Jump to content


Photo

Intelligence Vs. Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#161 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:30 PM

Fjuri, you don't seem to get the point. I still don't claim that scientific theories are moral, I'm claiming that certain scientific ideas might be used to justify amoral behavior. And your idea of evolutionary fitness is a good example of that. You'll have to remember that evolution (in contrast to gravity) makes historical claims, much like religion does. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves and a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going, all from a strict naturalistic point of view of course. 
 
Let's compare gravity and evolution and their justifications.
 
Gravity tells us that pushing someone from a 100 m high building will cause him to die. Does that justify you pushing people off buildings? In other words, what moral justifications do gravity give you to start killing people? What does gravity has to do with you killing people?
 
Evolution tells us that an ISIS terrorist has higher evolutionary fitness than mother Theresa. Does that justify you to kill people with lower evolutionary fitness? In other words, what moral justifications do evolution give you to start killing people? The first question could be if creatures with high evolutionary fitness have higher values than creatures with low evolutionary fitness? Should society help high evolutionary fitness individuals so they might live out to their full potential. We are we going (if evolution is true) and should we not strive to get there? What are the purpose of life and which individuals (high or low fit) are better suited to fulfill that purpose.
 
As you see, the metaphysical framework surrounding evolution does have moral implications. Can't you see that?


#162 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 June 2016 - 01:33 AM

So you didn't do what you done? Oh I forget, most documentaries on the TV tell us Hitler was a creationist don't they, so there is no possible way it could be a tu-quoque!  :rotfl3: 

 

That is hilarious. We say Hitler was an agent of evo and you say he was an agent of creationism, then racism is mentioned, as relateable to evo, and Goku says racism is coming from creationism. I guess it is just a coincidence that we are at a creationist forum, Mike, because Fjuri, Goku and Driewerf obviously meant that Hitler was a buddhist, creationist, non-Christian when they used the term, "creationist".

 

:rotfl3: 

Next week on evo-hilarity episode two: "we as evos are not arguing we evolved from a common ancestor of apes, in fact as evos we are not even claiming to believe in evo". :blink: 

 

Yes, guys. We know you are not saying what you are saying.....as per usual. 

 

:P

How about supporting those claims? You can just claim that we did something without support.

 

About racism, Calypso stated it for the first time, providing evidence against his own claims. Of course we point out the errors in his idiocy.



#163 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 June 2016 - 01:38 AM

 

Fjuri, you don't seem to get the point. I still don't claim that scientific theories are moral, I'm claiming that certain scientific ideas might be used to justify amoral behavior. And your idea of evolutionary fitness is a good example of that. You'll have to remember that evolution (in contrast to gravity) makes historical claims, much like religion does. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves and a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going, all from a strict naturalistic point of view of course. 

Do you understand the difference between immoral and amoral?

Immoral is something of bad moral.

Amoral is making no statement regarding morality.

 

People who would do bad, would do bad things regardless of an amoral theory.

 

Let's compare gravity and evolution and their justifications.

 
Gravity tells us that pushing someone from a 100 m high building will cause him to die. Does that justify you pushing people off buildings? In other words, what moral justifications do gravity give you to start killing people? What does gravity has to do with you killing people?
 
Evolution tells us that an ISIS terrorist has higher evolutionary fitness than mother Theresa. Does that justify you to kill people with lower evolutionary fitness? In other words, what moral justifications do evolution give you to start killing people? The first question could be if creatures with high evolutionary fitness have higher values than creatures with low evolutionary fitness? Should society help high evolutionary fitness individuals so they might live out to their full potential. We are we going (if evolution is true) and should we not strive to get there? What are the purpose of life and which individuals (high or low fit) are better suited to fulfill that purpose.
 
As you see, the metaphysical framework surrounding evolution does have moral implications. Can't you see that?

How do you get that an ISIS terrorist has higher evolutionary fitness than mother Theresa?

Mother Theresa did a lot more to further the human gene-pool then any ISIS terrorist.



#164 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 27 June 2016 - 02:17 AM

How do you get that an ISIS terrorist has higher evolutionary fitness than mother Theresa?

Mother Theresa did a lot more to further the human gene-pool then any ISIS terrorist.

 

I should have written the ISIS terrorist formerly discussed. But anyway. What you really need to start doing is write down a good definition of what you mean by higher evolutionary fitness and perhaps also what you mean with the term natural selection. Because you are currently inconsistent. You write:
 
"Evolutionary fitness within that concept is thus a look at the probability of passing on hereditary traits"
 
and 
 
"How do you get that an ISIS terrorist has higher evolutionary fitness than mother Theresa?"
 
The answer is really simple. The ISIS terrorist formerly discussed had a probability of 1 to passing on his traits, while mother Theresa has a probability of 0 to pass on her traits. 


#165 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 June 2016 - 03:13 AM

 

I should have written the ISIS terrorist formerly discussed. But anyway. What you really need to start doing is write down a good definition of what you mean by higher evolutionary fitness and perhaps also what you mean with the term natural selection. Because you are currently inconsistent. You write:
 
"Evolutionary fitness within that concept is thus a look at the probability of passing on hereditary traits"
 
and 
 
"How do you get that an ISIS terrorist has higher evolutionary fitness than mother Theresa?"
 
The answer is really simple. The ISIS terrorist formerly discussed had a probability of 1 to passing on his traits, while mother Theresa has a probability of 0 to pass on her traits. 

 

Did mother Theresa not improve the probability of passing on hereditary traits of a large group of people which resembled her in genetic make-up?



#166 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 27 June 2016 - 03:55 AM

Did mother Theresa not improve the probability of passing on hereditary traits of a large group of people which resembled her in genetic make-up?

 

How do passing on other peoples genes increase your own evolutionary fitness? How do you calculate that?
 
Mother Teresa didn't help people which resembled her in genetic make-up. She lived and worked a great deal of her life in India with outcasts and sick. In what way did those people "resembled her in genetic make-up"?
 
You need to make a better definition on what evolutionary fitness actually is, because right now it seems like you are contradicting yourself.

  • Mike Summers likes this

#167 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 28 June 2016 - 09:14 AM

Evolutionary Fitness is based up of two components:

- Individual Fitness
It describes individual reproductive success.
- Inclusive fitness.
Inclusive fitness differs from individual fitness by including the ability one individual to promote the survival and/or reproduction of other individuals that share that hereditary traits.
 
Both are important with respect to evolutionary fitness. In my question to Mike Summers, I've specifically stated that all else, besides the described differences were equal. Which resulted in a purely individual fitness evaluation.
 
Of course, I was wrong to simplify it as much as I did. Normally one only looks at populations, and when he made such a mistake, I stupidly followed him.
Correcter even is:
- Individual Fitness
It describes individual reproductive success of the average person with a specific set of hereditary traits.
- Inclusive fitness.
Inclusive fitness differs from individual fitness by including the average ability one individual to promote the survival and/or reproduction of other individuals that share that hereditary traits.

 

Which means that individual actions make little to no difference on evolutionary fitness.

 

So conclusion: I was wrong about what I said earlier, since it was only in context of Mike Summers faulty interpretation, which I didn't step fast enough away from.



#168 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 June 2016 - 09:35 PM

Yet in the west particularly the evo axiom has failed miserably. The fittest are not reproducing as the Darwinian evolutionary fittest model suggests. They are using birth control, and resisting reproducing in their most evolutionry fit time. Instead the most  fit that can well  afford it  because of free choice do not reproduce. In fact t is just the opposite statistically of what Darwinian evo suggests.

 

Darwinians believe fair skinned people were further along than the yellow, brown, black  and the mongrels (evo terms not mine).  That axiom too has failed miserably.  Science now knows there is no rustication for the cocept of race. Just ignore the idea that so called fittest have their ancestors from the least fit. LOL Evo logic does not have to make sense.



#169 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:37 PM

One thing I have noticed is that Christians seem to forget is that God created us and is stilll responsible according to his word. He is still creating new beings that have never existed before. As the scripture says, "It is he who made us and not we ourselves." I would not underetimate the intelligence and ways of this great being. We mean more to Him than we often do to ourselves. When we blew it, God invented forgiveness to be able to save us. While some think we do not dserve his forgiveness, He seems to realize if He doesen't forive us He would be cutting His nose off to spite His face. Appaently some of us have a different point of view than God. His mercy never fils but ours sure does. LOL
 



#170 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:44 PM

One thing I have noticed that Christians seem to forget is that God created us and is stilll responsible according to his word. He is still creating new beings that have never existed before. As the scripture says, "It is he who made us and not we ourselves." I would not underetimate the intelligence and ways of this great being. We mean more to Him than we often do to ourselves. When we blew it, God invented forgiveness to be able to save us. While some think we do not dserve his forgiveness, He seems to realize if He doesen't forive us He would be cutting His nose off to spite His face. Appaently some of us have a different point of view than God. His mercy never fils but ours sure does. LOL

I think He realizes if He does not forgive us He won't have us as His chilldren. I think He realized that.



#171 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:47 AM

Yet in the west particularly the evo axiom has failed miserably. The fittest are not reproducing as the Darwinian evolutionary fittest model suggests. They are using birth control, and resisting reproducing in their most evolutionry fit time. Instead the most  fit that can well  afford it  because of free choice do not reproduce. In fact t is just the opposite statistically of what Darwinian evo suggests.

