The third question evolutionists can't answer

[Freodin]

Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?
No. So you admit there is something other than the natural realm?

I said "natural force" - not "something from the natural realm".

Humans might be a part of the natural realm - but they are not a natural force.

 

[Colossians]

Humans might be a part of the natural realm - but they are not a natural force.
You are simply speaking past the point. Explain in macro-evolutionary terms how the non-natural force evolved from natural forces.

 

[Freodin]

Humans might be a part of the natural realm - but they are not a natural force.
You are simply speaking past the point. Explain in macro-evolutionary terms how the non-natural force evolved from natural forces.

What "non-natural force"? What are you talking about?

The human mind is not a "force". It is a complex system to process informations relevant for the well-being of the biological system called "a human being".
If you want some informations about how such a system could evolve, ask a biologist.

 

[Arikay]

your non-question is a non-question. But what's new?


Hey everyone, lets just repeat Col's non-answers to our supposed non-answers, why waste time thinking in your post when you can be as cool as him.

 

[Colossians]

What "non-natural force"?
The one you introduced. Or does natural selection include selective memory?

 

[Colossians]

Arikay,

Don't give up your day job.

 

[Freodin]

What "non-natural force"?
The one you introduced. Or does natural selection include selective memory?

Read again:
"The human mind is not a "force". "

Now you might use the term "force" to encompass even such structure like the the human mind. How such an information-processing mechanism could evolve has been the topic of study, even if I could not explain it. I´m not a biologist, and I am very bad at googling.

If your question is serious, you might search for yourself, or ask one of the biologists here.


But if we may come back to ypur original question (and my original response to it): just which information such a system processes, and what it does with them is not part of the Theory of Evolution. "Allow" and "forbid" are such concepts of processed information, not biological concepts - thus your question is still irrelevant.

 

[Arikay]

1/10 for effort
don't give up your night job.

Heh, this is fun.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hands up who thinks Colossians is actually a militant atheist out to make both creationism and Christianity look immensely stupid?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Allowed/not allowed is a psychosociological issue determined by the rules of the society we live in.
Question begging.

And what question does it beg?

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?
No. So you admit there is something other than the natural realm?

Yes there is the social realm, which is a construct and not part of the natural realm in the way you need it to be for your question.

Ghost

 

[kingreaper]

In macro-evolutionary terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, evolved.

Simple, mating with the females under the control of another male, or hunting on the turf of another tribe, will result in getting more women, as both are "not allowed" but only dangerous because of said restriction, the desire to do things that are only percieved as dangerous due to the restrictions against them, and thus to rebel against any authority, evolved

 

[Jet Black]

In macro-evolutionary terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, evolved.

game theory.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Actually Colossians, whilst your question is an interesting one it is very deeply flawed. You pose it as a question for biology when in fact it is a question for Sociology, and in fact is a very simple one to answer.

The reason your question is flawed is that you have it in the wrong order and address it to the wrong science. let me explain. There is no drive to do that which is prohibited, there is a drive to seek pleasure and to avoid discomfort.

Now we know that all higher life forms share the drive to avoid discomfort and to seek pleasure, so we know that that is a natural trait that must have evolved. We see it in sub-sentient species so we know that it exists prior to complex human societies.

Now society mitigates what is prohibited. Without society there is no prohibition of any kind. Therefore the drive to avoid pain and to seek pleasure pre-dates society. However, in order for humans to live in the large and organised, stratified societies that we choose to live in, it is necessary for us to sacrifice some of our freedom. Since freedom is the ability to do what we wish, and thus to seek any pleasure we wish, it is necessary for society to prohibit certain activities that we would otherwise be inclined to peruse. So, your question is fallacious because it puts the cart before the horse. You ask why did the urge to break prohibitions evolve, when in fact it did not. We created prohibitions to stop us perusing urges to seek pleasure, because it makes it possible to live in more complex societies. In short, we created an artificial construct to modify our evolved behaviour because we chose to do so. This does not mean that the urge to do these things has vanished, it means we have prohibited them after their evolution.

Hope that helps. If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.

Ghost

 

[h2whoa]

Actually Colossians, whilst your question is an interesting one it is very deeply flawed. You pose it as a question for biology when in fact it is a question for Sociology, and in fact is a very simple one to answer.

The reason your question is flawed is that you have it in the wrong order and address it to the wrong science. let me explain. There is no drive to do that which is prohibited, there is a drive to seek pleasure and to avoid discomfort.

Now we know that all higher life forms share the drive to avoid discomfort and to seek pleasure, so we know that that is a natural trait that must have evolved. We see it in sub-sentient species so we know that it exists prior to complex human societies.

Now society mitigates what is prohibited. Without society there is no prohibition of any kind. Therefore the drive to avoid pain and to seek pleasure pre-dates society. However, in order for humans to live in the large and organised, stratified societies that we choose to live in, it is necessary for us to sacrifice some of our freedom. Since freedom is the ability to do what we wish, and thus to seek any pleasure we wish, it is necessary for society to prohibit certain activities that we would otherwise be inclined to peruse. So, your question is fallacious because it puts the cart before the horse. You ask why did the urge to break prohibitions evolve, when in fact it did not. We created prohibitions to stop us perusing urges to seek pleasure, because it makes it possible to live in more complex societies. In short, we created an artificial construct to modify our evolved behaviour because we chose to do so. This does not mean that the urge to do these things has vanished, it means we have prohibited them after their evolution.

Hope that helps. If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.

Ghost

Top points! Good answer.

 

[Jet Black]

many other societal species try to do what is forbidden too. chimps are a prime example of this, and will try to do a bit of 'monkey business' when the big males aren't around. If they do get caught by the big male, he promptly kicks the bananas out of them, so you could say that "taking advantage" of his ladies is forbidden.

 

[h2whoa]

Anyone else think it's looking a bit weak for Colossians' claim that this is a third question that can't be answered?

h2

 

[Nathan David]

If you can't answer the question, I win. It's quite simple.

They answered the question but you didn't understand it.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

many other societal species try to do what is forbidden too. chimps are a prime example of this, and will try to do a bit of 'monkey business' when the big males aren't around. If they do get caught by the big male, he promptly kicks the bananas out of them, so you could say that "taking advantage" of his ladies is forbidden.

You could, but then again you could also argue that the Chimps are not actually forbidden to do it in the sense that we are talking about in human societies. Rather the larger males wish to keep the fertile females for themselves to increase their own reproductive advantages. Knowing that other chimps will have a predilection to seeking pleasure but avoiding pain. So they use a good kicking to discourage the natural tendency of the younger chimps to seek pleasure with the females.

For there part he younger chimps are acting at the junction of two competing urges, to seek pleasure by giving the female chimps a good seeing to, and to avoid the pain of being beaten by the older chimps.

Now is this the same as societal prohibitions? Or is it just the interaction of the basic pleasure seeking/pain avoiding drive? Now those are fascinating questions. Way more fascinating than the OP and far more complicated to answer. They also have the advantage of being questions that are pertinent to both biological sciences and social sciences, which, to my mind at least makes them far more interesting.

Ghost

 

[Jet Black]

Anyone else think it's looking a bit weak for Colossians' claim that this is a third question that can't be answered?

h2

the odds of colossians ever asking a decent question is rather weak. notice how all his questions are really wishy washy, vague, and packed full of false assumptions? To be honest I consider reporting him for trolling the forum, since his questions are invariably styled in such a fashion, and his attitude repeatedly breaks forum rules.