possibly, but based on everything I learned in my evolutionary psychology class, a trait doesn't have to be ipso facto necessary for survival to develop. The trait or its precursors only have to be useful for getting genes into successive generations. Evolution is about the survival of genes.
The ability to problem solve makes it more likely your genes will get into the next generation.And I'm sure quadratic equations were required survival traits.
If you were really tired of it you wouldn't keep engaging
OK, but one has to admit, typical teaching of evolution is about adaptation for survival...it's like a mantra. And for the most part seems (without hard evidence - pardon the pun regarding fossils) to be a legitimate argument.
Yes...but it still doesn't explain symbolic thinking and reasoning. One can be involved in complex problems without any symbols...up the creek without a paddle? And there's no guarantee one's mate would be equally cunning or mentally capable, or that the trait would pass on to progeny. One could argue a female may more easily control / steer / direct a more docile male. And there's always the threat of physical violence, the bigger they come the harder they hit. Not advocating, simply stating animal fact.
Beg to differ. Evolution is more than that. A squid changing color is a mechanism to get food.
www.interfaith.org
Yeah, human psychology is complicated. There are many examples of three-somes in any society.
I don't know that it is. The most recent course I took on it was the evolutionary psychology class I mentioned, which was years ago, and in the explanation about how genes are adaptive if they create traits that make it more likely the genes will get into the next generation and beyond -- that explanation was offered as a clarification to the commonly repeated but incomplete idea that genes were adaptive for survival as if survival itself were the goal. I don't remember the professor's exact words. However, it clicked things into place for me, as he explained that survival was not really a goal in itself, but survival long enough to pass genes into the next generation. That the adaptation is for (if it were for a goal) the survival and replication of THE GENE. I saw the logic, and how it can be plausible that evolution is a so-called "blind" process -- not necessarily driven by a conscious goal on anyone's part (except when humans bred animals for traits, then those traits would survive because the humans would make sure traits they liked were bred for and therefore the genes ended up in subsequent generations) but in the wild, any gene that ends up in the next generation will lead to the traits being in the next generation, and if that trait or any trait associated with the gene makes it more likely for reproduction to occur, then the survival of the gene is insured. Reproduction and protection of offspring until they are of reproductive age is the "goal" of the gene... but really the mechanism by which the gene survives.
Which helps the creature survive long enough to get the genes into the next generation.
Until someone with abstract reasoning skills and the ability to manipulate symbols ends up gathering wealth, settling disputes, averting war, all in such a way that his/her progeny and the progeny of their near relatives survive long enough to reproduce and more of the babies survive because they have a stockpile of grain and a stable system for distributing it and resolving disputes and safety from greedy neighbors due to their bartering skills, and safety from predators due to their own cunning and ability to abstract and predict the raiding patterns of both wild predators and crazy neighbors, thus preparing for or averting deadly raids, and more of them survive and have kids who survive to have kids and the village gets bigger and more of the genes get passed to the next generation and more of the newborns survive to reproductive age and then...
My favorite subject - evolutionary psychology.
It works in all species. What we do other than procreation is meaningless to evolution. The salmon die after releasing eggs. The female spider eats the male spider after sex.
He is, I suppose, referring to the speculative nature of evolutionary psychology.My favorite subject - evolutionary psychology.
"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."
- Noam Chomsky -
Ha ha
Not as much as you think. The techniques have improved enormously.
If I'm not mistaken, I think the human female has a much better developed mental capacity for conversation. Case in point, guys generally don't like to sit around complain. I prefer to solve problems, not complain about them. I've known gals who appeared to me to be seemingly content to complain to each other, rather than solve a problem. I know I'm not alone in this observation.
In the sense of physical reality you are correct, but there is more to reality than the physical alone.
Yes, but there's a long way to go yet as well.
Stephen J Gould posited "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" for science and religion.
-emphasis mine, from the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteriawiki said: