|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step [Re: Moonshoe]
#6182721 - 10/18/06 01:37 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
In that example, how would you differentiate morality from cooperation and/or empathy?
Does the ape help another ape because he believes it is right, or because (generations earlier) un-cooperative, non-empathic ape's genetic lines were less likely to be continued? (You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, we'll all still be alive to procreate.)
How can we truly say that cooperative/empathic behavior is not related to survival, and thus a selected trait? Perhaps picking up someone else's dropped food & handing it to them does not immediately impact the ape's survival, but the overall tendency to cooperate could mean that one band of apes survives a food scarcity & another does not.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step [Re: Silversoul]
#6184357 - 10/18/06 09:41 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I guess I see evolution in more practical terms: if a random genetic mutation can be successful (live long enough to produce genetically similar offspring), then it will continue to occur. If it cannot be successful, then it will not. If it causes an organism to be more genetically successful than others nearby, then that organism will dominate the area.
Cooperative animals may find it easier to compete with non-cooperative animals, and therefore spend more time making cooperatively-inclined babies. No right or wrong about it.
This is the simplest explanation, and does not require a creator or morality. Whether a creator or an objective morality exist is beside the point. (For me, anyway.)
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step [Re: Lion]
#6186574 - 10/19/06 02:02 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
how organisms could be coded so that their primary goal is reproduction
Turn the question around: would an organism which was not primarily focused on reproduction avoid becoming extinct? Apparently not, since the organisms which manage to survive and be studied by science all prioritize reproduction. 
If a random genetic mutation either aids survival or does not interfere with survival, it will have a chance at being passed on to another generation. If it interferes with survival enough to reduce or eliminate passing on the genetic trait, then that mutation will not continue to be expressed.
This seems fairly simple & straightforward to me.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step [Re: Lion]
#6190234 - 10/20/06 10:13 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bug said: I realize how convoluted this post is - I just woke up from a nap, so cut me some slack. Basically, I get that walruses want there to be more walruses in the future, but evolutionary theorists have never explained why in terms of the origins of life. It's a black hole in the theory, the universal (or planetary, at least) law that says creatures want there to be more creatures like them after they're dead.
OK, let's say that random genetic mutation creates two types of walruses: one type pursues playing instead of procreation, and does not produce offspring, the other type pursues procreation, and produces many offspring.
Which mutation is a genetic "dead end" and which becomes a busy freeway?
This is not a matter of science dismissing something as incidental, it is self-evident. Unless you believe that a higher power "coded" organisms in a certain way, it is a simple matter of success or failure in genetic terms. Many organisms could occur which do not "want" more of their kind to be born, but they will inevitably fail (i.e. become extinct.)
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
#6190268 - 10/20/06 10:21 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe some of them started having playful sex? (That's my preference.)
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
#6190305 - 10/20/06 10:28 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Non-procreators Anonymous"?
|
|