybe of no further use, it experiences depression and goes off and sits in a corner, out of the way. That's what all three of my dogs did right before they died. One who normally jumped all over the place, pestered for play and attention like crazy, and ate like a horse I had to drag out from under the bed, after he continually refused to eat or play anymore and hid under the bed. That's how I knew he was in deep doo-doo. Carried him right to the vet. Next day, he was dead. Take being hyper-anxious, having or experiencing chronic anxiety, worried something bad lurks around every corner and is about to happen. Sounds weird and wild, but is adaptive. In nature, you really don't know what's behind that rock, you are never really safe, pays to be hyper vigilant, see a boogey man everywhere.

 

[PsychoSarah]

She's right, you know. Mental illness definitely can be seen as part of the evolutionary process. Actually "mental illness" can be seen as part of the adaptive process. Take depression. When an organism becomes old and ill and maybe of no further use, it experiences depression and goes off and sits in a corner, out of the way. That's what all three of my dogs did right before they died. One who normally jumped all over the place, pestered for play and attention like crazy, and ate like a horse I had to drag out from under the bed, after he continually refused to eat or play anymore and hid under the bed. That's how I knew he was in deep doo-doo. Carried him right to the vet. Next day, he was dead. Take being hyper-anxious, having or experiencing chronic anxiety, worried something bad lurks around every corner and is about to happen. Sounds weird and wild, but is adaptive. In nature, you really don't know what's behind that rock, you are never really safe, pays to be hyper vigilant, see a boogey man everywhere.

In summary, some mental illnesses are remnants of previously beneficial mental qualities that have since lost their use thanks to our drastic change in lifestyle. The fact that the majority of the time when our "fight or flight" response is activated, the "danger" is not something that can be handled through running away or physical confrontation, makes it not only useless the majority of time it is used, but damaging thanks to the effects stress has on our bodies.

We just haven't been living as we now do for long enough for natural selection to diminish the problem.

Many mental illnesses can be caused by nongenetic diseases, such as how the flu can increase the chances of a pregnant woman giving birth to a schizophrenic child.

 

[Hoghead1]

In summary, some mental illnesses are remnants of previously beneficial mental qualities that have since lost their use thanks to our drastic change in lifestyle. The fact that the majority of the time when our "fight or flight" response is activated, the "danger" is not something that can be handled through running away or physical confrontation, makes it not only useless the majority of time it is used, but damaging thanks to the effects stress has on our bodies.

We just haven't been living as we now do for long enough for natural selection to diminish the problem.


Many mental illnesses can be caused by nongenetic diseases, such as how the flu can increase the chances of a pregnant woman giving birth to a schizophrenic child.

Yes, indeed. Very true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What kind of evolution is this?

The Hollywood kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hollywood kind.

I disagree.

I think it's one of those beliefs that's been swept under the carpet.

Probaby because it was never given a name.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree.

I think it's one of those beliefs that's been swept under the carpet.

Probaby because it was never given a name.

You mean a name like "selection missed one"?

I'll play along...

Let's assume for a moment that there is a "serial killer" gene... a result of a mutation -- anyone who has this gene is going to grow up to be an ax-murdering sociopath.

Now, what kind of mutation is this: beneficial, neutral, or harmful? Harmful, of course -- not just for everyone around the person, but also (due to the environment) the carrier.

Why is it harmful? Because our environment, which we (sometimes ironically) refer to as "civilization," tends to lock up ax-murdering sociopaths... which severely reduces the chances of them breeding and passing on the "serial killer" gene.

Of course, there's a difference between a "severely reduced" chance and no chance at all, isn't there? So, in addition to the mutation that causes a serial killer, there's also the possibility that this bad gene can be passed on...

Fortunately, as we are not currently up to our armpits in ax-murdering sociopaths, it would seem that the mutation itself is quite rare... let's say 1/100,000,000 for the sake of argument... furthermore, if the "serial killer" gene is recessive, it would mean that two carriers would have to have a child, and even then, IIR my high-school genetics correctly, the child only has a 25% chance of being an ax-murdering sociopath...

...good odds, but with seven billion people in the gene pool, even the longest odds come up once in a while...

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll play along...

