Login

Join for Free!
112020 members


The work of natural selection...

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby deostroll » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:25 am

Not sure about the second law of thermodynamics. But I'd say that staying alive is again a response because it was naturally selected.
PS: I happen to be a philosopher, rather than a true scientist...
User avatar
deostroll
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Chennai

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:26 am

narrowstaircase wrote:have you read anything on negative entropy? this law states that energy within an open system tends to form larger, more complex and more stable arrangements of matter over time. staying alive is the "more stable" effect of this process in action within the biota on earth. its simply a law of thermodynamics that (most)universities seem to diregard in their curriculum for some reason o.0


Could you provide some credible sources for that please?
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby narrowstaircase » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:59 am

AstusAleator wrote:Could you provide some credible sources for that please?


Dr Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1977 for proving there are exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics. see his book 'Order out of Chaos' (1984, Ilya Prigogine & Isabelle Sengers). thats all the evidence i have, i dont have links to any research.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia


Postby charles brough » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:38 pm

narrowstaircase wrote:apparent altruistic behaviour in animals has been explained by evolutionary psychology (selfish gene theory), the problem i have with this theory is that it extends itself to human behaviour, which in my own reading and thus understanding i've acknowledged as being insufficient in explaining our true ultruistic behaviour. humans are known to risk their own lives to save people who are not related to them and even other species of animals or even wilderness in general. this is true altruism. .


So-called "altruism" is a trait common to social animals, animals used to group living. In such groups, the typical pattern is that it is rulled by an Alpha male and his sub-dominant cohorts. In their property are all the females, the young and the subordinate males and juveniles. Instinctively, the Alpha male dominant groups feel the whole group to [i]belong[/i] to them---their personal property. They instinctively feel it is their possession. They instinctively protect and care for what is theirs, what they own. We all defend and protect our property! It is instinctive, natural. That is the way nations and societies operate also. Clubs operate that way. Fraternities, military units, orchestras, etc. all operate the same way.

But we are believers of secular democratic standards and ideals, so we interpret our studies and data in ways that picture group decisions as being by concensus and that leaders are either crooks "that have to be thrown out of office" or "altruistic representatives of the will of the people who act only as symbols to carry out public decisions." (!)

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
User avatar
charles brough
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: California

Postby AstusAleator » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:06 pm

your analogy fails in the case of tragedy of the commons.

Furthermore, biological altruism in animals occurs when an animal willingly decreases their own fitness for that of another. Fitness being the ability to reproduce and have viable healthy offspring.

The best way that this is explained by natural selection is "kin selection" in which an animal sacrifices themselves for their relatives, thus indirectly perpetuating their genetic characteristics.

An example is ground squirrels that call out alarms when hawks are spotted, thus increasing their own chance of being caught/killed, while decreasing this chance in their kin.

Alpha males actually act quite un-altruistically - hogging the females and thus decreasing the fitness of their male relatives. When they are protecting their pack or "property," as you put it, they are participating in reciprocal altruism at best, ultimately with selfish motivation.

I agree with narrowstaircase in that that human "altruism" in humans does not necessarily fit the definition of evolutionary altruism, since, as he said, people will sacrifice themselves for people that have no relation to them, or even other species!

I think the important distinction is that humans are not like animals, in that they do not operate largely on instinct, but have the ability to rationalize and perform abstract logic.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby narrowstaircase » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:01 pm

charles brough wrote:So-called "altruism" is a trait common to social animals, animals used to group living. In such groups, the typical pattern is that it is rulled by an Alpha male and his sub-dominant cohorts. In their property are all the females, the young and the subordinate males and juveniles. Instinctively, the Alpha male dominant groups feel the whole group to [i]belong[/i] to them---their personal property. They instinctively feel it is their possession. They instinctively protect and care for what is theirs, what they own. We all defend and protect our property! It is instinctive, natural. That is the way nations and societies operate also. Clubs operate that way. Fraternities, military units, orchestras, etc. all operate the same way.


this seems to be an attack on ultruism and a defense of selfish behaviour.

Robert Ardrey's Theory which stated human competitiveness is due to an imperitive need to defend their territory is honestly really insufficient in defending selfish behaviour on our part. or if this is not where you were coming from, advocating all out materialism as instinctive is also insufficient to say the least. claiming selfishness is instinctive dismisses any responsibility or consequence of our actions.

dominance heirarchy in socialised animals serves a purpose. where there was once individual animals competing for food shelter and a mate there is now a group that can come by these things much easier. what appears to be selfishness in dominance heirarchy is actually the first step towards an integrated group of animals. with a leader the rest of the animals have a better lifestyle. it is a larger, more stable social structure where order (a group) is replacing chaos (individuals competeing). of course they are still competeing to mate but what we see is more order than before. there are higher social systems beyond this though where females choose their leader, or even the group is matriarchal.

nevertheless, this is NOT the way nations and societies opperate. modern society's laws and constitutions are based on selflessness not selfishness. it is kindness, compassion, respect and above all the right to free speech that seperates us from dominance heirarchy.

charles brough wrote:But we are believers of secular democratic standards and ideals, so we interpret our studies and data in ways that picture group decisions as being by concensus and that leaders are either crooks "that have to be thrown out of office" or "altruistic representatives of the will of the people who act only as symbols to carry out public decisions." (!)

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com


misinterpretation of studies and data can be accused of anyone by anyone. the reason you give is poor. someone said, "we not only know, we know that we know." secular democratic standards and ideals are not a box we cannot extend our thinking beyond. the fact that we know this negates any imprisoning affects it may have on our thinking.

if the evidence of selfishness in the animal kingdom is looming on your ideals well then i strongly recommend you read Diane Fossey and Eugene Marais especially, both honest accounts on the social structure and behaviour of gorillas and baboons.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron