Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (ID propaganda)

[Kimihiro_Watanuki]

GDs Bisexual Catboy

why is there such a ******** ruckus over creationism vs evolution? seriously, people can belive whatever they want, you douches have no right to limit that.

Since I write at about a 12th level this is a post I can actually respond to. Ni, I have no right to limit what anyone believes. There isa ruckus over this becasue there needs to be one, especially when people all over the world are being purposely dishonest and attempting to push things that are not factual as facts. A belief is not a fact, no matter how much someone wants it to be or claims it is.

GDs Bisexual Catboy

Also, a tidbit:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Creationists may not be able to prove it did happen, but evolutionists can not prove it did not.

Quote:

Pink unicorns are real. Now prove me wrong.

The problem with this argument is that things like Santa, pink unicorns, and God are all as valid and invalid as Creationsim, but people still take the latter two as absolute, irrefutable truths. I've actually had a Christian say to me that no mature person believes in Santa, so I'm wrong.

Again, believe in what you want to. When you start pushing beliefs as facts, that's when I get pissed off.

[Shokushu]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Yes, because humans act in manners that would be considered irrational by evolutionary standards, in many, many ways. Simply maths, chemistry, biology and physics do not prove in any way how humans work. Even individual humans are not exempt from this. The Prisoner's Dilemma, a mathematical problem in game theory, shows that humans do not follow the logically correct course of action. Our illogical actions are in many cases what make us human. Or perhaps one should say that human logic and other logic are different.

Our behaviour is enabled by our biology, not formed by it. It is instead shaped and formed through the very social nature that our biology enables. Of course, if this is what you said above, I am terribly sorry but I feel you overworded it.

No, the way we behave is simply not self obsessive. It's directly favorable to help your kin even outside of the context of society. In the context of simple society sense helping anyone who has a good chance of helping you back at a later time has a payoff in that you get help when you need it most. And then in a higher society sense helping people you'll never directly interact with again is even favorable as it in turn improves the quality of their contribution to society which eventually makes it back to helping you or your descendants.

We don't waste our energy on nothing because, aside from the very lucky, those who do that will waste it all and die young. If you die young you certainly didn't make any copies of your genes that could make people behave the same way and if you die young you probably didn't pass on your way of thinking and your ideas (memes) so there has to be selection against that.

The unlucky ultimately filter out of the statistical equation. In the here and now they're important but I'm not talking about them.
Now, if you'd like to ask me about a specific behavior we have relating to them I'd be happy to go over it.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Shokushu

To be fair any behavior that doesn't improve the fitness of your genes can only stick around by chance. Without selective pressure it does pretty much come down to flipping coins.

Most of our time isn't spent actively makin teh babies but our niche basically requires all this time spent growing to maturity and long breaks in between the mating acts so we fill it up with spending time giving ourselves security and acting raising the little rascals.

*I'd be happy to go into more depth about the effects of our various behaviors should anyone ask- or at least give a sketchy scenario where it kinds sorta makes sense (though I don't expect to have to resort to that much so long as people don't specifically try to stump me.)

Utter crap. This social Darwinism is disgusting.

Thank you pal, but I'll leave my University lecturers to go into social behaviours.

Assuming that the plight of an individual is entirely his own fault is disgusting, but that's not what I was talking about.

The things I'd said were rather broad, intending to be applied up to the level of any animal that takes care of it's young. The things I haven't said yet, well, pick some behavior of ours and see.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Except that the evolution of our species into what it is today isn't the argument. The argument is that human action is not driven by evolutionary urges completely. Some are, no dispute there, but most are not. Most human behaviours spring out of their SOCIAL environment, not their biological programming.

The behavior of learning how to behave is hard wired into us. You're trying to sharpen a blurry line here by estimating where it should be instead of looking at it more closely, and in this case it's not working so well.

Our genes don't say things like "Your IQ will be two hundred and sixteen." They say things more like "You're going to have an IQ between 82 and 190 depending on how favorable your environment is with the most likely range between 98 and 107."
The nurture aspect is what places us at the particular part of that range we end up in.

...let me guess, you think that crediting evolution for a portion of our behavior makes it so that our only purpose is to reproduce? Bah! You people and your obsession with that kind of hateful thinking-

[remembergoliad]

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

Evolution is also distributed as unquestionable science. Reminds me of people that said the sun revolved around the earth and that it was flat.

Has something ever come from nothing that we can observe? No.

What is the definition of science?

"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

OBSERVATIONS.

Have we ever SEEN evolution?

Have we ever SEEN the earth form out of nothing?

No.

Therefore, it CANNOT be 'sound science'.

Too many assumptions are made in evolution, such as carbon levels [something like that, I'm only 14] remaining the same all through history, to be a sound fact. At best, it is a fairy tale. "The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god."

[remembergoliad]

--Oh, and I forgot to mention. Wasn't 'Sicko' a so-called documentary about health care? [it's all propaganda unless you just present facts in an organized fashion without bias. which is practically impossible] The pot calls the kettle black, and the earth is dying..

[Katherine1]

remembergoliad

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

Evolution is also distributed as unquestionable science. Reminds me of people that said the sun revolved around the earth and that it was flat.

Has something ever come from nothing that we can observe? No.

What is the definition of science?

"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

OBSERVATIONS.

Have we ever SEEN evolution?

Have we ever SEEN the earth form out of nothing?

No.

Therefore, it CANNOT be 'sound science'.

Too many assumptions are made in evolution, such as carbon levels [something like that, I'm only 14] remaining the same all through history, to be a sound fact. At best, it is a fairy tale. "The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god."

Let's see how well I can tear this apart.

Science: "The study of the natural world through empirical tests and observations" I think mine is worded better, easier to read.

Has something ever come from nothing: No, but where has science ever claimed that to be the case?

Have we ever seen evolution: Well, let's check on the definition of evolution first.

Evolution: "The change in allele frequency over successive generations, eventually resulting in speciation."

Well, we have observed changes in allele frequency, and we have observed speciation, so I would say yes, we have seen evolution.

Have we ever seen the earth form out of nothing: No, but only Religion claims it did. Not to mention the formation of the Earth has nothing to do with Evolution.

So, apparently your arguments against Evolution not being sound science fail. Anything else you would like to try?


EDIT:

"The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god." - Where the hell did you hear this steaming pile of bullshit? This is complete and utter nonsense.

[Shokushu]

remembergoliad

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

Evolution is also distributed as unquestionable science. Reminds me of people that said the sun revolved around the earth and that it was flat.

Has something ever come from nothing that we can observe? No.

What is the definition of science?

"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

OBSERVATIONS.

Have we ever SEEN evolution?

Have we ever SEEN the earth form out of nothing?

No.

Therefore, it CANNOT be 'sound science'.

Too many assumptions are made in evolution, such as carbon levels [something like that, I'm only 14] remaining the same all through history, to be a sound fact. At best, it is a fairy tale. "The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god."

Observations don't mean "I used ma camcorder to take vijeo footage ov eet!"

Here, I'll give you an example you probably understand better: "We found blood and fingerprints at the crime scene that match up with Mr Brobiglia."
Did they have to watch him do whatever at the place to be able to scientifically say he was there doing some unusual activity since he bled all over? No. There are other accurate observations they could make to trace it back to him.

So have we watched things evolve? Well actually yes but you probably dismiss it as "too small" no matter how much we observe. We've got lots of less direct evidence for the big stuff you say can't happen (barking dog, blood covered glove, crime scene hairs...)

As for the formation of Earth. Well, if you think the other stars are anything like our sun then we've basically got a whole bunch of snapshots you can put together (like how some people make little flip books where you can just bend it and let the pages escape from your fingers one at a time to get an animated image,) to see a whole lot of what goes on in solar system formation and then you can use simple understanding of the way the universe works (the gravity of objects pulls them towards each other) and pretty soon you'd have to be a fool to say such and such isn't science.
Or at least you'd need some other motivation for saying that.

