| Author |
Message |
    
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Sunday, April 29, 2012 - 05:02 pm: | 
|
I think this discussion might be a little more precise if you replaced "evolution" with "natural selection".
Evolution is a very imprecise term for that which you seem to be putting it to use.
Even Darwin himself disliked the term & used it only once in his work, in the last line.
My personal opinion on the original question is, No.
I don't think the reverse is valid as a hypothesis either.
People who are known as "academics" and are, in theory, way smarter than me have been studying & pontificating on this for centuries & getting well paid for it too.
I'm sure they'll not thank you for resolving the question & making them unemployed. |
1eyert
| | Posted on Sunday, April 29, 2012 - 07:08 pm: |
|
"You see, they assumed that Man had a moral instinct"
Mr. Dubois
R. A. Heinlein
Starship Troopers
a must read before any real debate on ethics, morals, war and peace can be started. I have read everything he wrote and some of it many times over. The grand master of SF and truly missed. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 12:42 am: |
|
1. meta November 5, 2005 Urban Word of the Day A term, especially in art, used to characterize something that is characteristically self-referential.
Huh. I'm so meta.... |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 01:38 am: |
|
Anyone can be moral.
How "moral" do you suppose Neanderthals were? Perhaps more "moral" than Homo erectus, who in turn were likely downright goody-two-shoes in comparison to Australopithecines.
One could argue that these precursor species' nascent "morality" (not indiscriminately killing, refraining from impregnating siblings, sharing communal resources, revering & protecting needy elders) is precisely what set them apart from their contemporary competitors, allowed them a measure of adaptability, and promoted their evolutionary path.
Is there a belief here that a universal morality already existed in Lucy's time? Or did she perhaps hold her own set of social rules and mores applicable to her environment and survival challenges? |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 08:38 am: |
|
Good questions Kowski. What you seem to be asking is when did mankind becom "human", meaning sentient and knowledgeable of good and evil.
I can't say for sure in scientific terms when that happened. But it obviously did happen. No?
Obviously without an understanding of good and evil, no one could truly be considered moral.
There are some who deny the existence universal (objective) moral values.
The thing about the topical question that is interesting is that even is the answer is "no", who is to say that on naturalism that if the supposed evolutionary process from amoeba to man were somehow rewound and allowed to replay that it might not result in a species with entirely different understanding of good and evil, or none at all? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 08:39 am: |
|
Moreover, what becomes of these evolutionary moral ethics when scarcity and grave threat to survival are reintroduced.
The evolved folks in New Orleans weren't very moral once the lights went out during Katrina.
What about the behaviors during and after the Rodney King trial.
I didn't see much evolved behavior in the rampant rape and abuse of the most recent Occupy Rallies. What about the looting in the UK during same?
These behaviors don't seem to indicate much behavioral evolution at all.
Neanderthal would be right at home. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 02:39 pm: |
|
Stephen Hawking successfully reproduced a number of times. Whatever happens to him after that is irrelevant as far as natural selection goes.
Morality causes Humans to save the life of a baby with a heart defect that will then be passed on to his or her decedents. This subverts the natural selection process.
So to address the OP's question, morality does contravene evolution, by way of interfering with natural selection.
However, morality has enabled human civilization to thrive. Countries fall which lack it. Witness our current culture. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 04:14 pm: |
|
Morality causes Humans to save the life of a baby with a heart defect that will then be passed on to his or her decedents. This subverts the natural selection process.
Exactly the point.
Hawking potentially passed defective genes on to his offspring as well. Who knows whether or not there is a genetic component to ALS or not.
So to address the OP's question, morality does contravene evolution, by way of interfering with natural selection.
However, morality has enabled human civilization to thrive. Countries fall which lack it. Witness our current culture.
So by that logic, is evolution a physical process or a social process?
If a species evolves socially but remains un-changed physically, have evolutionary processes really taken place?
Conversely, if a species changes physically but doesn't progress socially, have evolutionary process really taken place? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 04:54 pm: |
|
"Hawking potentially passed defective genes on to his offspring as well. Who knows whether or not there is a genetic component to ALS or not."
Looks like he made an end-run around Darwin 
"If a species evolves socially but remains un-changed physically, have evolutionary processes really taken place?"
Not by the Darwinian definition of Evolution by Natural Selection.
"So by that logic, is evolution a physical process or a social process?"
In humans? Good question. I suspect we've stopped evolving physically. There are no evolutionary pressures exerted upon us. We have no predatory animals we might develop a natural defense to. We vaccinate against diseases that would ravage us and leave only the strong to survive and breed. Those who can not survive on their own are given the fruits of the labors of others. We have, generally, and I count myself among them, completely forgotten how to survive in the wild. No, I think Evolution by Natural Selection no longer applies to us at our current level of civilization. Good or bad? Long term, I think it's bad. Short term, what other choice do we have? Let the baby with the heart defect die? That would be immoral. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 06:01 pm: |
|
Looks like he made an end-run around Darwin
Time will tell. Depends on whether his children or grandchildren develop ALS.
Not by the Darwinian definition of Evolution by Natural Selection.
