[Petrochemicals (OP)]

In the garden of Eden, for those who do not know, God creates a singular man (Adam in this instance) a wife (Eve) who by default live in a monogomous relationship according to gods law as they are the only humans alive. They live in paradise as a couple with no wants or ills to afflict them

This sounds great, until terrors split this Eden existence asunder. Eve goes against God's command and partakes in forbidden fruit, rendering God angry and vengeful, leading Adam and Eve to be ejected from the land of no wants into the land of hardships.

There are also other mythological references to paradise or golden age before the coming of the hardships into the world, before illnesses, famine etc, Pandora and Eve both seek knowledge. It occurs to me though that this knowledge represents organised societies and monogamy in Eve's case.

Before monogamy we had what can be described as natural law or the survival of the fittest, any illnesses, weaknesses and the like would be weeded out and only those who had undergone the trial of life and come out on top would have the chance to reproduce. The breeding age of males probably being far in excess of the female.

Illnesses allergies and problems seem to be becoming more common at this point in time, it could be that there is more help for the afflicted or they ailments are more looked for. Down history has monogamy inflicted sickness on mankind?

[alancalverd]

The Forbidden Fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge. The entire fable is therefore an excuse for religious perverts to preach that

(a) Ignorance is Bliss

(b) Good and Evil are nouns,

(c) women are to blame for everything, and

(d) the human body is shameful.

Utter, dangerous crap. But that's religion.

On the other hand, a species that breeds equal numbers of males and females either needs to be monogamous or male-competitive for breeding rights. Problem with humans is that the young are useless and utterly dependent for many years, and we survive by collaborative hunting, so you need to define male (hunting) and female (child rearing) roles and introduce some social order that prevents males from fighting each other. Hence monogamy rather than competitiion.

[paul cotter]

(e) do as I say, not as I do.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

On the other hand, a species that breeds equal numbers of males and females either needs to be monogamous or male-competitive for breeding rights. Problem with humans is that the young are useless and utterly dependent for many years, and we survive by collaborative hunting, so you need to define male (hunting) and female (child rearing) roles and introduce some social order that prevents males from fighting each other. Hence monogamy rather than competitiion.

There are other child nurturing animals that do cycle the males, elephants gorilla's lions etc. The more we do in regards to health preservation seems to further jeopardise the human population. I am not suggesting that we should make people fight to the death, nor select the people to reproduce, but how many health problems are passed down that are problematic, perhaps now with multiple other health problems?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

(e) do as I say, not as I do.

Is that you Donald ?

[Wellwisher]

In the garden of Eden, for those who do not know, God creates a singular man (Adam in this instance) a wife (Eve) who by default live in a monogomous relationship according to gods law as they are the only humans alive. They live in paradise as a couple with no wants or ills to afflict them

This sounds great, until terrors split this Eden existence asunder. Eve goes against God's command and partakes in forbidden fruit, rendering God angry and vengeful, leading Adam and Eve to be ejected from the land of no wants into the land of hardships.

There are also other mythological references to paradise or golden age before the coming of the hardships into the world, before illnesses, famine etc, Pandora and Eve both seek knowledge. It occurs to me though that this knowledge represents organised societies and monogamy in Eve's case.

Before monogamy we had what can be described as natural law or the survival of the fittest, any illnesses, weaknesses and the like would be weeded out and only those who had undergone the trial of life and come out on top would have the chance to reproduce. The breeding age of males probably being far in excess of the female.

Illnesses allergies and problems seem to be becoming more common at this point in time, it could be that there is more help for the afflicted or they ailments are more looked for. Down history has monogamy inflicted sickness on mankind?

Another, way to look at this is monogamy altered natural selection, away from the dominant male. It allowed all males to breed, since even the dominant males had to be monogamous thereby leading to left over breeding females; match making and cross cousin marriage.

This led to more generic diversity, since males, that otherwise would not have bred, could be paired up. This change appears to be connected to the evolutionary needs of migratory humans starting civilization.


Civilization, has way more jobs and needed skills that migratory life, with being the biggest and strongest, not necessarily an advantage for the more dextrous jobs or being an early astronomer or thinker. 

Garden of Eden, was a metaphor for natural instinct and natural evolution. While the tree sod knowledge of good and evil, was learned behavior such as monogamy, which was not innate or natural. However, this would lead to more genetic diversity and more options for the advancement of civilization.   

[Wellwisher]

My more complete science theory, about the symbolism of the story of the Garden of Eden, stems from the late Psychologist and Psychiatrist Carl Jung. He was Freud's star pupil. One of his small primer books, called "The Undiscovered Self ", suggests that modern humans, actually have two centers of consciousness, which is called the inner self and ego. The inner self, is still undiscovered by most humans. This is often called the inner man or the inner child.

The ego is much more well known, and is often equated to the conscious mind, and to most, this is the one and only center. The undiscovered self or inner self, which is much older, would be more like the center of the collective unconscious mind. The inner self would connected to our collective human nature and natural human instincts, which all humans share, as a species.

The idea of Human Rights, is not designed for our ego uniqueness. It is a testament to the inner self or our natural collective human commonality. Based on inferences, the story of Adam and Eve and paradise and the loss of paradise, appear to explain an evolutionary change in humans, where the secondary center, or the modern ego, appears. The idea of monogamy, increasing genetic diversity, change humans away from what had been purely natural; inner self.

Only humans have both an ego and an inner self. While all other animals only have an inner self. The inner self is genetically based, and defines the natural behavioral propensities for each species. Each animal is unified within itself and within nature via its inner self.

Conceptually, there was a time when even the human animals, as defined by human DNA, did not have the ego secondary center. Genetically, science would call them humans. However, without the secondary center or the modern human ego, technically they would be different from modern humans. If they had only an inner self, that would make them natural and instinctive; paradise. This change; ego forming, would cause deviation from natural and instinctive and appears to have begun about 10K years ago, with the first evidence of civilization.

Civilization, shows a major alteration in the natural behavioral patterns of the migratory humans, which had been in effect for 10,000's of years. It was this new ego center, not connected to innate knowledge and instinct; old instinctive way, that starts to alter into the modern human paradigm. One would be hard pressed to tell the difference between pre-civilization humans; pre-humans, and modern humans, by DNA testing. Both have the same inner self. You would need to infer this distinction, from new changes in behavior, such as monogamy and cross cousin marriage. That was not innate to the pre-humans; only the inner self. . 

The question becomes, why did this change occur, if it broke the connection to natural instinct and inner self? My best guess has to do with long term relationship between humans and canines. Domestication of dogs occurs about 12,000-15,000 years ago. However, humans and dogs worked together, long before that, as natural partners; human inner self to dog inner self.

Both species were apex hunters, totally fine by themselves. However, by teaming up, each brought skills to the table for their mutual benefit; team was more than the sum of its parts. The induction would be more external learning, from the advanced dog behavior, that was not part of pre-human instinct. However, it nevertheless had selective advantages for the humans. This learning would different from learning from events in passing. It was a day to day reinforcement of the selective advantages.

Before domestication, the large wolf like dogs, could lead their human companions; forced cooperation, until the humans learned to take over leadership. If you ever had a big work dog; doberman, they will try to lead the pack; humans and other dogs  unless you learn to become the alpha. This relationship between humans and dogs also changes the dogs; eventually become domesticated. The education of humans, in this dynamic daily environment is evolving into the willful control of the wild environment.

Domestication, allowed dogs and a few other important animals, like horses, to have a virtual ego. This virtual secondary center can be programmed by humans, to make the dog become what the humans needs or wishes it to be; Fi-fi the neurotic baby, or Knuckles the guard dog. Dogs are adaptive to their human owners. Plus they can still be semi-natural. If dogs are allowed to wander freely, without human connections, they become ferule or start to lose the programmed virtual ego and shift back to the inner self. Humans ended with a more permanent ego but lost the inner self; repressed to the unconscious.

My theory is this interaction with dogs over thousand of years not only caused humans to develop the new secondary center, for better secondary learning from the dynamic environment, but also this gave them added skills for manipulating the environment; teaching the domesticated dogs. Civilization was the next challenge.

Science data show the earliest signs of civilizations formed as early as 10,000 year ago, but all aborted. This suggests the ego was not yet stable, and there was a revision back to the inner self and natural. The creative leaders; inner self and their ego, might build, but after they passed, the next generation may not know how to keep it going and revert back to natural. Primitive cultures have a thing they call loss of soul, which is connected to the ego phasing out. Rituals attempt to reboot the ego.

The pivotal invention needed for civilization, was written language, which carbon dates as occurring about the time of the first sustainable civilizations; 5-6K years ago. Written language allowed sort of an external hard drive or data, to help refresh memory, and thereby overcome the forward integration of the inner self; wisdom of age, at the loss of youthful detail.

Adam, was metaphorically formed from the dust of the earth. Adam appears to be connected to ego consolidation; writing and reading stone tablets; stone dust. Adam is not born biologically, but from memory reinforcement and consolidating ideas on stone. In classic symbolism Adam was good at math and science. The ego is assumed to be empty at birth and needs to be populated with data, with reading, studying, and writing; organize the data, the best way to populate. The expert has a big ego; most adaptive.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Another, way to look at this is monogamy altered natural selection, away from the dominant male. It allowed all males to breed, since even the dominant males had to be monogamous thereby leading to left over breeding females; match making and cross cousin marriage.

This led to more generic diversity, since males, that otherwise would not have bred, could be paired up. This change appears to be connected to the evolutionary needs of migratory humans starting civilization.


Civilization, has way more jobs and needed skills that migratory life, with being the biggest and strongest, not necessarily an advantage for the more dextrous jobs or being an early astronomer or thinker. 

Garden of Eden, was a metaphor for natural instinct and natural evolution. While the tree sod knowledge of good and evil, was learned behavior such as monogamy, which was not innate or natural. However, this would lead to more genetic diversity and more options for the advancement of civilization.   

this is sort of what I am saying. Genetic diversity is not by default good. A 3 legged race horse will add genetic diversity, but would you bet on it for the grand national.

Civilization, has way more jobs and needed skills that migratory life, with being the biggest and strongest, not necessarily an advantage for the more dextrous jobs or being an early astronomer or thinker.

or a specialist job for that 3 legged race horse ?

This is Science, darwin et al have a theory that is scientifically accepted across the entirety of scrupulous minds, even alternate theories leave ample room for natural selection to co exist. There is of course another path that mommy and/or daddy horse are evil and God is punishing them by giving them a 3 legged offspring, but it isn't logical in even theological circles.

So if we of scientific leanings, whilst being concious of dominions where natural selection would be considered to playout give it no consideration,  we disregard Darwin and his theories and deny the processes their in, we are essentially denying the science wwe stand for. With modern medicine any level of natural selection is reduced even further and the situation can only degrade further.

[Wellwisher]

Another, way to look at this is monogamy altered natural selection, away from the dominant male. It allowed all males to breed, since even the dominant males had to be monogamous thereby leading to left over breeding females; match making and cross cousin marriage.

This led to more generic diversity, since males, that otherwise would not have bred, could be paired up. This change appears to be connected to the evolutionary needs of migratory humans starting civilization.


Civilization, has way more jobs and needed skills that migratory life, with being the biggest and strongest, not necessarily an advantage for the more dextrous jobs or being an early astronomer or thinker. 

Garden of Eden, was a metaphor for natural instinct and natural evolution. While the tree sod knowledge of good and evil, was learned behavior such as monogamy, which was not innate or natural. However, this would lead to more genetic diversity and more options for the advancement of civilization.   

this is sort of what I am saying. Genetic diversity is not by default good. A 3 legged race horse will add genetic diversity, but would you bet on it for the grand national.

Civilization, has way more jobs and needed skills that migratory life, with being the biggest and strongest, not necessarily an advantage for the more dextrous jobs or being an early astronomer or thinker.

or a specialist job for that 3 legged race horse ?

This is Science, darwin etc Al. have a theory that is scientifically accepted across the entirety of scrupulous minds, even alternate theories leave ample room for natural selection to co exist. There is of course another path that mommy and/or daddy horse are evil and God is punishing them by giving them a 3 legged offspring, but it isn't logical in even theological circles.

So if we of scientific leanings, whilst being concious of dominions where natural selection would be considered to playout give it no consideration,  we disregard Darwin and his theories and deny the processes their in, we are essentially denying the science we stand for. With modern medicine any level of natural selection is reduced even further and the situation can only degrade further.

I was attempting to make a distinction between natural selection and man made selection. In both cases you will get genetic duds. These may not be selected by nature, but man made selection is a horse of a different color. The three legged horse may be bought for a side show. Some will think it is cute, even if useless for racing. Manmade selection is not clear cut like natural selection.

If you look at humans and say dog breeding, humans, through learned breeding methods; school, have been able to alter the style/dispositions of dogs, very quickly, compared to natural evolution. Nature and natural selection has made very few canine breeds by comparison. Modern dog breeding is not done by natural selection, but by man made selection. It follows a similar schema, but has different goals, than nature, that pander more to human need or want. A toy poodle makes no natural sense, beyond a human companion dog. There it brings joy. Natural selection is not about sentiment.

Some people prefer dogs that are all show with no go; fancy fur. Others, have more practical reason like herding sheep, neither of which, make sense, in terms of natural selection. Dogs are pack  hunters, not runway models or protector of walking food, they will not eat? These anomlaies to the natural logic of natural selection, are due to manmade selection.

The story of Adam and Eve, appears to be about man made selections. It appears to describe a time, in human evolution, when humans start to depart from natural selection, more in favor of man made selections. Like you said, the three legged race horse may not be optimized to anything, but it will still be cute to some, or may he used by another to make money; oddity show. It has a purpose, albeit, subjective, but not objective like natural selection.

The fall from paradise appears to be due to a departure from the paradigm of natural selection, in favor of man made selections, This comes from the tree knowledge. You can go to school to learn how to genetically modify food; college tree of knowledge. This is not innate knowledge, like breathing or instinct, that does not need to be taught; tree of life. It evolved naturally and was added to the DNA data base; internal knowledge. This is more limited but to the point. 

In this scenario, the fall from paradise was not a punishment, but a prediction of a self imposed inevitability, caused by man made selections. It was a matter of time, since such choices may sound good on paper, but they have unintended consequences, in the minds of other humans; nuclear reactions to AI.

This departure from nature; paradise, can be explained by a simple upgrade into two centers of consciousness. The new ego center, may prefer a certain dog breed that complements their ego; pit bull. The inner self center which is older, more natural, and more conservative, may like all dogs since they are all variations of the same basic DNA chassis and drive train; different body styles.

Two centers of consciousness, like two eyes, add a more 3-D view to conscious reality. One eye or one center of consciousness, lives more in a more flat or 2-D world. As an experiment, block one eye. With only access to one eye, your depth perception in 3-D, is lost. Walk around the room and try to touch objects based no where it appears to be in space. Have someone throw a ball at you with one eye covered. Your depth perception and timing will off, and when should are an easy catch; two eyes, may hit you. The animals stay in their narrower sweet spot; one center. With 2-D it is easier and safer to stay more near sighted; specie instincts.

The Psychologist Carl Jung, has made good arguments, that this original natural center of the natural human; 2-D, is still there; undiscovered self. This center is connected natural instinct and natural selection. The ego is quite new and appears about 6-10 K years ago, as inferred by the drastic changes of behavior association with the rise of civilization. This extra center gave "modern man" a more 3-D or wider view, than natural selection. GMO corn is not done by natural selection, but laboratory selection, based on need and profit. However, many people, are concerned of the unintended consequences; we may surely die. Natural is safer.

A good home experiment, to get some first hand experience and proof of the primary center or inner self, is to arrange to have someone scare you when you are not ready. They should take their time and wait for the best moment so the experiment works better.

If all goes well, what normally happens is the inner self will respond to the scare before the ego; natural inner animal is faster and acts first. However, its response, although quicker, may be a little too awkward and spontaneous, for the ego, embarrassing the ego. The ego is often more about the surface; calm refined persona, suddenly gone hysterical. The inner self, may even make a yelp, which makes it even funnier. The funny hurts the ego. This isolates the ego and inner self for observation and differentiation.

In that instant, the two centers slightly separate, for each be investigated. Sometimes the inner self will trigger adrenaline for a long view. Normally, the inner self is repressed; tree of life is taken away. However, being genetic based, it still works behind the scenes and still, along with the ego, provides that 3-D view, common to modern humans. The pre-humans had one center.

The story of Genesis, appears to be the story when the ego first appears, and like suddenly having two eyes, the world now appears more 3-D, separating the ego, from the natural cause and effect of instinct and natural selection. However, within that 3-D dimension was human subjectivity. Changes in breeding behavior would lead to excessive population growth, beyond what had been natural; unintended consequences. The rest is history.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

As far as I am aware the only example of manmade concious breeding selection of man was done in slavery, any other form of selection is natural as far as I am concerned, the most suited are the most faited, have the most resources. There was social breeding in the upper classes but that was a failure as in the case of the upper classes.

Monogamy is not unique to humans, but the process to apes probably is as far as I can remember. The process in humans where it is socially unacceptable to have more than one partner leads to situations where problematic genes are passed on.

As for dog breeds and roles for people I find this a bit science fictiony.  I do not really see the connection, mankind is successful because of the brain being able to turn to many different things, not defined by being able to follow game or to reach the top of a basketball hoop.

 But this ability to turn the hand to anything with the mind is jeopardised by it's own ability to survive, there are no tests anymore to maintain the health yet mankind is at present unable to rise above his own biological nature. We can propagate sickly genes further and further with medicine, science and engineering but should we? Perhaps the sickness in the gene pool holds mankind back. This is no compartmentalised sickness, but far and wide sickness through every creed and colour.

As I've said before, to deny this action is to deny Darwin.

Sorry I can't seem to get the quote function working, if I highlight a few words and try to quote it is insisting on quoting the whole passage.

My grand father had one eye, lost it to a piece of iron that took the nerve out when the medics tried to remove it, kept bumping into doorframes.

[Wellwisher]

Natural selection follows a slower changing path, than man made selection. You can see this with dogs. There is only one species of natural dog; wolf. While, through man made selection, there are 339 dog breeds, recognized by the FCI. These all descend from the wolf. Nature seeks perfection and stalls, while man made is trying to be complete; more subjectivity. 

Darwin would have been hard pressed to develop his theory of natural selection in London. The reason was, London had been so developed over the centuries. It had been hunted, logged and farmed by humans. While international exploration and trade allowed London gardeners to have exotic plants from around the world, that did not evolve there naturally. Many annual plants, which may be perennial in other parts of the world, are there only one season, then you need to buy new ones the next year. News species appear all the time, from the marketplace.

Darwin had to travel to the remote islands of Galapagos, where there was little human selective influence. There the flora and fauna had not changed in eons. This isolation, helped to isolate his theory of natural selection, from all the man made selective influences of 19th century London.

Today in grocery stores, you can buy food from around the world, while other areas of the world now grow crops that used to be grown only in other areas of the world. This is another aspect of human versus natural selection.

The garden of Eden and paradise lost, appears to be a metaphor for this change, with the tree of life more connected to natural selection. While the tree of knowledge of (good and evil), was more connected to man made influence and selection. The sudden change toward more and more man made selection, with the rise of civilization, could be explained as being due to the rise of the human ego; conscious mind,  moving away from natural instinct and Darwinian evolution; will and choice to be more civilized.

The symbolism of Adam and Eve, being the first two humans, has been a major source of contention between science and religion. Science can show that human DNA date back much earlier, than the Garden of Eden timeline. However, Adam and Eve being a metaphor for the  appearance of a secondary center of consciousness, in men and women, would not necessarily alter the DNA, into a new species. There may not be any obvious genetic change. However, it would be recognized by more by man made "will and choices", apart from natural or Darwinian evolution; manmade selections like monogamy.

Two centers are consistent with Jung's Theory of the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. The ego is the conscious center, while the inner self the unconscious center. The Archetypes are like speciality apps of the inner self.

The brain is not a closed system. If the brain was a closed system, the DNA would run the show. The DNA  would direct the brain's development, internally, over the entire life. Instead, the brain is an open system, via our five sensory systems. These sensory system are able to add new data to the brain, that are not from the DNA. Genetic components; collective unconscious, may organize the new data. Collective knowledge also teaches how to organize this; science explanations.

The main invention needed to make the secondary center stick, was written language which appears about 5-6K years ago. This was also key to sustained civilization; record keeping.  Consider going to school, at a time before written language. There are no written materials to see in a lecture, and none to bring home to read and study. You will need to learn only by a spoken lecture, but with no way to take notes for home study.

