Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Leonard James

'Flawed' humanity.

This derives from a post by Lexi in the Sainthood thread, which I didn't want to derail.

Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:
Quote:
I don't really get the saint thing either.

Logically - if there are saints - then I can appreciate that there may be some around now. But I take the view that all humans are flawed individuals.


That's because of your religious indoctrination to believe so.

It's true that humanity is capable of all types of behaviour, but that is how evolution works, and how we got here. The 'flaws', as you call them, are what moved life forward before the advent of social species, and without those flaws (self first at all costs) life would have become extinct, and we wouldn't be here talking about them.

We have seen fit to designate such behaviour as 'bad' and the reverse as 'good' simply because we ARE a social species, and although I agree that such behaviour needs to be controlled for the good of the group as a whole, we must not fall into the error of thinking of them as flaws. They are an essential part of life, and it's anybody's guess what would happen to us if we ever managed to eradicate them from our genome.

Comments?
cyberman

Re: 'Flawed' humanity.

Leonard James wrote:
without those flaws (self first at all costs) life would have become extinct,


Are all 'flaws' attributes which have an evolutionary advantage?
Lexilogio

Re: 'Flawed' humanity.

Leonard James wrote:
This derives from a post by Lexi in the Sainthood thread, which I didn't want to derail.

Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:
Quote:
I don't really get the saint thing either.

Logically - if there are saints - then I can appreciate that there may be some around now. But I take the view that all humans are flawed individuals.


That's because of your religious indoctrination to believe so.



Actually, no. Sorry.

My statement that all humans are flawed comes from psychology research, eg James Reason and the science of human error.

It is part of the way the brain works in reasoning. To save time, our brains lump things together and make assumptions and jumps. Those assumptions can frequently be wrong - but we are also remarkable at identifying the errors and correcting them (70% of the time).

I really recommend reading Human Error. It's a fascinating book.
Other authors worth reading in this field include Rasmussen, Allwood and Montgomery, Barrs, Baddeley, Nooteboom, Embrey, Fromkin...

Of course most of the research has been based on linguistic errors, but there is a growing volume which looks at other forms of errors, particularly in the field of organisational accidents, Sidney Dekker, for example.
Leonard James

Re: 'Flawed' humanity.

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
without those flaws (self first at all costs) life would have become extinct,


Are all 'flaws' attributes which have an evolutionary advantage?

That depends on what is understood by 'flaw'.
cyberman

Re: 'Flawed' humanity.

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
without those flaws (self first at all costs) life would have become extinct,


Are all 'flaws' attributes which have an evolutionary advantage?

That depends on what is understood by 'flaw'.


Well, obviously I am refrring to whatever you meant by "flaw" when you wrote "without those flaws (self first at all costs) life would have become extinct".

Do you think that there are any "flaws" (by your own understanding of the word) which do not bring an evolutionary advantage?
Leonard James

I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.
Lexilogio

Leonard James wrote:
I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.



No. By flaw, I meant the propensity to make mistakes.
Leonard James

Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.



No. By flaw, I meant the propensity to make mistakes.

Thank you, Lexi. In that case, yes, I agree that humanity as 'flawed', although I think it is a sad misuse of the word.

It is only by learning and trial and error that we find out how to live, in fact it is an essential part of the growing up process. Hence the wise old saw "The man who never makes a mistake never makes anything."
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.


So do you think racism and homophobia are advantageous?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.


So do you think racism and homophobia are advantageous?

Racism is a form of tribal warfare, so in the past it would have been an advantageous trait. If a tribe didn't defend itself it would have gone under. Homophobia, too, probably contributed towards the procreative ability of a tribe ... it would have caused gay men to marry and produce offspring to feign normality.

Just suggestions.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.


So do you think racism and homophobia are advantageous?

Racism is a form of tribal warfare, so in the past it would have been an advantageous trait. If a tribe didn't defend itself it would have gone under. Homophobia, too, probably contributed towards the procreative ability of a tribe ... it would have caused gay men to marry and produce offspring to feign normality.

Just suggestions.


Ah, the old right-wing myth that racism is natural. No - it is advantageous to foster harmonious relations with neighbouring tribes. It is good for the gene pool and creates better defence against hostile forces. Having an automatic unfounded hostility to members of other tribes does not convey any advantage at all.
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:

Ah, the old right-wing myth that racism is natural.

