I'd be like... Wow, that's a bit of stretch isn't it? It's much more probable and simpler that natural selection chose traits favorable to reproduction. Not only that but there is insurmountable evidence that this is almost certainly the case. Just do a bit of research man, seriously.
Need help refuting this argument against evolutionary biology.
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
That's not quite what he meant.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
How is an irrational belief system favorable to reproduction?
Furthermore, in the eleven thousand years since the invention of the technology of agriculture, which is a significant period of time on the scale of evolution (the bald eagle is not much older than that), our species has been steadily transcending its pack-social instinct and becoming herd-social, which is a survival trait for civilization, our "herd." Since religion directly thwarts the survival of the herd by breaking us into Stone Age packs who fight each other, why is the religion instinct still so overwhelmingly common?
Being favorable to reproduction isn't enough, if the trait is not also favorable to survival.
Why? In the early Neolithic Era it was probably helpful. Discovering that a rival tribe had the same belief system probably made it easier to merge with them and create a large enough community to build a successful farming village. But as civilizations grew and encountered each other, the differences in their belief systems became an impediment to tolerance and cooperation, and ultimately caused wars, which decreased the survival rate on both sides.
Ah - but is it not helpful now, or at least into the common era? Just because you have the odd loonie who blows things up, doesn't mean that it wasn't 'helpful' from the perspective of either increasing community cohesion or even population density. I'd never put that kind of adjective on it, because everything coming out of it is relative to anything else.
Very likely. Or else eradicate those without such unifying beliefs or force them into your own meme group, which clearly happened a lot. Either way, your specific community expands.
A very good point. Now mind you, so long as your meme is increasing faster than theirs, it's all good from the 'evolutionary' standpoint (plus, you might eventually get rid of a competitor altogether). So long as the opposite selection pressure is reasonably low, you can still expand, even.
We haven't changed much in the last 11,000 years.
Gene pool is different, but behavior is the same.
We still breed natural selection btw. What the human mind perceives as 'beauty' is nothing more than genetic symmetry, which tells the subconscious mind more than you might believe about a person.
Gene pool is different, but behavior is the same.
We still breed natural selection btw. What the human mind perceives as 'beauty' is nothing more than genetic symmetry, which tells the subconscious mind more than you might believe about a person.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Of course we have. Using modern instruments, anthropologists have discovered that more than half of the deaths of adult humans in the late Paleolithic Era were caused by other humans. Even World War II only achieved half that rate--1/2% of the world population per year--and it stopped after six years.
Humans have a tendency to find people attractive who are obviously not closely related. That's why so many slaves were impregnated by their Southern masters, and why the DNA of so many modern "Afro-Americans" is such an olio. Societies have to erect strong taboos to curtail inter-ethnic dating and marriage, and people still flout them.
What I said was accurate on both counts.
WW2 was not the highest body count of the 'modern' world, you having that tunnel vision and your strange premise of comparison creates your flawed reasoning as to why we've changed. But let's look at that 'kill rate' reasoning and some thing you left out. Somehow you forget WW1? The slaughters in so many areas of the world that have taken place over the bulk of the 20th century? How about the Taiping Rebellion? Did you even know about it? WW2 did not kill as many people. The reign of Stalin? The Russian revolution? The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? The Chinese revolution? Millions and millions dead in the virtually constant wars in Africa during the 20th century? The reign of Mao? Millions killed in Vietnam? Etc. Etc. Etc. You're fooling yourself.
The war to come will be unlike anything seen in the history of the planet.
Incest avoidance is only a small part of human sexuality, and that mostly revolves around smell. The ocular is the more dominant sense in what humans consider attractive, and genetic symmetry is the key, as well as other traits that the subconscious mind studies. If you wanted the single most important aspect, a face that is not altered by genetic defect or infection/sickness in the womb is what the human eye sees as 'attractive'. This is the most dominant trait of beauty, immune system and genetic traits revealed in the symmetry of the face and body.
WW2 was not the highest body count of the 'modern' world, you having that tunnel vision and your strange premise of comparison creates your flawed reasoning as to why we've changed. But let's look at that 'kill rate' reasoning and some thing you left out. Somehow you forget WW1? The slaughters in so many areas of the world that have taken place over the bulk of the 20th century? How about the Taiping Rebellion? Did you even know about it? WW2 did not kill as many people. The reign of Stalin? The Russian revolution? The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? The Chinese revolution? Millions and millions dead in the virtually constant wars in Africa during the 20th century? The reign of Mao? Millions killed in Vietnam? Etc. Etc. Etc. You're fooling yourself.
The war to come will be unlike anything seen in the history of the planet.
Incest avoidance is only a small part of human sexuality, and that mostly revolves around smell. The ocular is the more dominant sense in what humans consider attractive, and genetic symmetry is the key, as well as other traits that the subconscious mind studies. If you wanted the single most important aspect, a face that is not altered by genetic defect or infection/sickness in the womb is what the human eye sees as 'attractive'. This is the most dominant trait of beauty, immune system and genetic traits revealed in the symmetry of the face and body.