x

[Sculptor]

2. What do you mean by 'standard' method of evolution?
How many methods of evolution is there? And, how do you separate the standard methods of evolution from the non-standard methods.

What i mean is that evolution's standard method for the last 3.5 billion years has been the same with each species, Survival of the fittest.

Okay,
1. If evolution has been the same with each species, then how could there be an error with human beings, and with them only?
2. Again, is there any other method than the "standard" method?
3. Why has evolution only been the same with each species for the last 3.5 billion years? Was it different before that? Why did evolution start or change 3.5 billion years ago?

Direct straightforward answers would be much appreciated.

I think you have a poor understanding of what is being said when people talk about evolution.
Evolution is not goal oriented. Things evolve because traits and behaviours being part of an individual or group survive with them.
Species do not react to changing environments. Environments put selective pressure on individuals in the groups, which helps preserve useful traits. But evolution being an effect, and NOT a cause of change means that some traits can be useless, even negative to the species - just so long as they do not compromise the generation of viable progeny
. And that is the entire nub of the argument. Species that survive pass on whatever traits they exhibit- be they good or bad.

So traits that might seem negative can exist in species all the time, confer no particular advantage, but just because the species survives for other reasons these traits persist.
So evolution is not perfect; it does not know what is coming next; there is NO "IT" to know that. Evolution is not a conscious process in any sense.
We are all born with a spectrum of emotional responses. Hunger and pain are two that are essential for survival since we would not eat, nor avoid injury. Greed being an aspect of hunger, or an aspect of acquisitiveness are also useful, but like ANY trait can be destructive. Evolution dose not care; it does not know. As long as destructive traits to not lead to failure on reproductive of viable progeny such traits can persist.
Where genes leave off and traits are promoted, encouraged, or suppressed as all to do with our lived, learned experience. Here greed can thrive, and can be useful to the individual since it can help in the acquisition of power, things and status.

[Sculptor]

The theory of natural selection relies on three factors: 1) empirical variability, 2) persistence of transmission of some or all variability and 3) differential representation of transmitted variability in subsequent state. Evolution is change that results from differential persistence of variability under the selection pressure of environment.
However there is a long standing conceptual battle between two ways of looking at evolution.

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected.

(2) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

The truth lies in the first. Sadly many of the world's best theorists fall into the mistake of applying the second assumption which is utterly wrong.
Evolution cannot select FOR specific traits. To do that it would have to be conscious. Other traits come along for the ride.

In this way evolution "allows" damaging and negative traits, or traits that do not confer any advantage. Homosexuality is a practice that occurs in all mammals, many birds ,and reptiles. It has no evolutionary values since it cannot lead to reproductive success, but since it is not prevalent it does not harm selection enough to make species fail.

[Age]

Greed is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated.

If that is your definition for the word 'greed', then so be it. But to me it is a very limited definition to some thing I find far more diverse. I wonder how many people agree with you that 'greed' is associated with eating only?

I never said that. If you can't argue without creating strawmen then you might want to go elsewhere.

Did you or did you not say, 'Greed is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated.' ?

Also, I have not even attempted to argue. As can be seen I have just been asking you clarifying questions about 'that' what you are talking about.

My argument does not rely on a narrow definition.

But you are yet to provide any argument, and, I am not refuting any argument.

I just said, If that is your definition, then I find it very a limited one. So, I am not refuting any argument for the obvious fact you never even presented an argument.

I just then went on querying how many people would actually agree with your definition.

I am not sure what you are reading here.

"millions of years" would include dinosaurs too.
Check your facts.

But I am checking my "facts". I am asking you to clarify 'that' what you are saying. These are the only "facts" I am concerned about here.

You said, "millions of years". I was clarifying, with you, how long "millions of years" entails.

You now say that dinosaurs are included in the "millions of years" scenario. So, you say 'greed' has been around since the dinosaurs, which is in disagreement with those who say that greed came into existence with human beings, who, by the way, have also been said to be around for "millions of years".

I just wanted to clarify, by checking my facts, with you, if you meant "millions of years" in human evolution terms or since dinosaurs and in their evolutionary terms. "millions of years" is not really a very specific term, so when it is used I just like to 'check my facts', with the one who uses such an open to interpretation term. Therefore, that is why I was checking my facts, with you.

Who or what exactly does being greedy have powerful selective advantage for?

Already explained

I obviously missed your "explanation", otherwise I would not have asked the clarifying question for it.

If you can not give an answer now or do not want to, then some might think you are trying to divert away from the issue.

Maybe you believe every living thing is greedy or only some things. I obviously will not know until you clarify.

Evolution is never perfect in relation to what exactly?

Open a book. I suggest you start with Darwin

Why does it appear to me that it is the people who believe the most that they are right are the ones who, when asked clarifying questions, are frequently incapable of answering, or do not want to answer, and instead just say ridiculous things like; "Read or open a book".

If a person states some thing, but is incapable of clarifying what they are actually saying, then some might consider that that person really does not know what they are talking about.

We will wait and see.

Considering evolution could not be any different from what it is I have yet to see how it could never be perfect.

Duh!Open a book! Nothing's perfect.

So, are you saying that by opening a book you saw that nothing is perfect?

You come across as one of those that every thing they know they had to learn it from a book. Your responses highlight this even more.

Would not an evolving Self-reslising and Self-explaining Consciousness be some sort of proof that evolution is working perfectly?

depends. Depends on whether or not that is selectively advantageous.

Does evolution work by, through, and/or for, what is selectively advantageous, or by, through, and/or for, what is selectively disadvantageous, or some thing else?

How is evolution supposedly variable?

Duh!Open a book! It relies on variation

Are you able to elaborate on this?

if yes, then please do.

I thought evolution works in one way, and thus is not variable. But I might be completely, or partly, wrong.

Your answer here would be much easier to understand than opening any book would be.

If these answers, to you, are supposedly so obviously known by you already, then why do you not just write the answer/s down?

Are you capable of providing the answers to my clarifying questions here in this forum?

If yes, then why do you not do it?
If no, then so be it.

Maybe you are not capable of understanding just how simplistic my clarifying questions are?

You do give answers that completely complicate what is really truly simple and easy to understand.

So, you named one breed of one particular animal that overeat some times. Are you proposing that that is evidence for some thing?

You are a time waster.

You obviously did not understand my clarifying question.

Obviously there are various differences in physical things. But that is obviously not what I was asking, nor talking about.

I asked, How is evolution (itself) supposedly variable?

What other ways could evolution work, or be, other than how it works, and is?

Do you now understand my clarifying question or do you still not understand it at all?

Also, why do people who are incapable of clarifying what they themselves say, or just do not want to clarify, say things like, "You are a time waster", as well as, "Open a book"?

Saying things like this really does not show that the person saying them really does know what they are talking about.

If you can not clarify what you are talking about, then how much do you really know about it?

Trying to make out that it is the "other" who is stupid and ignorant, when they are just asking clarifying questions, really does not help the one diverting from just answering.

Which dogs are born homosexual, and what evidence do you have that they are born that way?

All mammals exhibit homosexuality. You need to get out more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

When you say, "All mammals exhibit homosexuality", do you mean all species of mammals, or all individuals, which are mammals?

If it is the latter, then how often do you exhibit homosexuality?

And why did you begin talking about homosexuality and animals, especially considering what I have been discussing in this topic?

Also, when you say, "You need to get out more", what do you mean?

Usually when one 'gets out' this could infer not reading books nor links at all. Books are about "other" people's perceptions of the "world", whereas "getting out" infers experiencing the "world" for ones self.

By the way that link you provided is about 'homosexual behavior in animals' and not about 'mammals' only, and that link provided has no actual resolution to any thing at all. It was just more of the misguided, misconstrued, and misunderstood perception of things that human beings continually put forward.

Are you now saying that the behaviour to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated, is a natural trait but the behaviour to judge how much you eat is a learned or cultural trait?

You are confusing two issues.

Am I? Are you absolutely certain of this? Could you be misinterpreting any thing in what I am asking, or is that just not possible?

One is the trait and the other is the cultural judgement that people place upon it. Please try to stick to the program

I am trying to understand that if 'greed' is only related to eating, from your perspective, then what has this got to do with what causes human beings to create wars and be unloving to each other, which is more what the discussion in this topic is about?

What has the absolutely ordinary and necessary task of eating, which all living things obviously do, in a certain aspect, have to do with human beings killing, abusing, and mistreating each other, which is what the discussion I was having, in this topic, is about?