 

Darwinians believe fair skinned people were further along than the yellow, brown, black  and the mongrels (evo terms not mine).  That axiom too has failed miserably.  Science now knows there is no rustication for the cocept of race. Just ignore the idea that so called fittest have their ancestors from the least fit. LOL Evo logic does not have to make sense.

:get_a_clue:



#172 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 June 2016 - 06:39 AM

Get a clue? The west dips below 2 ( replaceent level) while some of the poorest countries (least fit) reprouce the most (6 children per woman). Accoring to Darwin's logic the least fit would die out. Darwin was wrong!!



#173 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:54 PM

Evolutionary Fitness is based up of two components:

- Individual Fitness
It describes individual reproductive success.
- Inclusive fitness.
Inclusive fitness differs from individual fitness by including the ability one individual to promote the survival and/or reproduction of other individuals that share that hereditary traits.
 
Both are important with respect to evolutionary fitness. In my question to Mike Summers, I've specifically stated that all else, besides the described differences were equal. Which resulted in a purely individual fitness evaluation.
 
Of course, I was wrong to simplify it as much as I did. Normally one only looks at populations, and when he made such a mistake, I stupidly followed him.
Correcter even is:
- Individual Fitness
It describes individual reproductive success of the average person with a specific set of hereditary traits.
- Inclusive fitness.
Inclusive fitness differs from individual fitness by including the average ability one individual to promote the survival and/or reproduction of other individuals that share that hereditary traits.

 

Which means that individual actions make little to no difference on evolutionary fitness.

 

So conclusion: I was wrong about what I said earlier, since it was only in context of Mike Summers faulty interpretation, which I didn't step fast enough away from.

 

But this description of evolutionary fitness really doesn't help Fjuri. Talking about evolutionary fitness is still dangerous from a moral perspective since it could be used to argue that high evolutionary fitness is a good thing. And what is an average person exactly?
 
Because according to your latest description an ISIS terrorist that holds and makes a dozen or so girl slaves pregnant have high individual fitness. While mother Teresa doesn't share any hereditary traits with AIDS sick people in India, so she has (according to your description) a low inclusive fitness. So people who act and behave (on average) like the ISIS terrorist will have a high individual evolutionary fitness, while people that act and behave like mother Teresa will have a low inclusive evolutionary fitness. Don't you see the danger in reasoning like that from a moral perspective?
 
And yet we haven't even begun to talk about the threads topic. Is all selection natural, or are some selection not natural. I would guess that at first glance you would propose that all selection is natural, but is that correct? Let's take dog breeding as an example. There humans select which dogs should breed, in order to promote a specific set of hereditary traits. But it's nothing really natural about that. It's a conscious (intelligent) choice made by an agent. So it seems we have other factors beside natural selection which we could called agent selection or intelligent selection that are at work. And if we think about that, is mother Teresa or the ISIS terrorist caused by agent selection or natural selection. And if that differs from the breeding case, why do they differ?
 
One notably difference between what I called agent selection and natural selection is that in agent selection the genome doesn't play much of a role. It's more circumstantial factors that come into play.


#174 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2016 - 12:45 AM

 

But this description of evolutionary fitness really doesn't help Fjuri. Talking about evolutionary fitness is still dangerous from a moral perspective since it could be used to argue that high evolutionary fitness is a good thing. And what is an average person exactly?
 
Because according to your latest description an ISIS terrorist that holds and makes a dozen or so girl slaves pregnant have high individual fitness. While mother Teresa doesn't share any hereditary traits with AIDS sick people in India, so she has (according to your description) a low inclusive fitness. So people who act and behave (on average) like the ISIS terrorist will have a high individual evolutionary fitness, while people that act and behave like mother Teresa will have a low inclusive evolutionary fitness. Don't you see the danger in reasoning like that from a moral perspective?
 
And yet we haven't even begun to talk about the threads topic. Is all selection natural, or are some selection not natural. I would guess that at first glance you would propose that all selection is natural, but is that correct? Let's take dog breeding as an example. There humans select which dogs should breed, in order to promote a specific set of hereditary traits. But it's nothing really natural about that. It's a conscious (intelligent) choice made by an agent. So it seems we have other factors beside natural selection which we could called agent selection or intelligent selection that are at work. And if we think about that, is mother Teresa or the ISIS terrorist caused by agent selection or natural selection. And if that differs from the breeding case, why do they differ?
 
One notably difference between what I called agent selection and natural selection is that in agent selection the genome doesn't play much of a role. It's more circumstantial factors that come into play.

 

And gravity can be used as an excuse to push people down the stairs because we want everybody have as low as possible potential energy towards the earth...

 

That is the reasoning you are employing.

 

Evolution theory doesn't state that having a high evolutionary fitness is a good thing or anything. It states what evolutionary fitness is. End of story.


  • Goku likes this

#175 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 30 June 2016 - 01:52 AM

And gravity can be used as an excuse to push people down the stairs because we want everybody have as low as possible potential energy towards the earth...

 

That is the reasoning you are employing.

 

Evolution theory doesn't state that having a high evolutionary fitness is a good thing or anything. It states what evolutionary fitness is. End of story.

 

I thought we had already discussed this. Gravity does not make any historical claims about us as human beings, it only tells us that pushing someone from a cliff is a stupid idea since that will probably kill the person in question. It says nothing about if human A or B is more fit. 
 
On the contrary evolution does makes historical claims, much like religion does. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves and a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going, all from a strict naturalistic point of view of course. 
 
What kind of conclusion could be drawn from the fact that A has higher (actual or potential) evolutionary fitness than B?
Should society help individuals with high evolutionary fitness to live out to their full potential?
Does evolutionary fitness say anything about anything?
 
Don't you see any danger in reasoning about higher and lower evolutionary fitness from a moral perspective? 
 
And what about agent selection versus natural selection, what's your thought on that?


#176 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2016 - 03:08 AM

I thought we had already discussed this. Gravity does not make any historical claims about us as human beings, it only tells us that pushing someone from a cliff is a stupid idea since that will probably kill the person in question. It says nothing about if human A or B is more fit. 

And what is more fit? Its nothing more or less than having a higher or lower potential energy, exactly the same as with gravity. The only difference is that you work with probabilities.

 

On the contrary evolution does makes historical claims, much like religion does. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves and a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going, all from a strict naturalistic point of view of course. 

It is a way to understand where we came from. So? There no goal, no rules, no objective, no preferences. 

 

What kind of conclusion could be drawn from the fact that A has higher (actual or potential) evolutionary fitness than B?

That A has higher (actual or potential) evolutionary fitness then B. THE END.

 

Should society help individuals with high evolutionary fitness to live out to their full potential?

No, why should they?



#177 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 30 June 2016 - 03:52 AM

And what is more fit? Its nothing more or less than having a higher or lower potential energy, exactly the same as with gravity. The only difference is that you work with probabilities.

 

It is a way to understand where we came from. So? There no goal, no rules, no objective, no preferences. 

 

If human A have a high or low potential energy it does not tell us anything about human A's hereditary traits. 
 
But now you seem to be arguing that: 
 
If human A have a high or low evolutionary fitness it does not tell us anything about human A's hereditary traits.
 
It seems like you contradict yourself. Because evolutionary fitness does try to say something about an individuals hereditary traits which gravity does not.
 
And it is the concept of that there are no goal, no rules, no objective, no preferences that are part of the dangers with your line of reasoning from a moral standpoint. Don't you see that? Those things combined with talking about evolutionary fitness makes it free to interpret the science anyway you please. Like that people with high evolutionary fitness should be helped to live out to their full potential. Because, why should they not? Is not trying to help humanity reach the nexty step in evolution something to strive for? Or maybe you just prefer high evolutionary fitness, for whatever reason.
 
I really don't understand how you can't see that talking about groups that have higher or lower potential evolutionary fitness is very dangerous. Especially when you start abstracting things and start talking about large groups like for example jews, arabs or creationists. 


#178 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:00 AM

I really don't understand how you can't see that talking about groups that have higher or lower potential evolutionary fitness is very dangerous. Especially when you start abstracting things and start talking about large groups like for example jews, arabs or creationists. 

The reason you don't understand is because you attach moral value to the concept. 

 

Whenever you jump, you go down, so I feel that flying is immoral? Right?



#179 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:01 AM


When evo's say evolution does not have a goal, they aren't exactly being honest with themselvess and us. If there is an effect of evo then that is its goal.

The thing I notcied is that evo goes between being a cause and or an effect which makes for confusison. No evo's I ask have ever mentioned this slight of hand. Is evo a cause, effect or both? Sounds like evo caused its self (circular reasoning).

 



#180 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:05 AM

When evo's say evolution does not have a goal, they aren't exactly being honest with themselvess and us. If there is an effect of evo then that is its goal.

The thing I notcied is that evo goes between being a cause and or an effect which makes for confusison. No evo's I ask have ever mentioned this slight of hand. Is evo a cause, effect or both? Sounds like evo caused its self (circular reasoning).
 

And gravity's goal is to stay on the ground, right?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users