Are you saying the wars that have scarred human history are due to cultural inheritance as opposed to human characteristics? The more technological progress, the more lethal the wars. Think of the 20th century. Have you heard of the theological concept of concupiscence? Excessive desire for material goods and pleasures leading to competitive aggression. Explained by natural selection as in the book I mentioned “The Genetics of Original Sin”.
Please, I beg you, learn how to reply.
2 Likes
As I said in an earlier reply, not all men are competitively aggressive. And men suffer more from male aggression than women do. Neo-Darwinists like Dawkins use population genetics to explain how traits such as aggression and altruism are balanced in populations to prevent us going extinct. He uses the hawk and dove metaphor. Says the proportion of hawks is higher than doves, but altruism and aggression mutually restrain one another. It’s called an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) to stabilise behaviour so as to prevent our extinction. An implication is that it will be very difficult for altruism to overcome aggression.
Will do!
1 Like
Are you sure? After all, you are right here telling a dozen or so expert geneticists that they do not understand genetics with ex cathedra pronouncements.
If it is possible that we are wrong and you are right, do you think you could slow down for a minute and consider the possibility that both your curiously unnamed “expert evolutionary psychologists” and you are wrong?
2 Likes
Was that intended as a joke?
He’s not an atheist (or anything else) any more.
Excellent warning. I won’t be reading it.
If you’re an academic, why don’t you know that arguing from authority is a fallacy?
1 Like
The impact of natural selection on human nature is a controversial issue within evolutionary science. And I have read the experts in all the sub disciplines. You scientists have to allow for the fact that those of us with philosophical/psychological mindsets have valuable insights into human nature. Also philosophy of science is very helpful in deciding which side is right. Michael Ruse, an atheist, who has won many awards, is excellent on demonstrating how natural selection is the main mechanism of evolution, and how it has impacted on human nature. And for me the explanatory power of Darwinism for human behaviour convinces me that it has impacted on human nature. It has become part of public consciousness, another sign that Darwin and his neo-Darwinist disciples are right. Although evo-devo, shows that in certain cases environmental factors can bypass the genes themselves by influencing gene expression and that the resulting changes - particularly in relation to health - can be passed on to offspring, neo-Darwinists argue that it’s not a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian view of behaviour. And not all geneticists agree with you. The scientific consensus hasn’t changed. Have you read “The Genetics of Original Sin”, or Epigenetics: The Revolution that Wasn’t (Forbes)
Talk about mansplaining!
That is not the problem at all.
That’s the issue.
3 Likes
That’s debatable.
Even if aggressiveness is genetic we can’t say for sure if that trait was selected for without a lot more genetic information.
They have made claims. I am unaware of solid evidence that would back those claims in the case of humans.
If your insights are valuable you wouldn’t have to tell people they are valuable.
Appeals to evidence would be much more valuable than appeals to authority.
2 Likes
I sincerely doubt that, since you clearly are laboring under the false assumption that books are the primary literature in the sciences.
Science is about evidence, not the words written by a minority of experts. Most of the experts in any scientific field have not written books.
You need to allow for the fact that the primary literature in science is journal articles, not books.
Science is not about debates. The evidence is most helpful in deciding.
What about the evidence?
I would point out that the last 4 years in US politics have conclusively demonstrated that being part of the public consciousness is not a sign of being right.
I’m not sure to which claim you are referring, but I would opine that just about every geneticist agrees with me that you may be wrong and that books are not the primary literature.
No, I read the primary literature on epigenetics. Do you?
2 Likes
Of course the evidence is the main thing. I have read very widely on the subject. But this is a very controversial topic. And the scholarly consensus still is that natural selection is the main mechanism of evolution. You know Popper’s criterion for arguing that science is the only valid form of knowledge cos scientific hypotheses can be falsified. Darwin’s theory one of the oldest unfalsified theories in the history of science, considered fact by many. As I said it’s explanatory power for human behaviour is another important form of corroboration. I predict it will never be falsified. Expanded upon, yes
Of course, the authorities base their conclusions on the evidence and explain it very well
Whether natural selection is a major driver of evolution is dependent on a number of factors. Ever heard of genetic drift?
Yes. It is often referred to as random genetic drift. How does it contribute to adaptation?
Not all of evolution is adaptive.
1 Like
Then cut to the chase and present the evidence.
1 Like