limitations of evolution theory

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by morganist, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. i know this will be criticised.

    there are some things i have problems with when evolution is discussed. the first is the social limitations.

    if people behave the way they do to reproduce and treat people badly to do so why do some people not reproduce by choice? people will behave badly and do terrible things to others and the justification is it is to reporduce or survive. this is not always the case some people do not have threats or needs to reproduce but still treat others badly to gain social prowess but for what purpose. it is not to leave their seed in the world or to survive.

    if a human needs to reproduce and their children is their seed why do peole mistreat their children. there are people who kill their children. this does not conform to the concept of the preservation of the persons genes. why would people sexually abuse or mistreat their children, if that was the case. if the need to preserve their genes is so important it should out weigh their desires and they would sacrifice everything for their children. this does not always happen.

    another example are women who marry wealthy old men and say it is for the benefit of their children but they often ignore their child and treat them badly. they live the life the money gives them and the child and the surival of the child is hindered surely that is against evolutionary theory.

    there is no evolutionary code of conduct unlike the bible. the bible also gives examples of human nature and details of why it happens plus the methods of avoidance. this is something evolutionary theory fails to do. the bible is full of examples of human nature when people treat people badly and the best account of that i have seen. when people follow the rules it sets these problems go away.

    regardless of whether the earth is billions of years old or not evolutionary theory does not discount this or explain the situations above. i also do not think you can blame mental illness either because it is growing and cannont be attributed to physical or mental problems as it is increasing above any justification of that.

    any thoughts.
  2. PatternRec

    PatternRec Guest

    All good questions.

    Though, code of conduct is not exclusive to the Bible, as you know. Ethics and morality are constructs of human intellect and their social, mostly cooperative nature.

    Most social animals have codes of conduct, albeit, an instinctual one. But then again, so do we.

    As for your questions on human behavior as it relates to evolutionary theory, the answer is not as simple as natural selection though natural selection is the foundation of the answer.

    There are mountains of recent study on the subject. One very interesting one is an experiment that shows how environmental stresses and conditions of the parent effect the genes of offspring. I apologize that I'm coming at you ill prepared because I can't source the article. In any event, the experiment started with chickens and found that the next generation was able to cope with the environmental stress placed upon the parents for which the parents couldn't adapt to. This was also found to be true in humans except that it skipped a generation.

    I bring that up in particular because you noted that you have observed that there has been a marked change in human behavior. Perhaps you are witnessing natural selection at work.

    With our creature comforts and safety nets, we have gotten way past mere survival and reproducing to continue our existence. So the simple tenets of natural selection, though they still apply, do not apply in such a static manner.

    Others may chime in. As I have some time I'd like to share more.
  3. the change in human behaviour is regressing as it reacting to the loss of those comforts.

    also regardless of lifestyle and survival it is not ppossible to pass on any benefits to children or society as a whole without offspring but people chose to not have children there is no benefit but only loss to society as they consume resources and no one who takes their place. it is simply against evolution.
  4. there are species that do not reproduce if resources are limited.
  5. people have chosen not to reproduce for centuries. also by that logic wouldn't everyone stop reporducing. doesn't seem to happen in india, or south america.
  6. PatternRec

    PatternRec Guest

    Regressing would be the wrong description. That's like saying it is devolving. Human behavior may simply be changing in response to their environment.

    It's not against evolution. That would be like saying women who cannot conceive or men who's sperm is too low to fertilize an egg are against evolution. Life is what it is. And life evolves. So rather than surmise that something violates some rule of "evolution", it would be better to surmise that there is something that influences some not to have children. Those influences could likely be socio-environmental. After all, it appears more of a cultural phenomena that you are observing and not universal among human-kind.