Here is my take on the start of religion.  People evolved to think in terms of intentions in other things, which is beneficial in dealing with other animals (including other humans).  It is a way of "making sense" of what other people do that enables one to better predict their future actions.  That has led to thinking in terms of intentions in other things as well, so that natural events are attributed to intentions in the same way that other humans' actions are attributed to intentions.  From that, one gets spirits in things, and as the beliefs about those spirits become more sophisticated and abstract, one ends up with things more like modern religions.  We can see some of this in the evolution of religion, in that polytheism predates monotheism, which is a more abstract version of the idea of things being guided by spirits.

I wish I could take credit for being the first person to think of such things, but this is not new with me.

(August 4, 2015 at 2:42 pm)rainmac Wrote: I was hoping a few might have some thoughts on why the existing adaptations for social cohesion in other species are seemingly insufficient for humans that religious (ritual) behaviors evolved to increase fitness. What it suggests to me is that, for those who support the social cohesion function of religion, there is something more rudimentary or basic to explain the evolution of human religion, and social cohesion is a secondary effect.

My own best guess is that self reflection would have been an offshoot of inter-tribal warfare. To anticipate the intentions of your scummy neighbors it would help to have insight into your own tendencies. Once we were in the habit of interpreting the malevolent (or not) intentions of other humans, perhaps reading intentions into discomfiting natural calamities might follow. I suspect conflict within our own species would explain most of what we find exceptional in our species.

(August 4, 2015 at 2:42 pm)rainmac Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Just as the giraffe is stuck with some biologically inefficient anatomy, so we seem to be stuck with god belief long after any direct need for it can be demonstrated.

I will say that for those of us imbued in evolutionary theory, it is not within our purview to claim that the giraffe neck is biologically inefficient any more than god belief is not necessary. While I'm not a believer, I can't second guess evolution, who is the final arbiter. Sorry for the anthropomorphism, but I don't know how to talk about evolution otherwise.

Yes, I agree with you. I tend to see religion neutrally as an important clue for understanding our species, not a flawed attempt at science.

What I meant to point at was some routing issues with the giraffes blood system which I've read others argue as proof that the giraffe did evolve from a creature without such a long neck. (I'm sure neither of us has an issue with that.) Unfortunately I don't recall now just what that detail consisted of.

(August 4, 2015 at 3:49 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: What I meant to point at was some routing issues with the giraffes blood system which I've read others argue as proof that the giraffe did evolve from a creature without such a long neck.  (I'm sure neither of us has an issue with that.)  Unfortunately I don't recall now just what that detail consisted of.

Perhaps you are referring to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, whatevs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

I actually think that's a reasonable analogy to the evolution of superstition/religiosity in humans. You start with something that imparts an evolutionary advantage (pattern-seeking/the ability of an animal to vocalize) and you morph it, little by little, until its connection to the original evolutionary advantage seems to stretch beyond what might seem reasonable (assuming an ultimate agency behind everything in the universe) or necessary (a highly circuitous route that's twenty-times (or more) longer than it needs to be).

Thanks, that is exactly what I had in mind, Morgan. (Had the wrong system of cables though.)

(August 4, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Thanks, that is exactly what I had in mind, Morgan.  (Had the wrong system of cables though.)

No prob.  The recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example of Stupid Design

My idea of religion is a sense of hope that humans attempt to rely on to get security and a sort of bedrock in our lives. It's who forgives us for our sins, who holds the doors to heaven open when we perish from the face of the Earth. That's why so many people are religious (Though, I believe God and religion has nothing to do with one another). There's nothing wrong with having hope in our lives as long as we don't try force it on other people. To me, religion is a false sense of security that humans coat themselves in to remain sane.

(August 4, 2015 at 3:49 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: What I meant to point at was some routing issues with the giraffes blood system which I've read others argue as proof that the giraffe did evolve from a creature without such a long neck.  (I'm sure neither of us has an issue with that.) 

This represents a very important and overlooked concept in evolution, which is that all evolutionary changes can be seen through a cost-benefit analysis. Evolving the long neck was advantageous for a wider variety of food sources, but came at a cost due to the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Humans are no different, and while some will say religion turns out to be a cost due to other benefits, it will turn out to be exactly the opposite: religion evolved to solve problems caused by other evolved traits.

(August 4, 2015 at 6:46 pm)EmmaMye Wrote: My idea of religion is a sense of hope that humans attempt to rely on to get security and a sort of bedrock in our lives. It's who forgives us for our sins, who holds the doors to heaven open when we perish from the face of the Earth. That's why so many people are religious (Though, I believe God and religion has nothing to do with one another). There's nothing wrong with having hope in our lives as long as we don't try force it on other people. To me, religion is a false sense of security that humans coat themselves in to remain sane.

Hey, whatever gets you through the night.  If you do, you do.  Fine by me and I especially appreciate your writing the part I bolded.  So what's a nice girl like you doing on a forum like this?  

(August 4, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Thanks, that is exactly what I had in mind, Morgan.  (Had the wrong system of cables though.)

No prob.  The recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example of Stupid Design

Seems there are always differing views on the RLN "poor design" argument.

Forget the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right, but the most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics." 1 

Living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of development

1. Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, 188

(August 4, 2015 at 10:41 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: No prob.  The recurrent laryngeal nerve is my favorite example of Stupid Design

Forget the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right, but the most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics." 1 

The embryology 'devo' side of evolution fascinates me but I'm not sure what you're saying here, kingy.  In this case, don't the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics" just come down to the fact that the pre-existing platform on which the organism is based simply can't simply re-route the laryngeal nerve in order to elongate the neck more simply.  It is the greater reach leading to more available feed which is feeding back on individuals and rendering longer necked individuals more fit and abundant for mating.  The underlying platform of the organism can basically be altered by changing the number or the magnitude of the component parts.  In the giraffe's case it was the latter.  The laryngeal nerve just came along for the ride, having no bearing on the fitness and availability for mating.  Of course, if the length of the nerve had actually had a deleterious effect, the longer neck individuals might not have had and advantage and giraffes as we know them might just have been one more gazelle like creature among many.

I find it fascinating that you have embraced evolution as a protestant.  Good on you.