I am VERY far from being right wing, I do assure you. Wealth should be shared, not hogged. Such an idea is anathema to right-wingers.
Quote:
No - it is advantageous to foster harmonious relations with neighbouring tribes. It is good for the gene pool and creates better defence against hostile forces.

That only came when man became intelligent enough to realise it. He is still not intelligent enough to realise that we are all one tribe. The only hostile forces could be alien ones.
Quote:
Having an automatic unfounded hostility to members of other tribes does not convey any advantage at all.

It did once, and you can't eradicate instincts overnight.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
No - it is advantageous to foster harmonious relations with neighbouring tribes. It is good for the gene pool and creates better defence against hostile forces.

That only came when man became intelligent enough to realise it..


No, that is not how evolution works. If a trait is advantageous, then natural selection causes it to become widespread whether the creature concerned is aware of it or not. A wide gene pool is advantageous for humans, squids and foxes whether they understand genetics or not.
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
No - it is advantageous to foster harmonious relations with neighbouring tribes. It is good for the gene pool and creates better defence against hostile forces.

That only came when man became intelligent enough to realise it..


No, that is not how evolution works. If a trait is advantageous, then natural selection causes it to become widespread whether the creature concerned is aware of it or not. A wide gene pool is advantageous for humans, squids and foxes whether they understand genetics or not.

Humans are primates, and the natural primate instinct is to defend its territory from other groups of primates. Sharing territory could only have come about by tribal cooperation, which demands intercommunication and intelligence.
Shrub Dweller

Re: 'Flawed' humanity.

Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
This derives from a post by Lexi in the Sainthood thread, which I didn't want to derail.

Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:
Quote:
I don't really get the saint thing either.

Logically - if there are saints - then I can appreciate that there may be some around now. But I take the view that all humans are flawed individuals.


That's because of your religious indoctrination to believe so.


Actually, no. Sorry.

My statement that all humans are flawed comes from psychology research, eg James Reason and the science of human error.

It is part of the way the brain works in reasoning. To save time, our brains lump things together and make assumptions and jumps. Those assumptions can frequently be wrong - but we are also remarkable at identifying the errors and correcting them (70% of the time).

I really recommend reading Human Error. It's a fascinating book.
Other authors worth reading in this field include Rasmussen, Allwood and Montgomery, Barrs, Baddeley, Nooteboom, Embrey, Fromkin...

Of course most of the research has been based on linguistic errors, but there is a growing volume which looks at other forms of errors, particularly in the field of organisational accidents, Sidney Dekker, for example.

Yes, in this regard we are flawed and it has been shown that our reasoning powers are prone to errors; coming up with some less than water tight conclusions, mainly due to things like confirmation bias. However, it should be born in mind that many of these errors take place in our highly intellectual and rational modern approaches, were in fact evolution has given us a brain, for the most part, geared for survival in the "jungle".
Shrub Dweller

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I was taking the implied understanding of the word in Lexi's post, which I took to mean antisocial activity.

In which case the answer to your question is no. All existing 'flaws' must have given an evolutionary advantage in the environment in which they appeared, or they wouldn't have been preserved and perpetuated.


So do you think racism and homophobia are advantageous?

Racism is a form of tribal warfare, so in the past it would have been an advantageous trait. If a tribe didn't defend itself it would have gone under. Homophobia, too, probably contributed towards the procreative ability of a tribe ... it would have caused gay men to marry and produce offspring to feign normality.

Just suggestions.


Ah, the old right-wing myth that racism is natural. No - it is advantageous to foster harmonious relations with neighbouring tribes. It is good for the gene pool and creates better defence against hostile forces. Having an automatic unfounded hostility to members of other tribes does not convey any advantage at all.

It does if they are trying to nick your women.

Are you saying that mankind has always been rational and logical. You/they fight because that is the way you/they feel. If resources are short you make sure the other side doesn't take it all. The survival of your kin comes first.
splashscuba

[quote="cyberman:63220"]
Leonard James wrote:

No, that is not how evolution works. If a trait is advantageous, then natural selection causes it to become widespread whether the creature concerned is aware of it or not. A wide gene pool is advantageous for humans, squids and foxes whether they understand genetics or not.

Actually not all traits need to be advantageous to survive. As long as they don't give a disadvantage, then a trait can breed through.
Leonard James

[quote="splashscuba:63250"]
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

No, that is not how evolution works. If a trait is advantageous, then natural selection causes it to become widespread whether the creature concerned is aware of it or not. A wide gene pool is advantageous for humans, squids and foxes whether they understand genetics or not.

Actually not all traits need to be advantageous to survive. As long as they don't give a disadvantage, then a trait can breed through.

It was actually Cyber who wrote that, not me ... and of course what you say is correct. I didn't want to cloud the issue by broaching the subject, as I was more concerned that Cyber became aware that group rivalry over territory was the normal instinct for primates.
cyberman

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Having an automatic unfounded hostility to members of other tribes does not convey any advantage at all.

It does if they are trying to nick your women.


Well, if they are trying to nick your women, it isn’t unfounded is it, dufus?

Shrub Dweller wrote:
Are you saying that mankind has always been rational and logical


No, I am not saying that.
Boss Cat

Could the ability to reason and be logical be part of being human?

I don't know or anything, just a question.

I think of the Adam and Eve myth as being about the ability to make rational choices between good and evil being essentially human.
Shrub Dweller

cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Having an automatic unfounded hostility to members of other tribes does not convey any advantage at all.

It does if they are trying to nick your women.


Well, if they are trying to nick your women, it isn’t unfounded is it, dufus?

 

Quote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Are you saying that mankind has always been rational and logical


No, I am not saying that.

Then you may attack another group out of sheer fear. Do a Bushy and do a pre-emptive strike. If a group looks like another group that caused you trouble you may do this. I am also wondering how far back you are going ? We are talking about evolution here so think in millions of years.
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
Could the ability to reason and be logical be part of being human?

I don't know or anything, just a question.

I think of the Adam and Eve myth as being about the ability to make rational choices between good and evil being essentially human.

I don't understanding what you are getting at, we do reason and think logically and is thus part of being human.
Boss Cat

Well that's what I meant.  When you asked whether humans have always been logical and rational I was suggesting that rationality and logic have been part of what makes humans human.

Not that I know of course, I was wondering.  And another thing.   Just because you might have other responses does not mean that you don't have the ability to rational and logical.   And sometimes rationality, logic, emotion, spirituality, imagination might be linked.  In fact probably quite a lot of the time they are.

I mean fear might be quite rational or a bit rational or rational once upon a time.
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
Well that's what I meant.  When you asked whether humans have always been logical and rational I was suggesting that rationality and logic have been part of what makes humans human.

Not that I know of course, I was wondering.  And another thing.   Just because you might have other responses does not mean that you don't have the ability to rational and logical.   And sometimes rationality, logic, emotion, spirituality, imagination might be linked.  In fact probably quite a lot of the time they are.

I mean fear might be quite rational or a bit rational or rational once upon a time.

Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things i.e. he was applying his mindset and cultural norms to people in the past. I challenged that, hence my comment. Logic and reason as a discipline is new to man's history and is not the way our distant ancestors would have thought. It is questionable whether that people today are that highly logical or rational in their thinking but still work predominately in a more intuitive and instinctual way, though in a more elaborate format than our animal cousins.
cyberman

Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.
Shrub Dweller

cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.
Boss Cat

As I understood it as the age of the dinosaurs ended the mammals, these weird little mouse like creatures took over.  And they were pretty weedy and defenceless compared with the might of the dinosaurs but they had one thing going for them.  They suckled their young.  They formed bonds.
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
As I understood it as the age of the dinosaurs ended the mammals, these weird little mouse like creatures took over.  And they were pretty weedy and defenceless compared with the might of the dinosaurs but they had one thing going for them.  They suckled their young.  They formed bonds.

The main advantage the mammals had when the age of the dinosaurs ended was that they were alive and the dinosaurs were as go as dead, except for the bird group. The mammals started evolving at about the same time as the dinosaurs, around 250 million years ago, but for some reason they stayed small and in the background. This smallness probably saved their lives when the astroid hit the earth 65 million years ago. Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.
Leonard James

Quote:
Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.

I think 'opportunity' is the appropriate word here, not 'courage'.
Shrub Dweller

Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.

I think 'opportunity' is the appropriate word here, not 'courage'.

No it's courage, because they had started evolving at the same time as the dinosaurs but kept their heads down, and hid themselves in the shrubbery, and were fearful that the giants would say "Ni" to them.
Boss Cat

So you don't think forming bonds was significant for the survival of the mammals.  I don't know whether it did, not my area of expertise.  But I would have thought there were plenty of dangers, from all sorts of sources, both before and after the dinosaurs disappeared, or most of the dinosaurs anyway.   Young mammals are defenceless and there aren't hundreds of them like fly eggs and grubs.

