Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

This entire post is a perfect example of why your argument fails. You can't actually understand or elaborate on anything, nor are you capable of even comprehending an opposing possibility.

All I can do is laugh here at your response. Thanks anyway for your distorted insult. And remember -- have a nice day tomorrow, and a good night tonight. Time is fleeing -- oops! Does time really fly???

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would natural selection not select for psychology and behavior just as it does for anatomy? Why would behaviors beneficial to the group not be selected for?

"Morals" is ambiguous. Morality varies culturally and temporally. Behavior considered moral is widespread. Is a spider, crocodile, octopus, baboon or Neanderthal's self-sacrificing protection of band or offspring morality? Is it learned or innate? If innate, wouldn't that be genetic "morality?"
Ethologists have many examples of animal co-operation, and of awareness of abstractions like unfairness. These aren't learned behaviors. They're innate. They didn't pop into existence from nothing. They were selected for, genetically.
Why would they have to mutate? If the more pro-social individuals in a species were reproductively more successful, the trait would be selected for, no mutation required.
There are learned morals and innate morals. Assault can benefit a group's reproductive success or harm it. It depends on application.

If "natural selection" selects for psychological behaviors and morals and judgments, do you believe they are biologically inherited, i.e., evolved? And to what degree do such behaviors come about such as random stabbings, shootings, and other such acts? You think maybe the brain and thinking ability could be influenced biologically by outside influences? My guess is you'll say, "nah ... it's not connected."

 

[leroy]

If "natural selection" selects for psychological behaviors and morals and judgments, do you believe they are biologically inherited, i.e., evolved? And to what degree do such behaviors come about such as random stabbings, shootings, and other such acts? You think maybe the brain and thinking ability could be influenced biologically by outside influences? My guess is you'll say, "nah ... it's not connected."

I would say that the problem of adopting the view that "morals evolved" by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. Is that we as humans hold many moral values that go beyond the survival of our specie.

For example if someone publishes a study with conclusive evidence that shows that by killing humans older than 70yo the economy will improve, poverty levels would drop and global warming would stop (and therefore making the survival of our specie more viable) it wouldn't be morally justifiable to kill all 70+yo humans....

 

[Valjean]

The evolution of single celled organisms to multicellular organisms is not as much of a mystery as previously thought. In fact it has been observed in the lab.

From: Scientists Have Witnessed in Real-Time a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism

Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism.

Some organisms can exist either as free-living zooids or can cluster together and specialize, forming multicellular organisms with specialized tissues or organs. https://www.reference.com/science/colonial-organisms-d15426900a13f952

 

[Valjean]

I would say that the problem of adopting the view that "morals evolved" by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. Is that we as humans hold many moral values that go beyond the survival of our specie.

"Moral" behaviors can be innate or learned. Natural selection selects for morphology, physiology and psychology.

 

[Polymath257]

Some organisms can exist either as free-living zooids or can cluster together and specialize, forming multicellular organisms with specialized tissues or organs. https://www.reference.com/science/colonial-organisms-d15426900a13f952

Yes. Certain slime molds are a very good example of this phenomenon. They can live quite well as single celled individuals OR they can some together as a multicellular organism that has specialized tissues.

Biology tends not to be as binary as human thought.

 

[Polymath257]

I would say that the problem of adopting the view that "morals evolved" by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. Is that we as humans hold many moral values that go beyond the survival of our specie.

I don't see the problem. As an analogy, we have a genetic inclination to language, but not to any specific language. There are a few moral 'intuitions' that are hardwired, but culture builds upon those to form a moral system.

For example if someone publishes a study with conclusive evidence that shows that by killing humans older than 70yo the economy will improve, poverty levels would drop and global warming would stop (and therefore making the survival of our specie more viable) it wouldn't be morally justifiable to kill all 70+yo humans....

And who said it would be? One of the aspects of culture in general is to avoid 'the law of the jungle'.

Because of our big brains and complex culture, we can often even circumvent aspects of moral intuition that are ingrained.

 

[Valjean]

I would say that the problem of adopting the view that "morals evolved" by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. Is that we as humans hold many moral values that go beyond the survival of our specie.

As I said before. Behaviors (morality is a behavior) can be both innate and learned. Often they're both, with enculturated details built upon innate behaviors. Some morals are functional; some just traditional. Some are both.

For example if someone publishes a study with conclusive evidence that shows that by killing humans older than 70yo the economy will improve, poverty levels would drop and global warming would stop (and therefore making the survival of our specie more viable) it wouldn't be morally justifiable to kill all 70+yo humans....

Yet, historically, eliminating unwanted demographics is often considered moral. Some people even consider war moral and proper behavior.

Not killing members of your own tribe is functional. Natural selection eliminated individuals who tended to do this, and positively selected for co-operative individuals. Killing members of competing tribes sometimes was expedient, so was often considered moral. After thousands of generations, with natural selection eliminating in-group unco-operatives and selecting for out-group competition, this psychology becomes generalized and innate.

With civilization and cosmopolitanism, the in-group becomes large and supra-tribal, while our innate loyalties and moral universes remain limited by Dunbar's number
This is where learned, enculturated morality comes to the fore, as an extension of innate morality.

 

[Valjean]

If "natural selection" selects for psychological behaviors and morals and judgments, do you believe they are biologically inherited, i.e., evolved?

Haven't I made this clear? Anatomy, physiology and psychology are all subject to natural selection.

And to what degree do such behaviors come about such as random stabbings, shootings, and other such acts? You think maybe the brain and thinking ability could be influenced biologically by outside influences? My guess is you'll say, "nah ... it's not connected."

Our psychology was forged in the Pleisticene. Thousands of generations of hunter-gatherers have given us hunter-gatherer brains. A few generations of civilization isn't going to eliminate our inborn tribalism and out-group competition, so we began promoting social, religious and legal restrictions on out-group aggression.This is good, but its not innate. It's a thin overlay. Stabbing an extra-tribal "other" is often a natural behavior. Extending your moral universe to include him is unnatural; it's enculturated.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would say that the problem of adopting the view that "morals evolved" by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. Is that we as humans hold many moral values that go beyond the survival of our specie.

For example if someone publishes a study with conclusive evidence that shows that by killing humans older than 70yo the economy will improve, poverty levels would drop and global warming would stop (and therefore making the survival of our specie more viable) it wouldn't be morally justifiable to kill all 70+yo humans....

Yes, and now I've been examining the issue. Now let's take animals that supposedly evolved earlier than humans (just sayin'), again -- do they have courts, law books, tribunals to determine right from wrong? So evolutionists proclaim that it's "social" evolution or something like that. But how come bonobos, gorilllas, birds, turtles, worms, do not have these things? Not enough brain power?

 

[YoursTrue]

Haven't I made this clear? Anatomy, physiology and psychology are all subject to natural selection.
Our psychology was forged in the Pleisticene. Thousands of generations of hunter-gatherers have given us hunter-gatherer brains. A few generations of civilization isn't going to eliminate our inborn tribalism and out-group competition, so we began promoting social, religious and legal restrictions on out-group aggression.This is good, but its not innate. It's a thin overlay. Stabbing an extra-tribal "other" is often a natural behavior. Extending your moral universe to include him is unnatural; it's enculturated.

No, you haven't made it clear, since lions, kangaroos, turtles do not have anything much beyond instinct as to their behavior. So is murder and rape and stealing written in the genetic code for humans, passed on genetically in that 98% or so? What do you think?
Oh, and can animals like dogs and chimps be taught certain things? Yes, they can. But so far as I know, they have not devised a system of writing and written laws. Go and explain that, if you can.

 

[Valjean]

No, you haven't made it clear, since lions, kangaroos, turtles do not have anything much beyond instinct as to their behavior. So is murder and rape and stealing written in the genetic code for humans, passed on genetically in that 98% or so? What do you think?
Oh, and can animals like dogs and chimps be taught certain things? Yes, they can. But so far as I know, they have not devised a system of writing and written laws. Go and explain that, if you can.

Isn't instinct innate morality?

 

[McBell]

Isn't instinct innate morality?

now now.
no need to ruin a perfectly good roll with logic and reason.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some organisms can exist either as free-living zooids or can cluster together and specialize, forming multicellular organisms with specialized tissues or organs. https://www.reference.com/science/colonial-organisms-d15426900a13f952

If a single celled algae moved, transformed itself, evolved - whatever you want to call it - into a multicellular organism, that is because it had the capacity to do so. It does not prove the theory of evolution, yes -- I know nothing is "proof" in science I suppose, but it is not evidence for the theory of evolution other than what evolutionists want to see, in contrast for that which God has given ability. Algae may move, transform, evolve into something more, but so far there is no proof-evidence that is how life comes about. It's a bit more complicated than I am saying, but -- the Bible as far as creation and what happened to mankind makes far more sense than evolution does. Now. To me.

 

[Valjean]

If a single celled algae moved, transformed itself, evolved - whatever you want to call it - into a multicellular organism, that is because it had the capacity to do so. It does not prove the theory of evolution, yes -- I know nothing is "proof" in science I suppose, but it is not evidence for the theory of evolution other than what evolutionists want to see, in contrast for that which God has given ability. Algae may move, transform, evolve into something more, but so far there is no proof-evidence that is how life comes about. It's a bit more complicated than I am saying, but -- the Bible as far as creation and what happened to mankind makes far more sense than evolution does. Now. To me.

I agree. Colonial organisms aren't "evolving," more like combining.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and now I've been examining the issue. Now let's take animals that supposedly evolved earlier than humans (just sayin'), again -- do they have courts, law books, tribunals to determine right from wrong? So evolutionists proclaim that it's "social" evolution or something like that. But how come bonobos, gorilllas, birds, turtles, worms, do not have these things? Not enough brain power?

Precisely. Even chimps and bonobo don't have the brain capacity for that level of social organization. In fact, one of the things thought to drive the trend to larger brains is exactly such social behaviors and the effects they have on survival.

 

[leroy]

Ok thanks for that amazing and colorfull video.

So just to be clear, how do you go from stage a to stage b and from b to c etc...? Do bacteria go from stage a to stage via 1 single mutation or do you need many mutations to go from a to b?.... O yea I forgot, you don't answer to direct questions.
..

 

[Polymath257]

Ok thanks for that amazing and colorfull video.

So just to be clear, how do you go from stage a to stage b and from b to c etc...? Do bacteria go from stage a to stage via 1 single mutation or do you need many mutations to go from a to b?.... O yea I forgot, you don't answer to direct questions.
..

Well, starting from the ancestral proteins, the 'associations' are either automatic or, like the mutations to make things 'sticky' are single point mutations, usually changing an amino acid from hydrophilic to hydrophobic.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you haven't made it clear, since lions, kangaroos, turtles do not have anything much beyond instinct as to their behavior. So is murder and rape and stealing written in the genetic code for humans, passed on genetically in that 98% or so? What do you think?
Oh, and can animals like dogs and chimps be taught certain things? Yes, they can. But so far as I know, they have not devised a system of writing and written laws. Go and explain that, if you can.

Well, neither had we until just a few thousand years ago, which is a very, very brief period in discussions on evolution. Most of the time the human species has been around, there was no writing, no organized government, and no living in communities with a fixed location. Even other apes are limited to pretty simple tool use and tribal levels of organization.

 

[Valjean]

Ok thanks for that amazing and colorfull video.
..

Music was cool, too.
If you liked the flagellum video, you might like an eye video, as well.