I don't approve of squirrels and altruism, it's disgusting and evil I fucking hate reality, I wish I could kill the air and wake up on another planet, and people suffer and they expect autistic people to suffer selflessly like them. Well I hate altruism, and squirrels should be eaten, and I should kick it in the arse. People are suffering and autistic people refuse it because of this ridiculous evil world screw you evil planet I wish reality will be what I feel like!!!!
Altruism exists and god gave it us. God gave us a brain reaction/feel good benefit factor every time we do something for someone else. So Altruism becomes its own reward if we put others first before our own needs we will be rewarded with a nice feeling as a reward from god. We don't just do something nice to receive that feeling because its impossible you only receive the nice feeling if you go out of your way to genuinely put someone else first over yourself with no hidden agenda!!!
@koda215 Try it, try and do something nice only to receive reward there will be no feel good factor reward for you because there is no deceiving god. You have to selflessly put the good of another person or animal before yourself and then you will be rewarded. If you don't believe me try it as a test do something nice knowing first you will be rewarded, you will never receive a reward. Then do it for the good of the person not yourself and you will be rewarded its how god repays us!!!
If someone could make this clear to me it would be helpfull i am trying to understand atheist morality better.
Altruism to me doesn't answer the main question, which is WHY and HOW did animal groups make laws that are made for the better good? Is it only for means of survival? In this case wouldn't it be true that we should kill off the really old who do not benifit society? as well as killing the serverly disabled? Why not kill them in this case? But this is why i am asking please email me.
I challenge you, in the name of scientific inquiry, Don Exodus to show us your dividing line between natural and intelligent. YOU are just making a blanketed explanation of that topic: DIRTSDIDIT. That relationship cannot be made by purely natural processes. You had to dig deeper than that.
are you sure that the squirrels that cry out are killed more often? Monkeys exhibit similar behavior, but it's seen that the ones that cry out are usually avoided by eagles because it's basically letting the eagle know that it has seen it. And eagles usually rely on surprise to catch their prey.
I found your video to be incredibly interesting, especially considering i was unaware of the squirrels commiting suicide to save their kin. However, i do feel the need to point out that if they are saving their kin so that their genes, or at least some of their genes can be passed on to the next generation, that that cannot be altruism as they are gaining something from it.
hence why my biologist used the example of some (cannot recall) species of vampire bats who are pithetically crap at hunting, but survive almost only by the merit they one who feeds on a particular day will give up food to others not directly related to them. however, as they all do this, they keep each other alive as a coloney.
this fits more closely in that there is no guarentee of benefit or direct benefit for the individual; yet is still an evolutionary advantagous trait.
@ygfi Although i am not really familiar with the example, i am going on the information that you provided. Its still not altruism, as the deffininition of altruism is that you are helping a stranger in some way at cost to yourself and gain NO benefit, whether it is immediate or further down the line, and they ARE gaining a benefit! They aren't particularly good hunters, so food is shared amoungst the group. They are giving food up when they feed on that day and on another day they are.....
Altruism: behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
i don't see how giving up food is of immediate benefit to individuals.
if you want to constrict your definitions to exclude anything which can benefit the participant, then you'll find no such example exists; hence why we use a definition which is actually useful.
@ygfi Its not an immediate benefits but it doesn't have to be immediate to be a benefit.
Thats exactly the point, like other scientists, i do not believe altruism actually exists. A lecturer of mine was talking about a seminar recently, where the speaker was talking about how altruism does not exist. Then all of a sudden an attendee stood up and said that it wasn't true and it did exist as he recently donated a lot of money to charity anonymously. The speaker then responded by alerting him
@ygfi to the fact that he just told a room full of people about it and thus he had just benefitted! Whilst the majority of the room would have been focused on the fact that this man just proved the speakers theory, the natural reaction would have been to think positively about the man and thus his status would have improved.
In both humans and other animals, status is very important. So whether they are gaining food or status, they are gaining none the less and thus altruism cannot exist.
hence why my biologist used the example of some (cannot recall) species of vampire bats who are pithetically crap at hunting, but survive almost only by the merit they one who feeds on a particular day will give up food to others not directly related to them. however, as they all do this, they keep each other alive as a coloney.
this fits more closely in that there is no guarentee of benefit or direct benefit for the individual; yet is still an evolutionary advantagous trait.
It has been things like this that has saddened me in life and made me come to believe, that we are merely brainless, soulless creatures, driven by emotions, feelings, desires and instincts, that we do not understand and can not control. It is things like this that convinced me that we are living in a god-less world and as a child, I developed the distinct impression; that I was living amongst wild animals – from bowing down in submission before feeding, to masturbating in utter secrecy!
As a child I was perplexed by my two grannies, where my mothers-mother was far more loving towards us than my fathers-mother. Speaking to my nephew (son of my fathers-sister) about this, I was surprised to hear that this was not his experience. I then heard this been said; That the granny on the mother side, irrespective of the biological father, always knows that she shares genes with her daughters offspring, while this is not a given when it's the offspring from her son...
People just need to realise that there doesnt need to be a reason why life exists. We create reason, as we and everything on earth is the only thing visibly proven that exist, just be satisfied at that, and the fact that you have life. Life Its a perk not a question.
Science has not found the "root" of altruism. God is not the answer to how goodness and kindness exist in the universe, it is the answer to *why* goodness and kindness exist in the universe. Science has never explained the WHY. That is up to philosophy and religion.
if one believes that god is how reality ultimately came into being, then god is the how AND the why. but, that's just the thing. when ti comes to the existence of the universe, there has to be a how. there doesn't have to be a why.
@thesparitan Guess which option I chose :P haha. I went to get the gun out of my van and made sure the killer was at least brought to justice. It's called cherry picking/Jeet Kune Do/Flexibility
@thesparitan If I see a big creepy dude walking up to my little sister or another close family member, I'm going to interfere, in the very least by alerting her to run and try to divert his attention to me. I put a lot of value on them. I'd probably do the same thing for a stranger too though unless the guy was holding a gun. Running into that situation knowing you would get killed to save the stranger is one extreme, running away knowing the stranger would get killed would be another.
If the principle is correct, then such activities might be more common in inbred groups or in groups without much genetic diversity...on the other hand, there is less gain, because the genes are already mostly the same...
@pointyhead1 nothing was said about inbreeding, new mates can come in and add to the gene pool and although they may not get the protection of the call they will still mate if they make it into the home.
You would predict for example that asexual organisms or ones that are born as twins, triplets, etc would display something even greater than sociality because the coefficent of relation is 100%
Where are the colonies of flatworm turbellarians?
Are they too dumb? They have about the same nervous capacity as insects.
And though the nine banded armadillo ( a mammal) always has a litter of identical sextuplets, there are no remarkable observations of altruism.
The guiding principle of animal behavior is to use parsimony and observation together to explain animal behavior while invoking the least about of conscious thought . They don't think " Oh I should do this to maximize my inclusive fitness" just like how if you ask a guy about why he wants sex or why he takes care of his kids, unless he is a deluded ethologist-- he will not say "i'm trying to maximize my inclusive fitness"
Sex drive like altruism is described as an unconscious motivator
@Drregaleagle because we (america) r doing everything rand would have disagreed w/ we r a nation of mystics , altruists , collectivists . with a mixed economy!!
@carveawoodeneye typical randroid. She says it so it must be true. Atheism has found its religion. No thanks, I dont like any religion, even the ones without a god, unless ayn rand is a god to these odjectivist.
@Proudtobeacommie i hard to say, my geuss is a great many are one and the same. 2% of the population of the us are randriods, and about 2% of americans are objectivist, so its interesting to think.
@thesparitan lol ,Religion = the belief in and worship of a god or gods!! you sound worse than us objectivists @ redefining words =) . so can i ask you why is it my moral or ethical duty to sacrifice my self to someone else ?? and if i cut myself up and feed the meat to the "starving" non-producers are they then bad and wrong for taking that meat are they not then selfish ?? do you own yourself or do the masses who demand a piece of you?
What the hell you are you talking about you schizophrenic loon? “if i cut myself up and feed the meat to the "starving" non-producers" What kind of sick lord of the flies, village of the damned, zombie land does your twisted mind inhabit? Have you been on a 3 day coke binge and now the paranoid dreams are starting to come to life and the voices are talking to you. I need to seriously stop attacking religion, these objectivist atheist are a million times worse.
actually for me i've found i've had to replace the smoking compulsion with other things like gum chewing and nervous tics.
atheism doesn't exist in the real world as the abstract as people think it is. atheism has a movement component that has various cultural trappings drawing from many sources also. atheists by and large fall into the same black and white views of things(but not all). in particular european atheists seem to buy into the xenphobia that europe is being taken over by muslims.
This is very interesting - I never heard of Hamilton's law before (but my ignorance of science is pretty comprehensive, so no surprise there.)
Strikes me that a squirrel with 80+ extant grandchildren and the prospect of more (like my grandmother had) might be a bit more inclined to keep stum and lose a few, where a squirrel who has only the possibility of a few grandkids (like my "other" gran), would squeal the squeal of self-sacrifice more readily.
@dunnonuffink You're kind of looking at it backwards, and assuming the squirrel is thinking. It has a lot of progeny BECAUSE it squeals to distract predators, so more of them survive.
LOL, expressed myself poorly. Honestly, I don't think squirrels think any more than my cat counts. He "counts" up four flights: unless my doormat's missing - then he keeps going up. My question's about risk playing out: a squirrel that squeals does so at a certain risk. If it has relatively few progeny, squealing too readily = one ex-squirrel & few, now unguarded, descendants soon extinct. So...does density of familiar bodies affect squirrel-squealing? Or age? Or just proximity?
(contd.) In other words, what stops every squirrel squealing every single time they see an eagle? Birds of prey might not be very bright, but they'd soon learn to home in on squirrels squeaking under the canopy, and then learn to do a flyby on the off-chance. Very soon - no squeaky squirrels left. So there must be some form of inhibition. I just wondered if the presence of a lot of familiar (familial) squirrels makes squirrels bold & squeaky; with lonely squirrels timid & quiet.
@dunnonuffink The video adresses that they generally only do it when there are other squirrels around, and are much more likely to do it among their own kin.
Shows how much I managed to retain for a whole week :(
But still I wonder - how do squirrels reckon "kin"? (this year's offspring only? Do mates count? Second-cousins?)
And also, is it just "presence of kin" or does it break down in some more subtle way?
Where squirrels are relatively sparse, surely a squeak would be more likely to result in some random squirrel's death (related or not) by notifying predators that there are squirrels hereabouts. Some cutoff density must operate.
It's not that the recognize their kin. They may, but that's not important. What is being described here is that something evolves that motivates a squirrel to give itself up when in the presence of others (who statistically will have a high % relation)
They don't think about it. They are just driven by mechanisms that put them in these situations
Surely there is some miscalculation going on here. I may well have inherited 50% of my genes from my mother and 50% of my genes from my father but my parents (and their parents) are also related to each other and large parts of their genomes are the same. Or do I have that wrong? If not then this would explain why I would risk my life to protect an African (especially a young one) even though we are not from the same village. His genes are my genes (give or take a few bits and bobs).
the % relation is modeling the probability of one newly emergent allele will get selected for and be able to out-compete alternatives. This models how it's possible to give a frequency boost during any given generation to some genotype
Though Lions and gazelles have a supermajority of genetic similarity you will not get gazelles willingly feeding themselves to cheetahs (to boost their copies in the cheetah) simply because a better alternative (not feeding to cheetah) will eventually pop up
Would it not seem that it should be much more favourable to your gene "X", to lose your life to a more closely related species than to one further away ?
Species preying on more closely related specimens or even species, should ensure that their target's "sacrifice" "pays off", if it's all about gene "X" and not about individuals or groups.
On the other hand, preying on closely related species would reduce gene "X".
"you will not get gazelles willingly feeding themselves to cheetahs"
It has never been stated that an act of altruism must involve certain death. Ever heard of these organisms that 'adopt' the young of a sibling? At their own EXPENSE? It doesn't kill them. It just decreases their chance of reproducing. And what about those that adopt the young of ANOTHER SPECIES? Maybe they're related.
All a selfish gene must do is increase its own chances. Even if it involves altruism.
i don't think that an animal adopting that of another species is altruism. whales have been known to adopt watercraft after losing their own. dolpins have helped drowning swimmers.
these are clearly psychological misapplications of altrusim
Why would you still keep responding if not through some small level of altruism? If you only have self-concern as your motive, then why would you care what other people think? Unless you have some sort of insecurity as to whether or not you're right, and need the confirmation or dismissal of ideas from other people - perhaps not altruism, but mutual cooperation if you consider other people as doing the same thing.
Really? Would you have been able to survive without altruism? If your mother (or whoever raised you) hadn't fed you and taken care of you, you wouldn't have survived. Religion or not, people rely on other people for survival and you're just going to have to accept that.
Quit assuming things man, I'm not a christian and I dont have a religion or believe in a god. But I don't like considering myself an atheist either because they're just as bad. Its the same type of people that believe in both christianity and atheism - the same arrogance just with a different name.
I know you like to think that because its a convenient perspective to have for shutting the world out and feeling sorry for yourself, but its not true. Get in touch with reality. Not all actions can be attributed completely to self-concern. Why in nature would a mother care about a baby if not through altruism? Why do family structures form in species if not through altruism? Just because it formed through evolution does not mean that it isn't still altruism by definition.
@SpunkySkunk347 actually, they are extremely different things. One is a strong belief in something based on absolutely zero evidence (i.e., faith). The other is a refusal to believe in the same thing explicitly because there is no evidence. Those are absolutely NOT identical. And please don't tell me that my claim of "no evidence" is my opinion, because it's not. It's fact. There is no evidence for God. Period. Understanding that basic fact is not the same thing as religion.
@evobio I don't think I said they were "exactly the same thing". If I remember, I said that they were both just as arrogant. But I could be wrong, my memory is shot... so if I did say "they are both the same", I meant to say that they are both just as arrogant as the other.
@SpunkySkunk347 hahahahahaha really? atheists and christians are at the same level of arrogance? Who is more arrogant sir, the person who "knows" they are right despite evidence to the contrary, or the person who is sure they are right according to the current evidence and is willing to change their minds when if new, contradictory evidence, presents itself?
@crackerkiller89 Neither of them actually care about finding "the truth". Humans want to pick a winning team. They ante up and then examine the odds afterwords - they defend their psychological ego-wagers as if they were defending something, as if it were to have turned out to be a waste of time and effort if they end up having to admit they are wrong.
Can't really do without this aspect of human nature either. There is no other way for it to work without us ceasing to be living creatures.
Especially if you acknowledge evolution and all the environmental hoops we have to jump through. If a creature is going to be intelligent, then it goes without saying that it will also require an ego as well. Otherwise, all of that precious glucose in the brain would have gone to waste, and you wouldn't have spent time defending your unique DNA sequence's title of having earned the right to reproduce.
@SpunkySkunk347 Youre right. They dont care about truth, they just wanna hold on to their beliefs because if they let them go, it will be as if everything they lived for till now was a lie. And that would probably be really hard. And even though it would be better to start life anew, humans choose the path that has the least near future hardships even if that one has HUGE longterm hardships.
"Altruism" is just another esoteric hobgoblin like religion.
The dissatisfaction with mortality leads the ignorant to reach out for some eternal ideal, whether that is religion or some touchy-feely, fuzzy feel good bullshit, I could care less...
I'll quote Macbeth from Shakespeare... "Leave physic to the dogs, I'll none of it."
@crackerkiller89 evolution hasn't been proved either and god explains more than star evolution and planet evolution and life evolution combined. God explains everything.
@HonestforJesus well in the same way evolution hasnt been "proved [sic]" helicentricity (the idea that the earth and planets of our solar system revolve around the sun) hasnt been proven either. We only have "proof" in mathematics, in everything else we have "evidence," learn the difference please. And on that note, evolution has so much more evidence behind it than your god that its like comparing a grain of rice of evidence (your god's evidence) to a globe of evidence (evidence for evolution).
@crackerkiller89 God reveals himself to those who believe and gives proof on an individualbasis. And people can actually see God. It has to be through revelation. But no one has ever seen an animal evolve or ape turn into a human.
@HonestforJesus " But no one has ever seen an animal evolve or ape turn into a human."
