Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albert Cipriani · 04-22-2003, 12:59 PM

Dear Mag,
You argue:

Quote:

Consuming the flesh of the dead under those [disease-ridden] circumstances would certainly seem to be a tremendous risk. Therefore it would not seem unreasonable for a natural aversion to it to develop.

So you are suggesting that men who were smart enough to harness fire, chip stone, build Stonehenge and execute the cave art of Lascaux could not tell the difference between his clansmen who died of disease or natural causes? It would seem that a smallpox-ridden corpse and one freshly fallen from a hunt gone wrong could be sorted out by such brains.

Does it not seem reasonable to assume that if early man was willing to risk life and limb to kill prey and scavenge decaying diseased carcasses, he�d be motivated to figure out how to consume the disease-free free-lunch that his fallen comrades represented? � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Wounded King · 04-22-2003, 02:01 PM

I think that the prevailing opinion at the moment is that Neanderthal man was not the ancestor of modern day man. So the evolution of altruism in neanderthals is not necccessarily directly relevant, although it seems reasonable to assume that a common ancestor of modern and neanderthal man would also have had this trait.

Please stop using the argument about cannibalism Albert, unless you believe perhaps that there have never been cannibalistic humans. As has already been pointed out there are other factors which may make cannibalism detrimental. The existence of a Taboo prohibiting something which might allow a slightly increased chance of survival proves nothing, except perhaps that people never have been particularly rational and logical.

Peez · 04-22-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Albert Cipriani:
So you are suggesting that men who were smart enough to harness fire, chip stone, build Stonehenge and execute the cave art of Lascaux could not tell the difference between those in their clan who died of disease or natural causes? It would seem that a smallpox-ridden corpse and one freshly fallen from a hunt gone wrong could be sorted out by such brains.

A person does not have to be riddled by disease, or die from it, to present a disease hazard to those eating him or her. A recent example: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) has been linked to the consumption of meat from cattle with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, "mad cow disease"), but the cattle that were eaten did not necessarily show any symptoms of the disease. I would also point out that humans have blamed diseases on demons:

Quote:

Matthew 9:
32 As they were going out, a mute, demon-possessed man was brought to Him.
33 After the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel." (NASB)

and on sorcery:

Quote:

The Fore people named what they saw kuru, which means trembling or fear. They suddenly saw their women and children becoming invalids. They lost all motor functions, including walking and talking, and began to tremble uncontrollably, then gradually developed dementia and died. To these native people the only explanation available was sorcery: it was believed that, "the sorcerer steals food remnants, hair, nail clippings, or excrement from the victim. He makes a bundle with leaves and some sorcerer's stone, places the bundle in muddy ground, and names the victim. As the bundle rots, the victim exhibits symptoms." (From here)

and on "bad air":

Quote:

The word malaria comes from the Italian malaria, meaning bad air as it was once supposed to be caused by bad air. (From here)

to mention just a few examples. These were humans that "were smart enough to harness fire, chip stone, build Stonehenge and execute the cave art of Lascaux," not to mention build large sailing ships, paint masterpieces that are still admired, chart the courses of the planets, etc. It is clear that humans are still quite capable of having misconceptions about all sorts of things.

Quote:

Does it not seem reasonable to assume that if early man was willing to risk life and limb to kill prey and scavenge decaying diseased carcasses, he'd be motivated to figure out how to consume the disease-free free-lunch that his fallen comrades represented?

You appear to be missing the point. If there was a higher risk associated with eating other humans, then (by definition) it would be safer to eat non-humans. Why mess with trying to eat other humans when you can eat much safer meat?

Peez

Peez · 04-22-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Wounded King:
I think that the prevailing opinion at the moment is that Neanderthal man was not the ancestor of modern day man. So the evolution of altruism in neanderthals is not necessarily directly relevant, although it seems reasonable to assume that a common ancestor of modern and neanderthal man would also have had this trait.

I had missed this insinuation, but looking back I see:

Quote:

Albert Cipriani:
8) Ergo, humans ever since, who are so much as tempted to do likewise (Donner Party, 1846) practice altruism.

You are quite right, WK, in fact the evidence indicates that Homo sapiens was here 100,000 years before Neanderthals showed up.

Quote:

Please stop using the argument about cannibalism Albert, unless you believe perhaps that there have never been cannibalistic humans. As has already been pointed out there are other factors which may make cannibalism detrimental. The existence of a Taboo prohibiting something which might allow a slightly increased chance of survival proves nothing, except perhaps that people never have been particularly rational and logical.

True. If there is some flaw in my model of the evolution of altruism, I would appreciate it if someone would explain just what that flaw is.

Peez

Albert Cipriani · 04-22-2003, 03:35 PM

Dear Subi,

Quote:

Wouldn't a Christian follow Christ *all* the time, and not intermingle other thinkers/writers as auxilliary sources of wisdom?

Following Christ is not a full-time job. Indeed, following Christ is done while doing other jobs. Thus, monks tilled gardens as a form of prayer, furrowing their fields as a way of following Christ.

The premiere Doctor of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, is premiere for doing precisely that which you suspect as unorthodox. When the Medieval West discovered pagan Aristotle, many churchmen, considering its source, argued against his brilliance as Hitler argued against relativity because it was a Jewish invention. But Aquinas integrated most of Aristotle�s philosophy into Church theology. Thus, till this day we are still using the Aristotelian terms of form and substance to talk about our sacraments.

Quote:

The bible indeed states that �the meek shall inherit the earth.� What does this say for the bible, that you find this reference to fitness so alien?

If naturalistic evolution is the overarching operative principal of life, then the strong, not the meek, shall inherit the universe. Evolutionary processes (which can be abstracted as chance and competition) are the antithesis of Christianity�s overarching operative principal of the Golden Rule (which can be abstracted as providence and love). Ergo, if evolution is the whole story, the Bible is a defunct story. � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Majestyk · 04-22-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
So you are suggesting that men who were smart enough to harness fire, chip stone, build Stonehenge and execute the cave art of Lascaux could not tell the difference between his clansmen who died of disease or natural causes? It would seem that a smallpox-ridden corpse and one freshly fallen from a hunt gone wrong could be sorted out by such brains.

Does it not seem reasonable to assume that if early man was willing to risk life and limb to kill prey and scavenge decaying diseased carcasses, he�d be motivated to figure out how to consume the disease-free free-lunch that his fallen comrades represented? � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

No. I'm suggesting that such an aversion would have developed before we became homo sapiens.

How many mammalian species engage in cannibalism? How many primates? How many apes?

Llyricist · 04-22-2003, 04:10 PM

Just a few points.

To start with, just because there is evidence that neanderthals buried their dead, does that mean they buried ALL their dead? It could just as easily be that they buried the diseased and ate the fataly injurred, we cannot know.

As for the reasons for burial as opposed to abandoning in place, I think it's kind of obviously due to what happens with dead bodies if you leave em out... I don't think I need to get graphic here... and the flowers? maybe the same reason if they don't bury it deep enough (odor camouflage).

As for morality, I believe it is a necessary social construct since we started gathering in larger groups than our evolved behavioral tendencies could themselves deal with.

As has been pointed out the "altruism" would have evolved within the smaller groups our ancesters associated in, but as can be observed in just about all mammals, there is also a deep animosity for individuals NOT of their own group. And this can be seen amply demonstarted every day in our present society. Therefore the necessary social construct of "morality" on the intellectual level to overcome our natural tendencies toward people outside our "family" (or gang, or tribe, or team, or race, or state, or country.......) when we started congregating in larger numbers with the advent of agriculture.

And someone has pointed out that "morality" appears to be culturally dependent, therefore it isn't some sort of absolute "God-given" thing.

GunnerJ · 04-22-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

If naturalistic evolution is the overarching operative principal of life, then the strong, not the meek, shall inherit the universe.

I think we need to be careful with out terms, Albert. Best scientific explaination for biological diversity != "overarching principal of life." And even if evolution were some sort of universal philosophy, it would be those organisms which best adapt to their environments that inheret the earth, not neccesarily "the strong." In a social evironment, altruism and respect for others' rights are excellent adaptations.

Albert Cipriani · 04-22-2003, 09:48 PM

Dear Peez,
Thanks for your response.

Quote:

Seems that you are looking for scientific reasons that evolution might not be reasonable, rather than anything philosophical or theological.

Yes. I meant to say that my theological and philosophical pre-conceptions animate my antipathy towards the theory of evolution, not that either can be brought to bear against evolution.

Quote:

Finding a "hairy fish with digits" or "placenta-born feathered crocodile" would not pose any problems at all for the theory of evolution.

But digits are not a morphology of fish. According to the cladistic scheme of things, morphological changes are not a free-for-all. Some changes ought not to be possible. Otherwise, it would seem that Douglas Theobauld Ph.D. at TalkOrigins would not have written:

Quote:

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings� A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies.� [29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree Copyright � 1999-2002]

I thought the nested groupings of the Phylogenetic Tree was a central proof for the theory of evolution? But if branches of the Phylogenetic Tree can crisscross and graft themselves, if anything is possible, then doesn�t the evolutionary theory fail to be predictive? If evolution allows for any kind of change whatsoever unfettered by prior morphological divergences, then the theory seems no more than a restatement of the infamous �God works in mysterious ways� bromide.

Quote:

If you have found some flaw in my [evolution of altruism] model, please point it out.

I detect no flaw in your model as a description for kin selection or reciprocal altruism. Its disconnect lies between how those instinctual forms of altruism developed and how human altruism is presently manifest. As you put it:

Quote:

Eventually a second mutation results in another new allele that results in the gronk being more likely to eat an egg the less it smells like its own. This would make the gronk less likely to eat its own, while still being able to take advantage of the food that other eggs might provide. Such individuals would tend to have an advantage, obtaining more food than their fellows but retaining the low egg mortality.

Using your illustration, from such humble beginnings, how would we explain modern-day Gronks that ate no eggs even if they were starving to death? That�s another way of asking you about the altruistic behavior illustrated by the Donner Party.

In short, your model seems to me to be a perfectly rational model to describe maternal instincts and etiquette, not to describe human altruism. But you said:

Quote:

I don't want to get into a discussion of what �instinctual� means.

I�ve already demonstrated what a pushover I am when it comes to definitions. I�m sure whatever you say it is would be just fine with me. In the absence of your formal definition, couldn�t we agree that instinctual behavior is autonomous behavior, while all other behavior is conscious?

If you accept my working definition that instincts are autonomous, then a cursory analysis of ourselves will reveal that our altruistic tendencies are not instinctual. Indeed, it�s our recognition of the non-reflexive and highly reflective origin of human altruism that prompts us to award medals for it. The neighbor who extracts a child from a burning home into the arms of its cowardly parents is not programmed to do so. But the brainwashed cult member programmed to light himself on fire for world peace does so without it qualifying as human altruism.

Quote:

You are assuming that the Neanderthals were forced to eat less if they did not eat their dead. This might be true, but then again it might not if they had plenty of other food available.

We�re talking about a group of hominids who were going extinct under the weight of the advancing ice sheets. Seems reasonable to assume food was at a premium.

Quote:

In fact, cannibalism can be very dangerous: eating members of one's own species is much more likely to pass on diseases than eating members of other species.

Yes, we know that. But they could not know that. The Kuru peoples as late as 1950 did not know that. Hence, our present-day knowledge that cannibalism is not good for our health cannot serve as an explanation for why Neanderthals buried their dead.

Quote:

The burying of dead bodies helps reduce the spread of disease, and so could have begun to serve the needs of the live Neanderthals doing the burying.

Again, Neanderthals could not have known this. I think it�s more reasonable to accept my assumption that they went to the trouble to bury their dead out of altruistic concern for their dead than to accept your anachronism.

Quote:

All this is moot. I have already demonstrated that altruistic behaviour can evolve naturally.

You�ve illustrated how autonomous repetitive non-cognitive behaviors could have arisen. There�s nothing in what you�ve said that should lead one to believe that such instinctual behaviors could crossover into an expression of human altruism, which is variegated, unpredictable, yet calculated.

Quote:

Altruism is not restricted to humans.

For example, army ants encountering a stream of water they cannot ford will sacrifice themselves by linking up into a bridge of bodies for the colony to walk over. If they did this for caterpillars or even other ant colonies, I could accept it as altruism. Since they only do it for their own colony, I can only see it as a species of kin selection. This kind of altruism in Nature seems qualitatively different than the kind I�m calling human altruism.

Quote:

Albert: �Ergo, you are asserting that if human altruism is an adaptation, evolution selected it because of its competitive advantage.�

Peez: �Although I made no such assertion, I do now.�

Doesn�t that seem counter-intuitive? I think human altruism sets us back. Sure what evolutionists call �reciprocal altruism� and �kin selection altruism� has given us a competitive advantage. But the peculiarly human form of altruism commonly expressed in our willingness to die for an idea, religion, or boundary line on a map seems decidedly disadvantageous. Indeed, I can conceive of no human activity more destructive to our species than human altruism as it is most typically practiced with such dismal regularity � war. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Wounded King · 04-23-2003, 01:42 AM

These would only be disadvantageous if they interfered with fitness up to reproductive age Albert. As long as people passed on their genes before throwing themselves onto hand grenades they would still have been perfectly fit in terms of evolution. If children were given to throwing themselves on top of hand grenades it might be a different matter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2003, 02:01 PM	#72
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	I think that the prevailing opinion at the moment is that Neanderthal man was not the ancestor of modern day man. So the evolution of altruism in neanderthals is not necccessarily directly relevant, although it seems reasonable to assume that a common ancestor of modern and neanderthal man would also have had this trait. Please stop using the argument about cannibalism Albert, unless you believe perhaps that there have never been cannibalistic humans. As has already been pointed out there are other factors which may make cannibalism detrimental. The existence of a Taboo prohibiting something which might allow a slightly increased chance of survival proves nothing, except perhaps that people never have been particularly rational and logical.

04-22-2003, 04:10 PM	#77
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Just a few points. To start with, just because there is evidence that neanderthals buried their dead, does that mean they buried ALL their dead? It could just as easily be that they buried the diseased and ate the fataly injurred, we cannot know. As for the reasons for burial as opposed to abandoning in place, I think it's kind of obviously due to what happens with dead bodies if you leave em out... I don't think I need to get graphic here... and the flowers? maybe the same reason if they don't bury it deep enough (odor camouflage). As for morality, I believe it is a necessary social construct since we started gathering in larger groups than our evolved behavioral tendencies could themselves deal with. As has been pointed out the "altruism" would have evolved within the smaller groups our ancesters associated in, but as can be observed in just about all mammals, there is also a deep animosity for individuals NOT of their own group. And this can be seen amply demonstarted every day in our present society. Therefore the necessary social construct of "morality" on the intellectual level to overcome our natural tendencies toward people outside our "family" (or gang, or tribe, or team, or race, or state, or country.......) when we started congregating in larger numbers with the advent of agriculture. And someone has pointed out that "morality" appears to be culturally dependent, therefore it isn't some sort of absolute "God-given" thing.

04-23-2003, 01:42 AM	#80
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	These would only be disadvantageous if they interfered with fitness up to reproductive age Albert. As long as people passed on their genes before throwing themselves onto hand grenades they would still have been perfectly fit in terms of evolution. If children were given to throwing themselves on top of hand grenades it might be a different matter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.