What "program" do you want me to stick to exactly?

You are either totally dull or just game playing. I think it is the former.

If by "dull" you mean some thing like "autistic", then you already know the answer. If, however, you do not mean any thing like that, then what do you mean by "dull"?

[Sculptor]

...f, however, you do not mean any thing like that, then what do you mean by "dull"?

If you look above you shall see that your questions have been answered in my two previous posts on this thread

[The Woodster]

x

[Age]

2. What do you mean by 'standard' method of evolution?
How many methods of evolution is there? And, how do you separate the standard methods of evolution from the non-standard methods.

What i mean is that evolution's standard method for the last 3.5 billion years has been the same with each species, Survival of the fittest.

Okay,
1. If evolution has been the same with each species, then how could there be an error with human beings, and with them only?
2. Again, is there any other method than the "standard" method?
3. Why has evolution only been the same with each species for the last 3.5 billion years? Was it different before that? Why did evolution start or change 3.5 billion years ago?

Direct straightforward answers would be much appreciated.

I think you have a poor understanding of what is being said when people talk about evolution.

And do you know what I think?

I think people have a poor understanding of what is being said when I talk about evolution.

Do you want to know why I think this?

It is because people do not ask for clarification, like i do, when things are said.

Evolution is not goal oriented.

Do you think that that is what I think when people talk about evolution?

If yes, then why do you think this.
If no, then why did you mention this here?

Things evolve because traits and behaviours being part of an individual or group survive with them.

To me, things do not evolve BECAUSE of what you say here.

To me, things evolve BECAUSE that is how Life, Itself, works.

Things evolve because there is no other way.

Species do not react to changing environments.

Is this right and true?

From the species that I have observed they react to the obviously always changing environment.

To be alive is to react.

I am not sure what you are observing, or reading.

Environments put selective pressure on individuals in the groups, which helps preserve useful traits.

How many of these environments are there that you are talking about?

I observe only one, which is broken up into many different "labels".

And what do you mean by "selective" pressure?

Do some, or all, of these environments, of which you talk about, decide what pressure they will put on individuals in the group?

How do environments select the pressure that they put on individuals?

And, how do environments know what useful traits, which groups have, to them decide what selected pressure to put on individuals in the groups?

But evolution being an effect, and NOT a cause of change means that some traits can be useless, even negative to the species - just so long as they do not compromise the generation of viable progeny
.

Since when has evolution been an effect and NOT the cause of change?

So, if a trait can be useless, and even negative to a species, then this sounds very contradictory to, just so long as that trait does not compromise the generation of viable progeny.

Also, it goes against the statement: 'Survival of the fittest' in relation to evolution.

To me, it sounds like the more you delve into this the more you are trying to argue against your own self.

And that is the entire nub of the argument. Species that survive pass on whatever traits they exhibit- be they good or bad.

What do you mean by "that is the entire nub of the argument"?

What was there to even "argue" about?

Of course species (that survive) pass on whatever traits they exhibit.
1. That is exactly how traits get passed on. Naturally, all exhibitable traits get passed on.
2. Species, that have not survived, obviously can not pass on any thing. So, of course, species that survive pass on whatever traits they exhibit.
3. Exhibiting traits is the only way learned traits are passed on.

So traits that might seem negative can exist in species all the time, confer no particular advantage, but just because the species survives for other reasons these traits persist.

What are you going on about now? You have gone from 'greed' is about eating till satiated, to animals are homosexual, to species that survive pass on their traits, to negative traits can exist in species.

I was discussing with another person about their writings and how they propose a "greed-gene" came into existence during human beings existence.

And that is what I want to continue discussing with them.

You say greed has been in existence well before human beings came into existence. So which one of you is right?

So evolution is not perfect; it does not know what is coming next; there is NO "IT" to know that. Evolution is not a conscious process in any sense.

If evolution is the affect AFTER the cause, then how could evolution be not perfect? Why would you even consider a "perfection" to an unknown end result anyway?

Why would a human being even consider a perspective of "perfection" in regards to an unknowing, completely unconscious thing?

Obviously evolution does not know the perspective of 'perfect'. Did you somehow think "it" might?

If yes, then why?
If no, then okay.