I don't know much about this as I say.  This is only what I thought.
Leonard James

Shrub Dweller wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.

I think 'opportunity' is the appropriate word here, not 'courage'.

No it's courage, because they had started evolving at the same time as the dinosaurs but kept their heads down, and hid themselves in the shrubbery, and were fearful that the giants would say "Ni" to them.

Small animals don't increase in size because they want to. They gradually become larger over generations if being bigger gives them an advantage in the environment. Any such tendency while the dinosaurs were around would be fatal because they would become big enough to find and eat.

Once the dinos were extinct there was no such restriction, and they had the opportunity to increase in size. Courage didn't come into it.
cyberman

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

What I wrote was:

cyberman wrote:

If a trait is advantageous, then natural selection causes it to become widespread whether the creature concerned is aware of it or not. A wide gene pool is advantageous for humans, squids and foxes whether they understand genetics or not.


Where is this 'implication' which you have dreamt up?
Leonard James

Boss Cat wrote:
So you don't think forming bonds was significant for the survival of the mammals.  I don't know whether it did, not my area of expertise.  But I would have thought there were plenty of dangers, from all sorts of sources, both before and after the dinosaurs disappeared, or most of the dinosaurs anyway.   Young mammals are defenceless and there aren't hundreds of them like fly eggs and grubs.

I don't know much about this as I say.  This is only what I thought.

Forming bonds (cooperating) was obviously of survival value for social mammals, but not others. Some animals are pack hunters, others hunt solo. The former have a social code they normally observe, the latter don't.

The care and protection of off-spring is clearly a different kind of cooperation, and is common both to social and lone species.
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
So you don't think forming bonds was significant for the survival of the mammals.  I don't know whether it did, not my area of expertise.  But I would have thought there were plenty of dangers, from all sorts of sources, both before and after the dinosaurs disappeared, or most of the dinosaurs anyway.   Young mammals are defenceless and there aren't hundreds of them like fly eggs and grubs.

I don't know much about this as I say.  This is only what I thought.

A programme on the BBC on dinisaurs did imply that some of the ones that formed herds did protect their young when underthreat from preditors, so I'm not too sure this bonding thing is exclusively mammalian but it is a common feature more so of mammals from what I understand. After the astroid of 65 million years ago resouces would have been scarce and so bringing up smaller broods and protecting them to adulthood would have been a more efficient way of ensuring the species survival than expending a lot of energy in producing large numbers of offpring. So those that did adapt this more efficient method would have given themselves a better chance to be here today.
Shrub Dweller

Leonard James wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.

I think 'opportunity' is the appropriate word here, not 'courage'.

No it's courage, because they had started evolving at the same time as the dinosaurs but kept their heads down, and hid themselves in the shrubbery, and were fearful that the giants would say "Ni" to them.

Small animals don't increase in size because they want to. They gradually become larger over generations if being bigger gives them an advantage in the environment. Any such tendency while the dinosaurs were around would be fatal because they would become big enough to find and eat.

Once the dinos were extinct there was no such restriction, and they had the opportunity to increase in size. Courage didn't come into it.

I agree; which I expressed as them keeping their heads down. I believe that one of the reasons the dinosaurs grew so large was because the oxygen level in the air was much higher then than now, and that mammals weren't fashioned to find this particularly of any real benefit. Before the astroid of 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were already becoming extinct and I think this was because the oxygen level was beginning to drop.
Shrub Dweller

cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.
cyberman

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.


As usual you have utterly ignored the significant point, which is that the implication which you claim to have detected simply isn't there. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you are pretending I have implied.
Shrub Dweller

cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.


As usual you have utterly ignored the significant point, which is that the implication which you claim to have detected simply isn't there. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you are pretending I have implied.

I don't have the time to find your original post as I don't keep notes about where all this has come from. But from what I recall you did imply that our ancestors consciously formed large groups because they figured this would aid their survival and all that.
cyberman

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.


As usual you have utterly ignored the significant point, which is that the implication which you claim to have detected simply isn't there. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you are pretending I have implied.

I don't have the time to find your original post as I don't keep notes about where all this has come from. But from what I recall you did imply that our ancestors consciously formed large groups because they figured this would aid their survival and all that.


Well you recall wrong. I explicitly said (as anyone who understands natural selection knows) that you do not need to understand genetics for an advantageous trait to become widespread. That is exactly the opposite of what you think you maybe recall having a dream where I implied something.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum