What’s in it for me?

[juvenissun]

your right. the word evolution has not been placed on the image you posted

But many people are trying.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I don't care how would anyone explain the evolution of intelligence (include the ethical behavior),

I'm not talking about intelligence! Check the OP again (second time of asking). I'm basically talking about the evolution of altruism, which is not uniquely a human trait. Why don't you care?

The huge gap between that of human and other animals DOES NOT say evolution.

You just perceive a "huge gap" because you have an anthropocentric world view. Even with your 'man on a pedestal' prejudice, can you name any feature of a chimp that is morphologically different from a human (or vice versa)?

Whatever mechanism of evolution is suggested, it has to explain the ultrafast pace of change between human and chimp, and the virtually no change among animals.

This is nonsense. First, we ARE animals, but if you can't accept that then you need to read about the evolution of primates. You will see that other great apes evolved in the same period too, including chimps.

No current model can do that.

I take it you do NOT want me to send you the New Scientist Article? That nicely explains why you are ignorant of any current hypotheses for the evolution of ethics. It's fine by me if you wish to bury your head in the sand and refuse to read the arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not talking about intelligence! Check the OP again (second time of asking). I'm basically talking about the evolution of altruism, which is not uniquely a human trait. Why don't you care?

The HUGE difference between the altruism of human and chimp is caused by the HUGE difference in intelligence.

The altruism of a chimp is no different from that of a fish.

 

[Jade Margery]

The HUGE difference between the altruism of human and chimp is caused by the HUGE difference in intelligence.

The altruism of a chimp is no different from that of a fish..

Wow. Seriously? How can you type that with a straight face?

Chimps take care of their young; fish don't. Chimps protect members of their own group, even those they aren't related to, from predators (Oh hey! Altruism! Cooperation!) Fish don't. Chimps will share food with each other, especially with young chimps. Fish don't. Chimps will actually mourn their dead, sometimes grooming and making unhappy sounds over a body for hours after it has gone cold. Fish don't. All of these indicate a social creature with strong instincts towards cooperation and social support networks.

Have you never read any of Jane Goodall's work?

And the difference in altruism has nothing to do with intelligence. Hive insects like ants and bees are the most altruistic creatures you can find--they will willingly throw themselves at death to protect their hives. Dying so that other members of your species will live is pretty darn altruistic, doncha think?

 

[Mike Elphick]

The HUGE difference between the altruism of human and chimp is caused by the HUGE difference in intelligence.

No. It's due to a greater level of cooperation in humans, accompanied by a process in which altruistic traits developed at the expense of the selfish ones more usually associated with natural selection. Clearly culture plays a part in this, but that does not require a "huge" level of intelligence.

The altruism of a chimp is no different from that of a fish.

That just shows you haven't a clue about Biology! I suggest you stick to your 'expert' subject - Geology.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't care how would anyone explain the evolution of intelligence (include the ethical behavior), The huge gap between that of human and other animals DOES NOT say evolution. Whatever mechanism of evolution is suggested, it has to explain the ultrafast pace of change between human and chimp, and the virtually no change among animals. No current model can do that.

Humans can't fly, breath underwater, or see in the dark. Different animals are different. Welcome to reality.

 

[juvenissun]

Wow. Seriously? How can you type that with a straight face?

Chimps take care of their young; fish don't. Chimps protect members of their own group, even those they aren't related to, from predators (Oh hey! Altruism! Cooperation!) Fish don't. Chimps will share food with each other, especially with young chimps. Fish don't. Chimps will actually mourn their dead, sometimes grooming and making unhappy sounds over a body for hours after it has gone cold. Fish don't. All of these indicate a social creature with strong instincts towards cooperation and social support networks.

Have you never read any of Jane Goodall's work?

And the difference in altruism has nothing to do with intelligence. Hive insects like ants and bees are the most altruistic creatures you can find--they will willingly throw themselves at death to protect their hives. Dying so that other members of your species will live is pretty darn altruistic, doncha think?

You said it. So we are devolved?

 

[juvenissun]

Humans can't fly, breath underwater, or see in the dark. Different animals are different. Welcome to reality.

Welcome to creationism.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Humans can't fly, breath underwater, or see in the dark. Different animals are different. Welcome to reality.

Welcome to creationism.

...where its leaders tell their subjects that "[N]o model has explained the evolution of altruistic behavior toward complete strangers." Yet when one is offered they refuse to look at it!!!

 

[MoonLancer]

But many people are trying.

Like you? a straw man perhaps?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You said it. So we are devolved?

Man, you really should upgrade your kindergarten understanding of evolution

 

[sandwiches]

Man, you really should upgrade your kindergarten understanding of evolution

You have to deconstruct his thinking to understand why he says what he does: Since humans are "more" evolved than ants and it's being suggested that ants show altruism, we must be "devolving" into the lesser ants.

Simple.

 

[Skaloop]

You have to deconstruct his thinking to understand why he says what he does: Since humans are "more" evolved than ants and it's being suggested that ants show altruism, we must be "devolving" into the lesser ants.

Simple.

Simple is not the S-word I would have gone with.

 

[Phred]

why bother to understand something that can't have happened anyway?

 

[Maxwell511]

I ask again, why do creationist ignore what Darwin wrote?

Because Darwin didn't really know what he was talking about and was sort of guessing.

W.D. Hamilton, on the other hand, did know what he was talking about and even made a simple model of it. Why no love for W.D?

Personally I only listen to our soon to be robotic overlords (I'm getting in on ground on this future dystopia) Robots say Hamilton's Rule is correct and as a good meatbag that fully respects the superiority of all robots, I agree.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Because Darwin didn't really know what he was talking about and was sort of guessing.

Yes indeed, a lot of his work was guesswork, but much was later validated.

W.D. Hamilton, on the other hand, did know what he was talking about and even made a simple model of it. Why no love for W.D?

Personally I only listen to our soon to be robotic overlords (I'm getting in on ground on this future dystopia) Robots say Hamilton's Rule is correct and as a good meatbag that fully respects the superiority of all robots, I agree.

I don't agree. Though I am an amateur I did not learn about evolution by reading Richard Dawkins' books and neither was I college-taught that natural selection does not occur above the level of the 'selfish' gene and that 'group' is a dirty word.

Edit

The flaw in the paper you quoted is that the groups did not compete with one another in the same open terrain.

 

[Maxwell511]

Yes indeed, a lot of his work was guesswork, but much was later validated.

Yes it was validated much later by people that had much more knowledge. For example Hamilton and his rule, which apparently you disagree with.

I don't agree. Though I am an amateur I did not learn about evolution by reading Richard Dawkins' books and neither was I college-taught that natural selection does not occur above the level of the 'selfish' gene and that 'group' is a dirty word.

What are you disagreeing with? Hamilton's rules has mountains of evidence for it. It is a model to explain how altruism should and would evolve. It is a model that states that altruism will evolve in certain conditions. It is not saying that it can't. You quoted in AIG saying that there is not a model, Hamilton's is that apparently non-existent model.

Edit

The flaw in the paper you quoted is that the groups did not compete with one another in the same open terrain.

The point of the paper was that altruism can evolve naturally without any outside interference. Are you now arguing against the widely accepted scientific model that agrees with your original point?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Yes indeed, a lot of his work was guesswork, but much was later validated.

Yes it was validated much later by people that had much more knowledge. For example Hamilton and his rule, which apparently you disagree with.

I'm disagreeing with the idea that Hamilton's equation is the sole explanation for altruism.

The OP addresses the issue of human ethics and whether they are the unique prerogative of religion, rules commanded by a deity (as claimed by creationists).

It's my contention that they are the consequence of evolution, a possibility that creationists tell us has never been addressed. But I don't go along with the idea that they are nothing more than genetic rearrangements. And I don't agree with Dawkins' statement that "We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

I think that human society has undergone "gene-culture co-evolution", which treats culture as a separate evolutionary system that acts in parallel with the usual genetic evolution to transform human traits. The approach of combining genetic with cultural influence is not present in theories of reciprocal altruism and kin selection (Hamilton's equation), making gene-culture evolution and group selection, a strong alternative hypothesis.

I don't agree. Though I am an amateur I did not learn about evolution by reading Richard Dawkins' books and neither was I college-taught that natural selection does not occur above the level of the 'selfish' gene and that 'group' is a dirty word.

What are you disagreeing with? Hamilton's rules has mountains of evidence for it. It is a model to explain how altruism should and would evolve. It is a model that states that altruism will evolve in certain conditions. It is not saying that it can't. You quoted in AIG saying that there is not a model, Hamilton's is that apparently non-existent model.

But Hamilton's model is gene-centric and does not address many puzzles about human behaviour, such as sacrifices in support of a principle (e.g. the suffragettes) or religious belief. It does not explain why we feel guilt, why we recognise difference between 'right' and 'wrong', or why we practice altruistic punishment. Moreover history is the story of conflict between groups of people. from tribes to countries to empires. Are you saying that people who lay down their lives in war are sacrificing their own genes to protect their country's gene pool?

The flaw in the paper you quoted is that the groups did not compete with one another in the same open terrain.

The point of the paper was that altruism can evolve naturally without any outside interference. Are you now arguing against the widely accepted scientific model that agrees with your original point?

Outside interference? I'm suggesting no such thing. I can't see in the article where they had groups competing with other groups in the same environment. I think if they had, you would have seen altruistic traits developing amongst unrelated individuals thereby demonstrating that Hamilton's equation does not fully explain the evolution of altruism.

In summary, I'm not in disagreement with Hamilton's rule, which clearly has great merit, but think the case has been over-stated to the exclusion of other explanations, which are becoming more in vogue, particularly as they relate to evolution of human cooperation.

 

[Maxwell511]

I think that human society has undergone "gene-culture co-evolution", which treats culture as a separate evolutionary system that acts in parallel with the usual genetic evolution to transform human traits. The approach of combining genetic with cultural influence is not present in theories of reciprocal altruism and kin selection (Hamilton's equation), making gene-culture evolution and group selection, a strong alternative hypothesis.

It is not a co-evolution though. Cultures that do not conform to the genetic reproduction, or the genetic imperative, will die out. For example, in the history of Christianity all historical Christian sects that preached absolute celibacy of all members died out or their culture change so that reproduction was considered cultural acceptable.

But Hamilton's model is gene-centric and does not address many puzzles about human behaviour, such as sacrifices in support of a principle (e.g. the suffragettes) or religious belief. It does not explain why we feel guilt, why we recognise difference between 'right' and 'wrong', or why we practice altruistic punishment.

Altruistic punishment is interesting.

Moreover history is the story of conflict between groups of people. from tribes to countries to empires. Are you saying that people who lay down their lives in war are sacrificing their own genes to protect their country's gene pool?

Not consciously but that is the subconscious primitive drive that is appealed to.

Outside interference? I'm suggesting no such thing. I can't see in the article where they had groups competing with other groups in the same environment. I think if they had, you would have seen altruistic traits developing amongst unrelated individuals thereby demonstrating that Hamilton's equation does not fully explain the evolution of altruism.

No it doesn't. We are a very unique species. But there are lessons we can learn about ourselves through the behaviour of others.

In summary, I'm not in disagreement with Hamilton's rule, which clearly has great merit, but think the case has been over-stated to the exclusion of other explanations, which are becoming more in vogue, particularly as they relate to evolution of human cooperation.

I would be interested in other explanations of altruistic or guilt (etc) behaviours if you have them. I always like learning.

My main question, that I would like answered, (on evolved behaviours) is why a species of animal would look at the moon and decide it is a great idea to go there for very vague reasons and then go there? I like to think that if other primates understund half of the stuff people do, they would not think us smart and the Aristotelian pinacle. But would most definitely think we are insane.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I think that human society has undergone "gene-culture co-evolution", which treats culture as a separate evolutionary system that acts in parallel with the usual genetic evolution to transform human traits. The approach of combining genetic with cultural influence is not present in theories of reciprocal altruism and kin selection (Hamilton's equation), making gene-culture evolution and group selection, a strong alternative hypothesis.

It is not a co-evolution though. Cultures that do not conform to the genetic reproduction, or the genetic imperative, will die out. For example, in the history of Christianity all historical Christian sects that preached absolute celibacy of all members died out or their culture change so that reproduction was considered cultural acceptable.

I can't believe you wrote that, because it just proves my point. Defective cultures, like defective genes tend to die out.

But Hamilton's model is gene-centric and does not address many puzzles about human behaviour, such as sacrifices in support of a principle (e.g. the suffragettes) or religious belief. It does not explain why we feel guilt, why we recognise difference between 'right' and 'wrong', or why we practice altruistic punishment.

Altruistic punishment is interesting.

Then take a look at The evolution of altruistic punishment.

Moreover history is the story of conflict between groups of people. from tribes to countries to empires. Are you saying that people who lay down their lives in war are sacrificing their own genes to protect their country's gene pool?

Not consciously but that is the subconscious primitive drive that is appealed to.

It's an appeal to preserving not only a country's culture, but a country's resources — exactly as one would expect from multi-level selection, but not from gene-level selection, where one would predict that those making the sacrifice would need to be close relatives of the beneficiaries.

Outside interference? I'm suggesting no such thing. I can't see in the article where they had groups competing with other groups in the same environment. I think if they had, you would have seen altruistic traits developing amongst unrelated individuals thereby demonstrating that Hamilton's equation does not fully explain the evolution of altruism.

No it doesn't. We are a very unique species. But there are lessons we can learn about ourselves through the behaviour of others.

That sounds a bit vague. Going back to the OP and the creationists' claim that "no model has explained the evolution of altruistic behavior toward complete strangers.", my point is that Hamilton's rule does not explain this, whereas group selection does.

In summary, I'm not in disagreement with Hamilton's rule, which clearly has great merit, but think the case has been over-stated to the exclusion of other explanations, which are becoming more in vogue, particularly as they relate to evolution of human cooperation.

I would be interested in other explanations of altruistic or guilt (etc) behaviours if you have them. I always like learning.

I think you need to look at the New Scientist article, if you have not already done so, then, if you can be bothered, please read my pages on multi-level selection and group selection where I explain my point of view in more detail.

My main question, that I would like answered, (on evolved behaviours) is why a species of animal would look at the moon and decide it is a great idea to go there for very vague reasons and then go there?

Exploration is characterised by a few members of a tribe, or social group, venturing forth to discover new resources, thus enabling it to out-compete other tribes. The Vikings, for example, were successful due to their skills at exploration:-

The Vikings are often thought of as warriors and conquerers. Now we know that most of their travels were based on trade and exploration. They traveled over much of the coast of Europe including Great Britain, Ireland, France, and Spain. They also explored North Africa, Russia, and the Middle East. Some Viking trips even reached North America. Archaeologists have found evidence that Vikings colonized Newfoundland in Canada. They also explored what is now Maine and Massachusetts about 500 years before Columbus's time!
Viking/Norse Exploration

Are you telling me there is not only a gene for altruism, but a gene for exploration? Where are these genes, how did they arise and have they been sequenced?

There are many spin-offs in exploration, such as the development of navigational skills. We compete against each other these days in terms of technology and the race to get to the moon was related to the ambition of a capitalist society to demonstrate to the world that their science and technology were superior to those of communism. Don't forget the space race began not long after the McCarthy era in which one group was in fear of being subverted by another.

I like to think that if other primates understund half of the stuff people do, they would not think us smart and the Aristotelian pinacle. But would most definitely think we are insane.

That's possible, I suppose, though we don't consider their strange behaviours insane.