First of all, you're preaching to the choir.

I don't believe in a "bad seed."

Just like I don't believe a person is predisposed to be an alcoholic, arsonist, or homosexual.

What I do believe though, is that scientists used to teach the concept of a "bad seed," and now they don't.

A good example is Phlogiston theory, which was pwned by Combustion theory.

Another good example is geocentrism, which was pwned by heliocentrism.

And et cetera, pwned by et cetera.

 

[TLK Valentine]

First of all, you're preaching to the choir.

I don't believe in a "bad seed."

Nor do I -- but I'm willing to play along with the hypothetical you put forth.

Just like I don't believe a person is predisposed to be an alcoholic, arsonist, or homosexual.

da;dc/

What I do believe though, is that scientists used to teach the concept of a "bad seed," and now they don't.

"Scientists," as always, being used as the catch-all term for anyone you disgree with.

A good example is Phlogiston theory, which was pwned by Combustion theory.

Another good example is geocentrism, which was pwned by heliocentrism.

Don't forget "demon possession," which was pwned by epilepsy.

"Wrath of God," pwned by lightning.

"Divine punishment," pwned by germ theory.

And et cetera, pwned by et cetera.

It's called "learning," AV. Scientists do that all the time -- and still maintain the humility to agree that there's still much to be done.

Try it sometime.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called "learning," AV. Scientists do that all the time -- and still maintain the humility to agree that there's still much to be done.

Try it sometime.

No, thanks.

Please don't preach "learning" to me, agnostic.

I've seen what learning does to you guys, and I want no part of it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, thanks.

Not surprising.

Please don't preach "learning" to me, agnostic.

I've seen what learning does to you guys, and I want no part of it.

Fret not, AV -- nobody who converses with you for any length of time will ever mistake you for someone interested in learning.

 

[florida2]

No, thanks.

Please don't preach "learning" to me, agnostic.

I've seen what learning does to you guys, and I want no part of it.

I find it genuinely sad and depressing that any human being from any race, religion or background could write such a post.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it genuinely sad and depressing that any human being from any race, religion or background could write such a post.

Then you don't understanding what I'm saying.

If he knows so much, why is he an agnostic?

And if it's because theology ain't his bag, then he doesn't prioritize, does he?

 

[HitchSlap]

If he knows so much, why is he an agnostic?

Because he knows so much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because he knows so much.

But not as much as you, since you're an atheist?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I find it genuinely sad and depressing that any human being from any race, religion or background could write such a post.

You forget, AV venerates ignorance and fears learning.

A few centuries ago, the Christian church felt the same way, and burned books to prevent the spread of learning.

People, too...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then you don't understanding what I'm saying.

We know, it's why we find it so pathetic.

If he knows so much, why is he an agnostic?

Remember that "humility" thing we were talking about?

And if it's because theology ain't his bag, then he doesn't prioritize, does he?

Who am I going to learn it from? Someone who hates learning as much as you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

First of all, you're preaching to the choir.

I don't believe in a "bad seed."

Just like I don't believe a person is predisposed to be an alcoholic, arsonist, or homosexual.

What I do believe though, is that scientists used to teach the concept of a "bad seed," and now they don't.

A good example is Phlogiston theory, which was pwned by Combustion theory.

Another good example is geocentrism, which was pwned by heliocentrism.

And et cetera, pwned by et cetera.

You can be genetically predisposed to addictions, depression, etc., it just so happens that rarely do genes alone make the call when it comes to our psychology. It definitely used to be taught that this was the case, though.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, thanks.

Please don't preach "learning" to me, agnostic.

I've seen what learning does to you guys, and I want no part of it.

As a personal observation, the majority of people that do become well informed about evolution don't lose their faith. However, creationists tend to get hit the hardest by that. Still, you might be better off in the philosophy subforum then, because debating a stance you don't understand puts you at a disadvantage. Heck, you could find yourself debating against evidence that is complete garbage, but you wouldn't know it without having some background knowledge in biology.

Also, FYI, I am an agnostic atheist. Most atheists are agnostic, and most agnostic people are atheist (agnostic theists are a thing, weirdly enough, but I haven't met many). The first step to exploring a topic is admitting you don't know everything about it.