Are humans genetically 'hard-wired' to believe in god?

Whatever, Setanta. If you're not interested in what I have to say, you could always just ignore it.

Culture in animals - there are many examples of cultural-like triats being learned by animals. I don't have a site prepared maybe you'll have to do some research yourself. But suffice it to say that it at least helps humans.

Walking upright freed our hands and made it easier to see farther, but it also gava hip and back problems, and it's a very poorly designed way to carry much weight at all. It also means we move much slower, and conserve body heat less effectively, and are easier to see by predators.

Agriculture significantly shortened lifespans as well. People worked longer, and the food they raised was less nutritious than food that was previously found wild. People started living closer together, and sanitation problems probably wiped a lot of them out.

Not that nothing good came of these things, but no one can find a complelling reason based on natural selection of any sort.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Culture in animals - there are many examples of cultural-like triats being learned by animals.

Konrad Lorenz, in his work on the ethology of geese, describes ritualization of routine behavior in great detail. The English version of the book is out of print, but I own a copy of the German version, so I can confirm that it supports rufio's point as it applies to ritualization.

As for cultural inheritance of aquired behavior in animals, the best-studied example is a population of primates who aquired a habit of washing food some 50 years ago, then transmitted it culturally from generation to generation. I think Fanz de Waal, a dutch zoologist, discusses it in one of his popular books, but I don't remember which.

rufio wrote:

Agriculture significantly shortened lifespans as well.

I don't believe this is true, and I'd be surprised if you were able to back this up with any decent evidence. Don't let this keep you from trying to surprise me.

rufio wrote:

Not that nothing good came of these things, but no one can find a complelling reason based on natural selection of any sort.

If natural selection hadn't favored the kind of evolution you described, humans who still live on trees, use all their extremities for walking, still gather and hunt instead of farming, would crowd out humans like us today. We may not understand where the benefit lies, but that doesn't make the empirical evidence of the benefit go away.

0 Replies

Heh, I've got a book sitting on my shelf by de Waal. I should get around to reading it someday when I get time. I think the cultural passing on of stuff I remember had to do with some sort of apes hitting logs to scare insects out - I remember reading or seeing something about how mothers taught the younger ones how to do it.

The agriculture thing has been in all of my textbooks since I first started studying this, and in papers that I've read since. I guess it's probably a relatively new development, but I know there have been studies that show the hunter-gatherer lifestyles are actually much more healthy and requires less work.

As I said, I don't deny that good eventually came out of it. But natural selection is not concerned with the survival of the species, just the survival of the individual to the next spawning. It's not as if God said, "well, thousands of years from now, you'll all be happier that you're walking upright, so I'll inflict pain and disadvantage on people now." I'm not saying that it wasn't a good thing - just no one understands the reasons for it.

0 Replies

And there are benefits to walking upright too, like gaining the use of hands. But it's just not clear how these balanced out the problems at the time.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I think the cultural passing on of stuff I remember had to do with some sort of apes hitting logs to scare insects out - I remember reading or seeing something about how mothers taught the younger ones how to do it.

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but Jane Goodall's study of chimps in Gombe showed that youngsters were taught how to insert a stick into an anthill and then draw it out with ants clinging to it and slurp 'em up.

(Great article in Tuesday's Science Times about chimp aggression/ territorial behavior offering clues to early human behavior, but I digress.)

0 Replies

I'd heard of that too, sozo, but I hadn't heard that there was teaching involved. But this was definitely different - it involved finding the right size branch or pulling one off a tree and whacking a log in the right spot. I'm not majorly into biosociology or any of that, but things like that are still pretty damn cool.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

The agriculture thing has been in all of my textbooks since I first started studying this, and in papers that I've read since. I guess it's probably a relatively new development

No, the standard analysis is actually over 200 years old and was first worked out in Thomas Malthus, Principles of Human Population The standard model is that technical progress, such as the invention of agriculture, raises living standards in the short run. But this raise is self correcting because higher living standards lead to more surviving children, which reduces the living standard of each person at a larger-than-original population. Thus, in the long run, improved technology leads to an increase in population but not in a rise in living standards and life expectancy. But it doesn't, according to the Malthusian model, decrease them either -- which is what you seem to be claiming. As for population, Jared Diamond, a geologist at UCLA, quotes an abundance of evidence that agriculture increased it in his book Guns, Germs and Steel You probably want to check your evidence, if you have some, against his.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I'd heard of that too, sozo, but I hadn't heard that there was teaching involved. But this was definitely different - it involved finding the right size branch or pulling one off a tree and whacking a log in the right spot. I'm not majorly into biosociology or any of that, but things like that are still pretty damn cool.

