Did religion shape evolution?

[RobertUrbanek]

To discover a possible role of religion in evolution, we need to look back 10,000 years and examine how humans domesticated wolves and turned them into dogs. The PBS program NOVA suggested a two-step process in the episode "Dogs and More Dogs," which aired in February 2004. The first step was taken by the wolves themselves. Those who were less aggressive and more willing to scavenge than hunt would be more likely to raid the piles of bones and other scraps left by hunters or found at human encampments.

As these scavengers became used to the company of humans, men would adopt them as pets and only breed the tamest and most pliable of the bunch for the eventual goal of using them as haulers, hunters and herders. But how would breeding wolves with other wolves, however tame, produce anything but more wolves?

The answer can be found in a study begun in 1940 by Russian scientists Dmitri Belyaev. He bred silver foxes in Siberia on the sole criteria of friendliness to people. By the 10th generation, the foxes began to show radical physical changes: ears pointed down, tails pointed up, they started to bark, and they began to have different coats.

By breeding for tameness or submission, Belyaev had reduced the adrenalin level in the foxes, which is a biochemical pathway that also controls melanin, which determines the animal's coat color. In fact, breeding for behavior altered the levels of a whole range of hormones, thus triggering a great degree of genetic variation.

Thus, we can deduce that about 10,000 years ago, man began a similar breeding program with wolves, which eventually produced the wide variety of dogs we see today.

Which raises the question: What would happen if you bred humans for tameness or submission? It may have already happened. Among early humans, the most successful at reproducing would have been those tribe members who displayed the most cooperation and submitted to a leader who was the most skilled at hunting and resolving conflicts among tribal members.

As submissive behavior was reinforced and rewarded over generations, humans, like foxes, would have experienced physical changes, such as more delicate facial features, which then became desirable breeding traits. Humans might not have fully understood the selection process, but probably would have noticed that people in more aggressive tribes, which didn't reward submissive behavior, looked more brutish and ugly. Beauty is more than skin deep. A code for encouraging submission (various thou shalt nots) would become part of the foundation for religion. Evolution causes religion, and religion causes evolution by rewarding submissive behavior, thus changing the body chemistry that affects our appearance.

[perfessor]

It's an interesting idea. I would say that we self-selected for cooperation rather than submission. Humans, as individuals, are rather poorly equipped for survival. Slow of foot, relatively weak, no built-in weapons like claws or fangs, slow to reach physical and sexual maturity. Those humans unable to socialize and cooperate with the tribe, faced bleak prospects on their own in the wild. Rituals and shared ceremonial activities probably helped cement this behavior. So yes, religion may have been an outgrowth of this.

When I was in High School and college, it always seemed that the pretty girls fell for the "aggressive brutes" rather than geeks like me. I admit that my perspective may have been skewed.

[RobertUrbanek]

It's an interesting idea. I would say that we self-selected for cooperation rather than submission. Humans, as individuals, are rather poorly equipped for survival. Slow of foot, relatively weak, no built-in weapons like claws or fangs, slow to reach physical and sexual maturity. Those humans unable to socialize and cooperate with the tribe, faced bleak prospects on their own in the wild. Rituals and shared ceremonial activities probably helped cement this behavior. So yes, religion may have been an outgrowth of this.

When I was in High School and college, it always seemed that the pretty girls fell for the "aggressive brutes" rather than geeks like me. I admit that my perspective may have been skewed.

Geeks who became millionaires or billionaires in Silicon Valley have improved the geek reputation among the opposite sex. Still, many geeks are handicapped by their inability to tell lies, probably because of an aversion to creating faulty data. Women seem to prefer men who are willing to lie and do what is necessary to support them and their children.

An extended, more radical version of my post can be found at:
http://www.satanicuniverse.com/apocalyp ... adder.html