Cult Evolution

[S.A.M.]

"depict"? No. Are a result of.

Sorry I meant to say:

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict religion

 

[S.A.M.]

I think this is rather taboo.

Last but not least because the correlations between changes of the body and changes of thinking are difficult to prove.

However, common sense tells us that biological evolution and social evolution are parallel.

So aborigines and tribals are biologically unevolved?

 

[superluminal]

Sorry I meant to say:

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict religion

Ahh...

Could you repost the corrected hypothesis (is it yours or does it accurately represent Q's?) for me?

 

[S.A.M.]

FU. Go away.

I don't think that is considered adequate defense of a hypothesis. :shrug:

 

[superluminal]

So aborigines and tribals are biologically unevolved?

Unevolved?

Hmmm...

Evolution does not have goals or benchmarks of superiority. Aborigines and tribals are apparently nicely suited to their environments and are therefore as "evolved" as any other successful species or subgroup.

Sheesh.

 

[superluminal]

FU. Go away.

I feel your pain.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ahh...

Could you repost the corrected hypothesis (is it yours or does it accurately represent Q's?) for me?

Anything you say hunny

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict development of religion

Assumption: beak of finches = brain of man

Peter and Rosemary Grant were able to observe evolutionary changes over a short period of time, some twenty years, only.

If rationale and reason are functions of the brain to conceptualize ideas that aide in the pursuit of guiding ones actions, can we assume an environmental effect might alter ones reasoning abilities over long or even short periods of time?

Inference: development of beak of finches = development of religion

The brain is no different from the beak of a finch in that it is biological, hence also impacted from environmental effects and governed by evolutionary change.

If our ability to reason were continuously forced to accept the improbable and the irrational as fact, could we classify this as an environmental effect that might alter the brains ability to reason?

Conclusion: evolution = indoctrination

If such changes were observed over a relatively short period of time from changes in the environment, for example; the levels of food availability - can we also assume other effects will also cause biological changes?

If generation after generation were forced to accept the improbable and irrational as fact, would we simply accept as fact the improbable and irrational in every aspect of our lives, guiding our rationale to accept anything the improbable and irrational might suggest?

 

[greenberg]

So aborigines and tribals are biologically unevolved?

... It's because of questions like this that seeking parallels between biological evolution and social evolution is tabooed.

For many people, the issue is way too loaded and way too challenging to view it in a reasonable manner.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unevolved?

Hmmm...

Evolution does not have goals or benchmarks of superiority. Aborigines and tribals are apparently nicely suited to their environments and are therefore as "evolved" as any other successful species or subgroup.

Sheesh.

What environments? Australia? USA?

 

[S.A.M.]

... It's because of questions like this that seeking parallels between biological evolution and social evolution is tabooed.

For many people, the issue is way too loaded and way too challenging to view it in a reasonable manner.

Ah so you do believe aborigines are unevolved? But its not pc to say so?

 

[(Q)]

Anything you say hunny

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict development of religion

Assumption: beak of finches = brain of man


Inference: development of beak of finches = development of religion

Conclusion: evolution = indoctrination

Clearly, the above nonsense demonstrates the lack of synthesis that results from cult thinking. Through centuries of cult evolution, the indoctrinated theist is unable to comprehend simple concepts that might contradict their worldviews, hence they attempt to misconstrue through deception, not of their own doing, but as a result of cult thinking. They further embarrass themselves not by making a conscious effort to misunderstand scientific concepts, but instead allowing their cult thinking processes to undermine their ability to accept those concepts.

 

[S.A.M.]

Clearly, the above nonsense demonstrates the lack of synthesis that results from cult thinking. Through centuries of cult evolution, the indoctrinated theist is unable to comprehend simple concepts that might contradict their worldviews, hence they attempt to misconstrue through deception, not of their own doing, but as a result of cult thinking. They further embarrass themselves not by making a conscious effort to misunderstand scientific concepts, but instead allowing their cult thinking processes to undermine their ability to accept those concepts.

Do you have some peer reviewed references to the above claims?

Or do we just have to bow to your superior intellect as infallible and not requiring of any empirical observations or scientific method to support them?

 

[greenberg]

Ah so you do believe aborigines are unevolved? But its not pc to say so?

I didn't say either.

Are you merely trying to egg me on; or do you assume that I believe there is an "ideal evolved human"? Or do you believe there is an "ideal evolved human"?

 

[greenberg]

If our ability to reason were continuously forced to accept the improbable and the irrational as fact, could we classify this as an environmental effect that might alter the brains ability to reason?

Yes, it is called "culture".

And, is this type of culture one that would benefit it's participants?

In some ways, it certainly does. It ensures survival.
Whether such survival makes for a "life worth living" is another matter.

I suspect such would be the case if humans had "intrinsic nature" and this nature would be "good".

I don't think this is the case.

Ah, but it is the case, this is exactly how morals and ethics evolve in mankind.

That such is the case is just one interpretation. One that can make us feel good about ourselves.
Another interpretation is that morals and ethics evolved simply because it was feasible.

 

[(Q)]

Do you have some peer reviewed references to the above claims?

Or do we just have to bow to your superior intellect as infallible and not requiring of any empirical observations or scientific method to support them?

The indoctrinated theist, who clearly hasn't a leg to stand when it comes to offering evidence for their ridiculous claims, will hypocritically demand evidence when their cult thinking is questioned or when explanations as to why they think the way they do are offered.

They don't purposely try to insult our intelligence by doing so, they simply cannot help themselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

I didn't say either.

Are you merely trying to egg me on; or do you assume that I believe there is an "ideal evolved human"? Or do you believe there is an "ideal evolved human"?

You implied that the association is a taboo discussion.

Does that mean you believe that there is evidence of such a parallel?

 

[superluminal]

The indoctrinated theist, who clearly hasn't a leg to stand when it comes to offering evidence for their ridiculous claims, will hypocritically demand evidence when their cult thinking is questioned or when explanations as to why they think the way they do are offered.

They don't purposely try to insult our intelligence by doing so, they simply cannot help themselves.

Well put.

 

[superluminal]

What environments? Australia? USA?

Umm... Australia?

 

[S.A.M.]

Well put.

Ah, so you agree with the OP's hypothesis, not because it reflects your beliefs but because the assumptions, inferences and conclusions are supported by impeccable research.

 

[greenberg]

You implied that the association is a taboo discussion.

Yes. Because it involves taking into consideration a large range of factors, interacting in a complex manner - correlations between the biological and the social become difficult to prove then and there is the danger of reductionism.

Does that mean you believe that there is evidence of such a parallel?

Like I said: common sense says there is. But common sense doesn't operate in strictly scientific terms. However, people usually act on common sense.
Just take your example of Aborigins.