0
   

2) Does "one" refer to "a bizarre double standard"?

 
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2016 04:09 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Here's the claim, again:

Quote:
Certain biological traits appear to have been shaped by, and to have further enhanced, the human capacity for cooperation. For instance, unlike the rest of the earth'screatures, including our fellow primates, the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual attention.


The claim is that "the human capacity for cooperation" SHAPES biological traits.

How does that work, exactly?


Let me guess, eh?

1. There's this thing called "the human capacity for cooperation." I'm not sure where it hangs out--if it's the heart, the liver, the brain, or maybe just out there in space, transcending all. But it's there, somewhere. Let's call it HC for short.

2. HC has a drafting table, some retractable lead pencils, some T-squares and ****, and in it's spare time it drafts blueprints of body plans it would like to see it's kids have. How to put white in eyes, stuff like that, ya know?

3. HC also has a hard-hat, some wrenches, vise grips, and ****, so, after drafting up the plans, it goes to work. It gets down tangling with the wires of the genetic machinery, tweaking them until the are set to produce eye whites in his children.

4. Then he relaxes for a spell, contemplating the next desirable "fix" he's going to implement for the good of his kids, eh? Maybe he will design the genetic structure to have his kids born with sandpaper gloves on their hands to they can't masturbate, and so that they are that much more determined to have sex with women, in a cooperative kinda fashion, ya know, so they can have more kids.

That about it, Oris?
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2016 11:41 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

layman wrote:

Here's the claim, again:

Quote:
Certain biological traits appear to have been shaped by, and to have further enhanced, the human capacity for cooperation. For instance, unlike the rest of the earth'screatures, including our fellow primates, the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual attention.


The claim is that "the human capacity for cooperation" SHAPES biological traits.

How does that work, exactly?


Let me guess, eh?

1. There's this thing called "the human capacity for cooperation." I'm not sure where it hangs out--if it's the heart, the liver, the brain, or maybe just out there in space, transcending all. But it's there, somewhere. Let's call it HC for short.

2. HC has a drafting table, some retractable lead pencils, some T-squares and ****, and in it's spare time it drafts blueprints of body plans it would like to see it's kids have. How to put white in eyes, stuff like that, ya know?

3. HC also has a hard-hat, some wrenches, vise grips, and ****, so, after drafting up the plans, it goes to work. It gets down tangling with the wires of the genetic machinery, tweaking them until the are set to produce eye whites in his children.

4. Then he relaxes for a spell, contemplating the next desirable "fix" he's going to implement for the good of his kids, eh? Maybe he will design the genetic structure to have his kids born with sandpaper gloves on their hands to they can't masturbate, and so that they are that much more determined to have sex with women, in a cooperative kinda fashion, ya know, so they can have more kids.

That about it, Oris?


Let's e straight, Lay. You need to learn a lot of modern biological knowledge in the first place. Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable was written 20 years earlier, yet it would serve as a good step toward your goal of properly understanding if you are lucky enough to have grasped it after reading (the guess you've put above is exactly a question of how to climb Mount Improbable). That guy, whose view you accused as circular, made a breakthrough in moral science a few years ago, that is even admired by the Oxford's professor.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2016 12:53 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable was written 20 years earlier, yet it would serve as a good step toward your goal of properly understanding if you are lucky enough to have grasped it after reading (the guess you've put above is exactly a question of how to climb Mount Improbable).


No, Oris, that is exactly what Dawkins' book was NOT about. If you've read it, you didn't understand it. Dawkins is a strict adaptionist, and he denies ANY possibility of teleology. The need, or desire for, white eyes would NEVER shape the eye. Natural selection might tend to preserve and perpetuate a desirable trait IF that trait is available. But "the capacity for human cooperation" cannot, and never will, according to Dawkins, produce a white eyeball. Mere chance will do that, nothing else.

Read the book again if you didn't understand that. Apparently you weren't "lucky" enough to grasp it. It's already apparent that I know more about evolutionary theory than you do. Why you think that you know things others don't escapes me, since you don't know them to begin with. Why you are so quick to assume that others are ignorant and incapable of understanding when you know so little is rather mystifying.

Generally I know when I don't know something. Apparently some people don't.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 12:20:44