There is no contemporary research that says that if we have trait X, then X must provide a survival advantage. Only neo-Nazis and Peterson incels beli...
My position is the same as that of contemporary biology. Your's is of 19th Century biology. Arent you curious about what scientists are saying today? ...
This is an outdated view. As Banno mentioned, it dove-tailed nicely with some 19th and 20th century outlooks, but it never had empirical backing. See ...
I agree that Dawkin's influence shouldn't entirely be held against him. It's not his fault that while inspiring a generation, he was also embraced by ...
There are studies that show that humans look directly into one another's eyes more than our closest living relatives. The difference is down to geneti...
I'm in North America where foreign invasion, whether its birds, trees, vines, viruses, or humans, can radically alter the biosphere because the invade...
I guess if someone wants a quick straight answer, fishing reddit for an expert would work. If you find one, they're usually generous and they'll load ...
Well put. So the non-believer can only arrive at moral absolutes by embracing delusion. Maybe it started as a coping mechanism, but it develops into a...
I see what you're saying. In medieval times warlords paid attention to their moral standing in the eyes of their soldiers because if the soldiers beca...
Honestly, I think morality is mostly utilized to condemn others. We withdraw to the inner sanctums of our own personal courtrooms and judge the hell o...
Why do scientists want to be metaphysicians? Partly power trip, maybe. Why do the philosophically minded want to ground their views in science? Becaus...
Good science doesnt make unfounded assumptions. If humans are selfish, we cant assume there's a survival advantage to that. Same if humans are altruis...
It wasnt Myers who did the research on that, but he did present that research in that lecture. This was fun when I thought you might be inspired to ge...
It's more the assumption that elements of human society must necessarily have explanations in the context of adaptation. Those elements may actually e...
Not lying. An evolutionary biologist told me that. I didnt glean it from the internet. Of course. ? So back to how Dawkins isnt in step with science. ...
Nope. Biologists. Humans dont have a large enough population to exhibit adaptation as the primary force of evolution. So you answered yourself: if Daw...
Biologists do believe adaptation is the most important factor in bacterial evolution, but not for humans. What characteristic of a population tells yo...
Cool. So neither greed nor altruism have to be products of adaptation. Morality does not have to imbue any "survival" advantage. Assuming that it must...
No, its the view that all characteristics of a population must be products of adaptation. For instance, an adaptationist once created a hat that mimic...
Comments