[dkv (OP)]

:-))))) but it takes billions of years to predict nothing.
No .. it will not becuase it logically incorrect.
Dawkings doesnt refer to selction at the level of group or species. It doenst make sense. It manages to "explain" evolution using natural selection towards favourable genes.
For example Hair Genes !!
But it is big grand illusion which explains nothing.

[DoctorBeaver]

What on Earth are you talking about? Have you actually read Richard Dawkin's book? If you have then it doesn't seem as if you understood it.

It is Darwinism that stresses survival of the fittest, of the most favourable qualities. Dawkin's theory stresses survival of those closest to you, of those in whom you have a vested interest.

One area in which both of these theories struggle is altruism towards strangers. Altruism cannot be a survival trait, so therefore does not fit into Darwinism. The altruistic trait should by now have been bred out of the population. Nor does altruism towards strangers benefit one's own genes, so Dawkinism cannot readily accommodate it either.

I suppose you're going to tell me that TSP can explain it. Oh yawn... go on then.

[dkv (OP)]

It is Darwinism that stresses survival of the fittest, of the most favourable qualities. Dawkin's theory stresses survival of those closest to you, of those in whom you have a vested interest.

There si nothing favourable as such with respect to individual oragnism... statistically yes those close to me should survive because I have interests in them emotionally.
They are people whom I know and knew all life long.
More than genetic interests there are emotional interests....
Because of emotional interests the genetic interests appear ...
But if they do not provide or had provided the emotional support then I might ditch them ...
I may risk genetic qualities in favour of greater happiness. 
Example Buddhism ... which doesnt believe in opposite sex.
It happens so often I wonder who gave this absurd theory.
TSP rules.

[DoctorBeaver]

Buddhism doesn't believe in the opposite sex? What absolute twaddle!

May I suggest you go away, actually learn something about the topics you are citing or trying to refute, then if you still think you are right, return & try to argue your point logically, intelligently & consistently.

[another_someone]

One area in which both of these theories struggle is altruism towards strangers. Altruism cannot be a survival trait, so therefore does not fit into Darwinism. The altruistic trait should by now have been bred out of the population. Nor does altruism towards strangers benefit one's own genes, so Dawkinism cannot readily accommodate it either.

It depends on how you classify altruism.

Certainly, acting for mutual long term benefit at the price of personal short term benefit is fairly easy to understand (it is why corporations will form cartels to control the market even though on a simplistic level they can gain more short term benefit by trying to destroy their competition rather than co-operate with them).

Ofcourse, the other issue is that nature creates simple rules that work most of the time, but that simple approximation can sometimes have locally perverse outcomes, but the cost to the overall system of such perverse outcomes remains less than the cost of complicating the system to avoid those outcomes.

[dkv (OP)]

Altruism I already explained.
Buddism as originally preached had no place for women.
========================================
Anyways those interested can know another fact:
There are times when a family memember kills its own family. It happens in the animal kingdom and human society. Search the internet and you will find many example. One specific example involves Nepal King's heir killing his entire family and himself for a girl.
I know of bitches who kill and eat their own litter.
I know of snakes who eat their own eggs.
The only reason the children manage to survive is due to their role in future for the society or parents to move towards greater sustainablility of pleasure.
In some countries both developed and 3rd world there are couples who breed only for money and then they leave their children like stray dogs.(social security number provides some benefits to married couples who have kids)
Why ? Because the culture doesnt support long term family based happiness.
=======================================
In this complicated game I clearly lead in explaining life on the whole.
Those who disagree will regret the decision to call the life a replication game which is full of contradictions and considers individuals as gene carriers.
=====================================

[DoctorBeaver]

Oh wake up! It's got nothing to do with their culture not being geared up for long-term family happiness. They can't afford to keep the kids. Full stop.

I could probably come up with a theory equally as silly as yours and support it with random statements that have very little, if any, basis in reality.

[dkv (OP)]

Who is stopping you from giving theories?
But I am glad you are atleast not with those who believe Religion is Virus.
Now its time to show support for TSP.
Vote Now.
Those proudly support the idea that Religion as Virus are actually Devils in someone's notebook.
We need to fight this evil. Do you have the guts to stand for TSP?

[DoctorBeaver]

Religion isn't a virus because virii have a basis in reality.

[kdlynn]

dkv... every time you are asked for PROOF the only information you can provide supporting your theory is information that you, yourself, have written. therefor, that is not proof. that is you restating your opinion.

[_Stefan_]

Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.

However, when we became part of much larger communities, which also contained unrelated individuals, our brains treated this environment as if it was the small family group. It could be said that even though you may never see a certain individual again, it would be a much safer move to act altruistically towards them, because this way you don't risk personal harm. You also benefit from this behavior if the other individual reciprocates, where it may want to watch your back as you watch their back, etc.

Also, as members of the same species, we still share a large percentage of genes with each other. This is further evolutionary incentive to treat strangers nicely.

Then of course you have scenarios where members of one group harm members of another group, or of in-group disputes. In both these cases, the defending the group's territory or property or members from competition and attack, which is another method of survival, and of harming members of your own group, e.g. by fighting over food or other things, or punishing a misbehaving youngster, the perceived risks involved are not such as to endanger one's own survival. For example, in both cases, certain individuals ally together to act against other individuals. The attacking individuals have persuaded others of their group to support them.
If an individual acts against another, alone, the group may shun it unless they agree with the reason and method for the non-altruistic act.

When a species of organisms evolves a brain which allows them to have true, consciously selfish motives, you get individuals which can act against the will of their genes.




DKV, get over yourself. Your notions are misconceived, and in light of your recent posts you really do seem crazy. You have not shown how TSP works, you have not provided evidence, your entire TSP campaign is based on your own misunderstandings of Darwinian evolution and selfish gene theory, and of many other scientific theories and other explanations. Do yourself a favor, stop posting rubbish, and re-read the science behind the claims you are trying to dispute and support until you understand it.

In science you do not persuade people with nonsensical rubbish, you persuade people with verifiable facts and valid explanations.

[dkv (OP)]

Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.

YOU ARE INVOLVING STRATEGY AT THE GENE LEVEL ... THERE IS NO INTENTION AT THE GENE LEVEL AND NOTHING GETS SIMULATED BY ANIMALS.THE REPLICATION DOESNT PREDICT EMOTIONS OR CONSCIOUSNESS IN ANIMALS>...
REPLICATION THEORY STANDS FOR CONTRADICTION.LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND IMAGINATION BY THE FOLLOWERS LEAD TO
APPRENT EXPLANATIONS.ITS A CHAOTIC THEORY WHICH OFFERS NOTHING WORTH THE EFFORT.
===================================================

I dont even want to quote the rubbish which you and your supporters are propagating in the name of meme.
Infact the replication theory is a Virus and which exploits the religion to further its own cause of propaganda.
ONE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE IS THAT THE GENETIC DISTRIBUTION IS ASYMETRIC IN MALES AND FEMALES: AND THIS WAS USED TO EXPLAIN THE BEHAVIOUR IN NUMBER OF CASES. But the fact is there is no proof to anything.
Its an illusion.
I BET YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING:
Given a objective there are two choices with or without genes. Whats the big deal?
And I have already said that similar conditions must prevail for greter happiness. Which means the offsprings will carry the traits of parents.
I explain everthing.
You are looking for contradiction between replication and TSP but the fact is TSP explains why offsprings look similar to parents.. why random mutations do not take place... why random rearrangement of genes didnt  take place in the scheme of nothing?

[DoctorBeaver]

Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.

That seems to be confusing altruism with friendliness.

However, when we became part of much larger communities, which also contained unrelated individuals, our brains treated this environment as if it was the small family group. It could be said that even though you may never see a certain individual again, it would be a much safer move to act altruistically towards them, because this way you don't risk personal harm. You also benefit from this behavior if the other individual reciprocates, where it may want to watch your back as you watch their back, etc.

You mention reciprocation and that is what you have described here, not altruism.

Altruism is helping another (or others) with no percievable benefit to, or reward for, oneself. If a deed is done for the purpose of some future reciprocation then it cannot be altruistic.

In fact, it can be argued that altruism doesn't actually exist as the self-satisfaction one gets from helping others is in itself a reward.

[_Stefan_]

You're right. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Re-reading my post it appears I got sidetracked into explaining morality.


Yes, from the gene's point of view, altruism doesn't exist, since the sacrificing organism's DNA is nevertheless conserved by other members of the family/group/species. You would not see altruism if the genes were highly at risk as a result of the altruism.

[DoctorBeaver]

Altruism has not been studied that much. There has been plenty of research into helping behaviour since Latané and Darley studied the Kitty Genovese case in 1970, but altruism itself has received scant attention.

I would be interested to see if there is any difference in incidences of altruism between those with offspring and those without. However, as any altruistic act would be hard to identify due to a self-satisfaction motive, it would not be an easy piece of research to conduct.