"Congo"? Crichton broached ritualization and this sounds liek it could be an example he would use to support the paddling apes story.

0 Replies

Oh, yeah, what I mean is I think that the criticism of that is fairly recent. Or maybe it isn't, I don't know. I don't have any books to recommend, but that's what I've been taught. What textbooks I could cite I've sold, and what papers I've read I've lost. Sorry.

Basically, the main points are:
- large numbers of people (and animals) living togther means worse sanitation
- domesticated crops are less nutritious than naturally occurring ones
- agriculture requires more work than hunting/gathering
- agriculturists have to stay put and can't take advantage of weather patterns and migration
- large numbers of people led to governments and elites, decreasing the life expectancy of the newly made lower classes

I remember hearing that someone had done a study of archaeological data and found that before a certain point, skeletons would be found that had perfect teeth. They didn't have incredible life expectancies, but they didn't die of tooth decay. Later on, they would find a lot more with absolutely horrible teeth, and that sounds kind of like the same thing to me. I recall something about vitimin deficiencies causing teeth and bones to become weaker initially, too.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Oh, yeah, what I mean is I think that the criticism of that is fairly recent. Or maybe it isn't, I don't know.

As a general rule, it is wise to check such facts before expressing strong opinions about them in a newsgroup. You're setting yourself up for abuse if you don't: If you can't be bothered to make a reasonably sound case for your opinion, your discussion partners can't be bothered to have much patience with you.

0 Replies

My mistake, I thought it was relatively common knowledge. I don't keep references up my sleeve you know. All I can say is that it makes sense to me. If your authors address these issues, I'd like to hear what they say, summerized. I already have several books I have to read this weekend, and those are for class.

0 Replies

rufio, I have to go with Thomas on this one. Hopefully, your posting style is not how you write your essays for school.

0 Replies

Usually I'm given the topic on which I have to be an expert in advance in those cases. I only mentioned this as an aside in my post to Setanta. I am not a walking encyclopedia. I will try to find something for you if you insist, but it will not be immediately.

0 Replies

I think Thomas' point is that if you have no substantiation you'd do well not to assert things forcefully.

When you are challenged you have no justification for your claims and this is less than an optimal exchange.

0 Replies

And my point was that I didn't assert it forcefully, or at least no more forcefully than I would assert that the sky was blue. I casually mentioned it and everyone suddenly focuses on it. Sure I can go look stuff up but it's not going to magically appear out of my shirtsleeve.

0 Replies

Yes rufio, it would be helpful to all of us if you do post some sort of link, any link really, to back up your often strong claims. It also keeps a proper flow to the discussion, and will keep you from bearing the brunt of the folks here not taking you seriously. It's not a personal thing, it's just basic study habits. It takes 2 seconds to google something you are looking for, and just a few minutes to find a relevant link to support your argument. We are here to discuss, not to do our own research for claims you have presented, and I have seen you propose that we 'research it on your own' on several occasions. We should not have to. You should be responsible for citing at least a smidgeon of proof for your arguments. From what I know so far, you have sold your books that would have had the information you needed, you have lost your papers, and you wish for others to do your research for you. How are your grades?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Agriculture significantly shortened lifespans as well. People worked longer, and the food they raised was less nutritious than food that was previously found wild.

This strikes me as a forceful assertion .....

rufio wrote:

And my point was that I didn't assert it forcefully, or at least no more forcefully than I would assert that the sky was blue.

And "the sky is blue" strikes me as a forceful assertion too. The moral here, rufio, is that you can't control how people commonly read your posts. On the other hand, you do control your writing. So, like it or not -- if the meaning you intend to get across is not the meaning that comes across to the rest us, it is your writing, not the average reader's reading, that needs to be adapted.

0 Replies

Well, here's a link for all you guys. I tend to like to have a more in-depth look and sources first, but since you insist on my just pulling random stuff off of google here you are.

http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html

I understand that I can't control how you choose to interpret my posts, but you need to understand that I don't post here to serve your veiwing pleasure. If you suprise me with something I haven't prepared for, I am not going to have a response in three seconds. Perhaps you will have to learn a little patience.

0 Replies

We'll give it a whirl rufio, but I might suggest you try to be a little patient with yourself as well. Find the info before you post. Yes, it takes a little longer, but will most likely help folks understand you better. You are a rapid-fire poster. Don't feel the need to respond immediately with unsubstantiated posts. We'll all still be here when you have the backup, and perhaps we'll all get along better too.

0 Replies

It would help if there were more patience and less insults on this forum. If you're all going to be assholes I don't know if I should be any different, since that what you seem to like.

0 Replies

Are humans genetically 'hard-wired' to believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know