nice an appearance as possible. Elephants, dolphins, lots of other animals (birds too) mourn their dead but only the primates do this grooming of the dead, AFAIK.

p.s. If you've read Jane Goodall's work, you know about the darker side of our closest relatives. That fits in too.

But i have heard stories of elephants covering the bodies of other dead animals with leaves so that the scavengers don't get them.

The elephant is too noble a symbol for the Republican party

They should be represented by Hyenas!

As to the chimp dancing in front of the waterfall, Nicolas Wade in The Faith Instinct claims that the evidence is that human religion originated in group dance. Group dance is also a powerful community builder.

There is more to religion than we currently understand.

builder.

I have had some fascinating experiences watching dance in various cultures and it does seem to have spiritual underpinnings in almost all cases.

So yes, primates practice religion.
Gawd.

So, I've got to assume the source of this title must think humans were divinely touched to be special. Hrmmm. Now based on that premise, I wonder at what conclusion they will work to regarding the subject matter at hand.

His message as I hear it:

We're not created by Gods! We're animals! We are animals who's form is dictated by genes, and who's behaviour is partially dictated by memes, or ideas which are passed along and evolve like genes! The best and most prolific genes and memes are what we see around us all the time! So stop believing in this meme that's incredibly prolific called religion!

The inconvenient question reasonable biologists must ask is, what if the idea that our reason is the pinnacle of evolution is wrong? Does nature care if atheists are right about the lack of existence of God? E. g. how many children does Dawkins have, vs. the average Catholic family who refrain from using birth control? Of course the catholic way would lead to overpopulation and poverty ultimately, but when the hard times hit, which genes/memes have the odds stacked in their favour? What if scientific rational people are one of "nature's little experiments" which, like the Dodo bird, will fail?

And people who were born Catholic and are now practicing atheists appear to be legion online at least.

Indeed, the great majority of American atheists were raised in theist families.

By which I mean the creatures/ideas which are optimally adapted for a given environment at a given time.

Indeed, the great majority of American atheists were raised in theist families.

Indeed though, the great majority of Americans were raised in theist families in general. The question is, is there a propagating idea there which modifies behaviour in ways which lead to to people who propagate the idea to keep propagating it? Religions appear to have that.

The point is, the human mind is limited. If religion was a behavioural modification system which evolved over time, it may offer advantages - even without being true - that aren't readily apparent, but nevertheless are well adapted to the environment and times.

In evolutionary terms we are best fitted to something like a late hunter gatherer stage, even agriculture is something that we aren't really evolved all that well to handle and what we are pleased to call modern civilization has been here for but an eyeblink in the scale of human evolution.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the great majority of Americans were raised in atheist families.

True what you say, genetically. But I believe the great evolutionary accomplishment that lead us into this world with billions was that homo sapiens became involved in a new form of evolution, in which ideas where transmitted by language, and these evolve on their own. So in terms of the evolution of ideas, its still a very active process, and we're all changing - evolving our minds - all the time. I'm just saying there's no promise of what idea structures may in the end end up successful, they may be religious ones...

Now they are becoming a significant fraction of the world's population, as you say memes propagate. If we are wired for religion then atheism is the new meme and so far it's spreading.

There are entire nations where atheism is the majority orientation and they seem like some of the more successful ones at least in terms of things like human rights and freedom from want and internecine strife if that happens to be something you care about.

To an extent I see losing religion as giving us one less divisive thing to fight over, trading blows or even words over whose invisible sky daddy can whip all the other's asses seems a remarkably unproductive way to spend our energies.

Stoicism and Epicureanism, especially the latter, were atheistic philosophies from the classical era.

One, two, several, many, my counting system.

And I was just pointing out that atheist societies appear to be viable in the modern world as it exists today.

We are powerful enough at this juncture that we will either select rationality, die or send our descendants back to the stone age.

Childhood is not compatible with nuclear weapons.

"In evolutionary terms we are best fitted to something like a late hunter gatherer stage, even agriculture is something that we aren't really evolved all that well to handle . . ."

Except of course, we are no longer predominantly hunter-gatherers, we do rely on agriculture, and we have so rapidly expanded our capacity as universal constructors (unbound to environmental parochialism) that we can actually survive in the vacuum of space. So is it your point that these developments are unrelated to evolution? That for some unknown reason humans stopped evolving at the Paleolithic stage?

