This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

That's science right there, second paragraph in and the big bang is explained without any fuss and wheelchairs.
 
Y

But I didn’t ever say that empathy as something that offered an evolutionary advantage related to species other than humans and recent primates.
 
bellenuit said:
Y


But I didn’t ever say that empathy as something that offered an evolutionary advantage related to species other than humans and recent primates.
Click to expand...

That would imply that the "laws" of evolution differ from species to species. Why is it evolutionarilly advantageous for us to care about species that are not necessary for our survival ? Species have become extinct throughout history without affecting our development, so why should we care about the night parrot or the thylacine ?
 

No it doesn't. What is advantageous for one species isn't necessarily advantageous for another.

On the second point, compared to other species we have acquired a highly developed brain that allows us to rationalise beyond our immediate survival as we are predominantly now living in a non-subsistence environment. We understand things like pain and can understand that not is it only something that we would not wish on others of our species, but also not on (most) other species necessarily. Our empathy to the suffering of animals is not evenly spread among animals. We tend to accept pain inflicted on the animals that are a food source, which is probably a throwback to our prior subsistence level existence where such niceties did not come into play, but are unaccepting of pain inflicted on animals we relate to in a social (probably not the right word) context, such as pets and working animals. But we can still see our evolvement in that respect. We may still accept pain inflicted on those animals that are a source of food, but we nowadays demand the killing be done as humanely as possible. It is likely even that will not be acceptable in the future and that is apparent in the trend to vegetarianism. However, like animals used for food, there is another group of animals that we have little empathy with when it comes to pain and again that is probably related to their ability to damage our species. Few have any qualms on killing or injuring poisonous or disease spreading insects like mosquitoes or **** roaches, etc.

From what I have read we, the human species, are on the cusp of freeing ourselves from the constraints of evolution. We can now alter our gene structure to overcome defects caused by gene mutation or to even introduce new genes that we think would be beneficial. Because of direct intervention in our gene pool, we can bypass the slow progress of evolution by natural selection which required generations to cause alterations
 
I wonder what exactly the person was thinking when he wrote "Let there be light" as the first act of god.
God knows what the f god was doing for eternal time prior to that. I mean how long does it take a guy to get off his arse and start doing some shi7. And how long does it take you to decide that now is a good time to act on a really bad idea. Why is any point in time better than any other to decide to make yourself a geate dictator who's dick everyone has to suck.
But any way, it kind of implies that there was light and god was letting it be. Maybe some dude was just going over getting up in the morning. He didn't say, "I now create light" and there was light.
 
Last edited:

Yes, and that's a concern. Who decides what genes are beneficial or not ? It's pretty clear that eradicating disease causing genes would be beneficial, but what about designing characteristics like blue eyes, blond hair, physical strength, beauty etc. Will we all eventually become clones of a master copy of the "perfect human" ?

I'm both sorry and glad that I won't be around to see it.
 

It's not just about infliction of pain. It's about species survival being threatened by human activities.

Evolution may dictate that we do what is necessary for our own survival and advancement and yet empathetic people don't like the idea that we are eradicating whole species. There seems to be a contradiction there.
 

I don't really see a contradiction. We do not need to eradicate whole species for our survival.

Also, evolution doesn't dictate that we do anything. It doesn't dictate that we as humans must develop strong empathy to survive and reproduce. It may turn out that empathy has been beneficial in that respect up to now, hence strong empathy is becoming predominant in our gene pool. But that might not always be the case. It may turn out that empathy hinders us doing certain things that are necessary for our survival and we end up becoming extinct. For example, a group of people may develop some life threatening virus, for which there is no immunisation, and which can spread from within any isolation chamber. The only known way to kill the virus is to incinerate the carriers at extreme temperature. However, our sense of empathy with the carrier humans makes us hesitant to take that necessary action allowing the virus to spread.

One of the traits of evolution is that it has no purpose, just the simple mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. Giraffes didn't grow long necks in order to survive. That implies a purpose. It is just that a mutation in the gene of some ancestors to the giraffe caused their necks to grow longer than normal. That may not mean much, except that in a time of food scarcity at ground level, they had the advantage of being able to reach higher foliage. Even if that only changed the odds in favour of survival and getting to being able to reproduce from 50/50 compared to the others to say 51/49 compared to the others, those odds over a long period of time lead to that species being dominated with those who had that gene. We eventually ended up with the giraffe, with all members of the species now carrying that gene.
 

There is a strong evolutionary driver for empathy among animals that have evolved to live in a social group.

Don’t you think a group of early humans living on the savanah that had the ability to feel empathy towards each other would survive as a group better than a group that was made up of pirate not caring for each other.

I think empathy is a key factor to making a social group of intelligent individuals strong.

Cockroach’s opererate in an entirely different niche.
 
Ants carry the eggs of their own in times of crisis even as it slows down their own ability to flee.
Humans have an extremely arrogant presumptive attitude toward the other beings.
If you watch footage of the Japanese Tsunami and whatch the cars running away like ants from water.
The fool would say, 'oh it's just instinct.'
 

No “being” decided, natural selection decides.

Dawkins said something like - Natural selection is the non random selection of randomly appearing replicators.

Read that a couple of times to let understand it.

Basically it’s saying genes mutate and appear randomly, but the process of choosing which hang around and which fade away is not random, natural selection will choose the genes that best suit the environment over time, and that doesn’t require intelligence or forethought, it’s simply the less suited genes don’t replicate as successfully and fade away.

Penn quotes Darwin beautifully here

 
Value Collector said:
Don’t you think a group of early humans living on the savanah that had the ability to feel empathy towards each other would survive as a group better than a group that was made up of pirate not caring for each other.
Click to expand...

You have missed the distinction between cooperation and empathy. Of course social groups who cooperate have a better chance of survival that ones who don't but that doesn't necessarily involve caring for the old and weak who are not going to make much contribution to the group. That is where empathy may slow down the advancement process.
 

So long as they hands off my Scots green eyes.
 

Empathy in general would enhance cooperation, and create tight groups, any possible drawback would be minor compared with the benefit, so it would increase the survival of the group.

Also just because an individual might be physically weak, that doesn’t mean they don’t enhance the survival of the group in other ways.

Eg. A group that keeps and protects its elders might benefit from their accumulated knowledge, they might not be able to hunt, but they could give good advice on hunting, etc
 
The thing is, evolution can't explain where 'creature life' (another great mystery) comes from , as well as molecular life, so i'd think there'd be little point in going in these directions (explaining how something like empathy gets kept).
 
Funny clip VC.

Dawkins is a bit of a moralist ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...