[Redem]

remembergoliad

Evolution is also distributed as unquestionable science. Reminds me of people that said the sun revolved around the earth and that it was flat.

It is? Prove it.

The latter two examples were of religious institutions and attitudes suppressing science, not some "scientific cabal".

remembergoliad

Has something ever come from nothing that we can observe? No.

Does anything in science claim that it does? No.

Your strawman bears no resemblance to the real science.

remembergoliad

What is the definition of science?

"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

OBSERVATIONS.

Have we ever SEEN evolution?

Have we ever SEEN the earth form out of nothing?

No.

Therefore, it CANNOT be 'sound science'.

We have seen evolution. And as already discussed the latter is not a claim made by science or scientists. The earth formed out of a proto-planetary disc.

Evolution can be directly observed in labs and the real world, and can be indirectly observed though the fossil record and via the myriad other forms of evidence of common ancestry.

remembergoliad

Too many assumptions are made in evolution, such as carbon levels [something like that, I'm only 14] remaining the same all through history, to be a sound fact. At best, it is a fairy tale.

The accuracy of carbon dating, or other forms of radiometric dating, is irrelevant as far as evolution's accuracy goes.
However, your understanding of the subject is pathetic for someone who deems themselves knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on it. There is no such assumption as "remained the same throughout history".

remembergoliad

"The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god."

Another strawman. Basically you are taking all of science, and declaring it to be wrong because... um... you say so.

lurn 2 science

[Katherine1]

remembergoliad

Katherine1

Please come up with a rebuttal for my counter argument. I would love to see how you hope to support your position.

remembergoliad

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

Evolution is also distributed as unquestionable science. Reminds me of people that said the sun revolved around the earth and that it was flat.

Has something ever come from nothing that we can observe? No.

What is the definition of science?

"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

OBSERVATIONS.

Have we ever SEEN evolution?

Have we ever SEEN the earth form out of nothing?

No.

Therefore, it CANNOT be 'sound science'.

Too many assumptions are made in evolution, such as carbon levels [something like that, I'm only 14] remaining the same all through history, to be a sound fact. At best, it is a fairy tale. "The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god."

Let's see how well I can tear this apart.

Science: "The study of the natural world through empirical tests and observations" I think mine is worded better, easier to read.

Has something ever come from nothing: No, but where has science ever claimed that to be the case?

Have we ever seen evolution: Well, let's check on the definition of evolution first.

Evolution: "The change in allele frequency over successive generations, eventually resulting in speciation."

Well, we have observed changes in allele frequency, and we have observed speciation, so I would say yes, we have seen evolution.

Have we ever seen the earth form out of nothing: No, but only Religion claims it did. Not to mention the formation of the Earth has nothing to do with Evolution.

So, apparently your arguments against Evolution not being sound science fail. Anything else you would like to try?


EDIT:

"The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god." - Where the hell did you hear this steaming pile of bullshit? This is complete and utter nonsense.

Otherwise, where did the earth come from? It was created or came from nothing. [generally, the big bang theory goes hand in hand with evolution]

"Let's see how well I can tear this apart." [Bitter much?]

"Has something ever come from nothing: No, but where has science ever claimed that to be the case?" [Science passes the Big Bang theory as fact, like evolution.]


"Evolution: "The change in allele frequency over successive generations, eventually resulting in speciation."

"Well, we have observed changes in allele frequency, and we have observed speciation, so I would say yes, we have seen evolution." [Did you observe the change in allele frequence and speciation separately?]

"Have we ever seen the earth form out of nothing: No, but only Religion claims it did. Not to mention the formation of the Earth has nothing to do with Evolution." [Religion claims the earth was CREATED from nothing. Design requires a designer.]

