Okay, Macro evolution. What do I win?
As always, consider that specific manifestations of general traits can be decidedly wretched for evolutionary purposes so long as other manifestations of that general trait net good enough results.
So “gullibility” or “deferential respect for authority” or whatever can net good results if folks often get filled with good advice, even though an impressive number of people wind up getting wiped out by following bad advice for the same reason. And, at that, ditto for the reverse, for what religious types would maybe call “free will”: figure humans evolved an unparalleled ability to think for themselves and consciously reconsider the impulses that lower animals would follow unthinkingly – which, actually, gets plenty of humans killed when they willfully ignore the sensible impulses they’re overruling, but also provides tremendously useful benefits for assorted humans who thereby reason their way to intriguing solutions. And so on.
1> You are arguing in circles. Sympathy is just another form of altruism. Your answer, therefore, is the same as saying “altruism came from altruism”. It’s nonsensical.
2> How do more adoptions provide a positive outcome to the individual?
3> SOME benevolent behaviour does lead to good results. Most does not. And what is relevant here is that adoption of a non-family animal does not. Yet it happens.
is there a reason you skipped over my post earlier and just decided to go back and respond to it now, yet only partially?
I’m not interested in your definition of creationism.
Most people know what is meant by ‘creationist’. When someone describes someone as a creationist, it is inferred that this person does more than simply believe that a god created the universe.
Here’s a definition from Wikipedia for you:
He’s a creationist. From the Wikipedia article on Stephen C. Meyer:
Are you going to tell me which arguments will be exposed by debating Palntinga or Craig that hasn’t been brought up by others he’s debated?
1> The subject was benevolent actions, not using a computer. You obviously feel evasion is your best tactic.
2> Put up a case and I’ll consider it. You haven’t done so.
Did you not read what I posted, the part you quoted? The “why” is because she would get pleasure from it.
Nothing, because there is not a high amount of evidence for macro evolution.
That’s an ignorant comment. There is so much evidence for macro evolution that only an idiot or someone utterly ignorant could doubt it.
I’m sure you’re on the ignorant side of that equation.
Honestly, you simply don’t understand what you’re talking about because you’ve taken in information from liars.
It’s an answer to your question. You say there’s a sensation of pleasure for a dog that humps a table leg, but no sensation of pleasure in performing assorted benevolent actions; I postulate a sensation of pleasure for the latter, in part because that’s what I feel when something evokes a sympathetic response from me and prompts a benevolent response. I feel a different kind of pleasure when enthusiastically humping away, but that’s between me and my wife.
When you’re adopting your sister’s kid, or your brother’s kid, or an orphaned cousin or whatever, you’re bringing about a positive outcome for your genes by helping someone who shares those genes. A generalized willingness to adopt and nurture orphaned kids will thus lead to plenty of positive outcomes if you often hang out around your kin, though it’ll occasionally lead to negative results when you wind up adopting someone who doesn’t share your genes. The question thus becomes whether the positive outcomes outweigh the negative ones.
Cite?
No, what is relevant is whether such adoptions are outweighed by adoptions that do lead to good results. Are they or aren’t they? Show your work.
I’ll spell this out for you.
You are arguing she will undertake an altruistic act because she gets ‘pleasure’ from it. This pleasure is intangible. This is NOT the pleasure of the humping dog.
So where does it come from?
How do you know she would get pleasure?
How do you reconcile that with the fact she will KNOW the survival risks in the decision?
You’re just clutching wildly at straws.
OK, so call my bluff. Provide me with five evidences for macro evolution.
This is what you do. Because it scares you, you run away. I directly answer your question and you pretend I didn’t.
You aren’t interested in debate. You want to keep going until you’re the last one posting in the thread so as to feed your delusion of being right. It’s pathetic.
Yes I have. You’re just not able to admit it. Probably because you’ve tied up your belief with God with the idea that you have to be correct about this. Which is silly, plenty of people can face reality about evolution existing and still believe in God.
You’re the one choosing to live in ignorance.
Pleasure is by nature intangible. It is a property created by your brain and glands. People can suffer brain damage and lose the capacity for pleasure.
The brain.
He’s offering a reasonable guess. Maybe she did it for the money.
First off facing risks is a matter of personal bravery. People will risk life and limb to fuck a hot chick. Second off, what risks?
No, you’re just unable to face reality.
How’s this?:
Please watch this short video clip:
How do you explain scientists knowing exactly where the fused chromosomes would be on human genes based on looking at chimp chromosomes if it’s not because we share a distant ancestor?
1> A motivation derived from a physical sensation is one thing, because it is a tangible motivation that can be observed. On the other hand, sympathy is altruism. You are arguing for altruism from altruism.
2> You continue to repeat you point about fammily adoptions. This is irrelevant. I happily agree that an animal will adopt a family members offspring. This has absolutely NO bearing on why they would adopt a stranger, particularly one from another group.
3> In the earliest animal life, benevolent behaviour had considerable cost; the division of scarce resources, food, mates etc, yet it brought little, if any benefit.
4> As to the mix of adoptions, who knows? What needs to be demonstrated is why the benefits of a family adoption necessariy would lead to an adoption of the member of another group.
Ok, so pleasure is purely a physical function, caused by the ‘brain and glands’. But all you’re doing is pushing this back one step. It had to evolve. How and why?
It’s the same as the humping dog. ALL pleasure is intangible.
The same exact way that you knew that a dog gets pleasure from humping a leg. How did you know that?
What on earth do you mean by that? You think that she’s thinking “if I raise this oryx it will hurt my chances of survival but I feel that I have a moral obligation”? Really?
Because we have a common designer.
I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here.
1> We know the dog get’s pleasure because it simulates sex. We have no such method of identifying ‘pleasure’ in this animal.
2> You are arguing for an intangible using an intangible.