We are all born with a spectrum of emotional responses. Hunger and pain are two that are essential for survival since we would not eat, nor avoid injury. Greed being an aspect of hunger, or an aspect of acquisitiveness are also useful, but like ANY trait can be destructive.

So if a trait is destructive, then how does that fit in with the idea that evolution is 'survival of the fittest'?

How is what causes destruction help in surviving?

How does being destructive 'fit in', with surviving?

'Fitting in' after all is more or less what 'survival of the fittest' actually refers to.

The two, to me anyway, contradict each. The two words are more or less antonyms of each other.

Evolution dose not care; it does not know. As long as destructive traits to not lead to failure on reproductive of viable progeny such traits can persist.

Where do you imagine destructive traits lead to?

The word 'destructive' should provide a good clue to what the answer is.

Where genes leave off and traits are promoted, encouraged, or suppressed as all to do with our lived, learned experience. Here greed can thrive, and can be useful to the individual since it can help in the acquisition of power, things and status.

I see where the confusion and misunderstanding lays with you. You believe Life is all about the 'individual'.

To some, Life is a little bit bigger than just an individual human being, and even a little bit bigger than a whole species of human beings who have lived for millions of years.

To some, 'greed' had its purpose in Life, and when that purpose is understood and known, or in other words has been fulfilled, then 'greed' will be completely destroyed.

Believing that 'greed' can thrive, and can be useful to the individual, since greed can help the individual in the acquisition of power, things, and status, then that is one sure and quick way of destroying the species that those individuals are a part of.

Obviously greed can help in the acquisition of power, things, and status, but that is the very reason WHY you human beings are on the downward spiral of destruction that you are on now.

If you can not see that, then this is just another example of what I say about being blinded by one's own beliefs.

[Age]

...f, however, you do not mean any thing like that, then what do you mean by "dull"?

If you look above you shall see that your questions have been answered in my two previous posts on this thread

If you believe that you have answered sufficiently, and that nothing else needs clarifying, then I have all that I need from you.

But I am still curious as to why some people find saying things like, "I have answered already", "You can look for the answers yourself", and/or "If you look you shall see", in regards to my clarifying questions directed at what they, themselves say, instead of just saying the actual clarifying answer. Some might infer from this behavior the person really can not answer.

[The Woodster]

x

[Age]

When the ice-age evolved/ or didn't evolve the psychopath, these too will have continued to pass on their "warrior-genes" (the so-called warrior gene comprises particular variations in the X chromosome gene that produces monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), an enzyme that affects the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin)

You have to first provide evidence for a "warrior-gene" and/or a "greed-gene" BEFORE you can start discussing these "genes" being passed on.

How much proof do you need????

Any will do.

You keep repeating this same question, and absolutely refuse to believe that these behaviour or emotionally inherited traits in human beings have any physical presence within our chromosomes, which we then inherit from our parents.

1. Well I am not going to believe absolutely any thing, (except for one thing), so there is no use in trying to get me to believe in any thing. you or anyone says.

2. I did not even ask a question here.

3. If some one comes along as shows a physical presence within the human chromosomes, which cause human beings to be "warrior-like" and/or "greedy", then that will be all the proof I need. Until then I will remain completely open to the fact that behavior like these might just be learned along the way, and not a result of genes at all.

4. If being a "warrior" and killing people directly and/or being "greedy" and killing people indirectly, or directly, is because of genes inherited from your parents, then why do you judge, ridicule, and punish each other for doing what is essentially not your fault at all, and also what you have absolutely no control over?

Unless of course you can control your genes. But that seems slightly impossible considering the fact that the genes you have were passed onto you by your parents, before you were even born.

It seems to go against all evolutionary processes to judge, ridicule, and punish, those for doing what they essentially have evolved to do. If your genes control you to do what you are doing, then you are programmed to do wrong, which means you have been and are programmed to wipe yourselves out. Evolution has created you to destroy yourselves. That is, of course, if "your theory" is correct.

5. You say I refuse to believe what you say, yet there is another person in this thread who says the exact opposite of what you are saying here. They might also be thinking that I refuse to believe what they say. So, who am I going to take as telling the truth of things? Is it 'you' or is it the other 'you'? Can both of 'you' be telling the truth here regarding this?

