Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Danmark]

If you think that Evolution could have "developed" a conscience and
morality on its own how would it be able to grow from not having any information on morality to knowing for sure what is right and wrong? ....

This question, or related ones have been answered many times on this forum. Ample evidence has been provided that even animals have morality. Rather than repeat those lengthy arguments, you could research 'morality' on this forum.

It should surprise no one that tribes, clans, and other groups of homo sapiens and other species would be more likely to survive if they cooperated with each other. Morality comes from a sense of cooperation, of fairness and reciprocity; that if the group is going to survive, those essentials that allow cooperation are necessary. Groups without these traits were more likely to die out. See

for a start.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1405 by Danmark]

Dan, it amazes me how some rely on "overwhelming views of science",....

Your 'amazement' is not an effective arguing point. Neither is your mere assertion of a lack of scientific support. On this forum support for one's views makes a more effective argument than mere assertion of personal opinion.

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

The point of demonstrating how both science and the courts accept the theory [and fact] of evolution in such an overwhelming fashion, may prove nothing . . . except that the burden shifts to those with oddball ideas that have not been proved, that are based on superstition and ignorance, and that have firmly been established by courts as "not based on science."

You are free to assert ideas of this sort, but it will take more than mere personal option or the assertion of personal 'amazement.'

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1401 by H.sapiens]

You have not given any proof that I'm incorrect all you said was "Nope Your wrong all
wrong" Please give a more appropriate argument.

~Omega

I don't waste time with foolishness such as your post, I answer it with a prepackaged response designed for hackneyed claims that have been debunked previously. In your case: CB411

Since you are clearly new at the game, else you'd have found a more creative claim, and you'd know what CB411 was referring to. So, I'll do you the service of posting more than just "C411," but just this time.

Claim CB411:
Evolution cannot explain moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefiting themselves and their offspring.
Source:
Dembski, William A., 2004. Reflections on human origins. http://www.designinference.com/document ... rigins.pdf
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 177.
Response:

The claim ignores what happens when organisms live socially. In fact, much about morals can be explained by evolution. Since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.

Fairness and cooperation have value for dealing with people repeatedly (Nowak et. al. 2000). The emotions involved with such justice could have evolved when humans lived in small groups (Sigmund et al. 2002). Optional participation can foil even anonymous exploitation and make cooperation advantageous in large groups (Hauert et al. 2002).

Kin selection can explain some altruistic behavior toward close relatives; because they share many of the same genes, helping them benefits the giver's genes, too. In societies, altruism benefits the giver because when others see someone acting altruistically, they are more likely to give to that person (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). In the long term, the generous person benefits from an improved reputation (Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002). Altruistic punishment (punishing another even at cost to yourself) allows cooperation to flourish even in groups of unrelated strangers; the abstract of Fehr and Gächter (2002) is worth quoting in full:

Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.

Finally, evolution does not require that all traits be adaptive 100 percent of the time. The altruism that benefits oneself most of the time may contribute to life-risking behavior in some infrequent circumstances.

This claim is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing an explanation does not mean no explanation exists. And as noted above, much of the explanation is known already.

References:

Fehr, Ernst and Simon Gächter, 2002. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415: 137-140.
Hauert, C., S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, 2002. Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science 296: 1129-1132.
Nowak, M. A., K. M. Page and K. Sigmund, 2000. Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science 289: 1773-1775.
Sigmund, Karl, E. Fehr and M. A. Nowak, 2002. (see below)
Wedekind, C. and V. A. Braithwaite, 2002. The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology 12: 1012-1015.
Wedekind, C. and M. Milinski, 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288: 850-852. See also Nowak, M. A. and K. Sigmund, 2000. Shrewd investments. Science 288: 819-820.
Wright, Robert, 1994. (see below)

Further Reading:
Netting, Jessa, 2000 (20 Oct.). Model of good (and bad) behaviour. Nature Science Update, http://www.nature.com/nsu/001026/001026-2.html

Sigmund, Karl, Ernst Fehr and Martin A. Nowak, 2002. The economics of fair play. Scientific American 286(1) (Jan.): 82-87.

Vogel, Gretchen, 2004. The evolution of the golden rule. Science 303: 1128-1131.

Wright, Robert, 1994. The Moral Animal New York: Pantheon Books.

Henrich, Joseph. 2006. Cooperation, punishment, and the evolution of human institutions. Science 312: 60-61.

Nowak, Martin A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560-1563

[Omega Nation]

[Replying to post 1415 by Danmark]

What exactly is a scientific society? And does including oneself in the scientific community automatically make one an expert on these matters?
The majority of many groups of people tend to believe that they are always correct.
And I'm still waiting for some absolute proof of Big Bang Theory. Or an explanation as to why it should be easier for one to believe.
And yes, the law is that Creationism may not be taught but that evolution may, despite the fact that evolution is a theory. I don't think it is an effective argument that systems that do not support Creationism do not allow it to be taught. Of course they haven't. Fear of some intelligent debate in the classroom, maybe? Those of us with "oddball ideas" would love to be able to counter the theories in many forums, but that particular right has been taken away.

[Danmark]

What exactly is a scientific society? And does including oneself in the scientific community automatically make one an expert on these matters?
The majority of many groups of people tend to believe that they are always correct.
And I'm still waiting for some absolute proof of Big Bang Theory. Or an explanation as to why it should be easier for one to believe.
And yes, the law is that Creationism may not be taught but that evolution may, despite the fact that evolution is a theory. I don't think it is an effective argument that systems that do not support Creationism do not allow it to be taught. Of course they haven't. Fear of some intelligent debate in the classroom, maybe? Those of us with "oddball ideas" would love to be able to counter the theories in many forums, but that particular right has been taken away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S ... _societies
No, no one is 'automatically an expert' simply by way of membership.

Your claim: "The majority of many groups of people tend to believe that they are always correct.

Your evidence: nothing.

Do you think the theory of gravity should not be taught because it is 'just a theory?'

The concern is not 'fear' of debate. That has been settled. 'Creationism' lost. It is not even science. It is religion. Thus saith the courts and the experts in the field. Creationists had their chances, many of them. They've lost every debate.

I think of creationism the same way I think of astrology; neither are worth debating.

The only 'fear' re: creationism is that the lies and false teachers it is based upon, masquerading as science, will delude young minds held captive by parents steeped in beliefs that are beyond the realm of science. You are entitled to any silly belief you want, but you are not entitled to call it science unless it meets scientific criteria. Creationism has repeatedly been found to not meet such criteria. Creationism = religion.

You have yet to show any support for ANYthing you've asserted. There are other proponents of evolution on this forum who at least make an effort to cite to specific books or URL's to support their notions. Despite your failure to support anything you claim, you have received the courtesy of a reply. That will not continue indefinitely.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1417 by Omega Nation]

Man, you have all the useless oldies: CA201

Can't you come up with something new?

[Omega Nation]

[Replying to post 1418 by Danmark]

What then, is a creation scientist? Isn't it a scientist that studies creation?
Atheists do not control science. But some science may control atheists.

Do you really think that beliefs beyond the "realm of science" will delude young minds? What harm is it doing a child to believe in the existence of a Creator and to believe such precepts as love your neighbor? Why all of the fear against such teachings?
I am "entitled" to call science anything I wish. As are you. You forget that even those who aren't atheists still retain some rights.
Of course Creationism does not meet scientific criteria as it is defined by those who wish to discount it. The not so silent minority insists that religion tries to control others' minds while not realizing that the scientific community is doing just that by defining everything as it sees fit.

[Omega Nation]

[Replying to post 1418 by Danmark]

I agree that this should not continue indefinitely. We do have sources called the Bible and basic common sense. Just because a scientist didn't write it does not make it any less a worthy source.

Thank you for your time.

[H.sapiens]

What then, is a creation scientist? Isn't it a scientist that studies creation?

An oxymoron moron, what else?

Atheists do not control science. But some science may control atheists.

I'm sure you hallucinate both under your bed and in your closet at night.

Do you really think that beliefs beyond the "realm of science" will delude young minds? What harm is it doing a child to believe in the existence of a Creator and to believe such precepts as love your neighbor? Why all of the fear against such teachings?

Nothing as long as they grow out of it along with the tooth fairy and Santa.

I am "entitled" to call science anything I wish. As are you. You forget that even those who aren't atheists still retain some rights.

Those rights are limited by slander, libel and if you care what people think of you ... common sense.

Of course Creationism does not meet scientific criteria as it is defined by those who wish to discount it. The not so silent minority insists that religion tries to control others' minds while not realizing that the scientific community is doing just that by defining everything as it sees fit.

You've got it backwards ... I discount it because it does not meet the criteria of almost all scientists (what I'd call common sense).

As far as societies are concerned, some anyone can join, some require certain attributes, say ... a PhD, some are elite and you must be nominated and elected. Some require certain attributes and nomination and election. I belong to several of each type.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1418 by Danmark]

What then, is a creation scientist? Isn't it a scientist that studies creation?
Atheists do not control science. But some science may control atheists.

Do you really think that beliefs beyond the "realm of science" will delude young minds? What harm is it doing a child to believe in the existence of a Creator and to believe such precepts as love your neighbor? Why all of the fear against such teachings?
I am "entitled" to call science anything I wish. As are you. You forget that even those who aren't atheists still retain some rights.
Of course Creationism does not meet scientific criteria as it is defined by those who wish to discount it. The not so silent minority insists that religion tries to control others' minds while not realizing that the scientific community is doing just that by defining everything as it sees fit.

'Creation' is a religious term or belief in this context. It is not the subject of science. Some fields of science deal with the origin of the universe, but it is antithetical to science to start with a belief (God and his creating) and then try to justify that belief. So, there is no such thing as 'creation science.' It is a contradiction of terms.

2d, it is not 'deluding young minds' to interest them in things beyond science. I hope they are encouraged to think beyond 'the realm of science.' What is detrimental to the young minds' acquisition of knowledge is teaching things that are untrue, such as claiming that creationism is science.

There are a host of Christians who have beliefs beyond the realm of science, but who also believe in evolution as not just a theory but a fact. They don't distort science to harmonize their belief in God with their scientific knowledge. They believe God was responsible for the initial gift of life that started the process of evolution and they believe that God may have intervened from time to time in that process.

There is no reason a Christian cannot believe in science and God. The problem, and the harm, come when one distorts science to try to come to a preconceived conclusion. This is problematic whether one is an atheist or a Christian. Both the scientist and the Christian should approach the search for truth with humility and without insisting on their own way.