The classic ramblings of a person with a COMPLETE lack of understanding of evolution and COMPLETE ignorance of the evidence. Please, go study up and reduce your ignorance a little, you're making yourself look like a total fool. And im not trying to insult you, its just that you really are making yourself look like a fool.
@HonestforJesus to bad god doesnt name himself in such cases then. Why does he insist on going by so many names and using such variety of methodology and ethics? Basicly it doesn't make sense unless u believe that the religion u follow is divinely nurished by god and all the others are blasphemous satanic occults. In which case this makes you a very rare oddity on this planet since religion is incredibly splintered and divided on issues. The conclusion is...ur talking batshit bro
people are by nature ethical and concepts and ideas are naturaly thus inspired by ethics. I don't see what you would call an ethic-less nihilistic obsession. If you were referring to atheism. You are simply mistaken. One can find great joy and harmony in atheism without having to rely on some archetype of consciousness. Studies actualy indicate that atheists commit less crimes and have less social problems. What nihilistic obsession are you talking about?
I was talking about your generic post-apocalyptic movie script. No law and order - because the a-holes who used to be scared into line by religion no longer have religion or the fear of Hell to stop them
@HonestforJesus No all god does is say he did it. He never explains how he did it or how it works. No he's just responsible quote on quote for everything... Yeah real cheap. Like a magician pulling a bunny out of a hat. Did he really create the bunny and did he really pull it out of a hat? well you saw it didn't you? So it must be true, because you've had personal revelation...hehe...I had personal revelation too. There is no god in the traditional sense. God is all and none, you and me, and not
@HonestforJesus and what is the problem with God doing it THROUGH evolution? That this is the mechanism by which we (and the natural world) were created?
I hate to break up the party but God appears to some of the elect, so they have direct proof the God of Abraham exists. But it's a PRIVATE confirmation, obviously. So we can only presume if you're finding convincing anti-Bible type evidence that you're misreading the evidence or God is deceiving you, either of which are possible.
Interesting. But it sounds like "Biblical archaeolog" where archaeologists accuse some of looking for things in archaeology to support the Bible story which somehow biases what is found or searched for. It's not that agrees with evolution that is the problem it is what disagrees with it. You know. Like the MOON?
Extreme, I would love for you to cite a source where an archeologist's findings were discounted simply because the archeologist was looking for evidence which supports a story within the pages of the holy book of horrors, ie the bible. Your ilk loves to spout conspiracy theories yet you never cite any objective or credible sources for said conspiracies.
@IaintNoGood The common phrase is "a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other" to find confirmation of what is in the Bible. So evolutionists naturally focus on things that compatible with evolution but ignore other obvious problems, such as abiogenesis which they have neatly compartmentalized off the discussion table.
Ummm, MrExtreme, you did not cite a source as I asked. All you did was confirm the fact that all you got is a conspiracy theory. Please, I BEG & BESEECH you, I EMPLORE you, PLEASE cite a credible/objective source which substantiates your paranoia.
*snicker*
That was too easy. Exposing intellectual frauds & conspiracy theorists is like taking candy from a baaaa, no a DEAD baby.
Btw silly MrExtreme, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." This is a word which is bandied about by religious right wing nutjobs who think universal health care is a bad thing, even though there own holy book of horrors says to take care of the needy, the widow, the orphan, the sojourner, etc.. Now I know that there is no such thing as a universally accepted Christ cult doctrine, which is why there are so many Christ cults, but it seems to be a no brainer.
Lastly silly MrExtreme, you have exposed your scientific ignorance or your willingness to LIE. You see MrSillyExtreme, the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis & visa versa. That is like saying germ theory is related to the theory of flight.
*snicker*
You & your ilk are so much fun to play with. A 6th grader could expose your asinine assertion, misrepresentations, pseudoscience, lies & hypocrisy.
@TheExtremeBiblicist Just because there isn't a consensus on abiogenesis doesn't mean there isn't interesting hypotheses and research out there. Look to the Miller-Urey experiment as an example. You're inability to wrap your head around this stems from an inability to appreciate scale. Miller and Urey were able to generate amino acids, lipids, and building blocks for nucleic acids in a week. Earth had 500 million years to generate some kind of self-replicating organic molecules.
@TheExtremeBiblicist There's an estimated 30 billion Earth-like planets in the universe. Was is self-replicating RNA? Faith isn't going to find that answer, science will (and you'll probably ignore it). Considering we know that life is sustained by chemical reactions, I think it doesn't take a large leap of the imagination to conclude that there is a real possibility that life would emerge on one of these planets. Appreciate scale and probability.
You probably realize this, but your post just supports his final claim, i.e. that there are a lot of Earth-like planets. No need to be antagonistic by saying "you were close," when he's actually off by a factor of 40,000.
Anyway, it's still not nearly as bad as Hovind being off by a factor of a trillion when he said "One drop of water could cover the whole world, you just have to spread it really thin."
I don't think that really matters. The more you study and come to really understand the whole gambit from stellar evolution to the rise of humans we see that it is such an incredibly unlikely process. The chance that we'd get a eukaryotic cell instead of bacteria and bacteria for eons, the chance the dinosaurs would fall and mammals would rise, the cold war, etc
But even so, even if the odds were knowable there is no impeaching the anthropic principle by talking probablistically
@TheExtremeBiblicist Or, you can always continue refusing to look at life objectively, but it's mentally weak and doesn't help solve any problems we face as a planet. And I'll close with a quote: "I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we." - Carl Sagan
@sarge525 I'm saying I'm in a different position than YOU are because of personal contact with God. The elect are preparating to rule for 1000 years so God is more present with us. God will reveal himself to the world at Armageddon, when atheism will suddenly be an official joke. It's a technical joke right now among those who have direct evidence of God.
@TheExtremeBiblicist Wow.... Just.... Wow..... You are a nut job. Can you read what you just typed and take yourself seriously? So many of you Christians can't face a valid point, your knee-jerk reaction is to spout crazy. It really is unfortunate that you won't give rational thought a chance. Just keep your psychosis away from young minds.
@sarge525 Psychosis is a convenient defensive mechanism for you until Armageddon. Of course you presume I'm a nutcase but God set it up that way. No one believes until it happens to THEM. I'm just saying it is interesting some of us are guessing, like YOU and some of know, like ME. :> But soon you will know too!
@TheExtremeBiblicist It's funny that your profile states that you "use science, archaeology and astronomy to support strict Biblical chronology", and then you accuse scientists (a vast majority accept the evidence for evolution) of having an agenda in their research. Scientists become nobel laureates all of the time by trying to disprove theories, and often times it's because they only strengthen theories. Science is not immutable and any experimental findings must face expert criticism.
@TheExtremeBiblicist You use science only when it's convenient for you, and you claim you know because of a personal experience. Well that claim just doesn't hold up in the scientific world. "Compare as many doctrines as you can think of, note what predictions they make of the future, which ones are vague, which ones are precise, and which doctrines -every one of them subject to human fallibility-have error-correcting mechanisms built in. Take account of the fact that not one of them is....
yes, thank you... "biblicist" makes the mistake of appealing to personal 'religious experiences' because whatever can be proposed without falsifiable evidence can be dismissed in the same way.
Don, great video. Another point I'd like to throw in:
What about the highly sociable organisms like man. Acts of altruism preserve the relatively little genetic diversity we had, and therefore aided the survival of our species by preventing excessive in-breeding?
Further, in a harsh environment, a species which can cooperate and acts in an altruistic manner, is more likely to survive than one competing with its own and its environment.
I just ran the darwinian calculus on your idea and
No your idea is a naive "for the good of the species" selectionism that doesn't work on any level. Competing alleles would rather the others weren't there.
Well I mean in the broadest sense this may work with clade selection but your still pushing it really far.
I'll use a bad example at first, ants. Individual ants wouldn't be well able to survive in their environment. As a group however they can take down larger prey, feed themselves, and manipulate their environment to support larger populations.
Similarly, human tribes were better able to manipulate their environment, in protecting each other there was a different reproductive strategy. which was mutually beneficial.
Ants are kind of a bad example if you accept the normal discourse on the subject.
There's a bunch of not mutually exclusive concepts to explain altruism. These are inclusive fitness and recprocial altrusim among others. Now if these are forces of nature they are all likely operating at the same time.
it's hard finding an example where it could be just one. Ants (hymenopterans) altruism is better explained by their haplo-diploidy system that makes ant siblings have a 75% relatedness
I have never heard a scientist even a group selection skeptic say that there is anything theoretically wrong with group selection.
Many others say along the lines of "It works theoretically, it's probably a real but weak phenomenon that is secondary to individual selection I just don't see any evidence of it specifically"
While I'm a firm believer in evolution, I have to use the wonderful phrase correlation does not imply causation. I wonder if any altruism gene has been identified in these squirrels. It'd be interesting to see a study with transgenic squirrels to see if gene knockout would influence behavior.
Luckily sarge, belief in evolution is not required for evolution to be a fact. One does not need to believe in gravity, for gravity to be a fact. The same goes for every other scientific theory & law.
@IaintNoGood Perhaps I should say I'm informed of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. ;) My statement was merely to clarify that my mild criticism of DonExodus's presentation was not motivated by any theistic beliefs, just that, from a scientific standpoint, observation of altruistic behavior in close relatives is a correlation. While it's supporting evidence, further experimentation would be needed for any concrete claims.
I was obvious to me that you were not some religious nut who thought science needed faith. I was merely trying to stress that those who do accept the facts of scientific theory, need to be mindful of saying their acceptance is a belief. It leaves the door open for religious nutbags to key on the word, "believe." Not that that matters in the grand scheme of things, but if you do not want to get bogged down in semantics & minutiae it matters a great deal
Of course when I say avoid getting involved in minutiae & semantics, I am speaking of if or when you get involved in intellectually honest discourse with anyone who is trying to refute the fact of evolution. Ironically, I had to use semantics & minutiae to make my point!
:-(
Hopefully you can appreciate what I am droppin off here. YO yo yo!
As to your criticism of DonEx's vid, which I never did address, I relunctantly agree. I use a statistic to refute the Christian assertion that atheists tear apart the fabric of society. Well, statistically that simply is not true. According to the CIA World FactBook & NationMaster, of the top 60 nations with the most violent crime, rape, abortion, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, etc., over 75% are considered Christian. This does not prove causation either
Sorry Don, I won't believe it until I know more, including counter-evidence. I remain very skeptical though! Still doesn't sound much like altruism to me. I don't believe animals are capable of electing their own destruction.
What more proof do you want? This is a clear example of an animal helping another animal even though it suffers. Thats pretty much the exact definition of altruism!!
@j0kerman2 I know the definition of altruism is. and it's irreducible primary is self-sacrifice. Life is an end in itself, it is not a means to the ends of others. Life is a series of self-sustaining actions. Simply because one commits "altruism" doesn't necessarily make it justified.
@donexodus2, i'm curious what your thoughts are in regards to the new health care reform bill that was recently enacted. what do you like about the bill, dislike, and do you think it's at all a feasible plan?
This is much better than that bit about the piranhas, which really was a bit of a mess. I don't think this vid fundamentally contradicts UNFFWildcard's videos about game theory.
Noted. Critique 1) is, however, particularly damning for the piranhas as an example for moral behaviour; if a cheater is expected, how can one distinguish between good and bad acts?
I don't think I understand 2) well enough.
3) reminds me of Dawkins' admission that the genes he talks about in his book don't actually exist, which led to Gould's criticism that 'genes are only good for bookkeeping'. Perhaps in these cases one should talk about behavioral adaptations.
Honestly I think the best explaination for the lack of cannibalism in the natural world is that it's simply a rule of thumb or conditional strategy that in some cases is violated.
And then in other cases avoiding cannibalism is a way to avoid getting diseases and parasites. If some species cannibalized other adults they would be overrun with disease because of the similarities of host defenses.
My premise two is that not attacking peers is a good strategy, but then again if you stand a net gain from destroying your competition then under those conditions you'll expect different behavior
I take gould's criticism to heart. He was totally right. The theoreticians in animal behavior sometimes give up invoking the concept of genes and use things like "percent relatedness" "genetic units" as some sort of credit.
You need some sort of numbers to plug into a formula.
I don't approve of squirrels and altruism, it's disgusting and evil I fucking hate reality, I wish I could kill the air and wake up on another planet, and people suffer and they expect autistic people to suffer selflessly like them. Well I hate altruism, and squirrels should be eaten, and I should kick it in the arse. People are suffering and autistic people refuse it because of this ridiculous evil world screw you evil planet I wish reality will be what I feel like!!!!
Hoobifta 1 month ago
im sorry...Is atheism addressed to a group of people, publicly proclaimed or taught???
Theozzie11 2 months ago
Thx dude! Very helpful
aYuniqueness 2 months ago
Altruism exists and god gave it us. God gave us a brain reaction/feel good benefit factor every time we do something for someone else. So Altruism becomes its own reward if we put others first before our own needs we will be rewarded with a nice feeling as a reward from god. We don't just do something nice to receive that feeling because its impossible you only receive the nice feeling if you go out of your way to genuinely put someone else first over yourself with no hidden agenda!!!
koda215 3 months ago
@koda215 Try it, try and do something nice only to receive reward there will be no feel good factor reward for you because there is no deceiving god. You have to selflessly put the good of another person or animal before yourself and then you will be rewarded. If you don't believe me try it as a test do something nice knowing first you will be rewarded, you will never receive a reward. Then do it for the good of the person not yourself and you will be rewarded its how god repays us!!!
koda215 3 months ago
@koda215
"God gave us a brain reaction"
How do you know?
Daruqe 1 month ago
the what squirrel?
MISSMEGGYBOOBOO 4 months ago
is there really accuracy in the numbers given for Hamilton's Rule ?
I mean have these hypothetical numbers been actually statistically verified by observation of the behavior ?
shodanxx 6 months ago
you are trippin dude.
movadoband 8 months ago
Absurd to call this altruism. As if anyone who says "don't be so selfish" means this to be restricted to kin.
john42t 8 months ago
gotta love your artist renditions lol
:P
093darkknight 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If someone could make this clear to me it would be helpfull i am trying to understand atheist morality better.
Altruism to me doesn't answer the main question, which is WHY and HOW did animal groups make laws that are made for the better good? Is it only for means of survival? In this case wouldn't it be true that we should kill off the really old who do not benifit society? as well as killing the serverly disabled? Why not kill them in this case? But this is why i am asking please email me.
Tank94Mage 9 months ago
I challenge you, in the name of scientific inquiry, Don Exodus to show us your dividing line between natural and intelligent. YOU are just making a blanketed explanation of that topic: DIRTSDIDIT. That relationship cannot be made by purely natural processes. You had to dig deeper than that.
MrIntelligentdesign 9 months ago
i hypothesize our altruism like most social mammals comes from mother.
ThoseGamerguyz 10 months ago
are you sure that the squirrels that cry out are killed more often? Monkeys exhibit similar behavior, but it's seen that the ones that cry out are usually avoided by eagles because it's basically letting the eagle know that it has seen it. And eagles usually rely on surprise to catch their prey.
andresvdl90 10 months ago
I found your video to be incredibly interesting, especially considering i was unaware of the squirrels commiting suicide to save their kin. However, i do feel the need to point out that if they are saving their kin so that their genes, or at least some of their genes can be passed on to the next generation, that that cannot be altruism as they are gaining something from it.
thommyisahunk 11 months ago
@thommyisahunk
hence why my biologist used the example of some (cannot recall) species of vampire bats who are pithetically crap at hunting, but survive almost only by the merit they one who feeds on a particular day will give up food to others not directly related to them. however, as they all do this, they keep each other alive as a coloney.
this fits more closely in that there is no guarentee of benefit or direct benefit for the individual; yet is still an evolutionary advantagous trait.
ygfi 11 months ago
@ygfi Although i am not really familiar with the example, i am going on the information that you provided. Its still not altruism, as the deffininition of altruism is that you are helping a stranger in some way at cost to yourself and gain NO benefit, whether it is immediate or further down the line, and they ARE gaining a benefit! They aren't particularly good hunters, so food is shared amoungst the group. They are giving food up when they feed on that day and on another day they are.....
thommyisahunk 11 months ago
@thommyisahunk
Altruism: behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
i don't see how giving up food is of immediate benefit to individuals.
if you want to constrict your definitions to exclude anything which can benefit the participant, then you'll find no such example exists; hence why we use a definition which is actually useful.
ygfi 11 months ago
@ygfi Its not an immediate benefits but it doesn't have to be immediate to be a benefit.
Thats exactly the point, like other scientists, i do not believe altruism actually exists. A lecturer of mine was talking about a seminar recently, where the speaker was talking about how altruism does not exist. Then all of a sudden an attendee stood up and said that it wasn't true and it did exist as he recently donated a lot of money to charity anonymously. The speaker then responded by alerting him
thommyisahunk 11 months ago
@ygfi to the fact that he just told a room full of people about it and thus he had just benefitted! Whilst the majority of the room would have been focused on the fact that this man just proved the speakers theory, the natural reaction would have been to think positively about the man and thus his status would have improved.
In both humans and other animals, status is very important. So whether they are gaining food or status, they are gaining none the less and thus altruism cannot exist.
thommyisahunk 11 months ago
recieving food. I cannot understand how you cannot see that you just disproved altruism by what you wrote!
thommyisahunk 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thommyisahunk
hence why my biologist used the example of some (cannot recall) species of vampire bats who are pithetically crap at hunting, but survive almost only by the merit they one who feeds on a particular day will give up food to others not directly related to them. however, as they all do this, they keep each other alive as a coloney.
this fits more closely in that there is no guarentee of benefit or direct benefit for the individual; yet is still an evolutionary advantagous trait.
ygfi 11 months ago
It has been things like this that has saddened me in life and made me come to believe, that we are merely brainless, soulless creatures, driven by emotions, feelings, desires and instincts, that we do not understand and can not control. It is things like this that convinced me that we are living in a god-less world and as a child, I developed the distinct impression; that I was living amongst wild animals – from bowing down in submission before feeding, to masturbating in utter secrecy!
thenatureinme 1 year ago
As a child I was perplexed by my two grannies, where my mothers-mother was far more loving towards us than my fathers-mother. Speaking to my nephew (son of my fathers-sister) about this, I was surprised to hear that this was not his experience. I then heard this been said; That the granny on the mother side, irrespective of the biological father, always knows that she shares genes with her daughters offspring, while this is not a given when it's the offspring from her son...
thenatureinme 1 year ago
People just need to realise that there doesnt need to be a reason why life exists. We create reason, as we and everything on earth is the only thing visibly proven that exist, just be satisfied at that, and the fact that you have life. Life Its a perk not a question.
LimitlessPK 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist / science use the gospel of guesswork
here is a challenge!
Give the age of the earth and or evolution without
utilising assumptive data to calculate it?
valu777 1 year ago
Science has not found the "root" of altruism. God is not the answer to how goodness and kindness exist in the universe, it is the answer to *why* goodness and kindness exist in the universe. Science has never explained the WHY. That is up to philosophy and religion.
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture
if one believes that god is how reality ultimately came into being, then god is the how AND the why. but, that's just the thing. when ti comes to the existence of the universe, there has to be a how. there doesn't have to be a why.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture
there is no why
unfad1ng 1 year ago
Comment removed
CelticKraut 1 year ago
love the MS paint drawings at the beginning. "mean godless hawk" lmao
The0Burger0King 1 year ago 14
This video will piss off the randroids lol
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Guess which option I chose :P haha. I went to get the gun out of my van and made sure the killer was at least brought to justice. It's called cherry picking/Jeet Kune Do/Flexibility
CelticKraut 1 year ago
@thesparitan If I see a big creepy dude walking up to my little sister or another close family member, I'm going to interfere, in the very least by alerting her to run and try to divert his attention to me. I put a lot of value on them. I'd probably do the same thing for a stranger too though unless the guy was holding a gun. Running into that situation knowing you would get killed to save the stranger is one extreme, running away knowing the stranger would get killed would be another.
CelticKraut 1 year ago
Natural utilitarianism.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
If the principle is correct, then such activities might be more common in inbred groups or in groups without much genetic diversity...on the other hand, there is less gain, because the genes are already mostly the same...
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 nothing was said about inbreeding, new mates can come in and add to the gene pool and although they may not get the protection of the call they will still mate if they make it into the home.
heavenlyheathen 1 year ago
@heavenlyheathen
"nothing was said about inbreeding"
I did not say or intimate, that something was said about inbreeding :)
I brought it up.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
You would predict for example that asexual organisms or ones that are born as twins, triplets, etc would display something even greater than sociality because the coefficent of relation is 100%
Where are the colonies of flatworm turbellarians?
Are they too dumb? They have about the same nervous capacity as insects.
And though the nine banded armadillo ( a mammal) always has a litter of identical sextuplets, there are no remarkable observations of altruism.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
I wonder if these caller squirrels actually "know" that they are most likely sacrificing their lives by calling?
freethinker923 1 year ago
The guiding principle of animal behavior is to use parsimony and observation together to explain animal behavior while invoking the least about of conscious thought . They don't think " Oh I should do this to maximize my inclusive fitness" just like how if you ask a guy about why he wants sex or why he takes care of his kids, unless he is a deluded ethologist-- he will not say "i'm trying to maximize my inclusive fitness"
Sex drive like altruism is described as an unconscious motivator
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
altruism is evil!!
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
@carveawoodeneye,
Then why has America become more of a shit-hole since Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged.
Drregaleagle 1 year ago
@Drregaleagle because we (america) r doing everything rand would have disagreed w/ we r a nation of mystics , altruists , collectivists . with a mixed economy!!
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
@carveawoodeneye typical randroid. She says it so it must be true. Atheism has found its religion. No thanks, I dont like any religion, even the ones without a god, unless ayn rand is a god to these odjectivist.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan
Makes one wonder how big the gap between a randroid and a sociopath is.
Proudtobeacommie 1 year ago
@Proudtobeacommie i hard to say, my geuss is a great many are one and the same. 2% of the population of the us are randriods, and about 2% of americans are objectivist, so its interesting to think.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan lol ,Religion = the belief in and worship of a god or gods!! you sound worse than us objectivists @ redefining words =) . so can i ask you why is it my moral or ethical duty to sacrifice my self to someone else ?? and if i cut myself up and feed the meat to the "starving" non-producers are they then bad and wrong for taking that meat are they not then selfish ?? do you own yourself or do the masses who demand a piece of you?
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
@carveawoodeneye
What the hell you are you talking about you schizophrenic loon? “if i cut myself up and feed the meat to the "starving" non-producers" What kind of sick lord of the flies, village of the damned, zombie land does your twisted mind inhabit? Have you been on a 3 day coke binge and now the paranoid dreams are starting to come to life and the voices are talking to you. I need to seriously stop attacking religion, these objectivist atheist are a million times worse.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan atheism is not a religion, thats like saying non-smoking is a habit
dontbeafoolok 1 year ago 18
@dontbeafoolok Yes I know, I use that line by the way.
thesparitan 1 year ago
actually for me i've found i've had to replace the smoking compulsion with other things like gum chewing and nervous tics.
atheism doesn't exist in the real world as the abstract as people think it is. atheism has a movement component that has various cultural trappings drawing from many sources also. atheists by and large fall into the same black and white views of things(but not all). in particular european atheists seem to buy into the xenphobia that europe is being taken over by muslims.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@dontbeafoolok
Non-smoking is an addiction..
I suffer everyday because i cant keep myself from not smoking
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng Omg... it was an example....
MichaelJacksonTimpan 1 year ago
@MichaelJacksonTimpan
omg im just joking :P
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng Oh xDDD Sorry Im pretty stupid :O
MichaelJacksonTimpan 1 year ago
@MichaelJacksonTimpan
hehe :)
addicted to nonsmoking :P lol
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@MichaelJacksonTimpan
im also addicted to not taking cocaine
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng Im addicted to live my life..
MichaelJacksonTimpan 1 year ago
@MichaelJacksonTimpan
me too =O
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@dontbeafoolok is Atheism preached??
Theozzie11 2 months ago
@Theozzie11
No.
preach/prēCH/
Verb:
1. Deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church: "he preached to a large congregation"
2. Publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief)
dontbeafoolok 2 months ago
This is very interesting - I never heard of Hamilton's law before (but my ignorance of science is pretty comprehensive, so no surprise there.)
Strikes me that a squirrel with 80+ extant grandchildren and the prospect of more (like my grandmother had) might be a bit more inclined to keep stum and lose a few, where a squirrel who has only the possibility of a few grandkids (like my "other" gran), would squeal the squeal of self-sacrifice more readily.
Is there a squirrel-formula for that?
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink You're kind of looking at it backwards, and assuming the squirrel is thinking. It has a lot of progeny BECAUSE it squeals to distract predators, so more of them survive.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX
LOL, expressed myself poorly. Honestly, I don't think squirrels think any more than my cat counts. He "counts" up four flights: unless my doormat's missing - then he keeps going up. My question's about risk playing out: a squirrel that squeals does so at a certain risk. If it has relatively few progeny, squealing too readily = one ex-squirrel & few, now unguarded, descendants soon extinct. So...does density of familiar bodies affect squirrel-squealing? Or age? Or just proximity?
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX
(contd.) In other words, what stops every squirrel squealing every single time they see an eagle? Birds of prey might not be very bright, but they'd soon learn to home in on squirrels squeaking under the canopy, and then learn to do a flyby on the off-chance. Very soon - no squeaky squirrels left. So there must be some form of inhibition. I just wondered if the presence of a lot of familiar (familial) squirrels makes squirrels bold & squeaky; with lonely squirrels timid & quiet.
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
@dunnonuffink The video adresses that they generally only do it when there are other squirrels around, and are much more likely to do it among their own kin.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX
Shows how much I managed to retain for a whole week :(
But still I wonder - how do squirrels reckon "kin"? (this year's offspring only? Do mates count? Second-cousins?)
And also, is it just "presence of kin" or does it break down in some more subtle way?
Where squirrels are relatively sparse, surely a squeak would be more likely to result in some random squirrel's death (related or not) by notifying predators that there are squirrels hereabouts. Some cutoff density must operate.
dunnonuffink 1 year ago
It's not that the recognize their kin. They may, but that's not important. What is being described here is that something evolves that motivates a squirrel to give itself up when in the presence of others (who statistically will have a high % relation)
They don't think about it. They are just driven by mechanisms that put them in these situations
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Surely there is some miscalculation going on here. I may well have inherited 50% of my genes from my mother and 50% of my genes from my father but my parents (and their parents) are also related to each other and large parts of their genomes are the same. Or do I have that wrong? If not then this would explain why I would risk my life to protect an African (especially a young one) even though we are not from the same village. His genes are my genes (give or take a few bits and bobs).
ar2de2em2 1 year ago
the % relation is modeling the probability of one newly emergent allele will get selected for and be able to out-compete alternatives. This models how it's possible to give a frequency boost during any given generation to some genotype
Though Lions and gazelles have a supermajority of genetic similarity you will not get gazelles willingly feeding themselves to cheetahs (to boost their copies in the cheetah) simply because a better alternative (not feeding to cheetah) will eventually pop up
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
It seems not so simple as is presented.
Would it not seem that it should be much more favourable to your gene "X", to lose your life to a more closely related species than to one further away ?
Species preying on more closely related specimens or even species, should ensure that their target's "sacrifice" "pays off", if it's all about gene "X" and not about individuals or groups.
On the other hand, preying on closely related species would reduce gene "X".
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
"you will not get gazelles willingly feeding themselves to cheetahs"
It has never been stated that an act of altruism must involve certain death. Ever heard of these organisms that 'adopt' the young of a sibling? At their own EXPENSE? It doesn't kill them. It just decreases their chance of reproducing. And what about those that adopt the young of ANOTHER SPECIES? Maybe they're related.
All a selfish gene must do is increase its own chances. Even if it involves altruism.
ar2de2em2 1 year ago
@ar2de2em2
i don't think that an animal adopting that of another species is altruism. whales have been known to adopt watercraft after losing their own. dolpins have helped drowning swimmers.
these are clearly psychological misapplications of altrusim
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Both Christians and Atheists anally crave the opportunity to tell the other that they are wrong - therefore, they are both arrogant.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
Turkeys are the dumbest animal in the barn yard... They will drown if left out in the rain...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Why would you still keep responding if not through some small level of altruism? If you only have self-concern as your motive, then why would you care what other people think? Unless you have some sort of insecurity as to whether or not you're right, and need the confirmation or dismissal of ideas from other people - perhaps not altruism, but mutual cooperation if you consider other people as doing the same thing.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
You're going to flag a video of a picture of a squirrel getting killed? Seriously? Never watched TV have we?
Don't you think there's a point when nitpicking is pointless? Just a thought.
CharlieDevilDog 1 year ago
DonExodus WAS THE GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE 1:20 EVEN NECESSARY? I'll flag this video.
Vamavid 1 year ago
Altruism is religious bullshit...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
Really? Would you have been able to survive without altruism? If your mother (or whoever raised you) hadn't fed you and taken care of you, you wouldn't have survived. Religion or not, people rely on other people for survival and you're just going to have to accept that.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347
What does altruism have to do with evolutionary theory? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
"Altruism" is just another esoteric hobgoblin like religion.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
Thats a ridiculously blatant denial of the facts - You're falling victim to the same type of misconceptions as those you criticize.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347
You have absolutely no evidence of the esoteric hobgoblin, it exists only within the fancy and has no place in the physical world.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Quit assuming things man, I'm not a christian and I dont have a religion or believe in a god. But I don't like considering myself an atheist either because they're just as bad. Its the same type of people that believe in both christianity and atheism - the same arrogance just with a different name.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347
Altruism only exists within the fancies of a man's thought...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
I know you like to think that because its a convenient perspective to have for shutting the world out and feeling sorry for yourself, but its not true. Get in touch with reality. Not all actions can be attributed completely to self-concern. Why in nature would a mother care about a baby if not through altruism? Why do family structures form in species if not through altruism? Just because it formed through evolution does not mean that it isn't still altruism by definition.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347 actually, they are extremely different things. One is a strong belief in something based on absolutely zero evidence (i.e., faith). The other is a refusal to believe in the same thing explicitly because there is no evidence. Those are absolutely NOT identical. And please don't tell me that my claim of "no evidence" is my opinion, because it's not. It's fact. There is no evidence for God. Period. Understanding that basic fact is not the same thing as religion.
evobio 1 year ago
@evobio I don't think I said they were "exactly the same thing". If I remember, I said that they were both just as arrogant. But I could be wrong, my memory is shot... so if I did say "they are both the same", I meant to say that they are both just as arrogant as the other.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347 hahahahahaha really? atheists and christians are at the same level of arrogance? Who is more arrogant sir, the person who "knows" they are right despite evidence to the contrary, or the person who is sure they are right according to the current evidence and is willing to change their minds when if new, contradictory evidence, presents itself?
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@crackerkiller89 Neither of them actually care about finding "the truth". Humans want to pick a winning team. They ante up and then examine the odds afterwords - they defend their psychological ego-wagers as if they were defending something, as if it were to have turned out to be a waste of time and effort if they end up having to admit they are wrong.
Can't really do without this aspect of human nature either. There is no other way for it to work without us ceasing to be living creatures.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347
Especially if you acknowledge evolution and all the environmental hoops we have to jump through. If a creature is going to be intelligent, then it goes without saying that it will also require an ego as well. Otherwise, all of that precious glucose in the brain would have gone to waste, and you wouldn't have spent time defending your unique DNA sequence's title of having earned the right to reproduce.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347 Youre right. They dont care about truth, they just wanna hold on to their beliefs because if they let them go, it will be as if everything they lived for till now was a lie. And that would probably be really hard. And even though it would be better to start life anew, humans choose the path that has the least near future hardships even if that one has HUGE longterm hardships.
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill How so? Do you even know what altruism means?
HighVoltage963 1 year ago
@HighVoltage963
"Altruism" is just another esoteric hobgoblin like religion.
The dissatisfaction with mortality leads the ignorant to reach out for some eternal ideal, whether that is religion or some touchy-feely, fuzzy feel good bullshit, I could care less...
I'll quote Macbeth from Shakespeare... "Leave physic to the dogs, I'll none of it."
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Just because they survive better doesnt mean that their being nice to eachother didnt come from god.
HonestforJesus 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus
Yes. It simply means that their being nice to eachother can demonstrably come from natural causes.
dileepvr 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus This is correct, however what does that have to do with evolution?