In humans? Good question. I suspect we've stopped evolving physically. There are no evolutionary pressures exerted upon us. We have no predatory animals we might develop a natural defense to. We vaccinate against diseases that would ravage us and leave only the strong to survive and breed. Those who can not survive on their own are given the fruits of the labors of others. We have, generally, and I count myself among them, completely forgotten how to survive in the wild. No, I think Evolution by Natural Selection no longer applies to us at our current level of civilization. Good or bad? Long term, I think it's bad. Short term, what other choice do we have? Let the baby with the heart defect die? That would be immoral.
How exactly can any species be outside of natural selection/evolutionary processes? Isn't that like saying that gravity no longer applies? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 06:07 pm: |
|
Let me turn that around. How does Natural Selection apply to a species with no external evolutionary pressures? |
Froggy
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 06:15 pm: |
|
quote:How exactly can any species be outside of natural selection/evolutionary processes? Isn't that like saying that gravity no longer applies?
What I believe he means is that we have used technology to circumvent natural selection to a certain extent. Similar, technology (kinda) can be used to circumvent gravity. Medicine has cured many diseases, and allows many to live on the face of this planet that would of died of natural causes during child birth and other illnesses contracted throughout life. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 06:26 pm: |
|
In Natural Selection, a mutation causes an organism to survive and breed better than the rest of its species. Its genes, including the mutation, are passed on in greater numbers.
None of that happens in Humans. There are mutations, certainly, but they are passed on at the same rate as everyone else's non mutated genes. No Natural Selection takes place.
In fact, the best and brightest of the Human race does not pass on much of its genetic material. See Idiocracy. We've given Darwin the finger and told Natural Selection to get bent. If you're a serial single mother with no education and no job, you're doing pretty darned well passing along your genes. Only in Humans would such behavior be rewarded with many descendants. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Remember watching National Geographic as a child? All those poor animals dying and no one helps them. The camera man doesn't want to infere with nature and Natural Selection. It's painful to watch, but we know it's for the health of the species.
That cameraman would go help a human dying the the desert. Morality trumps Natural Selection in Humans, and therefore removes us from the process.
Now I won't argue that we won't continue to evolve, but the mechanism will not be Natural Selection unless/until civilization falls and we're all left to find our own food. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 07:04 pm: |
|
Hoot in Britain you wouldnt be rescued if the water is higher than the responder is rated for you will drown. But they will put in a park bench with you name on it near where you died.
Barbarians look up Cecil Rhodes and the Fabian Socialists. Barbarians well spoken but evil and vile as Margret Sanger and the Nazis |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 08:12 pm: |
|
I agree that "natural selection" is a better term in this context than Evolution.
Certainly, from when we started protecting the weaker of us, selection has been subverted. Idiocracy may indeed be the end result... But. While we now save some genes that in nature, red with tooth and claw, would be eliminated, for the most part we do so after breeding age, so it makes no difference.
That doesn't mean we are not selected. Smarter people, with certain kinds of smart do better in our society, and pass on the genes, usually. Rich guys tend to marry pretty girls. There is a drive for women to marry successful men.
It is however, a mixed bag. In a society like Iran, being pleasantly deceitful, smart and good at it, is a survival trait. Ditto Red China, and the old Soviet Union.
You could argue that the open acceptance of gays in our society will eventually lead to a lack of good taste, since they are not reproducing as they would in a society where they are closeted and have beards. Yes, you can blame "Queer Eye" for the future crappy clothes, furniture and decor in male's lives.  |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 09:27 pm: |
|
>>> Smarter people, with certain kinds of smart do better in our society, and pass on the genes,
Check birth rates of professionals versus unskilled laborers lately? |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 - 09:36 pm: |
|
The libs have convinced the "SMART" folks to abort thier children. Fortunatly Libs are self limiting thier population. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - 06:37 pm: |
|
Blake, "certain kinds of smart".
In the mythical land that I suspect certain current presidents believe in, being on welfare, in a Union paid to not work, with lots of time on your hands, may be a more effective way to pass on the genes than working 48+ hours a week and missing the times that you could otherwise have a chance to reproduce. In the end, passing on the genes is what counts.
There may be statues to the great guy who worked hard and gave a park, but if he was too busy to have kids, the above mentioned welfare slob's children will use the park.
If it is good for passing on genes to be promiscuous, it is successful. Chimpanzees have that phenom. "Sneak &*^(" where when the dominant Chimp isn't looking, dash in a have speed sex with his hareem.
Certain kind of smart. What "works" in an Occupy camp, may not be the same as what works at Bible camp. Or Walmart. Maybe. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 09:18 pm: |
|
Metaphysics meets physics.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw11.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw50.html
To return to the question.
Does the concept of morality operate in direct contravention of evolution?
I'm not sure about the "concept of morality". When a species protects those who would die before breeding, the natural selection process is altered, perhaps subverted. But that is arguably true in herd animals, like Bison, that protect the young as a behavior. ( which itself seems to be a PRODUCT of evolution. )
One can bite at ones own tail endlessly in philosophical discussions. ( a metaphor..... I, personally, have no tail. I don't know about your ancestors...) |
|