Please Google these topics and read the evidence before you reply to any more of my posts.

Another person who can not provide evidence for what they say is (absolutely) true, but instead says go "Look for yourself".

If there was any actual evidence for what you are saying, and you have already found it and read it by "googling" it, then why do you not just provide a link to it, at least?

Some people try this tactic of providing links, thinking and hoping it is evidence. But the truth can be and will be seen.

I'am getting a little tiresome of your dissemination of every word of every sentence i write.

I did ask you, from the outset, ..., are you seeking feedback and/or criticism, or, are you just wanting to express only?

If you just want to express, then go ahead. I am certainly not going to stop you.

If, however, you want feedback and/or criticism on what you write, then expect it.

Again, are you seeking feedback and/or criticism, or, are you just wanting to express only?

Feedback and criticism involves disseminating what is written or said. Better feedback and criticism might involve disseminating more of what is said or written. The more that is disseminated then the better the feedback and criticism might be.

And yes i do have to repeat the 'obvious' because you refuse to even consider anything i write.

But I have considered ALL of what you wrote.

I have countless other things to comment on. But first i just wanted to start on this "greed-gene" point mainly.

Once you have proven that it exists, then we can move on. If, however, you can not prove that it exists, then either you can give up, or you can accept that you can not prove it exists, and then we can move on.

The choice is yours.

By the way if some thing is 'obvious', then obviously I would not be asking you about it nor to repeat it. But just because you believe some thing is true, that does not make it 'obviously' true.

If what you believe is not true, would you want to hear it?

For example, i shouldn't have to explain what i mean by evolution's slooooow process, in relation to what?

Why not?

If you want to add the emotive words in, to emote a reaction in "others", which hopefully will persuade them to your way of thinking, then go ahead. But if you really want feedback, then I will ask what these emotive words are in relation. When, and if, answered openly and honestly, then it will be found that what people are trying to express is really not what is true, right, nor correct.

From a mouse sized mammal to today's horse = 30 million yrs, that's slow in relation everything.

So, in relation to an eternal, infinite Universe you find 30 million years slow, correct?

30 million years is relatively nothing in relation to evolution, and to what IS evolving.

I notice that you have also not responded to any of my questions nor comments about how some creatures can have far more varying appearances than the human creature has.

By the way and just so it is clear, I think you have arrived at an idea and believed it to be true, and from what you have read and thought about about the ice-age and other things has fitted in nicely with your beliefs, and from that formed some "theory". However, and I do not want you to think that I have deceived you, your writings about the ice-age, droughts in africa, and such, I have not thought about before. They substantiate far more my view of things, which I can use greatly, so thank you.

[FlashDangerpants]

You say you are not going to do a lot of "it" with me, the truth of that will soon be seen.

I'm genuinely not going to spend a lot of time on you Ken. You are constantly demanding to be understood, but put little effort into doing any understanding. You have my very limited attention until I get completely bored because I know that this is a waste of time.

You won't find any academic study of 'greed' because that isn't a scientific term.

Who cares?

That's what I'm on about. If you are challenging somebody else's assertion of a link between genetics and a thing, then you are going to have to address the genetics end of that properly. The other guy in this instance isn't really able to do that, but this does not excuse you.

I've given you a link to a great many scientific papers covering links between genetic inheritance and appetitive behaviours, they all have an abstract at the start which will usually explain the gist of the findings in quite straight forward terms.

Who cares here how much an individual human being wants to eat?

Where did you get the notion that appetitive behaviours relates only to eating? You have only one appetite in your life do you? If so, drink a beer and get laid, then you can have three.

I really don't care if that satiates your appetite for kowledge. I've seen your output, your response will typically be another sliver of indignation, which I also won't care about.

If that is what you believe you will get, then obviously that is what you will get.

Thanks for letting me work you like a puppet.

I was discussing, with another, about an alleged existing so called "greed-gene", and not much at all about what you are talking about here.

You were both spouting complete nonsense on a public forum. I am allowed to point this out if I feel like it, don't get pissy at me as if you think your conversation was personal and private.

[Age]

Not just the urge to stuff our mouths with food, but also the urge to accumulate goods, fire-wood, clothing,tools etc.

Some groups of human beings today, when this is written, still do not need to accumulate goods, of any sort, in order to survive. And they evolved from the exact same.

Yes but they are a very small minority.

So, why did they not inherit the so called "greedy-gene"? Especially considering your "theory" is based upon that "we all" are descendants of the exact same (exact 600) human beings.

Most of the worlds 7 billion people require money to buy food in order to survive.

But that is the whole point of 'greed', from my perspective. You human beings do NOT require money to survive. You just desire money, and use the 'we need money to survive' "justification".

The more money you have, the better your survival chances are.

Money has never provided a better chance of survival for the species. Money, however, may have allowed some individual to last a bit longer than they would have with less or no money. But the outcome is still the same. NO individual human being survives, forever.

Money, and the love of money, is one of the major causes of human beings downfall. Money, and the love of it, is certainly NOT bettering the chances of survival for the human species. This can be clearly observed.

Also, human beings greedy behavior leads them to look at things from the individual's perspective, only. Just like you, and "others", continually do, especially when looking at topics like this.

Another example of the downfall of 'greed', itself. Only looking at, and from, the individual's perspective of things, leads to the downfall and destruction of the whole species.

If only 'greed' was in the genes, then it could just be removed or taken out (some might say that that was written (with) tongue-in-cheek).

How can i be wrong in that statement?

Very easily.

Surely it is obvious that some difference in homo-sapiens emotional development would have lead to a completely different future?

Yes that is VERY OBVIOUS.

But that certain does not point to any evidence that the 'emotion of greed' became a physical gene in the human species in the very 70,000 years that you talk about, nor at any other period of time also.

I do not know for sure, but i would suggest that there may have just been other periods throughout the said few million years of human existence that could have been "harder" (for lack of a better word at the moment) than just those relatively very short 70,000 years or so.

Can you not yet so that you do not have any actual evidence for what you are saying here, and that you have just arrived at some conclusions, which to me are obviously unsubstantiated, solely based upon your previously held beliefs only?

That is why i call it "My Theory", if I had sufficient evidence to prove it beyond doubt I wouldn't be arguing with you.

But you are not 'arguing'. You are just presenting your view or "theory" of things. 'Arguing' requires making sound and valid arguments. If you had made sound and valid arguments, then there is nothing that could be refuted, or in other words 'argued' against.

Also, did you not just say in your previous post to me, regarding the same things, Please Google these topics and read the evidence before you reply to any more of my posts. ?

If you did, then which one is it? Is there sufficient evidence for what you are saying, which can be found just by doing an internet search, or, you actually do not have sufficient evidence for this?

I think that goes for a lot of topics in this forum, if we all had to provide "actual evidence" it would be a very lonely web-site.

So, what are you saying here now?

The people who come are mostly just saying things without any actual evidence for what they are talking about? This might help in explaining why I am have so much trouble here just learning how to express better. I only want to express 'that' what is actually true, right, and correct.

I agree.
Finally, for now, the other point i would like to make is that human-emotions differ greatly from the animal emotions which we inherited over the last million plus yrs. and should not be compared with them any more.

Can you explain the difference between human-emotions and animal-emotions?

If yes, then please do.

To me, humans are animals.

Which emotions are proposing you human beings have inherited over the last million plus years.

And, are you able to provide a list of human emotions, and, animal emotions?

If yes, then please do.

Also, when you say we 'inherited', what do you actually mean?

Absolutely every physical gene in absolutely every physical thing has been inherited. Unless of course I am mistaken, and if I am, then please correct me.

[Age]

The theory of natural selection relies on three factors: 1) empirical variability, 2) persistence of transmission of some or all variability and 3) differential representation of transmitted variability in subsequent state. Evolution is change that results from differential persistence of variability under the selection pressure of environment.
However there is a long standing conceptual battle between two ways of looking at evolution.

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected.

(2) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

The truth lies in the first.

How do you know?

Do you have some access to 'the truth' that "others" do not?

Sadly many of the world's best theorists fall into the mistake of applying the second assumption which is utterly wrong.

Luckily, and happily, we have 'you' then.

Evolution cannot select FOR specific traits. To do that it would have to be conscious. Other traits come along for the ride.

In this way evolution "allows" damaging and negative traits, or traits that do not confer any advantage. Homosexuality is a practice that occurs in all mammals, many birds ,and reptiles. It has no evolutionary values since it cannot lead to reproductive success, but since it is not prevalent it does not harm selection enough to make species fail.

Although this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am discussing, it provides further insight into 'you'.

Now, to me, all of that seems to be a rather very complex and clumsy way of 'looking at' what is essentially a very simple and easy thing to see and understand.

All of that, by the way, is just another "theory", of many.

Also, your use of the word 'selective' could imply a sense of consciousness to it.

Both (1) and (2) seem to be very limited and narrow perspectives of what is essentially a much bigger thing than is being proposed in these 'theories'.

[The Woodster]

x

[Age]

You say you are not going to do a lot of "it" with me, the truth of that will soon be seen.

I'm genuinely not going to spend a lot of time on you Ken.

'A lot' is very relative.

You are constantly demanding to be understood,

Am I?

How do I constantly "demand" this?

By just asking to have my views challenged and/or clarified, or am I doing some thing else that I am unaware of?

but put little effort into doing any understanding.

So, to you, continually asking for clarification is "putting little effort into doing any understanding", correct?

If yes, then some might completely disagree with you here on this. As continually asking for clarity might just be seen as being about the most one could be doing to gain understanding.

Obviously the more clarity is sought, the more clarity can be given, and then the most understanding can be gained, which sort of totally contradicts what you are saying here.

You have my very limited attention until I get completely bored because I know that this is a waste of time.

How much or how little attention you want to give me is of just about no concern at all to me.

Also, surely you could find some thing better to do than read my writings, no matter how bored you are, especially considering you KNOW that this is a waste of time.

You won't find any academic study of 'greed' because that isn't a scientific term.

Who cares?

That's what I'm on about. If you are challenging somebody else's assertion of a link between genetics and a thing, then you are going to have to address the genetics end of that properly.

Maybe you have missed what is going on, and how I operate. I do NOT challenge any one's assertions, on any thing, from the perspective of they are wrong and I am right. I challenge them, by asking clarifying questions, until the truth comes out.

In the situation here I challenged them by asking them clarifying questions. They, themselves, have said that they do not have sufficient evidence to prove what they are saying beyond doubt, and that is all I am seeking here openness and honesty.

If, and when, human beings are open and honest with me, then that helps me to learn how to communicate with them better. When they are closed and dishonest I do not seem to get anywhere. This can be observed and witnessed throughout this forum.

The other guy in this instance isn't really able to do that, but this does not excuse you.

By the way, I was addressing 'the genetics end of that' my way. You may not see this as the "proper" way, but is there an actual 'proper' way to address human beings?

I have already achieved the truth, my way, so that is 'proper' enough for me.

I've given you a link to a great many scientific papers covering links between genetic inheritance and appetitive behaviours, they all have an abstract at the start which will usually explain the gist of the findings in quite straight forward terms.

Who cares here how much an individual human being wants to eat?

Where did you get the notion that appetitive behaviours relates only to eating?

I did not get the notion that appetitive behaviors relates only to eating.

Where did you get the notion that I did?

I have been discussing 'greed' and replying to a person who had stated that 'Greed' is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated.

You have only one appetite in your life do you?

No.

If so, drink a beer and get laid, then you can have three.

Moot.

I really don't care if that satiates your appetite for kowledge. I've seen your output, your response will typically be another sliver of indignation, which I also won't care about.

If that is what you believe you will get, then obviously that is what you will get.

Thanks for letting me work you like a puppet.[/quote]

That is fine.

But remember you are the one who keeps coming back to me, yet you, supposedly, KNOW you are wasting your time, AND, you will also not even, supposedly, care what I say.

As I said earlier, You say you are not going to do a lot of "it" with me. But the truth of that has already been seen.

By the way, if you believe my response is some thing, then that does not mean it is. I could just be writing in ways to make you believe some things, which are fact, the exact opposite.

I could even be writing in ways so that when you read it it makes you feel that you are wasting your time, which could also be making you feel angry and annoyed, just like you are being unfairly treated. If you know I am 'wasting your time', then how does that make you feel?

I was discussing, with another, about an alleged existing so called "greed-gene", and not much at all about what you are talking about here.

You were both spouting complete nonsense on a public forum.

