Explain love, heroism and forgiveness if life is merely survival of the fittest?

[p-helix]

Heroism and forgiveness are aspects of love and heroism is usually risk-taking behaviour in the group's interest, protecting the family from attack, which for millions of years bred out the weakest through the survival of the fittest argument. We've always needed to become healthier, stronger, faster and more intellligent in order to survive and that's been our narrative as a species. Forgiveness encompasses empathy, love and understanding, and we are healthier for that.

sorry if this has been said already, i haven't read any replies, but the question isn't that difficult.

"survival of the fittest" refers only to competition between species, not between individuals. a species is strong and is more likely to survive when its individuals co-operate. so love, heroism and forgiveness is essential for species survival.

However, we experience more competition within our own species than with all the other species put together. We have had increasingly less competition with other species for tens of thousands of years, unless you include species we are threatening to make extinct like species of tigers, elephants, rhinoes, and we have a hand in controlling other species in every way; coexistence between species has only been possible through sexual selection, otherwise extinction follows. So competition within our own species has been sexual selection, sometimes based on heroism and forgiveness for a happy, healthy family to follow but mainly its just love between men and women. We still have a need in life for love, including heroism and forgiveness, because that's our philosophy based on our nature.

How did ability to experience empathy evolve?
At some exact point a certain individual in a certain species had to have a light bulb go off. How did this animal spread this to other members of species?
Logic dictates that at one point not having empathy was working fine. What changed?
What single random mutation (or series) could account for an animal suddenly being able to have empathy ?

I don't think it was a case of one animal suddenly having empathy, because it is just the wiring of brains over time, there would be a gradual evolution in how well they perceive the world around them, and understanding their neighbour's view-point so they can coexist more successfully.

 

[methamaniac]

Heroism and forgiveness are aspects of love and heroism is usually risk-taking behaviour in the group's interest, protecting the family from attack, which for millions of years bred out the weakest through the survival of the fittest argument. We've always needed to become healthier, stronger, faster and more intellligent in order to survive and that's been our narrative as a species. Forgiveness encompasses empathy, love and understanding, and we are healthier for that.

Is need what drives evolution?
If a species needs something bad enough will it eventually get it?
An addition of consciousness, intelligence, love etc. based on need
sounds a lot like Larmarckism.
No need to say it...lucky breaks...I know.
You need an awful lot of lucky breaks to get to where we are today from non-living chemicals.
I guess we are a product of devine luck intervention.
Sounds resonable.
When all looks bleak, never count out luck.

I don't think it was a case of one animal suddenly having empathy, because it is just the wiring of brains over time, there would be a gradual evolution in how well they perceive the world around them, and understanding their neighbour's view-point so they can coexist more successfully.

What about consciousness?
Was there a first animal in a species to have it?
Or did a bunch of animals within the species have the light bulb go off at once?
I mean to me logically at some point the light bulb needs to turned on.
Maybe you can imagine a scenario where it can come on very slowly, but not me.
I'm afraid my imagination isn't vast enough for that.
It also isn't large enough to imagine how the two sexes and their by-product could evolve slowly over time.
Seems you are either preggers or you aren't.
literally and figuratively.
Looks like an all or nothing conundrum to me.
I view conciousness the same way.

The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction: Why It's Im…: http://youtu.be/WQIPIDMTN0o

If one is not too far endoctinated you may see the logic behind this video.
Enjoy......

 

[ForEverAfter]

Maybe these bacteria will be more like there
billion year old cousins and finally evolve into something else other than bacteria.
Give them a good dose of imagination and I'm sure they will.

So you accept evolution, then, just not evolution from one thing into something considerably different?

 

[methamaniac]

So you accept evolution, then, just not evolution from one thing into something considerably different?

Kinda a loaded question. A play on semantics if nothing else.
Nobody disagrees there is a change in allele frequency in a population. Variation happens as well as mutations -unfortunately (I say that cause they almost always come with deficiency, disease, and death when expressed)
The disagreement is that random mutations and copying mistakes can create new complex
parts/features/ structures/functions/information.

Rearranging, degrading, removing, or even duplicating the contents of your room doesn't get you any new furniture or electronics.
If you dont have an exercise bike or television in your room to start with....you're not going to be watching tv while riding an excercise bike anytime in your future.
If you have a couch that has a cushion then you're free to use that couch cushion as it is intended or something other than a cushion if it gets randomly knocked off the couch.
edit

 

[swilow]

Rearranging, degrading, removing, or even duplicating the contents of your room doesn't get you any new furniture or electronics.
If you dont have an exercise bike or television in your room to start with....you're not going to be watching tv while riding an excercise bike anytime in your future.
it

But even the state of ones own room isn't entirely the product of intention. For example, I put my shoes in my room but I have no fucking idea where.

Why is that towel hanging off the light?

Whose what-ever-the-fuck-this-is is this??!?

Furthermore, a lot of people have exercise bikes that they have no intention of ever interacting with and would in fact readily sell it and purchase a television.

 

[ForEverAfter]

meth,

How do you explain the evolution of bacteria, as detailed in the link I provided? The mutations that were observed over thousands of generations of bacterium did not result in disease / death and they were (seemingly) a result of random mutations. Did you read the link?

 

[ForEverAfter]

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food.

(from the link)
((i don't think you read it))

...

Check mate?

 

[Journyman16]

meth,

How do you explain the evolution of bacteria, as detailed in the link I provided? The mutations that were observed over thousands of generations of bacterium did not result in disease / death and they were (seemingly) a result of random mutations. Did you read the link?

Um... that's adaptation, not evolution.

 

[methamaniac]

meth,

How do you explain the evolution of bacteria, as detailed in the link I provided? The mutations that were observed over thousands of generations of bacterium did not result in disease / death and they were (seemingly) a result of random mutations. Did you read the link?

Yes I read link.....

Again you are loading the question my friend.
Becareful not to point at face.

There is no new information being added to the genome.
E.Coli already posses the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions.
Lenski admits this.The breakdown of a cell wall that allows in a food source that it already can assimilate/process doesn't do much for touting evolution. This is old news.....
The Lenski experiments have been a failure in respect to proving macroevolution.
Not starving to death in noway adds information to the genome. Surviving and eating are great but they don't in any way help build new complex parts.
It's time to get another grant so after almost 30 years of nothing they need to pat themselves on the back for something to keep money coming in. In respect, this example is no different than using sickle cell anemia as evidence for evolution from microbes to microbiologist.
Billions of years show that bacteria will always be bacteria.

Check mate

lulz truly

Care to retort with your thoughts on the video link
I provided---
The Evolution of Sex Reproduction?
Could be a teachable moment.

 

[methamaniac]

But even the state of ones own room isn't entirely the product of intention. For example, I put my shoes in my room but I have no fucking idea where.

Why is that towel hanging off the light?

Whose what-ever-the-fuck-this-is is this??!?

Furthermore, a lot of people have exercise bikes that they have no intention of ever interacting with and would in fact readily sell it and purchase a television.

Not really following......

You usually do much better.

 

[swilow]

^Aw, it was just jibber jabber... I can't follow it either.

Sorry to let you down

 

[ForEverAfter]

Um... that's adaptation, not evolution.

You can't separate them.

 

[methamaniac]

^Aw, it was just jibber jabber... I can't follow it either.

Sorry to let you down

I think you lost it with "intention"

No worries......
As I inferred reputatation preceeds this post ☺

You can't separate them.

Maybe you can't due to years of endoctrination and letting others do your thinking on this topic, but
that doesn't mean the two terms are inseparable
in the real world.

 

[Journyman16]

You can't separate them.

Um... actually, that turns out not to be the case.

See, this is how it works... according to 'consensus' opinion... :D

Apart from size, an 'adapted' species can still breed with the parent species. A 'NEW' species cannot. Simple... no?

Those Galapagos finches...? Different beaks but all the same species. Dogs and wolves? Radically different but can still interbreed. Lions and tigers? Way different in adaptation but hey, we have cross breeds. Different species cannot interbreed. Horse and donkey = mule and while the mule might be sterile, IIRC the Hinny isn't. (I might be wrong about the fertility of the Hinny but even so, the horse and donkey can breed)

In actual fact there are zero evidences of Evolution producing anything OTHER than adaptations. To this day there are no inter-breed fossils. (and please do not do the wolf-whale thing, OK?)

 

[swilow]

^Is a new species just the 'same old thing' but with so many accrued adaptations as to have become essentially dissimilar? Don't forget the huge quantity of years for this process...

 

[ForEverAfter]

Adaptation can exist without evolution, but evolution can't exist without adaptation.
I meant you can't separate them in the context. I didn't mean they were equal.

...

Journyman,

You know more about deep-space physics and the Big Bang theory than the international scientific community...
And now you know more about evolution than a highly regarded evolutionary scientist?
That is, truly, impressive.

The link was from Harvard. Lenski is a Professor of microbial ecology, a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, a fellow of the US National Academy of Sciences, and he won a MacArthur Fellowship, not to mention the PhD... He seems to think the study pertains to evolution... But, I'm sure you guys know better.

Is a new species just the 'same old thing' but with so many accrued adaptations as to have become essentially dissimilar?

Bingo!

Give the man a prize.

 

[swilow]

^I excitedly await my new set of knives and forks.

 

[methamaniac]

Adaptation can exist without evolution, but evolution can't exist without adaptation.
I meant you can't separate them in the context. I didn't mean they were equal.

You need to define your terms and state more clearly what you mean from the get go in respect to this debate.
You seem to want to play gotcha with bait and switch tatics. It's dishonest, and does nothing for proving your point. Beating a strawman is----
well, beating a strawman.

Back to E to the Coli,
Bacteria reproduce about every 20 minutes.
In a normal size flask you can fit more e coli bacteria than all humans who ever lived. Think about how many generations/shots that gives evolution for them to evolve. Be sure to try and comprehend 3 BILLION years in with your thinking. Do the math I double dare ya. It's going to a pretty "large" number to say the least.
How does bacteria NOT change would be the more important science to study.
What has been designed in them to keep them doing what they do?
How e coli can assimilate a food source they can already process under different conditions is kinda silly in respect.
The gene that codes for the protein to assimilate citrate is already present in e coli. It just gets "turned on" when oxygen is not present.
No new specified coding information is being added to the genome.
None.
It as not "macroevolution before our eyes" .
That's the illusion you have bought.
This is how many magic tricks work.
Your brain uses imagination to fill in what isn't there.

The link was from Harvard. Lenski is a Professor of microbial ecology, a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, a fellow of the US National Academy of Sciences, and he won a MacArthur Fellowship, not to mention the PhD... He seems to think the study pertains to evolution... But, I'm sure you guys know better.

If I or J-man find a microbiologist that tells us macroevolution is impossble does that make us automatically right??

Like I said the machinery for both transporting and metabolizing citrate was already present in these bacteria. Assimilating citrate is a normal part of the Krebs cycle.
Some microbiologist
( sorry to shock u) rightly point out that it is entirely possible (and probable) a series of knockout mutations broke the regulation of pre-existing citrate transport mechanisms, causing over-expression of a citrate transport gene, allowing citrate to be transported under both oxic and anaerobic conditions.
If this is the case, then clearly this example of "evolution before our eyes" entails the loss of a molecular function, not the gain of a new one.
And there was no wholesale acquisition of the ability to metabolize or assimilate citrate.

Modern synthesis proponents continually use loss of a function to demonstrate macroevolution.
Loss of information is not a gain.
You need to add specified information to the genome in order to build and maintain new complex features/structures/functions.


A great example is the human eye and the ability to perceive light. An organism will never be able to process light unless there are mechanisms already in place to recieve, translate, and process the information (light). This requires SPECIFIC mechanisms to be in place FIRST.

Bingo!

Give the man a prize.

The prize is a blindfold. ?

 

[ForEverAfter]

No offense, but I couldn't really be bothered reading your response. (I scanned it.) You have repeatedly established yourself as incapable of understanding certain aspects of evolution. I shouldn't have been so naive to think that a link to a reputable study done by a highly regarded and highly qualified scientist from Harvard would have any impact whatsoever on this "discussion". In retrospect: it is now obvious to me that a Google educated person on the internet, who literally believes in Genesis, knows more about evolutionary science than any number of people who have devoted their entire lives to the cause.

The thing is, they're not going to be able to show you a species literally becoming another species before your very eyes.
What you require as evidence is unreasonable. It is way beyond current technology.

I have a feeling that, even if you saw an ape become a man, you would find a way to dismiss it.
And, like I said in an earlier post, I don't have time for this silly dance.

 

[methamaniac]

My understanding of modern evolutionary synthesis is just fine.
I believe your understanding is the one lacking as you seemed to believe evolution and adaptation were one and the same.
You're the one that intiated this particular debate by asking me questions about the E Coli experiment to begin with, and then you don't take time to read a response post that applies in respect?
But you do take the time to write a post explaining why you don't have the time to read a responding post??
You did, however, find the time to childishly attempt to belittle me. Don't worry,
I have an extremely thick skin, so I'm just fine.

Srry you didn't take time to read my post you might have learned something.
But since you can't be bothered,
I'm sure you'll continue to let others do your thinking for you and tell you what to believe.