In evolutionary terms, we are "best fitted" to what we actually are at any given stage, until we evolve a different "fit."

If we had biologically evolved to survive in the vacuum of space then we would need no technological support to exist in that vacuum.

Even the gene for lactose tolerance in adult humans is only about six thousand years old and by no means is it widely spread, a simply astounding number of people have problems digesting our modern agriculture based diet heavy with starches and gluten, I think the scope of this problem is only now becoming evident.

In the social sphere there is the problem of shyness, generally shy people aren't shy with those they know well, shyness is a problem that wouldn't even show up in the small hunter-gatherer bands we are evolved to live in, it's a problem of larger communities brought about by the invention of agriculture and later civilization. In the type of society we have now being shy is a huge disadvantage to social and reproductive success where in a hunter-gatherer culture it wouldn't even be an issue since there would be no strangers to be shy with. If we were truly mentally evolved to fit in civilized society then shyness would be far less prevalent than it is in the human race.

Just because we can force ourselves to fit in civilization by no means implies we have biologically evolved for that role.

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 05:47 AM - Edit history (2)

You say -- "If we had biologically evolved to survive in the vacuum of space then we would need no technological support to exist in that vacuum." So your suggestion is that we did not biologically evolve to develop the technological support to exist in the vacuum of space? The alternative seems to be that we were specially created to develop the technological support to exist in the vacuum of space, but I don't think that's where you are headed. By your reasoning, we also aren't biologically evolved to survive in the arctic. Or England. But we do. How did that happen?

You also say -- "A simply astounding number of people have problems digesting our modern agriculture based diet heavy with starches and gluten . . ." An equally astounding number are adapted to such consumption. And in only, by your calculation, six thousand years. Funny how evolution sometimes fails to abide by the mandated timetable.

And what is this about shyness? First you say -- "Shyness is a problem that wouldn't even show up in the small hunter-gatherer bands we are evolved to live in . . ." How do you know this? Sounds decidedly "just so."

Then you say -- "In the type of society we have now being shy is a huge disadvantage to social and reproductive success . . ." Except that there are now a few more than 7 billion of us. Is that just a statistical anomaly? Or is it evidence of rather remarkable reproductive success, "shyness" notwithstanding?

And then you add -- "Where in a hunter-gatherer culture it wouldn't even be an issue since there would be no strangers to be shy with." Except that tribe you just stumbled on. Hunting the same savannah. "Just so."

And finally, you say -- "Just because we can force ourselves to fit in civilization by no means implies we have biologically evolved for that role." Indeed, we should all be living in Eden, with no pesky neighbors. But we're not. We have, in fact, developed civilizations, and adapted to them sufficiently to rather overwhelm our planet with reproductive and consumptive success. If we're not biologically evolved to do so, then we're making a pretty good show of pretending to be.

This discussion is therefore pointless.

I believe I've already told you my understanding of biological evolution. With your definition in hand, perhaps we can communicate.

that the Catholic Church was the single most prolific atheist creation engine on the planet.

It has several, enhancement of reproduction, consumption, and survivability among them.

So it can't really have purpose.

If you are going to suggest that evolution as an abstract force has effects, then one of those effects is consciousness. And conscious creatures in turn effect the evolutionary process in purposeful ways.

Perhaps success with reproductive and consumptive strategies are mere "effects," as you say, but they are mixed in with a dreadfully good imitation of purposeful trial and error from human to bacteria.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful, it's an inordinately small number of such that contribute to the fitness of a given genome to pass on its genetic code to the next generation.

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

In its broadest terms, evolution is simply change over time, represented biologically by descent with modification. Random mutation (and its miscreant cousin, genetic drift) is only one aspect of that modification process. Environmental pressures (which are complicated by environmental manipulations by existing organisms) with their consequent fitness sifting cannot be simply shunted aside. Nor can the effects of deliberate intra-species selection by reproductive and consumptive strategy. Nor, when humans are factored into the overall evolutionary equation, can the effect of deliberate genetic manipulation. What you end up with along that messy assembly line is a product that is the result of your randomness and molecular effect, and (as I said earlier) a pretty good imitation of purposeful action.

may have the ability to act with purpose does not in any sense imply that the evolutionary forces that brought them about had purpose. Do you grasp the difference, or are you determined again to inject irrelevant complications into the argument?

that evolution (as opposed to the products of evolution) can or does act with purpose and deliberate intent, with an outcome in mind. There is a difference, and you seem to be the only one here who doesn't grasp that.

Consciousness did not evolve. It was specially created. And hence, subsequent conscious actions play no role in selection, in humans or any other species. Beavers do not build dams, termites do not build mounds, and humans do not strip mine. Neither do cats abandon runts or rats kill deformed offspring. No conscious act by any creature effects reproductive propensities or effects environmental selective pressures on its own species or any other species. I will amend my thinking, and so inform my correspondents.

The evolutionary forces that brought about conscious action did not end when conscious action was brought about. They were modified, and indeed enhanced, by that development.

Discuss.

have purpose. Obviously, artificial genetic modification BY humans has purpose, but natural selection did not have the purpose of creating something that could act deliberately. Prove otherwise.

"Natural selection did not have the purpose of creating something that could act deliberately." Ok. But purpose or not, it did. And now those darn things are acting deliberately. And just plain screwing up the natural selection process. Unless, of course, their deliberate actions are actually part and parcel of the natural selection process. (By the by, if they're not, maybe we all should be re-visiting our Biblical lessons.)

And none of which is what you claimed originally, now is it?

"Evolution indeed has a purpose" (in case you'd forgotten)

but not a "purpose". "Purpose" implies deliberate action, which does not apply to biological evolution.

for why they're horse puckey.

It says nothing at all about the content of my posts. Please expound a bit further.

I have heard the case made for the evolutionary advantages that theism might confer - community, shared purpose, higher goals.

Religious rules: Be a team player, don't screw your team mates, don't do things which produce strife, be fruitful and multiply, etc. The idea of evolution as it applies to cultural ideas (memes) suggest that if these ideas were destructive, they would not have been passed on. But since they are prolific, they must offer some advantage for the propagators of the ideas.

"our reason is the pinnacle of evolution," I will personally ask them that inconvenient question.

Otherwise it seems you are beating mercilessly on a straw man.

If its my wording, than mea culpa: I should have said "scientific reason/athiesm are optimally adapted to our current environment" which is to say "science/reason/atheism will propagate" which is to say "those who embrace these ideas will (in most cases) do well."

If its the spirit I stand by it.

Though it may seem a paradox, there is no promise that an understanding of evolution, atheism, or any of that make for a culture which is better adapted long term to survival. Specifically atheism, or the idea that there are no religious deities, is a concept which has been available to humans since the beginning, yet religious ideas have, for whatever reason, propagated to most corners of the earth. Its incredibly uncomfortable to admit, but the truth may be that knowing the truth damages people in some cases.

An example can be seen where a partial truth is worse than a total distortion: Think of a game, the board can be represented by 100 bits. Its perceived by a robotic player, which has a 100 bit sensory device, which reduces it down in some ordered way to a 10 bit conception of the game. So the robot views a 100 bit universe with a 10 bit mind. Now if we demand the robot have a truthful conception of some of the game, it must always be aware of only 10% of the board. However if we allow the robot to believe in a distortion of reality, coupled with an evolutionary function to sort out what works, the robot can evolve 2^10 different strategies, which correspond to 2^10 groupings of game states (perceptions of the game) for all of the 2^100 possible game states on the board. Whereas the first robot, which sees a small truthful part of the board, can't even identify the 2^100 game states, because it only sees 10% of the board at any given time. It loses because its obsessed with truth, while the other robot is happy to hold in its 10 bit mind a delusion, which through evolutionary process, has been shown to be optimal.

A REAL possibility exists that knowing the truth can be bad for you. I'm not saying this because I think its cool, but because it tortures me. Refute me, please, refute me!

I'm wondering why you are making up a claim that I've never heard anyone put forward, and then proceeding to bash whole groups of people because of that.

(since you say you are 'frustrated' with him):

For instance:

I enjoy Dawkins generally, I think he's brilliant, that's why I obsess on him. The Selfish Gene is one of the greatest turn on's to biology I've ever read, I recommend it for any one. I couldn't get in to The Extended Phenotype as much, (too specific) and I felt Climbing Mount Improbable was pounding in arguments that he made more gracefully in The Selfish Gene IMHO about why evolution is valid.

What I'm talking about is the very, very hard point where a descriptive science like biology starts to describe humans, and identify optimal states of being, and how that gets entangled with ethics. What do we do if biology shows us that humans who don't know biology fare better biologically? (silly example, but gets the point across) To me that's such a fascinating question, its REALLY central to the information age. What information is good for us to know? How can it be derived through evolutionary processes or the rest? What do we do if the information that's good for us to know isn't literally true?

Some information can be dangerous for an individual - it can make them a target, for instance. When you're down at the level of ethics, you're looking at information held by, and decisions made by, individuals. And it's not 'derived through evolutionary processes'. It's not inherited; it can be modified at any time. It can expand; sometimes knowledge, or information, contradicts previously held beliefs, sometimes it doesn't. It can be forgotten. It can be recorded outside the human.

It seems to me you're looking for a problem that you don't need to worry about.

Richard Dawkins dubbed them "memes" and advanced the idea that they are similar in function to genes. That means they are derived through evolutionary process. For instance, how to get red wine out of carpet? Many memes for how to do this are on the internet, involving salt, other things. The answer, the one that worked for me, is dawn dish soap and hydrogen peroxide. (I know from experience) so this meme advances, because its an idea that works. In time the others will die off.

Humans emulate behaviors they see others doing that are successful. In such circumstances, the behavior itself can be viewed as a propagating gene. Natural selection happens with ideas, and the reasons for propagation of an idea can be simple, as with the red wine removal, or they can be complex, dealing with emergent phenomenon as with religions.

Information and ideas aren't purely associated with individuals - they can be written down, for instance. They may compete with each other in a sense, but they are not dependent on the survival of individuals to stay in existence. So they're not biology, not something that we can say "this meme has existed for a long time, therefore it much be good for the survival of the species", and should be studied (for what that's worth - I think the term is a useful metaphor, but I haven't seen a good argument for serious study of memes) in the arena of sociology. Their 'environment' is different societies and cultures.

Genes are pure information, they can be encoded on a computer, patented, etc. Just like ideas.

but they are not dependent on the survival of individuals to stay in existence.

i can see the evolution from ancient man to today but from our primate ancestors? it`s a very interesting subject that makes me actually have to read the book. hope the library has it.

but can't find it available.

It is on kindle.

But more interesting, to me anyway, suppose bonobos believe in a bonobo creator myth? What does that say about anthropomorphic creator myths? Of course we have no way to communicate at a sophisticated enough level to know what if anything bonobos believe. But if religion is baked into our genes that seems to not be a strong argument for the validity of relgious experiences, but instead quite the opposite.

Religion is an evolved social meme useful for building cohesive social units.

If the answer to why is there religion is because it served or serves a useful evolutionary function, that answer does not require that any of the many religions have any validity at all outside of their evolutionary function. To refer to another discussion here, the multitude of mutually exclusive and internally incoherent and contradictory religious belief systems fits quite well with the "evolutionarily useful meme" explanation, and does not require that the mythology these religions espouse have any external truth value at all.

Notice the lack of discussion from your questioner on your civil, non-personal response.

or enhanced group cohesion, like rape, multiple mates, racism/xenophobia, genocide, etc. We see this kind of behavior throughout human history - but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says that because it's so common, and may have contributed to our development as a species, that we should find it useful or something to be promoted/celebrated today.

We have to use our position now to apply reason and observation to these behaviors and determine which of them truly provide an overall benefit to us today, and which we might better off leaving behind.

I don't think it's fair, as many seem all too willing, to declare religion off-limits to this kind of analysis and discussion.

certain senior bishops in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches ARE called primates (e.g. the 'Primate of All Ireland').

I know that's not what the question meant, but couldn't resist.

whose first book was tentatively titled The Sex Lives of Primates. He was persuaded to change it because in Britain, "primate" refers to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

There is nothing republicans worship more than the free market and Jesus after all.