em_te Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I've always believed in the Theory of Evolution ever since high school, but as of late, I've read a couple of scientific articles (mostly from newscientist.com) that use the theory of evolution to explain some new observed social behavior and my impression of it is getting worse. At first I felt they made sense and believed in their explanations, but then, after the 6th or 7th article that attempted to use the theory of evolution to explain a specific behavior, I sort of began to lose faith in it. It seems that that theory is only used when the scientist cannot come up with a more causal explanation. I don't have a link to all the articles I've read in the past (which span over a couple of years), but the most recent one was from a wikipedia article on Stockholm Syndrome. I quote: Evolutionary psychological explanation of Stockholm syndrome/capture-bonding:Natural selection has left us with psychological responses to capture as seen in the Kreditbanken robbery and the Patty Hearst kidnapping. Capture-bonding, or social reorientation when captured from one warring tribe to another was an essential survival trait (especially for women) for at least a million years. Those who so reoriented often became our ancestors. Those who did not were often killed. When captured and escape is not possible, giving up short of dying and adjusting to the new is good for genetic survival. Over evolutionary times genes would become more common if the genes built brains/minds able to dump previous emotional attachments when captured and forge new social bonds to the captors. So from my feeling about this article, it seems like the author (scientist?) had no other way of explaining the cause of Stockholm Syndrome so they just somehow linked it to natural selection so that they could explain it with an accepted scientific theory. For me, a better explanation would be just that the person caved in due to overwhelming pressure and made a conscious decision to switch sides rather than die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 sometimes the ideas can be used, but at other times, it's really a stretch. what bugs me most are illogical interdisciplinary pursuits. evolution doesn't always apply to sociology or whatever else there is. i'm not sure evolutionary explanations are always fruitful, but in science, it doesn't matter. another, more reasonable, theory will come along and banish whatever false theories there are. but there are some sciences like evolutionary psychology (and other portions of general psychology), sociology, economics, etc. that are less scientific than we would hope. one problem i have with evolutionary psychology is that it's partly armchair speculation. certain theories are contrived because they seem logically appealing. they make sense, but that is insufficient for its truth. what's more, it's incredibly difficult to validate these claims. this is more rwi, so i'm moving it. thread moved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Whether it be evolutionism or creationism, or whatever, there's not enough evidence to conclusively prove either. I think we'll probably always be at least a bit in the dark in regards to this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 Whether it be evolutionism or creationism, or whatever, there's not enough evidence to conclusively prove either. I think we'll probably always be at least a bit in the dark in regards to this question. 586194106[/snapback] um, creationism isn't science. technically speaking, it cannot be proven scientifically. with falsifiability as one of the criteria (there are others too, like dynamism, auto-correction, empiricism, etc.), we realize that creationism is exempt; hence, not commensurable with any scientific body of knowledge. science isn't about proving things. proofs are left to the domain of mathematics. science is about finding certain patterns and explaining them with falsifiable evidence, theories, etc. if you think about it, the word "proof" has no meaning in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 I don't understand why the article bothered you. The fact is the ground work for all human behaviors (and misbehaviors for that matter) would be trait gained from evolution. The article may be incorrect as what triggers created Stockholm Syndrome, but it is invariably some sort of evolutionary trait. Humans like all other animals are products of their environment after all, and the ablity to reason only means socialogical behaviors change more rapidly when the circumstances call for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 I don't understand why the article bothered you.The fact is the ground work for all human behaviors (and misbehaviors for that matter) would be trait gained from evolution. The article may be incorrect as what triggers created Stockholm Syndrome, but it is invariably some sort of evolutionary trait. Humans like all other animals are products of their environment after all, and the ablity to reason only means socialogical behaviors change more rapidly when the circumstances call for it. 586195492[/snapback] it's not always tenable and it might blind us to the real issue, therefore keeping us from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 it's not always tenable and it might blind us to the real issue, therefore keeping us from the truth. 586195513[/snapback] I disagree, I'm a firm believer in the fact that evolution dictates human motivations and emotional responses. This is why they are so difficult to explain logically without the looking at them from an evolutionary PoV. Everything from fear of snakes and insects to feelings like love have a distinct purpose in the survial of the species. Of course there are "misfires" if you will, but evolution is not known for always getting it right the first time. Quite the opposite I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 I disagree, I'm a firm believer in the fact that evolution dictates human motivations and emotional responses. This is why they are so difficult to explain logically without the looking at them from an evolutionary PoV. Everything from fear of snakes and insects to feelings like love have a distinct purpose in the survial of the species.Of course there are "misfires" if you will, but evolution is not known for always getting it right the first time. Quite the opposite I would imagine. 586195754[/snapback] you might very well be right, but my problem with evolutionary psychology is that people tend to make up stuff that may not be true. example: men like curvaceous women. reasoning: the curves indicate fertility, and men, driven by natural urges, seek fertile women. they therefore use curves as signals. that might be true, but there are problems with that: -there may be societies in which curves aren't admired -and the more pressing issue, a theory like that seems contrived. i guess you could say it's ad hoc. it makes sense to us, from our perspective, to say that fertility is what drove them to consider curves, but we're basically making up this theory with a belief in our heads already. we fit the theory to our belief. evolutionary psychology may be right, but i'm extra-skeptical (as opposed to say something like physics). now, consider the article. capture-bonding might simply be a rational or logical reaction, not necessarily brought about because those who rebelled were killed off (some sort of natural selection scheme?). so it might not be a genetic trait that remained after all the rebellious ones were killed. it might just be a strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Personally, I think the only problem I have with creation theory and the whole survival of the fittest thing, is that if only the best managed to get mates & breed, why the hell are there so many stupid people around these days? :D By rights, we should be a race of super-intelligent supermen (and women), instead of a fooked up world that's quickly heading down the toilet... :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 Personally, I think the only problem I have with creation theory and the whole survival of the fittest thing, is that if only the best managed to get mates & breed, why the hell are there so many stupid people around these days? By rights, we should be a race of super-intelligent supermen (and women), instead of a fooked up world that's quickly heading down the toilet... 586195880[/snapback] Prehaps stupidity has it's own survial benefits that we (being stupid after all) can't comprehend. Honestly intelligence isn't always what it's cracked up to be, suicide rates are higher as IQs rise for instance when all is equal (I couldn't find a link and may be wrong about this, but I believe I read a study about it). Maybe evolutionarily speaking, dumb and happy is the way to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Honestly intelligence isn't always what it's cracked up to be, suicide rates are higher as IQs rise for instance when all is equal (I couldn't find a link and may be wrong about this, but I believe I read a study about it). 586195933[/snapback] Actually, the lower the intelligence the higher the risk of suicide: About.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Actually, the lower the intelligence the higher the risk of suicide: About.com. 586196307[/snapback] this link goes into detail why people with a higher IQ are less likely to commit suicide. In their study, Gunnell and his team collected data on 987,308 young Swedish men, who were about to enter the military. The researchers followed the men for up to 26 years. During that follow-up, there were 2,811 suicides."We looked at the association between scores of intelligence tests and later suicides," Gunnell said. "There was about a two- to three-fold difference among those scoring best on the test and those scoring least well, with the higher risk being those at the lower end of the scale." The findings appear in the Jan. 22 issue of the British Medical Journal. Gunnell speculated that because poor performance on IQ tests has been associated with greater risk of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, that could explain the finding. People who suffer from schizophrenia are at a considerably higher risk for suicide than the general population, he added. Another reason for the association may be that people who perform poorly on IQ tests make poorer life choices. "They are more likely to occupy lower-income jobs," Gunnell said. "And because of the association of poverty with suicide, that may contribute with the association." Furthermore, those who score higher may have a better ability to cope with depression and other life problems. "It could simply be that what we are seeing here is the difference between individuals and their capacity to problem-solve when faced with severe life events," Gunnell said. Whether the link between IQ and suicide is the same for women remains an open question. But Gunnell suspects the same association might hold true, given the connection between lower IQ and mental illness in women, he noted. http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=523522 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 this link goes into detail why people with a higher IQ are less likely to commit suicide. 586196673[/snapback] hmm...how about that. Well they say you learn something new everyday. Thanks for the info Matt and theyarecomingforyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
em_te Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Another example of the overuse of the Theory of Evolution is that I could ask why most people chose to study "science" instead of "art" and chose a university in the city instead of one in their hometowns. I could explain both with the theory of evolution. Evolution says that people who chose "science" subjects could find jobs easier and so were more likely to mate and survive. Evolution also says that people who chose a university in the city get to make more social connections and therefore create more opportunities for survival, while people who stayed in their hometowns had less opportunities. Now we know that both explanations are wrong and the real explanation was that conscious decisions were made after actively weighing the pros and cons of both sides. And the theory could explain the laws of demand and supply in economics. Evolution choses people who purchase more items when the costs are low because they are able to save money, and people who purchase less items when the costs are high because they won't lose as much money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2005 this link goes into detail why people with a higher IQ are less likely to commit suicide. 586196673[/snapback] they should have controlled for factors like social class, poverty, etc. to see what differential effect intelligence has on suicide risk. Another example of the overuse of the Theory of Evolution is that I could ask why most people chose to study "science" instead of "art" and chose a university in the city instead of one in their hometowns. I could explain both with the theory of evolution. Evolution says that people who chose "science" subjects could find jobs easier and so were more likely to mate and survive. Evolution also says that people who chose a university in the city get to make more social connections and therefore create more opportunities for survival, while people who stayed in their hometowns had less opportunities. Now we know that both explanations are wrong and the real explanation was that conscious decisions were made after actively weighing the pros and cons of both sides.And the theory could explain the laws of demand and supply in economics. Evolution choses people who purchase more items when the costs are low because they are able to save money, and people who purchase less items when the costs are high because they won't lose as much money. 586196690[/snapback] yeah, that's one of the problems. you can't apply it to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 if you think about it, the word "proof" has no meaning in science. :yes :yes :yes The is no real truth.... in theory :D OMG: higher IQ IQ is soooo not the thing nowdays... (sorry had to say it in a teenager type way) Emotional Intelligence is defiently the most promising theory to use. "Blindly" believing in science is just as bad as "Blindly" following a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2005 EQ is highly valued in the workplace but IQ is also important. People with high IQs but low EQs may pester the boss as to why something is done a particular way when the obvious answer is that is the way that it always has been done so don't rock the boat. Realistically, you need both a high IQ and a high EQ to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2005 :yes :yes :yesThe is no real truth.... in theory :D um, that's not what i was saying at all. i'm saying, science is always provisional and self-correcting. there are no proofs like in mathematics. OMG: IQ is soooo not the thing nowdays... (sorry had to say it in a teenager type way) Emotional Intelligence is defiently the most promising theory to use. not necessarily. you can have high eq and low iq and still not go anywhere. eq isn't the end-all and be-all of intelligence theory, and it certainly isn't the most promising one. "Blindly" believing in science is just as bad as "Blindly" following a religion.586199319[/snapback] that could be true, but that's true with anything. the problem is "blindly following," not science. at least science is self-correcting by nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 you might very well be right, but my problem with evolutionary psychology is that people tend to make up stuff that may not be true.example: men like curvaceous women. reasoning: the curves indicate fertility, and men, driven by natural urges, seek fertile women. they therefore use curves as signals. that might be true, but there are problems with that: -there may be societies in which curves aren't admired -and the more pressing issue, a theory like that seems contrived. i guess you could say it's ad hoc. it makes sense to us, from our perspective, to say that fertility is what drove them to consider curves, but we're basically making up this theory with a belief in our heads already. we fit the theory to our belief. 586195779[/snapback] Actually, we fit theory as it pertains to current phenomenon to theory about past traits. You may argue the curves theory all you like, but wanting to bang some hot chick is not the same as settling down with a curvy woman. Guys want pleasure from one, and family from the other. The reverse is true; women say they want smart, funny guys, but when they ovulate they dress provocatively and hit on macho football studs with an overabundence of testosterone. Also remember that everything you're using to argue this theory is "new" as it pertains to the age of man. When the upright apes lived together, they didn't discuss the socio-political reasons for it, they just did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2005 Actually, we fit theory as it pertains to current phenomenon to theory about past traits. You may argue the curves theory all you like, but wanting to bang some hot chick is not the same as settling down with a curvy woman. Guys want pleasure from one, and family from the other. The reverse is true; women say they want smart, funny guys, but when they ovulate they dress provocatively and hit on macho football studs with an overabundence of testosterone.Also remember that everything you're using to argue this theory is "new" as it pertains to the age of man. When the upright apes lived together, they didn't discuss the socio-political reasons for it, they just did it. 586202567[/snapback] well, that wasn't my point. i made up the example of the curves because i wanted to point out how ad hoc evolutionary psychology could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worzle Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 (edited) I would contend that evolution is NOT "science". As a lowly A level student i'd point you to Karl Poppers theary of falsification; if a theory can't be "proved" then it isnt science, its just (perhaps granted a logical) idea. Evolution cannot be proved, why? Firstly there are, obviously no first hand records, you *can't* use the present day conditions to contemplate what happened in the past. When one researches into history you don't look at circumstantial evidence and portray it as a "hard fact" (yes, its called a "theory", but its treated along the same lines as the "thoery" of gravity (which you can test) - which in my opinion it shouldn't be). Quite frankly you could pass more or less anything as "evolution" (e.g. using highly flawed c14 dating), but without an antithesis its not science, merely stipulation. What about creationism? Well, there is an antithesis, regardless whether you believe it or not christians have an (alleged) first hand record, it is down to hypothesis and empiricism to prove it wrong. Dispite what I have read in "scientific" circles (and i must confess at this point that i am myself a converted creationist) I have nothing of yet that disproves the biblical acount. Yes, i have read scientific studies (New Scientist etc) - but they all seem to use the same (flawed in my opinion) logic - that conditions present now have always been the same. Much as in the realm of physics, scientists have assumed that the speed of light was constant (latest studies that i have read indicate that it is not). Can science and the bible go hand in hand? These people seem to think so http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp (note the majority have at least phd's in some area of scientific study) - have a poke around there and see if they make sense:P I'm not trying to dispute certain aspects of "micro evolution", if you believe in the "noah's flood", as i do, you have to accept that it would only require one pair of dogs to give us the variety we have today (it'd be too much of a carm for every breed etc!! :p). Do i think that dogs evolved from a minute organism? I have yet to see *any* evidence that would even lead someone to jump to that conclusion. Evidence against evolution?: The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ?simple? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged (ed. D.A. Bradbury, ?Reply to Landau and Landau?, Creation/Evolution 13(2):48?49, 1993.) to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ?only? amount to 10160 electrons.These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik?s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time (ed. F. Hoyle, ?The big bang in astronomy?, New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981.)?and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ?simple? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes. Evolutionists often try to bluff their way out of this problem by using analogies to argue that improbable things happen every day, so why should the naturalistic origin of life be considered impossible. For example, they say the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. Or, the chances of getting the particular arrangement of cards obtained by shuffling a deck is remote, but a rare combination happens every time the cards are shuffled. Or the arrangement of the sand grains in a pile of sand obtained by randomly pouring the sand is extremely complex, but this complex and improbable arrangement did occur as a result of random processes. Or the exact combination and arrangement of people walking across a busy city street is highly improbable, but such improbable arrangements happen all the time. So they argue from these analogies to try to dilute the force of this powerful argument for creation. You probably realize there is something illogical about this line of argument. But what is it? In all the analogies cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery. There will be an arrangement of cards. There will be a pile of sand. There will be people walking across the busy street. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning at its worst. (source: )http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp) And a little program for the unbelievers http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area;)..docs/weasel.zip ;) I wont bother quoting the rest, but for the interested: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp , i'd be delighted to see p:Dple pick holes in those :D Edited July 12, 2005 by worzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nexx Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Evolution cannot be proved 586203477[/snapback] And neither can creationism, but I guess it's just easier to go with the whole 'god did it ' angle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worzle Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 And neither can creationism, but I guess it's just easier to go with the whole 'god did it ' angle? 586203568[/snapback] Am i right in believing you didnt read the article :p? I didn't say creationism can be proved, but it can be DISproved, as it has an antithesis. Evolution doesn't have one in the same manner and therefore isn't (according to Sir Karl Popper) scientific. In that respect, added to the VAST improbablility of it, requires far more faith to believe we all appeared from absolutly nothing (a concept i can't even get my head around) that it does that a God created it, imo :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted July 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2005 if you go back far enough both theories say we came from nothing... Unless you can tell me what started it all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Realistically, you need both a high IQ and a high EQ to succeed. how can you brand someone as having high Emotional Intelligence? EI is broken up into different intelligences, having a high kinesics intelligence could mean you could be a good PE teacher, but a poor social worker. not necessarily. you can have high eq and low iq and still not go anywhere. same as above, how can you brand EI as high and low? you need to split it up into areas of concern. eq isn't the end-all and b e-all of intelligence theory, and it certainly isn't the most promising one. I beg to differ on the "isn't the most promising one" part! science is always provisional and self-correcting yes it is, but my point was that you can never blindly follow science and say it is the truth (ie... as you put it provisional). there is no real "truth" only a belief/theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts