Good and Evil

[Elvellyn]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Human offspring require more care post-birth than most other mammals. Factor this in, and ipso facto, suddenly it's not practical to have a million little bundles of joy. Plus, due to the size of human foetus heads, vs the size of a woman's pelvis, we can only carry children half term. We should, theoretically, be carrying children to term in eighteen months, or somewhere around that ballpark, NOT nine months. This is another reason why such intensive care is required of human offspring - quite a lot of development happens post-birth.

18 months! Ugh!
See IR, you can't have a baby every 9 months for 25 years. HA!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
I think "optimal litter size" is based on situation rather than genes. My dad was the youngest of seven kids. That's cause back in the day, having lots of kids was useful. Nowadays, havin seven or nine or sixty-four kids would just be impractical.

Hot damn, I'm quoting you again. You must be like the flavour of the month or something. Anyway, I gots to agree with you somewhat, here. I don't think I-Rex seems to factoring in this thing called environment... Cultural selection is just as much a factor as natural selection.

[Rían]

Drive safely, IRex!

BoP - interesting comment - is it Giant Pandas that are that way, too? How many mammals are like that?

It also makes sense for human babies to be designed that way on purpose, tho - caring for others is very important, and God uses the illustration of a mother's care for her babies to illustrate His love for us. I don't see it as the 9-month time period 'should' be 18 months, I see it as another thing that is designed in by God and sets humans apart from animals.

But looking at it in terms of survival, I would disagree - I would say mothers should be pregnant for about 6 years! That's when I've found that I can be doing something in another room and not be constantly listening for something going on, or worse, the ominous silence of impending doom

[BeardofPants]

Rian, as far as I know, humans are the only mammals that I know of that have actually had to shorten their term of gestation, but my study has been primarily of hominids and anthropoids (primates), so there could be other species out there. It goes on your brain index: Basically, the larger the brain, the longer the period of gestation. The reason it was shortened because of a combination of factors: firstly, the pelvic proportions of the female hominid were dramatically shorterned due to bipedalism, and secondly, the size of the hominid brain increased just about exponentially. So as an adaptation, the cycle of gestation was shortened. But your theory is good, too.

Moving on: there are two types of offspring - dammit, can't remember the terminology - those who are born with just about all faculties, and those who require post-gestation care. Humans are actually an odd mixture of the two, and if I could only remember the terminology, I'd post more info. Oh well But, if you look at all the Great Apes, you will see that their offspring require intensive post-birth care as well. Humans are far from the only offspring to need this intensive care.

********

There seems to be an awful of of anthropomorphizing of genes in this thread... Remember that what is exhibited in the physical world are the traits expressed through the phenotype, not the genotype.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
whew! im spent.

I'm wearing myself out on this topic too.

[BeardofPants]

Hah! Found it. The two terms I was trying to remember were:

• Altricial: Helpless, highly dependent, immature newborns
  
  Precocial: Offspring born relatively mature and independent

Technially, we're precocial. Our eyes are open at birth, and we have hair, and nails, and stuff, which altricial offspring don't have. However, it takes many years to raise a human child, so we have altricial qualities as well. (cf K-selection and r-selection)

Oh, and one more edit: this site has some useful definitions, including the selfish gene theory.

• Genotype:
  An individual's combination of genes. Note that genes do not directly determine your body or behavior. Phenotype is a result of the interaction of genotype and environment.
  
  "Selfish" gene theory:
  A model of evolution, a gene's eye view of natural selection. Genes are replicators, individuals are their vehicles. Replicators make copies of themselves. Successful replicators make more copies than unsuccessful replicators. Improved vehicles (bodies) promote their success.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I am practicing birth control in order to maximize the number of surviving children that I have. Yes! Another selfish reason.

Rearing young (and this is about both birthing AND rearing) is a costly business.

I'll not combat this .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Ok so Ive just shown you why humans don’t reproduce like flies and why it could actually benefit the genes to actively avoid constant reproduction. But why, you still say, would a given human elect NEVER to reproduce? Well, I submit that this is simply the logical extension of those genes that tell us to limit our reproduction. If you can limit yourself to 10. or 2. why not 0. it is, after all, the mean of the effect of the gene and not EACH specific case that proves the rule. MOST humans end up having children. Therefore most of the genes that cause this are successful. If one in say 50 humans does NOT reproduce then in actuality they seem to me to be the exception that proves the rule. That we have the genetic ability to limit ourselves (since its too our genes benefit to do so) BUT most people have children. And overall the average tends to be about right for our species. Even counting the ones who think they are different because they haven’t reproduced.

Actually, large parts of the world are experiencing difficulties due to overpopulation, but that's rather beside the point I'm about to make. The number of people in the world increases exponentially, in case you didn't know. So we're always increasing in numbers by a large amount; our species has always been increasing in numbers. We've been using different means to accomodate for that shift, but it's there.

However, as I said, that's just a sidenote.

If creatures reproduce less so that their few offspring have a better chance of survival, then that doesn't at all explain why people choose to not have any children at all. Simply saying that everyone doesn't have children because they aren't able to support those children is ridiculous. The reason you offered for why people wouldn't support more than 10 or 2 children is that they would be better able to support those children. They do what they can handle, and what would give the kids a strong likelihood of survival. This doesn't explain at all though, those people who do it for totally different reasons. Like religious reasons, or even not religious reasons. Some people don't want to give up a successful career, some people don't want to be tied down and take on the responsibility. What you've said might make sense for the poor people of the world, but there are a huge host of examples that are ignored.

Some children are brought up to believe that chastity is best, and they opt for that. That's their upbringing, not their genes. As BeardofPants has been pointing out, learning has a key role to play. Learning can cause you to make decisions about having sex (Religious upbringing), about violence or heroism (Upbringing again). There might be genetic tendencies in all these cases, but those tendencies don't always rule us. Learning has a huge role to play in who an individual ends up being that you're largely ignoring.

People learn to be cowards when living under an oppressive regime; they don't all start out cowards. People learn to be brave or noble when those attributes are taught in schools. People's decisions based upon their learning have huge affects in what kinds of lives they live. In whether they'll grow up to be a suicide bomber or not, to cite the example we were discussing earlier.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
A hero when faced with a dangerous situation where a fellow tribe member is in danger always acts to the benefit of the tribe member despite the risk. The coward never acts to the benefit of the other tribe member if there is any danger involved. Now what are the benefits and disadvantages of both types:

HERO BENEFIT
-fellow tribe member stays alive which is a benefit to the hero because the loss of any member from the tribe is to the detriment of the tribe and therefore to the detriment of the individual.
-heroes gain rank and resources by being successfully heroic.
-if a hero saves another hero it can benefit him DIRECTLY in the long run if the favor is turned.

HERO DISADVANTAGE
-hero dies
-hero is injured
COWARD BENEFIT
-coward is never killed or injured (in this action)

COWARD DISADVANTAGE
-fellow tribe member dies making it harder for population as a whole and thus for each given individual including the coward
-cowards never gain rank or resources by being heroic
-if a coward lets a hero die that’s one less hero to save him when needed

Oh, bother. You're still ignoring my primary example. Here you're reaching a part of it, explaining why people would behave in a way that would benefit them. However, we know that learning has a huge affect on whether someone's a hero or not. And there is the example of the person who lets himself die without any chance of survival. There you can wash out all the hero benefits and say only "herd benefits". People lay down their lives for their friends, even when they know they'll be tortured or killed for doing it. Some people at gunpoint have refused to give up valuable information, and thus have been shot. People might KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that they'll die, but the decision is still theirs to make, and sometimes they do follow their morals. What you said earlier about thinking you'd be forced to eat me if you were in dire straits is just not true. Your genetics wouldn't force you. You might believe your genetics were forcing you and use that as an excuse to do it, but the decision would be yours. Your genetics might strongly advise you to eat me, but there's no way they could make you.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
So now we can see WHY such behavior could BOTH exist in nature because there can be benefits to BOTH. Your thinking that well why would any population have more then just individuals with the most successful gene allocated behavior is essentially missing the point because BOTH behavior strategies can be successful in the same environment. One may dominate the other but through the laws of nature a stable ratio will be met. Always.

