-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Model of Evolution Finally Reveals How Cooperation Evolves
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Sunstone, thanks for sharing this and very interesting.
"Their model suggests that the balance between cooperation and selfish behavior, called defection, can undergo rapid phase transitions, in which individuals match their behavior to their neighbors. What’s more, a crucial factor turns out to be the process of punishment. “Punishment acts like a magnetic field that leads to an 'alignment' between players, thus encouraging cooperation,” say Adami and Hintze."
Seems relevant to when humans stopped being nomads and settled down as farmers and had more neighbors. It would also seem religion would play a major role in punishment and cooperation as well.
"Their model suggests that the balance between cooperation and selfish behavior, called defection, can undergo rapid phase transitions, in which individuals match their behavior to their neighbors. What’s more, a crucial factor turns out to be the process of punishment. “Punishment acts like a magnetic field that leads to an 'alignment' between players, thus encouraging cooperation,” say Adami and Hintze."
Seems relevant to when humans stopped being nomads and settled down as farmers and had more neighbors. It would also seem religion would play a major role in punishment and cooperation as well.
"Their model suggests" means it is not proven, making it more evo speculation.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Sure, I don't think anyone is saying this "proves" anything, to me it seems like an elaborate way of pointing to the obvious. A species of animals/insects that cooperate stands more chance of survival than one where they are in constant conflict with each other. The cooperation is advantageous from a survival point of view, it means more chance of evading or defeating predators, or catching prey, it means more chance of offspring surviving into adulthood, it means more chance of reproduction. There are conflicts within the cooperation, like competition for food or territory for example, but this is where the strongest and the fittest tend to prevail (though in our species, that is obviously no longer the case). So there are survival benefits to cooperation, so why be surprised that we evolved to cooperate? Seems obvious to me, or am I being too simplistic?
Explain 'proven', and how it relates to science.
You didnt read the article did you.
It gave you a dumb down version of their mathematical theory which heavily derives from other proven mathematical models like social science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Oh, let's not forget the very important fact that they actually tested their model through observation. Not saying it is all true but they offered a very strong foundation of proof based on other accepted models. That should at least be acknowledged.
After they publish their mathematical model, you have a every right to disprove it. It should be easy for you considering the math involved. I'm sure they're open to criticism, too!
[Edited]. Actually, let me add that criticism is required and not simply faith and acceptance. This is the model of transparency for all work presentef in the scientific community. So please do criticized it. It will help them further refine their work.
Last edited:
If it is obvious, it has been proven.
Surviving to adult hood and producing more offspring,may keep the species from becoming extinct, but it will not be a mechanism for becoming a new species.
You are being to unscientific. Survival doe snot mean a change of species. The ones who survive will still only produce "after their kind." Surviving and time will not change the laws of genetics.
Proven means it can be repeated and observed. It has been proven that their is more than one blood type.
The business of real science is to prove/disprove the ideas of man, so further truths can be made that will benefit mankind.
If I didn't read it, how could I quote part of it?
If they didn't prove their speculation, and they didn't, they didn't prove it. It remains speculation.
I don;t need to disprove what has not been proved.
I haven't criticized what they did or said. I used their own words that showed it was not proved, and "seems to suggest" was not the only question mark in what they said.
Absolutely false. Proof is not something science ever does. Scientific observation only suggests something to be likely or not. Proof is only relevant in mathematics and deductive logic, not in science.
But your complete and deliberate ignorance of science is well noted.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Don't know what you mean by "proven", things aren't always black and white you know. You make a hypothesis, if the evidence suggests the hypothesis is true it may become a theory. That still doesn't mean certainty dude, not in science, if evidence comes to light that contradicts the theory it might be trashed tomorrow.
Who said it was a "mechanism for becoming a new species"? Mate this isn't meant to be a defeater for creationism, if that is what you think, it is just some research into evolution. You a Young Earther I take it? It would explain your comments
Chap, I repeat I didn't say "survival means a change of species" what the hell are you talking about?
That science does not prove things is probably the most ignorant statement one can make about the subject. Evolutionist need to believe that because they can't prove anything in the TOE.
If you ever need a blood transfusion, tell the nurse there is no need to type your blood because they can't prove what type you have. Just give you what is convenient.
If you are ever on a jury and some ignorant scientists say DNA proves the person was there. Don't believe him, because DNA can't be proved.
Only by those who have been indoctrinated in the public school systems, including college, who don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion.
How do we know there is more than one blood type? Can we rely on what said on that subject?
Guess again. I am not a young earther and I never bring religion into a discussion of science.
Then why did you mention it? Even if your didn't, the other evos have expresed mutations and time, result in a change of species. Their problem is that they can't explain how times changes the laws of genetics.
No, I'd have to say your statement is the most ignorant statement one can make about the subject. Logically, the sciences cannot prove anything in the sense that they cannot -- can never -- rule out the possibility that any positive assertion, no matter how well evidenced, is somehow wrong. This is a fundamental issue with inductive logic, which the sciences significantly rely on.
However, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a positive assertion. And they can disprove a positive assertion.
That is pure ignorance of science. Let's see you falsify that there is more than 1 blood type. Do you evo ever use your God' given mind and think about what is being said? You accept the doctrines of your religion , the same way I accept the doctrines of mine---by faith alone.
It is amusing but sad that those who claim evolution has been scientifically proven also say science does not prove things, which is obviously wrong. Then they have the audacity to say creationist don't like science. We have a higher view of real science than you do.
I give up. Your aggressive ignorance has defeated me.
Ignorance can't defeat anyone. It is you lack of understanding science that has defeated you.
To say science proves anything is the most ignorant statement one can make about science. The second most ignorant statement is we only act if things can be proved one way or the other and not otherwise. Nothing in health or criminal justice system can be proved, ever, only made more or less likely by the evidence and hence suggesting one way to act rather than others.
Nothing in our ordinary life experiences are things that can be proved. Proof belongs only and exclusively to the abstract realm of mathematics and deductive logic. Any other use of the word in common tongue is simply wrong and shows merely the limited understanding of science and math among the public. Guilt or innocence for example can never be proved, by definition, and is only made more or less likely by the evidence. Neither can it be proved that the earth is round, or that fire is hot etc. The word does not apply.
proof | logic
Here is the correct definition from Britannica
proof, in logic, an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition. Although proofs may be based on inductive logic, in general the term proof connotes a rigorous deduction. In formal axiomatic systems of logic and mathematics, a proof is a finite sequence of well-formed formulas (generated in accordance with accepted formation rules) in which: (1) each formula is either an axiom or is derived from some previous formula or formulas by a valid inference; and (2) the last formula is that which is to be proved.
Since one cannot create such a formal sequence for propositions like "Sam killed john" one cannot prove or disprove such a statement. Thus the term does not apply.
Last edited: