Religion

LTX

(1,020 posts)

35. As I said, I think you are boxing up evolution too tightly.

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:28 PM

Jun 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do primates practice religion? [View all] cbayer Jun 2013 OP

The primates certainly mourn their dead, and provide them as dimbear Jun 2013 #1

Also recommend Chimpanzee Politics. cbayer Jun 2013 #3

This is hearsay LostOne4Ever Jun 2013 #57

If they do, the implication is that religion is a part of our nature. Jim__ Jun 2013 #2

Interesting about group dance and agree about it being a powerful community cbayer Jun 2013 #4

People are primates Android3.14 Jun 2013 #5

OK, the title may miss the point, but the book and the review are not about humans. cbayer Jun 2013 #6

Religious people don't want to acknowledge that inconvenient fact NoOneMan Jun 2013 #65

That's what always frustrated me with Dawkins. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #7

Evolution does not have a purpose so there can be no "pinnacle of evolution" Fumesucker Jun 2013 #9

"Pinnacle of evolution" napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #15

We are not remotely evolved to fit a civilization of billions Fumesucker Jun 2013 #17

typo. Should have read "theist families". napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #18

Atheists basically didn't exist a few thousand years ago Fumesucker Jun 2013 #19

Well sure they did. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #20

I was thinking more three to four thousand years BP Fumesucker Jun 2013 #24

It doesn't matter what I care about. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #21

Nature doesn't care about anything, that's anthropomorphism Fumesucker Jun 2013 #22

You say -- LTX Jun 2013 #29

Biological evolution in humans is quite slow due to our long generations Fumesucker Jun 2013 #38

I'm not following. LTX Jun 2013 #48

Evidently we don't share a common definition of the term "biological evolution" Fumesucker Jun 2013 #49

We evidently don't. Perhaps you can tell me your definition. LTX Jun 2013 #51

Indeed, one former Catholic once told me... trotsky Jun 2013 #25

Evolution indeed has a purpose. LTX Jun 2013 #26

Purpose implies intelligence, evolution certainly has effects but it is not intelligent Fumesucker Jun 2013 #28

I think you have boxed up evolution a little too tightly. LTX Jun 2013 #32

Purposeful trial and error has a lot higher success rate than does evolution Fumesucker Jun 2013 #34

As I said, I think you are boxing up evolution too tightly. LTX Jun 2013 #35

The fact that the products of natural biological evolution skepticscott Jun 2013 #41

Again, please see my posts 32 and 35. n/t LTX Jun 2013 #43

You still have failed utterly to show skepticscott Jun 2013 #47

Ok. You win. LTX Jun 2013 #50

Ok. I'll add -- LTX Jun 2013 #45

Which still doesn't mean that forces driving natural biological evolution skepticscott Jun 2013 #46

You say -- LTX Jun 2013 #52

None of which is in dispute skepticscott Jun 2013 #53

Evolution has outcomes and results, even trends skepticscott Jun 2013 #39

Please see my posts 32 and 35. n/t LTX Jun 2013 #40

Saw them. See my post 41 skepticscott Jun 2013 #42

Your post 41 is purely conclusory. LTX Jun 2013 #44

Fascinating take on this. It's an argument I haven't previously heard. cbayer Jun 2013 #11

Its all the same argument really. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #16

If you can identify a biologist who has actually claimed that... trotsky Jun 2013 #27

Are you attacking the spirit of what I'm saying, or my wording? napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #54

I'm doing neither. trotsky Jun 2013 #55

Have you ever looked to see what Dawkins himself says? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #56

Yeah, I've read his books. I enjoy that clip. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #59

I don't think you can identify an 'optimal state of information' for a species muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #60

What I'm refering to is units of cultural information acting as genes. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #62

But memes aren't part of biology muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #63

Genes are information. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #64

very interesting.... madrchsod Jun 2013 #8

Hope you are able to find it. I am on a road trip and would like to find it on audio. cbayer Jun 2013 #13

Thinking about religion rationally, and religiousity being innate are not mutually exclusive. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #10

How does it make it less valid? cbayer Jun 2013 #12

Rather than being revealed truth from prophets and magical beings Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #14

+1 \n Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #23

+2 cleanhippie Jun 2013 #33

Well put. And we can look at many things that clearly conferred an evolutionary advantage... trotsky Jun 2013 #36

+3 /n Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #61

Well... LeftishBrit Jun 2013 #30

Lol That's a good one. cbayer Jun 2013 #31

There's a prominent Brit biologist--Sir Solly Zuckerman, I think-- okasha Jun 2013 #37

Of course they do LostOne4Ever Jun 2013 #58