You may need to form study groups and compare what you think you heard, with might or conviction, by some, often sold as right, even when wrong. The memory would be uncertain and it then it would also change with time; embellish. Learning might hit the board target, but rarely the bull's eye.

Once written language appears, there was now a way to record what was said, so it could be reviewed with high fidelity and not watered down with opinions. Books could be written that were  organized for you. This would allow a new way to reinforce external input precision, into the brain, so it is not easily forward integrate and/or subject to natural memory atrophy. It is adding a more permanent memory structure to the brain, not necessarily structured by the DNA or the inner self and instinct.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The earlier point about genetic diversity is absolutely tosh , in relation to other mammals that promote male survival tests (lions gorilla's et al) the female line pretty much all breed. The genes that would be touted as genetic diversity have always been present in these groups down the female line. The only chromosome that would be side lined would be the 'y' male chromosome.

[Wellwisher]

The earlier point about genetic diversity is absolutely tosh , in relation to other mammals that promote male survival tests (lions gorilla's et al) the female line pretty much all breed. The genes that would be touted as genetic diversity have always been present in these groups down the female line. The only chromosome that would be side lined would be the 'y' male chromosome.

If what you say is true, the change into monogamy, was more due to conscious evolution; will and choice. Civilization changed the selective paradigm for human natural selection, since the rules of the environment changed.

Today, the skill of making money means more than being big and strong. The latter would be better for survival in the wild under spartan conditions. However, once the earth becomes more civilized, the best survival in the wild does not necessarily give one, the same selective advantages. There is a new set of rules.

The modern homesteader, although better designed to survive in the wild, does not become the alpha dog in civilization. Rather this is seen as quirky. Instead, it may be the playboy from old money who gets the babes. That skill may not be selected in the wild, since it exists based on lots of prosthetic support. Monogamy maximized the variety of potential outcomes; personality, temperament, intelligence, etc., since what the future would select, was not yet known. However, this approach allowed for a future goal, and not just the same old goals of the past.

The brain is an open system, via the five senses. This open system allows the brain to record data, not connected to our human DNA. The DNA would only reign supreme, if the neural system, was more closed, such as by the tunnel vision of natural instincts, in a limited environment. However, forced migration of humans, due to the last ice ages, added an unlimited environment the DNA could not always anticipate. Yet the brain could store the data.

A big part of my theory, for the needed change, beyond its own DNA, is the relationship that formed between humans and large wolf like dogs, before dogs were finally domesticated; 12-15K years ago. This early relationship caused two apex hunter species, with two different styles, to learn from each other and work as a team. This caused the brain to add selective data, that was not in the original DNA; OEM. Although unnatural to each species, it gave both the selective advantages working as a team. Before domestication, both species were still natural and wild. This suggests a secondary center starts to form, but as an extension of the primary; important to the based needs of the DNA but not yet fully part of the DNA; thousands of years.

The ego secondary is empty at birth and advances with all conscious sensory exposure. It is what makes each person unique. The inner self or the primary center; natural human instinct, is more connected to collective human propensities; human nature common to all humans. The original relationship with dogs was not common to humans; inner self. The brain partitioned this useful data.

In the Garden of Eden, the natural instinct and genetic data of the inner self is symbolized by the tree of life. While the more personal data of the ego, is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In another post, I spoke how knowledge of good and evil, such as civil and moral law, games the natural brain by adding mixed feelings, different memory tags for the good versus the evil. This additional of mixed feelings, appears have been the stressor that finally caused the ego to separate from the inner self. This separation places one, in inner loops, which can then isolate one into their own uniqueness; conscience.

Genesis appears to be a metaphor for the evolution of modern humans, with our two centers of consciousness and the early pitfalls after having lost their natural instincts. Your thesis of monogamy could be seen as one of these pitfalls that altered the natural way but made the ego more accessible. Now all the dudes are studs.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Well the big and strong are not necessarily the ones who survive. Take island dwarfism for a simple example. As for human sociopsychological insights, I suspect the ones who are more likely to breed for hundreds of years where those who could drink more alcohol that there competitors, many a shotgun wedding was born from a drunken fumble.