Now of course behavior in nature is MUCH more complicated then just HERO or COWARD. The variations are subtle and endless. So just saying oh this one is the best is nonsensical. Theres ALWAYS balance. I cant say this too much. But it keeps getting ignored.

I've not been trying to ignore it. I've been trying to point out to you where the rules of the chess game are broken; where the genetic commands that you've said exist don't apply. The primary examples I've given are still not answered adequately. You've explained some possible scenarios on death, and you've explained some possible scenarios about reproduction, but there are a host of others that are left unexplained. BeardofPants's memes came closer to explaining those adequately with known science than anything else I've seen on this thread so far. I still am not convinced by the memes, and I gave my reasons why in an earlier post, and that's largely because they ignored a large number of examples against them, or didn't explain everything adequately. However, they were pretty good as a useful way to explain some of the examples (Like the suicide bomber).

[BeardofPants]

Genes + Environment = Behaviour (phenotype) You can't have a hero gene: "hero" is an expression of predetermined behaviours. You can have a gene that gives an organism a greater propensity for "heroic" behaviours, but this is conditioned by the environment as well.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Genes + Environment = Behaviour (phenotype) You can't have a hero gene: "hero" is an expression of predetermined behaviours. You can have a gene that gives an organism a greater propensity for "heroic" behaviours, but this is conditioned by the environment as well.

Must... be... hero... Can't... resist... genes... *splat*

And environment should be a much larger font (conditioned behavior, psychological history, circumstance, health, age, etc). Our subject may not be a hero in every possible circumstance. When does the degree of heroism become pure recklessness?

Possibly the debate should move on to whether there is any free will after ALL other factors are taken into account. I think we all actually agree that there is more involved than genes even if we don't agree on the degree of significance.

[Elvellyn]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Genes + Environment = Behaviour (phenotype)

Yes, that's the word. Phenotype. We talked about that last year's Life Science class.

Just to make Cirdan happy...

Genes + Environment= Behaviour (Phenotype)

[Elvellyn]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Possibly the debate should move on to whether there is any free will after ALL other factors are taken into account. I think we all actually agree that there is more involved than genes even if we don't agree on the degree of significance.

Are you asking if people have the ability to overcome their situation? If this is the case, I believe the answer is yes. A person can do something that is totally against their genes, upbringing, et cetera.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
Just to make Cirdan happy...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
Are you asking if people have the ability to overcome their situation? If this is the case, I believe the answer is yes. A person can do something that is totally against their genes, upbringing, et cetera.

I agree with you, because I believe in free will. Though I'm going to have to think long and hard if I'm going to find any sort of a way to argue that.

[Lief Erikson]

So Environment + Genes = Behavior. Does this imply fettered will?

I'm not talking here about 'magical powers' here, Cirdan. I know we all have fettered will as far as that goes; I mean within our human capacities. What our human bodies and minds are capable of.

Does anyone believe that there are certain acts that other humans have done within the last century that they would be incapable of doing?

For example, pressing the button that launches a nuclear missile. Are we incapable of doing that act, or are we capable of it, but simply choose not to? Opinions?

[Insidious Rex]

Ok in light of the recent moaning and bitching about the demise of the entmoot (again) I felt somebody should at least dig up some decent discussion rather then making speeches (like I was before) and pointing fingers at other people so heres where I put my money where my mouth is basically. Oh and also because Rian seemed to think she won this argument so off we go once again into the breech…

And please don't do the 'ignore the scientific' thing, because science is wonderful in its proper sphere (many Christians use it and are skilled in its application ) but science is not properly applicable to every subject - only those areas where a hypothesis may be formed and tested and results measured and found to be repeatable or not repeatable. I can't scientifically prove that JRR Tolkien ever lived (and neither can you ) but most reasonable people assume that he did.

of course you can prove he lived. What do you mean? You can exhume his grave and test the dna of his remains. You can then test the dna of his descendents for a match. And science can be applied to every conceivable situation. There is nothing in this universe that is outside the realm of science.