Have I? Would you like to pick just one nonsensical thing I "spouted" and discuss it, openly, for ALL to see on a public forum? Or, would you like to keep it all hushed up like you are doing right now?

I am OPEN to discussing any thing with you. You are free to pick absolutely any thing I say and try to prove just how nonsensical it is.

It might be very interesting for me, and the readers, to see exactly from what perspective you read my words from, which to you shows you that what I "spout" is COMPLETE NONSENSE, on a public forum.

I am allowed to point this out if I feel like it, don't get pissy at me as if you think your conversation was personal and private.

I am certainly not getting any thing other just exposing what you and I are doing.

You are so far off track with your assumptions here. You could not be any more WRONG about what feelings AND what thoughts there are behind my writings.

Have you ever thought about considering to ask me some clarifying questions first, BEFORE you make up such obviously ridiculous assumptions and jump to such obviously wrong conclusions?

[Age]

Finally, for now, the other point i would like to make is that human-emotions differ greatly from the animal emotions which we inherited over the last million plus yrs. and should not be compared with them any more.


Age actually wrote this ;
Can you explain the difference between human-emotions and animal-emotions?
If yes, then please do.
To me, humans are animals.
Which emotions are proposing you human beings have inherited over the last million plus years.
And, are you able to provide a list of human emotions, and, animal emotions?
If yes, then please do.

As John McEnroe once screamed - "You cannot be serious!"

Yes of course i can (and lots of other people can too no doubt) explain to you the difference between human and animal emotions.
First and biggest difference = humans have emotions, animals do not.

So, you write, Finally, for now, the other point i would like to make is that human-emotions differ greatly from the animal emotions

Maybe if you wrote some thing instead like: "Finally, for now, the other point i would like to make is that humans have emotions while all other animals do not", then that might make what you mean a bit more clearer, from the outset.

1. This is completely different and means some thing completely from saying "human emotions differ greatly from the animal emotions". Can you spot the difference between the two? Are you able to see just how completely different in meaning they are? Can you see how one is very misleading while the other is to the point?

2. Humans are animals.

Human Emotions which we have inherited over the last million years are as follows in alphabetical order;

Once again you use the term 'human emotions' with the phrase 'we have inherited over the last millions of years'.

To me, it is like you are suggesting that 'we' (by the way, who is that actually referring to?) are significantly different from past generations, and that new "emotional-genes" just pop into existence, along the way.

Admiration,Adoration,Appreciation,Amusement,Anxiety,Awe,Awkwardness,Boredom,Calmness,Confusion,Craving,Disgust,Empathetic pain,Entrancement,Envy,Excitement,Fear,Horror,Interest,Joy,Nostalgia,Romance,Sadness,Satisfaction,Sexual desire,Sympathy,Triumph

Cats and dogs might care for their pups or kittens, but they do not 'love' them.
Cows in fields might look bored but they do not experience 'Boredom or Sadness'
Do I have to go on?
The only 'emotions' we appear to share with animals are Fear, but that is only on a primitive level, and we can control our fear they cannot.

1. Obviously IF you had been saying that human beings have emotions and non-human animals do not, then you would not have to make a list of the emotions human beings experience.

2. Your example of cats and dogs and care and not 'love', further substantiates and supports what I said before than it does supporting your view here. How do you know what cows experience and/or feel? Are you 100% absolutely sure that cows do experience sadness when say their calf dies?

If yes, then please explain where and/or how you have gained this insight?

3. You started out in this very thread expressing that the First and biggest difference IS 'humans have emotions', and, 'animals do not'. But now you are saying that animals do actually have emotions. You say that animals appear to have the emotion of fear.

If you would like feedback on your writings, then the use of the word 'appear' is about one of the truest things that you have said so far.

Are you also aware that to some people some other animals, besides the human animal, also appear to have other emotions than just that one of fear?

Also, when you say 'we' can control our fear. Do you mean every one of 'we' or just some? And, do you mean 'we' can control our fear all of the time or just some of the time? Does it depend on what the fear is from? Can 'we' control this fear all of our lives from the instant we are born up till the time the heart stops pumping blood and the body stops breathing. Are you absolutely sure that ALL other non-human animals can not control fear, all of the time? Are you absolutely sure that no other non-human animal has any other emotion other than just the one of fear?

There are other questions that I could ask for clarification, but I will leave them for now.