(September 20, 2011 at 2:50 am)Carnavon Wrote: I am no expert on animal bedhaviour so I would really be stupid to argue on this. The alternative to "evolve" would be that it has been "programmed. I think some of the old behaviourists called it "instinct". Is it not a possible alternative - whether you agree with it or not?

Programmed eh. Are you suggesting we are all part of a super computers game of 'the sims'?

This is certainly a more plausible argument than some ridiculous god thingy.

But overall evolution is the most plausible explanation for social behaviour as evolution has a good track record in this area.

There is no need for the god hypothesis.

(September 20, 2011 at 7:23 am)ElDinero Wrote: All natural life is a product of evolution. Animals that failed to act within their instincts would have died out. If you're suggesting something put it there, then it's you that needs to provide the proof.

---

Furthermore, animals we are most similar to exhibit the same instincts. The behaviour of infant humans is very similar to the behaviour of infant monkeys.

Wait, hold the phone. You first claimed that instinct was a product of evolution, now you are saying that the animals that already had instincts survived and were preserved. So which is it? Did evolution produce instinct or merely just preserve it?

He didn't say that animal instincts were there before animals began evolving. Why are you implying such when it isn't even hinted at in his post?

(September 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But overall evolution is the most plausible explanation for social behaviour as evolution has a good track record in this area.

Sorry, I can’t let you get away with this statement since it is utterly meaningless. How do you determine what is more plausible? What are your probability denominator and numerator values?

---

(September 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm)Shell B Wrote: He didn't say that animal instincts were there before animals began evolving. Why are you implying such when it isn't even hinted at in his post?

Actually he did, he said that animals that failed to act within their instincts died out, implying that those that did survive acted within their instincts and were thus preserved by natural selection. So in his scenario natural selection didn’t produce instincts (despite his claim to the contrary on the last page) it only preserved them.

(September 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But overall evolution is the most plausible explanation for social behaviour as evolution has a good track record in this area.

Sorry, I can’t let you get away with this statement since it is utterly meaningless. How do you determine what is more plausible? What are your probability denominator and numerator values?

Evolution is a well known mechanism that preserves useful traits. Evolution has had so much coroborating evidence that it is considered fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

As social behaviour is a useful trait it would tend to have imparted survival value and therefore evolution would have favoured the more social creatures.

Chances evolution is responsible 99.99999999%

This is versus the other "explanation" that a magic man that there is no proof for did it.

Chances an impossible magic man did it 0%

Chances its all part of a vastly complex computer game with programmed rules. o.000000001%

(September 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually he did, he said that animals that failed to act within their instincts died out, implying that those that did survive acted within their instincts and were thus preserved by natural selection. So in his scenario natural selection didn’t produce instincts (despite his claim to the contrary on the last page) it only preserved them.

No, he didn't. Unlike goddidit theories, we do not assume evolution is infallible. In cases where evolution didn't work out or work out fast enough for rapidly changing environmental conditions, animals die out. He did not contradict himself. You took meaning from his post that was not even implied.

Let's put it this way, if you said god created man and animals, but some of his creations didn't work out, so he let some die off and others continue to evolve, that would go against everything about your belief in god. However, if we say the same thing about the way things really are -- constantly evolving -- it contradicts nothing. A being's instincts can evolve poorly. Take for example the fight or flight instinct in humans. It came in handy in the past, but it can backfire and become anxiety. Human evolution hasn't had time to evolve beyond caveman instinct. I'm not entirely sure it will go away, either, because it is still helpful.

(September 20, 2011 at 2:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Evolution is a well known mechanism that preserves useful traits. Evolution has had so much coroborating evidence that it is considered fact.

You are committing equivocation here; you are using the word evolution to mean two different things within the same discussion. Here you are using it to mean natural selection which is something even creationists support. Later when you ascribe some imaginary probability to it you are using it to mean “common descent” which is something creationists disagree with. You need to be consistent if you want to prove anything.

Quote: As social behaviour is a useful trait it would tend to have imparted survival value and therefore evolution would have favoured the more social creatures.

Then why are there non-social creatures? Let me guess, because evolution favored them for being non-social?

Quote: Chances evolution is responsible 99.99999999%

How did you calculate this figure? I want to see this calculated out so I know it is not just your opinion.

Quote: This is versus the other "explanation" that a magic man that there is no proof for did it.

Who said anything about a magic man?

Quote: Chances an impossible magic man did it 0%

How did you calculate this? I want to see this calculated out so I know it is not just your opinion. Thanks.

(September 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, he didn't. Unlike goddidit theories, we do not assume evolution is infallible. In cases where evolution didn't work out or work out fast enough for rapidly changing environmental conditions, animals die out. He did not contradict himself. You took meaning from his post that was not even implied.

I still disagree, he specifically said that instinct evolved, it was a product of evolution. However, the explanation he gave did not make it a product of evolution at all. I’ll will give you a similar scenario, let me be the selective pressure for a minute, say that I have 100 animals. 50 of the animals have instincts the other 50 do not. I kill off the 50 who did not and allow the other 50 who did to survive. Did I produce instincts? No way! I merely acted upon what was already there. So you can’t say that natural selection produced anything because it only acts upon what is already present in the organism.

Quote: Let's put it this way, if you said god created man and animals, but some of his creations didn't work out, so he let some die off and others continue to evolve, that would go against everything about your belief in god.

Why? I suppose that depends on what you mean by “evolve”.

It's perfectly fine to suggest that the skywizard created man and woman out of dirt and ribmeat, that a tree was planted in their backyard which was illegal for them to eat from, that a critter in the tree conned them into eating from it, that as a result all man is doomed until a dude who is both god and not god, both god's son and also a human comes along to absolve them of something they had nothing to do with, and the endtimes as reported by the scripture readers take a few millennia to be shown inaccurate again and again, and yet you find issue with evolution, Stat?

Course he does. It's not mentioned in that book he read.

Ummm Anyone seen StarCrux??