"So, apparently your arguments against Evolution not being sound science fail. Anything else you would like to try?" [Fail? XD It's still just a theory. Like the Big Bang theory, both are false.]

"The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god." [Evolution goes hand in hand with the Big Bang theory. Also, did you ever stop and think about how 'lucky' we are to have 'evolved' all these complex mechanisms? But wait- how could we survive if, millions of years ago, humans were just one-celled organisms? (of course, it all evolved in the right place at the right time- without sight, we would fall and die- without feeling, even worse- and without thinking?)]

Let's see:

First of all, Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution, it has everything to do with why the universe is expanding. It simply says that at one time the universe existed in one singular point, which then began to expand. Big Bang makes no claim that anything came from nothing, it makes no claim as to how long the singularity was there, nor how it came into existence. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.
Evidence and Testing In the Scientific Field

We observe changes in allele frequency over successive generations. Speciation is where the changes have built up to a point where the two separate groups of the species are no longer able to breed with each other. What is that group if it cannot breed with the rest of it's original species? It would be a new species.

Observed Instances of Speciation: [1][2]

A Scientific Theory is not the same as a Layman's theory. A Scientific Theory, like Evolution, The Big Bang, and Gravity, are well tested and based on an incredible amount of evidence. Theory is the highest title that something can achieve in Science.

Quote:

of course, it all evolved in the right place at the right time- without sight, we would fall and die- without feeling, even worse- and without thinking?

Natural Selection selects for traits that are advantageous at the time. It is not advantageous for a blind creature to develop bipedal movement, for example. It is, however, advantageous for a creature to be able to see, as such, just being able to tell whether it is light or dark out forms an advantage.

[Ying the Shadow Dragon]

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Hmm... Even trying to put ID past a religous class topic is like saying if you toss an apple behind you that it is little fairies that push and pull it to the ground not gravity.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

A Confused Iguana

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Our behaviour is enabled by our biology, not formed by it. It is instead shaped and formed through the very social nature that our biology enables. Of course, if this is what you said above, I am terribly sorry but I feel you overworded it.

You are dodging the question. I say that a form reductionism should be theoretically possible because to suggest otherwise is to posit a form of dualism. If human social interaction is not "emergent", arising from the interaction of multiple organisms interacting, then where does the "social" reside in the universe? You say that it human behaviour is not explained by evolutionary considerations, I am not saying that current biology explains behaviour, I'm saying that biology must eventually drive behaviour, only that multiple humans interacting makes the situation so complicated that we cannot use our understanding of biology at this point in time. The alternative is dualism and that is a metaphysical leap I am not prepared to make.

Again, to show the same problem within physics itself where emotional special pleading cannot be defended. Fundamental physics, the quantum field theories (QFTs) that are amazing successful in describing how subatomic particles interact, allow time reversal. If you look at thermodynamics then time reversal is forbidden, there is a distinct arrow of time, and the systems are so complicated that you must abandon the QFT approach and model thermodynamics systems according to how we observe them to operate. How do we resolve the allowing of time reversal in the fundamental theories with "higher" level physics forbidding it? This is known as Loschmidt's paradox. What we have is a situation where we can describe what happens in the case of a few subatomic particles scattering off each other very well, but if we consider these subatomic particles as a very very large ensemble then we must "forget" what we understand about the individual objects. You cannot appeal to a glib "humans are special" argument when a similar situation occurs within a field like physics with "mindless" particles and atoms the objects causing the difficulty. We must "forget" what we know about the fundamental but the "higher" interactions are still driven and caused by the fundamental interactions.

Stop dodging the mind-body problem. Either the human mind can be found in the physical universe and must necessarily be a thrall to chemical and physical interactions within the brain, or it is not in the physical and we must explain where it is and what that means. And if the mind can be found in the physical then what is so special about social interaction apart from it being a very complicated problem of multiple humans interacting? Sure, we have to consider an aggregate model of interaction for pragmatic reasons but it is still driven by the more primitive interactions.

You're making a different reductionist point to that of Dawkins. I answered the question by saying biology enables human behaviour, so in a way, yes, the fact we have our biology is what allows us to be human, but the way in which we behave is altered by our environment.

To be honest I think you've missed the point I was arguing in the first place, but there you are. I was making the point that humans are not driven by evolution and nothing more. You're trying to make the point that as biological machines we will be driven by biology and all its laws. Two different arguments, one I don't see the point in initiating.

Biology is the hardware. Social interaction codes our programs, and no human hardware is, with the exception of the disabled, unable to use certain programs. That was the argument I was making. Dawkins sayings that evolution is the only program humans can run. I was disagreeing.

If you want to make this other point, one I wasn't debating about and will not debate about because it essentially involves under the skin processes rather than SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, not how particles drive our bodies. Again, the argument is not that our bodies don't compell us to do certain things, but that our society modifies our biology (especially our brains) SO much that the idea of us acting "naturally" according to one, "proper" drive is idiotic.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Shokushu

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Yes, because humans act in manners that would be considered irrational by evolutionary standards, in many, many ways. Simply maths, chemistry, biology and physics do not prove in any way how humans work. Even individual humans are not exempt from this. The Prisoner's Dilemma, a mathematical problem in game theory, shows that humans do not follow the logically correct course of action. Our illogical actions are in many cases what make us human. Or perhaps one should say that human logic and other logic are different.

Our behaviour is enabled by our biology, not formed by it. It is instead shaped and formed through the very social nature that our biology enables. Of course, if this is what you said above, I am terribly sorry but I feel you overworded it.

No, the way we behave is simply not self obsessive. It's directly favorable to help your kin even outside of the context of society. In the context of simple society sense helping anyone who has a good chance of helping you back at a later time has a payoff in that you get help when you need it most. And then in a higher society sense helping people you'll never directly interact with again is even favorable as it in turn improves the quality of their contribution to society which eventually makes it back to helping you or your descendants.

We don't waste our energy on nothing because, aside from the very lucky, those who do that will waste it all and die young. If you die young you certainly didn't make any copies of your genes that could make people behave the same way and if you die young you probably didn't pass on your way of thinking and your ideas (memes) so there has to be selection against that.

The unlucky ultimately filter out of the statistical equation. In the here and now they're important but I'm not talking about them.
Now, if you'd like to ask me about a specific behavior we have relating to them I'd be happy to go over it.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Shokushu

To be fair any behavior that doesn't improve the fitness of your genes can only stick around by chance. Without selective pressure it does pretty much come down to flipping coins.

Most of our time isn't spent actively makin teh babies but our niche basically requires all this time spent growing to maturity and long breaks in between the mating acts so we fill it up with spending time giving ourselves security and acting raising the little rascals.

*I'd be happy to go into more depth about the effects of our various behaviors should anyone ask- or at least give a sketchy scenario where it kinds sorta makes sense (though I don't expect to have to resort to that much so long as people don't specifically try to stump me.)

Utter crap. This social Darwinism is disgusting.

Thank you pal, but I'll leave my University lecturers to go into social behaviours.

Assuming that the plight of an individual is entirely his own fault is disgusting, but that's not what I was talking about.

The things I'd said were rather broad, intending to be applied up to the level of any animal that takes care of it's young. The things I haven't said yet, well, pick some behavior of ours and see.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Except that the evolution of our species into what it is today isn't the argument. The argument is that human action is not driven by evolutionary urges completely. Some are, no dispute there, but most are not. Most human behaviours spring out of their SOCIAL environment, not their biological programming.

The behavior of learning how to behave is hard wired into us. You're trying to sharpen a blurry line here by estimating where it should be instead of looking at it more closely, and in this case it's not working so well.

Our genes don't say things like "Your IQ will be two hundred and sixteen." They say things more like "You're going to have an IQ between 82 and 190 depending on how favorable your environment is with the most likely range between 98 and 107."
The nurture aspect is what places us at the particular part of that range we end up in.

...let me guess, you think that crediting evolution for a portion of our behavior makes it so that our only purpose is to reproduce? Bah! You people and your obsession with that kind of hateful thinking-

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no proof that anyone helps someone they do not know to improve their own lot. In Evolutionary Psychology, the problem is that "non-reciprocal altruism" DOES exist in human interaction. Non-reciprocal altruism, in evolutionary terms, does not sense, and evolutionary psychology admits that it cannot use its theories to explain these instances.

And what about the people who want to die young, or whom don't want children? Those actions don't sound very evolutionarily minded, do they?

Oh, memes are bullshit. "Take a biological framework and slap it onto whatever the ******** you want" does not sit well in my books. Oh, and some people would argue that your IQ is solely a product of your genes.

"Hard wired"? Prove it. There's shockingly little in the way of proof for "hard wired" arguments, mate.

No, I think crediting evolution for ALL of our behaviour, not a portion, is a problem, because it reduces human behaviour to something that it is not. My problem was not explaining PART of human existence on evolutionary terms. It was explaining ALL of it. My problem with crediting evolution with human behaviour is it does not explain us properly and it leaves the question of social matters to be explained on a biological basis. Ergo, why are the troublemakers stupid? Genetics! Why are the blacks in our prisons so much? Genetics! Why do women earn less? Genetics! Let's just make sure those who are biologically stupid don't trouble us anymore.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumpdated.

Even the Creationists don't want it.

[Striga]

remembergoliad

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

Evolution is also distributed as unquestionable science. Reminds me of people that said the sun revolved around the earth and that it was flat.

Has something ever come from nothing that we can observe? No.

What is the definition of science?

"a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways"

OBSERVATIONS.

Have we ever SEEN evolution?

Yes.

Quote:

Have we ever SEEN the earth form out of nothing?

No.

Well, if you're talking about this specific planet, well, how would you propose to observe something that's already over and done with?

For that matter, what does the formation of the earth have to do with evolution, anyway? Evolution is a biological process, not an astrophysical one.

Quote:

Therefore, it CANNOT be 'sound science'.

Quote:

Too many assumptions are made in evolution, such as carbon levels [something like that, I'm only 14] remaining the same all through history, to be a sound fact.

Carbon dating helps, but it's not necessary. We've observed speciation in real time.

Quote:

At best, it is a fairy tale. "The earth just exploded out of this giant rotating mass and all the things we have now formed into what they are, and the Sun is exactly the correct distance away, and the moon, etc. because Evolution is our god."

Wow. You don't have a ******** clue what evolution actually says, do you? Evolution doesn't say a damn thing about the formation of the universe, or stellar bodies, or the earth, or even the creation of life.
All evolution talks about is what happens to life that already exists. That is all. Nothing else.

[Shokushu]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

You're making a different reductionist point to that of Dawkins. I answered the question by saying biology enables human behaviour, so in a way, yes, the fact we have our biology is what allows us to be human, but the way in which we behave is altered by our environment.

To be honest I think you've missed the point I was arguing in the first place, but there you are. I was making the point that humans are not driven by evolution and nothing more. You're trying to make the point that as biological machines we will be driven by biology and all its laws. Two different arguments, one I don't see the point in initiating.

Biology is the hardware. Social interaction codes our programs, and no human hardware is, with the exception of the disabled, unable to use certain programs. That was the argument I was making. Dawkins sayings that evolution is the only program humans can run. I was disagreeing.

If you want to make this other point, one I wasn't debating about and will not debate about because it essentially involves under the skin processes rather than SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, not how particles drive our bodies. Again, the argument is not that our bodies don't compell us to do certain things, but that our society modifies our biology (especially our brains) SO much that the idea of us acting "naturally" according to one, "proper" drive is idiotic.

Ya, I was elaborating there.