HighVoltage963 1 year ago
@HighVoltage963 Because god could have done it instead of evolution. In other words it doesn't prove atheis that it can come from evolution.
HonestforJesus 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus This is of course assuming god is real.
HighVoltage963 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus but god hasnt been shown to be real. So at present, the best explanation we have is, by far, evolution.
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@crackerkiller89 evolution hasn't been proved either and god explains more than star evolution and planet evolution and life evolution combined. God explains everything.
HonestforJesus 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus well in the same way evolution hasnt been "proved [sic]" helicentricity (the idea that the earth and planets of our solar system revolve around the sun) hasnt been proven either. We only have "proof" in mathematics, in everything else we have "evidence," learn the difference please. And on that note, evolution has so much more evidence behind it than your god that its like comparing a grain of rice of evidence (your god's evidence) to a globe of evidence (evidence for evolution).
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@crackerkiller89 God reveals himself to those who believe and gives proof on an individualbasis. And people can actually see God. It has to be through revelation. But no one has ever seen an animal evolve or ape turn into a human.
HonestforJesus 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus " But no one has ever seen an animal evolve or ape turn into a human."
The classic ramblings of a person with a COMPLETE lack of understanding of evolution and COMPLETE ignorance of the evidence. Please, go study up and reduce your ignorance a little, you're making yourself look like a total fool. And im not trying to insult you, its just that you really are making yourself look like a fool.
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus to bad god doesnt name himself in such cases then. Why does he insist on going by so many names and using such variety of methodology and ethics? Basicly it doesn't make sense unless u believe that the religion u follow is divinely nurished by god and all the others are blasphemous satanic occults. In which case this makes you a very rare oddity on this planet since religion is incredibly splintered and divided on issues. The conclusion is...ur talking batshit bro
BrutusAlbion 1 year ago
@BrutusAlbion
Primordial archetypes of consciousness - that is where "God" and "Gods" originate from.
We needed them to prevent people from killing each other out of some ethic-less nihilistic obsession.
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@SpunkySkunk347
people are by nature ethical and concepts and ideas are naturaly thus inspired by ethics. I don't see what you would call an ethic-less nihilistic obsession. If you were referring to atheism. You are simply mistaken. One can find great joy and harmony in atheism without having to rely on some archetype of consciousness. Studies actualy indicate that atheists commit less crimes and have less social problems. What nihilistic obsession are you talking about?
BrutusAlbion 1 year ago
@BrutusAlbion
I was talking about your generic post-apocalyptic movie script. No law and order - because the a-holes who used to be scared into line by religion no longer have religion or the fear of Hell to stop them
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus No all god does is say he did it. He never explains how he did it or how it works. No he's just responsible quote on quote for everything... Yeah real cheap. Like a magician pulling a bunny out of a hat. Did he really create the bunny and did he really pull it out of a hat? well you saw it didn't you? So it must be true, because you've had personal revelation...hehe...I had personal revelation too. There is no god in the traditional sense. God is all and none, you and me, and not
BrutusAlbion 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus good ol' "Easy Button"!
So, we have scientific PROOF for it. You still prefer to believe in magic.
How nicely deluded
Xgya2000 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus and what is the problem with God doing it THROUGH evolution? That this in the mechanism?
emeraldlobster 1 year ago
@HonestforJesus and what is the problem with God doing it THROUGH evolution? That this is the mechanism by which we (and the natural world) were created?
emeraldlobster 1 year ago
Evolutionary Psychology is overrated
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
The take away message: altruism is a mongrel behavior, suitable only to wild animals; not human beings.
grantsinmypants2 1 year ago
Ahhh, you don't need kin selection.
If the hawk was coming down for Don, I'd make the call to the hawk and save him because he's cool.
I call it, "cool selection". Cool people deserve to live.
Thanks.
Boy192 1 year ago
alway love the music
jasonoatmeal 1 year ago
I hate to break up the party but God appears to some of the elect, so they have direct proof the God of Abraham exists. But it's a PRIVATE confirmation, obviously. So we can only presume if you're finding convincing anti-Bible type evidence that you're misreading the evidence or God is deceiving you, either of which are possible.
TheExtremeBiblicist 1 year ago
Interesting. But it sounds like "Biblical archaeolog" where archaeologists accuse some of looking for things in archaeology to support the Bible story which somehow biases what is found or searched for. It's not that agrees with evolution that is the problem it is what disagrees with it. You know. Like the MOON?
TheExtremeBiblicist 1 year ago
Extreme, I would love for you to cite a source where an archeologist's findings were discounted simply because the archeologist was looking for evidence which supports a story within the pages of the holy book of horrors, ie the bible. Your ilk loves to spout conspiracy theories yet you never cite any objective or credible sources for said conspiracies.
:-D
Thanks in advance, for your cooperation.
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
@IaintNoGood The common phrase is "a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other" to find confirmation of what is in the Bible. So evolutionists naturally focus on things that compatible with evolution but ignore other obvious problems, such as abiogenesis which they have neatly compartmentalized off the discussion table.
TheExtremeBiblicist 1 year ago
Ummm, MrExtreme, you did not cite a source as I asked. All you did was confirm the fact that all you got is a conspiracy theory. Please, I BEG & BESEECH you, I EMPLORE you, PLEASE cite a credible/objective source which substantiates your paranoia.
*snicker*
That was too easy. Exposing intellectual frauds & conspiracy theorists is like taking candy from a baaaa, no a DEAD baby.
:-D
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
Btw silly MrExtreme, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." This is a word which is bandied about by religious right wing nutjobs who think universal health care is a bad thing, even though there own holy book of horrors says to take care of the needy, the widow, the orphan, the sojourner, etc.. Now I know that there is no such thing as a universally accepted Christ cult doctrine, which is why there are so many Christ cults, but it seems to be a no brainer.
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
Lastly silly MrExtreme, you have exposed your scientific ignorance or your willingness to LIE. You see MrSillyExtreme, the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis & visa versa. That is like saying germ theory is related to the theory of flight.
*snicker*
You & your ilk are so much fun to play with. A 6th grader could expose your asinine assertion, misrepresentations, pseudoscience, lies & hypocrisy.
:-D
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist Just because there isn't a consensus on abiogenesis doesn't mean there isn't interesting hypotheses and research out there. Look to the Miller-Urey experiment as an example. You're inability to wrap your head around this stems from an inability to appreciate scale. Miller and Urey were able to generate amino acids, lipids, and building blocks for nucleic acids in a week. Earth had 500 million years to generate some kind of self-replicating organic molecules.
sarge525 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist There's an estimated 30 billion Earth-like planets in the universe. Was is self-replicating RNA? Faith isn't going to find that answer, science will (and you'll probably ignore it). Considering we know that life is sustained by chemical reactions, I think it doesn't take a large leap of the imagination to conclude that there is a real possibility that life would emerge on one of these planets. Appreciate scale and probability.
sarge525 1 year ago
@sarge525
Uhh 30 billion? More like 10,000 on average per galaxy, but you were close
SpunkySkunk347 1 year ago
Arff, With a 100 billion galaxies, who would notice !.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
You probably realize this, but your post just supports his final claim, i.e. that there are a lot of Earth-like planets. No need to be antagonistic by saying "you were close," when he's actually off by a factor of 40,000.
Anyway, it's still not nearly as bad as Hovind being off by a factor of a trillion when he said "One drop of water could cover the whole world, you just have to spread it really thin."
airandfingers 1 year ago
I don't think that really matters. The more you study and come to really understand the whole gambit from stellar evolution to the rise of humans we see that it is such an incredibly unlikely process. The chance that we'd get a eukaryotic cell instead of bacteria and bacteria for eons, the chance the dinosaurs would fall and mammals would rise, the cold war, etc
But even so, even if the odds were knowable there is no impeaching the anthropic principle by talking probablistically
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist Or, you can always continue refusing to look at life objectively, but it's mentally weak and doesn't help solve any problems we face as a planet. And I'll close with a quote: "I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we." - Carl Sagan
sarge525 1 year ago
@sarge525 I'm saying I'm in a different position than YOU are because of personal contact with God. The elect are preparating to rule for 1000 years so God is more present with us. God will reveal himself to the world at Armageddon, when atheism will suddenly be an official joke. It's a technical joke right now among those who have direct evidence of God.
TheExtremeBiblicist 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist Wow.... Just.... Wow..... You are a nut job. Can you read what you just typed and take yourself seriously? So many of you Christians can't face a valid point, your knee-jerk reaction is to spout crazy. It really is unfortunate that you won't give rational thought a chance. Just keep your psychosis away from young minds.
sarge525 1 year ago
@sarge525 Psychosis is a convenient defensive mechanism for you until Armageddon. Of course you presume I'm a nutcase but God set it up that way. No one believes until it happens to THEM. I'm just saying it is interesting some of us are guessing, like YOU and some of know, like ME. :> But soon you will know too!
TheExtremeBiblicist 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist It's funny that your profile states that you "use science, archaeology and astronomy to support strict Biblical chronology", and then you accuse scientists (a vast majority accept the evidence for evolution) of having an agenda in their research. Scientists become nobel laureates all of the time by trying to disprove theories, and often times it's because they only strengthen theories. Science is not immutable and any experimental findings must face expert criticism.
sarge525 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist You use science only when it's convenient for you, and you claim you know because of a personal experience. Well that claim just doesn't hold up in the scientific world. "Compare as many doctrines as you can think of, note what predictions they make of the future, which ones are vague, which ones are precise, and which doctrines -every one of them subject to human fallibility-have error-correcting mechanisms built in. Take account of the fact that not one of them is....
sarge525 1 year ago
@TheExtremeBiblicist perfect. Then simply pick the one that in a fair comparison works (as opposed to feels) best."
sarge525 1 year ago
yes, thank you... "biblicist" makes the mistake of appealing to personal 'religious experiences' because whatever can be proposed without falsifiable evidence can be dismissed in the same way.
mikebott 1 year ago
Don, great video. Another point I'd like to throw in:
What about the highly sociable organisms like man. Acts of altruism preserve the relatively little genetic diversity we had, and therefore aided the survival of our species by preventing excessive in-breeding?
Further, in a harsh environment, a species which can cooperate and acts in an altruistic manner, is more likely to survive than one competing with its own and its environment.
JarradIRONEAGLE 1 year ago
I just ran the darwinian calculus on your idea and
No your idea is a naive "for the good of the species" selectionism that doesn't work on any level. Competing alleles would rather the others weren't there.
Well I mean in the broadest sense this may work with clade selection but your still pushing it really far.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat I don't think I exlained it as well as I wanted to.
I'll use a bad example at first, ants. Individual ants wouldn't be well able to survive in their environment. As a group however they can take down larger prey, feed themselves, and manipulate their environment to support larger populations.
Similarly, human tribes were better able to manipulate their environment, in protecting each other there was a different reproductive strategy. which was mutually beneficial.
JarradIRONEAGLE 1 year ago
Ants are kind of a bad example if you accept the normal discourse on the subject.
There's a bunch of not mutually exclusive concepts to explain altruism. These are inclusive fitness and recprocial altrusim among others. Now if these are forces of nature they are all likely operating at the same time.
it's hard finding an example where it could be just one. Ants (hymenopterans) altruism is better explained by their haplo-diploidy system that makes ant siblings have a 75% relatedness
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
PT2
I have never heard a scientist even a group selection skeptic say that there is anything theoretically wrong with group selection.
Many others say along the lines of "It works theoretically, it's probably a real but weak phenomenon that is secondary to individual selection I just don't see any evidence of it specifically"
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
prairie dogs!? -dun-dun- DUUUUUUUN!
alexkidd3d 1 year ago
dude the second I heard the intro song i was like holy crap! i was just listening to it... its Hayling by FC Kahuna album: Machine Says Yes
DisforDubby 1 year ago
While I'm a firm believer in evolution, I have to use the wonderful phrase correlation does not imply causation. I wonder if any altruism gene has been identified in these squirrels. It'd be interesting to see a study with transgenic squirrels to see if gene knockout would influence behavior.
sarge525 1 year ago
Luckily sarge, belief in evolution is not required for evolution to be a fact. One does not need to believe in gravity, for gravity to be a fact. The same goes for every other scientific theory & law.
:-D
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
@IaintNoGood Perhaps I should say I'm informed of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. ;) My statement was merely to clarify that my mild criticism of DonExodus's presentation was not motivated by any theistic beliefs, just that, from a scientific standpoint, observation of altruistic behavior in close relatives is a correlation. While it's supporting evidence, further experimentation would be needed for any concrete claims.
sarge525 1 year ago
Well then sarge, I forgive you.
J/K
I was obvious to me that you were not some religious nut who thought science needed faith. I was merely trying to stress that those who do accept the facts of scientific theory, need to be mindful of saying their acceptance is a belief. It leaves the door open for religious nutbags to key on the word, "believe." Not that that matters in the grand scheme of things, but if you do not want to get bogged down in semantics & minutiae it matters a great deal
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
Of course when I say avoid getting involved in minutiae & semantics, I am speaking of if or when you get involved in intellectually honest discourse with anyone who is trying to refute the fact of evolution. Ironically, I had to use semantics & minutiae to make my point!
:-(
Hopefully you can appreciate what I am droppin off here. YO yo yo!
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
Noted and appreciated :D
sarge525 1 year ago
Rock on my brotha! Rock ON!
:-D
As to your criticism of DonEx's vid, which I never did address, I relunctantly agree. I use a statistic to refute the Christian assertion that atheists tear apart the fabric of society. Well, statistically that simply is not true. According to the CIA World FactBook & NationMaster, of the top 60 nations with the most violent crime, rape, abortion, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, etc., over 75% are considered Christian. This does not prove causation either
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
but it sure makes one hella good argument to the ignorant who are spewing their bigotry against the atheist.
Anyhoo sarge, no harm no foul. Or as my homonym phobic friends say, "know harm know fowl."
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 1 year ago
Sorry Don, I won't believe it until I know more, including counter-evidence. I remain very skeptical though! Still doesn't sound much like altruism to me. I don't believe animals are capable of electing their own destruction.
waterstrike08 1 year ago
What more proof do you want? This is a clear example of an animal helping another animal even though it suffers. Thats pretty much the exact definition of altruism!!
j0kerman2 1 year ago
@j0kerman2 I know the definition of altruism is. and it's irreducible primary is self-sacrifice. Life is an end in itself, it is not a means to the ends of others. Life is a series of self-sustaining actions. Simply because one commits "altruism" doesn't necessarily make it justified.
waterstrike08 1 year ago
@donexodus2, i'm curious what your thoughts are in regards to the new health care reform bill that was recently enacted. what do you like about the bill, dislike, and do you think it's at all a feasible plan?
cristoballs 1 year ago
This is much better than that bit about the piranhas, which really was a bit of a mess. I don't think this vid fundamentally contradicts UNFFWildcard's videos about game theory.
Lingula77 1 year ago
look over my comment of UNFF's part 2 video. The big issues with the UNFF video series is
1. He doesn't take into account game theory matrices that show how cheater alleles can penetrate a population
2. The rest of his hypothesis is misidentifying the occasional case of a conditional strategy as a fundamental law of nature.
3. Does take into account the polygenic and quantitative nature of the genetics of behavior.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Noted. Critique 1) is, however, particularly damning for the piranhas as an example for moral behaviour; if a cheater is expected, how can one distinguish between good and bad acts?
I don't think I understand 2) well enough.
3) reminds me of Dawkins' admission that the genes he talks about in his book don't actually exist, which led to Gould's criticism that 'genes are only good for bookkeeping'. Perhaps in these cases one should talk about behavioral adaptations.
Lingula77 1 year ago
Honestly I think the best explaination for the lack of cannibalism in the natural world is that it's simply a rule of thumb or conditional strategy that in some cases is violated.
And then in other cases avoiding cannibalism is a way to avoid getting diseases and parasites. If some species cannibalized other adults they would be overrun with disease because of the similarities of host defenses.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
PT2
My premise two is that not attacking peers is a good strategy, but then again if you stand a net gain from destroying your competition then under those conditions you'll expect different behavior
I take gould's criticism to heart. He was totally right. The theoreticians in animal behavior sometimes give up invoking the concept of genes and use things like "percent relatedness" "genetic units" as some sort of credit.
You need some sort of numbers to plug into a formula.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago