Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: Do primates practice religion? [View all]

LTX

(1,020 posts)
48. I'm not following.
Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:12 PM
Jun 2013

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 04:47 AM - Edit history (2)

You say -- "If we had biologically evolved to survive in the vacuum of space then we would need no technological support to exist in that vacuum." So your suggestion is that we did not biologically evolve to develop the technological support to exist in the vacuum of space? The alternative seems to be that we were specially created to develop the technological support to exist in the vacuum of space, but I don't think that's where you are headed. By your reasoning, we also aren't biologically evolved to survive in the arctic. Or England. But we do. How did that happen?

You also say -- "A simply astounding number of people have problems digesting our modern agriculture based diet heavy with starches and gluten . . ." An equally astounding number are adapted to such consumption. And in only, by your calculation, six thousand years. Funny how evolution sometimes fails to abide by the mandated timetable.

And what is this about shyness? First you say -- "Shyness is a problem that wouldn't even show up in the small hunter-gatherer bands we are evolved to live in . . ." How do you know this? Sounds decidedly "just so."

Then you say -- "In the type of society we have now being shy is a huge disadvantage to social and reproductive success . . ." Except that there are now a few more than 7 billion of us. Is that just a statistical anomaly? Or is it evidence of rather remarkable reproductive success, "shyness" notwithstanding?

And then you add -- "Where in a hunter-gatherer culture it wouldn't even be an issue since there would be no strangers to be shy with." Except that tribe you just stumbled on. Hunting the same savannah. "Just so."

And finally, you say -- "Just because we can force ourselves to fit in civilization by no means implies we have biologically evolved for that role." Indeed, we should all be living in Eden, with no pesky neighbors. But we're not. We have, in fact, developed civilizations, and adapted to them sufficiently to rather overwhelm our planet with reproductive and consumptive success. If we're not biologically evolved to do so, then we're making a pretty good show of pretending to be.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The primates certainly mourn their dead, and provide them as dimbear Jun 2013 #1
Also recommend Chimpanzee Politics. cbayer Jun 2013 #3
This is hearsay LostOne4Ever Jun 2013 #57
If they do, the implication is that religion is a part of our nature. Jim__ Jun 2013 #2
Interesting about group dance and agree about it being a powerful community cbayer Jun 2013 #4
People are primates Android3.14 Jun 2013 #5
OK, the title may miss the point, but the book and the review are not about humans. cbayer Jun 2013 #6
Religious people don't want to acknowledge that inconvenient fact NoOneMan Jun 2013 #65
That's what always frustrated me with Dawkins. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #7
Evolution does not have a purpose so there can be no "pinnacle of evolution" Fumesucker Jun 2013 #9
"Pinnacle of evolution" napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #15
We are not remotely evolved to fit a civilization of billions Fumesucker Jun 2013 #17
typo. Should have read "theist families". napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #18
Atheists basically didn't exist a few thousand years ago Fumesucker Jun 2013 #19
Well sure they did. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #20
I was thinking more three to four thousand years BP Fumesucker Jun 2013 #24
It doesn't matter what I care about. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #21
Nature doesn't care about anything, that's anthropomorphism Fumesucker Jun 2013 #22
You say -- LTX Jun 2013 #29
Biological evolution in humans is quite slow due to our long generations Fumesucker Jun 2013 #38
I'm not following. LTX Jun 2013 #48
Evidently we don't share a common definition of the term "biological evolution" Fumesucker Jun 2013 #49
We evidently don't. Perhaps you can tell me your definition. LTX Jun 2013 #51
Indeed, one former Catholic once told me... trotsky Jun 2013 #25
Evolution indeed has a purpose. LTX Jun 2013 #26
Purpose implies intelligence, evolution certainly has effects but it is not intelligent Fumesucker Jun 2013 #28
I think you have boxed up evolution a little too tightly. LTX Jun 2013 #32
Purposeful trial and error has a lot higher success rate than does evolution Fumesucker Jun 2013 #34
As I said, I think you are boxing up evolution too tightly. LTX Jun 2013 #35
The fact that the products of natural biological evolution skepticscott Jun 2013 #41
Again, please see my posts 32 and 35. n/t LTX Jun 2013 #43
You still have failed utterly to show skepticscott Jun 2013 #47
Ok. You win. LTX Jun 2013 #50
Ok. I'll add -- LTX Jun 2013 #45
Which still doesn't mean that forces driving natural biological evolution skepticscott Jun 2013 #46
You say -- LTX Jun 2013 #52
None of which is in dispute skepticscott Jun 2013 #53
Evolution has outcomes and results, even trends skepticscott Jun 2013 #39
Please see my posts 32 and 35. n/t LTX Jun 2013 #40
Saw them. See my post 41 skepticscott Jun 2013 #42
Your post 41 is purely conclusory. LTX Jun 2013 #44
Fascinating take on this. It's an argument I haven't previously heard. cbayer Jun 2013 #11
Its all the same argument really. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #16
If you can identify a biologist who has actually claimed that... trotsky Jun 2013 #27
Are you attacking the spirit of what I'm saying, or my wording? napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #54
I'm doing neither. trotsky Jun 2013 #55
Have you ever looked to see what Dawkins himself says? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #56
Yeah, I've read his books. I enjoy that clip. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #59
I don't think you can identify an 'optimal state of information' for a species muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #60
What I'm refering to is units of cultural information acting as genes. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #62
But memes aren't part of biology muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #63
Genes are information. napoleon_in_rags Jun 2013 #64
very interesting.... madrchsod Jun 2013 #8
Hope you are able to find it. I am on a road trip and would like to find it on audio. cbayer Jun 2013 #13
Thinking about religion rationally, and religiousity being innate are not mutually exclusive. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #10
How does it make it less valid? cbayer Jun 2013 #12
Rather than being revealed truth from prophets and magical beings Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #14
+1 \n Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #23
+2 cleanhippie Jun 2013 #33
Well put. And we can look at many things that clearly conferred an evolutionary advantage... trotsky Jun 2013 #36
+3 /n Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #61
Well... LeftishBrit Jun 2013 #30
Lol That's a good one. cbayer Jun 2013 #31
There's a prominent Brit biologist--Sir Solly Zuckerman, I think-- okasha Jun 2013 #37
Of course they do LostOne4Ever Jun 2013 #58
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Do primates practice reli...»Reply #48