-

I'm explaining the emergence of these traits. If you have two people, one who does the things you're 'defending' as biology unrelated and one who does not...
well, if doing those has any kind of expense and does nothing for the person then they're not going to be as successful as the other guy.
Sorry but Biology trumps everything else because if you don't have babies you walked your heritable traits into a dead end.

-

I don't even understand what you're going on about with evolution being a program- maybe a list of some alternative programs would clarify this?

-

Hrm, I think I've got a way to use your words here- our biology has preloaded us with a program for modifying our own responses to our drives which makes any learned reaction to a drive teh "naturally planned" behavior.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no proof that anyone helps someone they do not know to improve their own lot. In Evolutionary Psychology, the problem is that "non-reciprocal altruism" DOES exist in human interaction. Non-reciprocal altruism, in evolutionary terms, does not sense, and evolutionary psychology admits that it cannot use its theories to explain these instances.

And what about the people who want to die young, or whom don't want children? Those actions don't sound very evolutionarily minded, do they?

Oh, memes are bullshit. "Take a biological framework and slap it onto whatever the ******** you want" does not sit well in my books. Oh, and some people would argue that your IQ is solely a product of your genes.

"Hard wired"? Prove it. There's shockingly little in the way of proof for "hard wired" arguments, mate.

No, I think crediting evolution for ALL of our behaviour, not a portion, is a problem, because it reduces human behaviour to something that it is not. My problem was not explaining PART of human existence on evolutionary terms. It was explaining ALL of it. My problem with crediting evolution with human behaviour is it does not explain us properly and it leaves the question of social matters to be explained on a biological basis. Ergo, why are the troublemakers stupid? Genetics! Why are the blacks in our prisons so much? Genetics! Why do women earn less? Genetics! Let's just make sure those who are biologically stupid don't trouble us anymore.

Motivation is irrelevant, statistical benefit is all that is required.

But the "intention" you're talking about in the cases of nonreciprocal altruism could still be that of impressing others. That we aren't specific enough about it to withdraw the behavior when not in a situation that is likely to have a payoff would just be a case of maladaption.
Such a thing could stick around because it does statistically benefit us, even if the "intention" was not such a long term investment.

-

Dieing young isn't typically an intentional action and choosing to not have children makes sense in the kinds of smaller communities man once lived it. Controlling your population size is rather important when you're nearing the carrying capacity of your environment and this could be another maladaption as our current environment would be sending many of the kinds of signals we might be receptive to.
And if they improve the fitness of their close relatives they will have still have done quite a bit to promote their genes in the next generation. Obviously they lose out on whatever particular mutations they got that generation but that's not statistically important, and most of them were probably not in active coding regions anyway so they couldn't have had an effect on the individual's fitness this generation anyway.

-

Regardless of what you think about memes I should still be able to use the word to refer to the nurture aspect of our behavior in contrast to the genetic nature aspect.
If you die without doing something to pass your traits to someone else does it make sense that people would be very much like you after you're gone?
No, zero or even less than average contribution of genes and ideas is going decrease the frequency of those genes and ideas in the next generation. If those genes or ideas themselves were the cause of that lesser contribution doesn't it make sense that over time they would be phased out except whenever a mutation or some eureka moment comes along to create an unrelated copy? Well, mutations and forming new ideas are pretty common but but particular mutations and are not so common so if they're working against their own ability to be passed on how could they possibly stick around?

-

You're using hard wired in a different context. you're talking about specific behaviors while I am, again, talking about broad capabilities.
...if we are not born with the ability to learn how to behave then how could we possibly pick up the behavior? Well maybe we could learn i- oh dang, just now you were complaining about how I said that we start off with the ability to do that in the first place.

-

The disagreement here is taking place on different scales. You are looking at things on the level of particular behaviors and trying to sort them into two piles while I am working at the smaller level of particular behaviors and trying to quantify how much of them is due to our biology and how much is due to our environment. Biology plays some role in all of them at some level and it would be rather nonsensical to argue against that in a very broad way but luckily I don't think that's what you're trying to do here.