Of course you can talk about the moral aspect, because everyone has a basic moral code designed into them by God Everyone knows that 'right' and 'wrong' are value judgements that can and should be applied to behavior.

I don’t know that. So I just disproved your theory.

Yes, I thought you would agree it was wrong [baby killing]- we have a common moral code implanted in us by God

or more likely by culture and genes. AT LEAST by culture and genes I should say. PERHAPS by god AND culture AND genes but not JUST by a god.

You yourself recognize that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" do indeed exist - we both knew that, and I just wanted to point that out. And altho the exact details may differ slightly, still the very fact that the concept exists universally is fascinating, don't you think? And I agree - from a biological standpoint, the terms are irrelevant - and thus they cannot have 'evolved' - they must have come from an outside source ....

wait you lost me on your leap of logic there. Are you saying genes aren’t a product of selective evolution or that we don’t actually have genes at all? Just that god rules.

Ok now on to Elvellyn:

Because we're not made that way. Our bodies and all that weren't designed to have a thousand kids.

right! Because our evolutionarily ideal number of kids is much smaller. Having too many would not be beneficial to our genes in the long run.

Okay, I offer you an example. I kow these two girls who are twins. Identical twins. As in they have the exact same genes. One of them is just plain mean. The other is a sweetheart. So now we know there is no "nice" gene.

genes are triggered by environment and circumstances as Ive said before. Perhaps it is to the benefit of this twin NOT to be nice. Perhaps she is more successful that way. Or perhaps she is just mean to you…

and once again lets review the basic idea of gene being expressed into behavior: you don’t have ONE gene that controls ONE behavior. You are talking about dozens and hundreds of genes interacting with each other AND corresponding biochemical processes that ultimately swing these kinds of decisions. Get away from the simple minded concept of one gene for one extraordinarily complex action. When we talk about a “hero” gene or an “altruism” gene obviously we aren’t talking about ONE gene. We are talking about the general concept of genetics. Come on people don’t be nieve. And don’t babble simple bio 101 garbage at me as if this isn’t quite clear.

[Insidious Rex]

Those are just instincts. That's not really heroism on the honey bee's part, that's just the natural course of action for them.

so committing suicide is natural? How is that natural exactly? Why would any animal voluntarily give up their life like that? Instinct must develop for a reason. What reason could it be that would cause such extreme behavior to develop exactly? And come on how can you say that’s nothing like heroism. If you saw such behavior in humans OF COURSE you would think god how heroic is that. I mean think about it. A giant creature is attacking the town. You rush out and throw yourself on him and plant a poison dart under his skin that causes the creature enough aggravasion to actually deter him from completely trashing the town and he runs off swatting at the air and never goes near your town again. In the process however you are mortally wounded and you die because of your heroic actions. Now tell me how THIS wouldn’t be considered heroic? Why do you make such massive distinctions based on what kind of creature does this? Seems quite clear to me. They would make a statue for you. You would have a holiday named after you. You would become a legend and eventually a mythological figure. You would become david and your opponent would become goliath. They would write about it in a tome. Hey wait a minute…

I think "optimal litter size" is based on situation rather than genes.

if that was true why not have 20 or 30 kids if you are rich? Its certainly possible. But it doesn’t happen generally. Because the genes that decide clutch size are pretty fixed in humans. Otherwise what not CHOOSE to have quintuplets if you can afford them? Its your god given right after all…

our genes don't need any luck sweetie.(they don't affect your driving either )

Yeah tell that to Al Unser Jr. and Richard Petty’s son.

bopsheena:

Anyway, I gots to agree with you somewhat, here. I don't think I-Rex seems to factoring in this thing called environment...

Sheena try reading my posts before you make silly comments like this. Im the one who has been talking about how environment determines gene selection and action ALL ALONG in this thread. Did you think I thought natural selection occurs in a vacume? Why are you ignoring what ive said before in the early pages of this thread and giving me all this basic bio 101 pablam? Obvisouly environment effects evolution. Duh.


Leif:

Oh, bother. You're still ignoring my primary example. Here you're reaching a part of it, explaining why people would behave in a way that would benefit them. However, we know that learning has a huge affect on whether someone's a hero or not. And there is the example of the person who lets himself die without any chance of survival. There you can wash out all the hero benefits and say only "herd benefits".

No you keep forgetting that it is the GENE here NOT the hero (the individual) that you need to focus on. If I have a “gene” in me that causes me to be more likely to act in a heroic manner then it doesn’t mean that im ONLY going to utilize this gene when it means my death. Im going to use it in every situation in which it kicks in. now logic dictates that this gene will kick in many more situations then JUST guaranteed death. So if 99.9% of the time it is a benefit or at best completely neutral to my genes to act in this way then those rare occasions where it DOES end in my death its still a beneficial gene evolutionarily. Because it doesn’t ALWAYS end up in my death. In fact it rarely does. Or we would all be dead. Right?

What you said earlier about thinking you'd be forced to eat me if you were in dire straits is just not true. Your genetics wouldn't force you. You might believe your genetics were forcing you and use that as an excuse to do it, but the decision would be yours. Your genetics might strongly advise you to eat me, but there's no way they could make you.

but Leif my genes ARE me. Im simply their survival machine. We are inseperable. And if conditions became so extreme that eating you would be the best choice overall then I might just do that. What if you were going to die no matter what? What good would it be just to let your body spoil and have me die anyway? (err… sorry for being so morbid there. You get the idea though.)

You've explained some possible scenarios on death, and you've explained some possible scenarios about reproduction, but there are a host of others that are left unexplained.

which?

[Ruinel]

Wow! You have been busy. So, I'm going to help.

The issue about 'baby killing' being basically (if I understand the argument) a product of a set or moral rules set up by a religion.

Actually, the instinct to procreate is instinctual. It exists in all animals from the lowest form of life to the most structured and complex. A lot of energy and time goes into creating a new generation. It is in the best interest of the species for the mother and father of the offspring not to kill it. Therefore, the instinct for survival of the offspring is very strong. It has to be to ensure that the genes of the parents are passed on to the next generation.

Then, the issue of 'right' and 'wrong'. These concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are molded into the individual by the society they live in. There's a movie, A Clockwork Orange, that makes a strong statement on this. If an individual is raised and survives in an environment where violence, theft and aggression (to name only a few) are the norm and that individual is taken out of that society and somehow changed so that they no longer are violent, steal, nor agressive, then that individual will no longer be able to fit in nor survive in the previous environment. We adapt to an environment for acceptance and survival. That, again, is an instinct found in all animals.

Hope this helps start some good discussion.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Re: Tolkien: That wouldn't prove that it was him. That would merely prove that it was someone with similar genes to the descendants. Even if you could prove it was a relative, you couldn't prove that it was J. R. R. Tolkien. And how could you scientifically prove that he wrote LOTR? Or whether or not he was a Christian? Or prove that he believed in such and such a way on such and such a subject?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Re: Tolkien: That wouldn't prove that it was him. That would merely prove that it was someone with similar genes to the descendants. Even if you could prove it was a relative, you couldn't prove that it was J. R. R. Tolkien. And how could you scientifically prove that he wrote LOTR? Or whether or not he was a Christian? Or prove that he believed in such and such a way on such and such a subject?

why would I want to prove that? Rian wanted me to prove that he LIVED. thats easy. if you dont want to trust dna then we could certainly look at dental records or a good dozen other biological signatures that would pretty much make it an absolute that he lived. why are we arguing over if Tolkien lived or not by the way?