Formerly useful

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In a previous thread, the idea was offered how man's penchant for religion could be explained in evolutionary terms, i.e., there existed some evolutionary benefit to the development of religion--- even if such benefits have since expired.

This position[hidden]really, anything related to evolution-as-a-guiding force[/hidden] leads to a few unresolved que ...[text shortened]... many of them are physical in nature in comparison to the amount which were conceptual in nature?

The last time this topic came up, it was painfully clear that you had zero familiarity with any of the literature on proposed accounts for the evolutionary etiology of religiosity despite the fact that you basically claimed to have read all such accounts and found them wanting. If you were just ignorant on the topic, that would be perfectly fine with me; but the lesson from history is that you are disingenuous on this topic. So, I hope the other posters all take heed here: discussing this with you here is a waste of time, until such time as you can demonstrate you have actually done the homework you claim you have done on the topic.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The last time this topic came up, it was painfully clear that you had zero familiarity with any of the literature on proposed accounts for the evolutionary etiology of religiosity despite the fact that you basically claimed to have read all such accounts and found them wanting. If you were just ignorant on the topic, that would be perfectly fine w ...[text shortened]... as you can demonstrate you have actually done the homework you claim you have done on the topic.

It may have been painfully clear to you, but I get the sense that any challenge to your thinking is painful, so I don't know that such protestations hold a lot of water.

You were asked to provide a single, solitary source which espoused a view which you supported with respect to the question at hand, but you flailed your hands in mock offense and provided... exactly zero.


As far as your italicized statement how I claimed to... "have read all such accounts," I said no such thing, as you are very aware. My response was along the lines of not being satisfied with any I had read, but I deferred the topic to you, asking for your esteemed opinion on pieces which you felt would be convincing.
Again, you offered zero.

You may claim that I am ignorant on the topic, but what is clear is that you cannot offer anything beyond what folks like SJ Gould have offered on the topic: whimsical musings of maybe and possibly.
Wait! That may have been too hasty!
That's right: you've offered zero.

Good looking out for others, though.

Originally posted by sonship
SwissGambit

Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.

Do you REALLY believe that such a random process could arrive at the human brain - here contemplating its own existence ?

Evolution is not random.

Mutations are random, evolution isn't.

And yes, such a process can absolutely produce the human brain... and it did.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Evolution is not random.

Mutations are random, evolution isn't.

And yes, such a process can absolutely produce the human brain... and it did.

What do you mean by Evolution then ?

I don't understand.
Grasping what some people call Evolution to me is getting like having Alzheimer's disease. The definition seems to be getting fuzzier and fuzzier as the years go by.

Random mutations had their part in producing a human brain ?
Don't change on me now and say the mutations were not random.

Rather discriminate the non-random part of Evolution from the random part.

Do you disagree with SwissGambit's comment then ?

Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It may have been painfully clear to you, but I get the sense that any challenge to your thinking is painful, so I don't know that such protestations hold a lot of water.

You were asked to provide a single, solitary source which espoused a view which you supported with respect to the question at hand, but you flailed your hands in mock offense and provid ...[text shortened]... ve been too hasty!
That's right: you've offered zero.

Good looking out for others, though.

I tested the depths of your sincerity and willingness to learn on the topic by telling you multiple times that I would be happy to PM you references if you were so inclined. The results of that test were not surprising to me.

Let's face facts: you merely posture on this topic and have no actual intention to educate yourself further on it. It's a shame because it's a good topic.

Originally posted by sonship
What do you mean by Evolution then ?

I don't understand.
Rather discriminate the non-random part of Evolution from the random part.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
I'm going to make brand new motor cars.
(I have a few billion in my savings)
Before I make one I roll a die to see how many wheels I will put on it.
I make several thousand cars.
About 1 in 6 have a single wheel (haven't sold any ... don't know why!)
About 1 in 6 have two wheels (May remarket these)
About 1 in 6 have three wheels (sold a few)
About 1 in 6 have four wheels (selling like hot cakes)
About 1 in 6 have 5 wheels (zero sales)
About 1 in 6 have 6 wheels (sold 1 to Lady Penelope)

Now my die gave me a random number of wheels.
But the success of a random event was not random was it?
It was actually predictable! (non-random)

Originally posted by LemonJello
I tested the depths of your sincerity and willingness to learn on the topic by telling you multiple times that I would be happy to PM you references if you were so inclined. The results of that test were not surprising to me.

Let's face facts: you merely posture on this topic and have no actual intention to educate yourself further on it. It's a shame because it's a good topic.

How do you feel about SwissGambit's comment. Would you phrase it differently ?

Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
I'm going to make brand new motor cars.
(I have a few billion in my savings)
Before I make one I roll a die to see how many wheels I will put on it.
I make several thousand cars.
About 1 in 6 have a single wheel (haven't sold any ... don't know why!)
About 1 in 6 have two wheels (May remarket these)
About 1 in 6 have three wheel ...[text shortened]... the success of a random event was not random was it?
It was actually predictable! (non-random)

So its predictable that given enough time and random combinations of something, trial after trial after trial after trial ... etc. something like a human brain would eventually come about ?

Grey matter concocted in a multitude of different random ways will predictably arrive at the human brain contemplating its own existence in the cosmos ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That penchant for religion, or god gene as I also referred to it, is not found in any animal save man.
Its supposed usefulness (as described by those willing to take it on) is nearly indistinguishable from nationalism/tribalism/group-think. Hell, an argument could even be made for racism in terms of similar utility.

Besides, you're speaking to the ing ...[text shortened]... s related to (first and foremost) why evolution would allow for the god gene in the first place.

"Hell, an argument could even be made for racism in terms of similar utility."

By George, I think you've got it!

Originally posted by sonship
How do you feel about SwissGambit's comment. Would you phrase it differently ?

Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.

Not sure what you are asking me. SG provided a simile. I would say it was apt. If you want another simile, natural selection is like a sieve.

But, one comment I would add here is that it is not clear that religiosity itself was selected for. Many of the proposed explanations in the literature claim that it is more of a spandrel, or attendant by-product of other thing(s) that were selected for. It seems our friend Freaky didn't even realize that this is the position of many accounts in the literature. What a shocker....

Originally posted by sonship
So its predictable that given enough time and random combinations of something, trial after trial after trial after trial ... etc. something like a human brain would eventually come about ?

The predictability is that the adaptation best suited for the environment will survive.

I don't think its a huge leap to see better brain power as a useful attribute.

Perhaps the first brain is more difficult to explain but I'm sure somebody
on here can clearly explain that.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I tested the depths of your sincerity and willingness to learn on the topic by telling you multiple times that I would be happy to PM you references if you were so inclined. The results of that test were not surprising to me.

Let's face facts: you merely posture on this topic and have no actual intention to educate yourself further on it. It's a shame because it's a good topic.

It's such a good topic that when you are openly requested to cite opinions with which you agree and/or find some merit, you refuse to do so.

PM you?!
Why, exactly?
Is this not an open forum?
Did you really think sending you a private message was so labor-intensive and prohibitive as to demonstrate a genuine lack of interest when a PM didn't appear?
Really?
If the subject is of interest--- and it is to me--- then discuss it openly and stop the facade: either you have something to add or you don't.

"... tested the depths of your sincerity" my donkey.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's such a good topic that when you are [b]openly requested to cite opinions with which you agree and/or find some merit, you refuse to do so.

PM you?!
Why, exactly?
Is this not an open forum?
Did you really think sending you a private message was so labor-intensive and prohibitive as to demonstrate a genuine lack of interest when a PM did ...[text shortened]... you have something to add or you don't.

"... tested the depths of your sincerity" my donkey.[/b]

😴😴

Start demonstrating to me that you have actually done the homework you claim you have done. Then I'll play along. Until then, you can keep on playing with yourself. 😲

Originally posted by LemonJello
😴😴

Start demonstrating to me that you have actually done the homework you claim you have done. Then I'll play along. Until then, you can keep on playing with yourself. 😲

Your emoticons are cute.
You should use them more often to express your innermost feelings.

I have put the conversation out there, and owe you zeroReveal Hidden Contentwith respect to demonstrating my homework.

It is obvious I know something about the topic in raising it in the first place and also with the juxtaposition I pointed out herein as well as in the previous post.

While the thought of me playing with myself obviously gives you some measure of thrill, I'd rather engage in a thoughtful consideration of the topic, if you're game.