WWlll Is Being Televised

Well, you're arguing something different.

My point that suicide bombing is not necessarily genetically unsound is true. Whether or not it is unsound for these guys is for the sociologists to debate.

But evolutionary theory is easy on this one. Suicide bombing can be genetically beneficial, and there's no way out of it.

I got side tracked debating whether it is beneficial or not in this instance, and I apologize for that. I should have realized that it is a distinct and different argument from our other biologist.

If altruistic behavior is beneficial genetically, then it wasn't altruistic. It was a behavior genetically programmed to protect its genes. And as it so happens, the genes of another coyote are virtually identical to that of the first coyote. Therefore, behaving altruistically for said coyote is actually a tactic in order to increase the probability of spreading the gene. The gene itself is the unit of natural selection, not the organism, as Darwin seems to have thought.

Dawkins has popularly argued that there is no altruistic behavior among non humans.

Socrates even argues that there is no human altruism (although I disagree with him).

But ultimately, altruism has nothing to do with the debate. Neither do "random" acts of self destruction (although it's clear to me the self is a situationally necessary byproduct of the other intended destruction, and were there a more efficient way to go about this, there wouldn't be suicide bombings).

Self destruction can benefit the survivors and often does, as evidenced by a vast list of species. Honeybees, off the top of my head.

You make some pretty good points, but in the end, there's no argument to be had here. The claim that suicide bombings are always genetically unsound is patently false, and there's no way out of it.

In recap to the problem in this discussion, the biologist's claim was a general one (as is my response), and your claims are specific ones, and while I throw in some examples for the point of argument, I'm not making any specific claims.

But you guys are definitely right to argue whether or not it is evolutionarily sound in this particular situation. I won't make the mistake of getting caught up in that again. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about those cultures to come to any strong conclusions.

Of course, luckily for us, if it does turn out to be mostly evolutionarily unsound for this behavior, we have a lot less to worry about. In a couple generations, there will be a lot fewer people with those memes.
 
Biology, not culture: evolution operates on the species, not the specimen. Altruism can improve the survivability of the group, especially when it operates most strongly for the benefit of the closest related specimens to the altruist.

Altruism does not necessarily require sacrifice, only assistance to another organism.

Anyone who fails to note altruism in organisms other than humans simply hasn't spent much time observing them.

(of course, Darwin wrote before the discovery of genes. In fact, one of the factors that kept him from publishing sooner was his dissatisfaction with his theory lacking a mechanical basis for transmission of traits. Reluctantly, he left that to future researchers.)
 
Well, more specifically, evolution operates on the gene, and not the organism.

Well, it's a bit confusing, but let me rephrase it. Dawkins would probably say that behaviors appear altruistic at the organism level, but really, it's the selfish gene, acting to benefit the copies of itself in the other organisms at work. If altruism isn't evolutionarily beneficial, it will be removed in subsequent generations (eventually). *Paradoxically, the fact that behaviors exist that appear altruistic show that they can't be altruistic, as they've clearly benefitted the genes that program for those behaviors. And because they've helped themselves (the genes, not necessarily the organism), it was not an altruistic act.*

Of course, you and I know that the genes aren't actually thinking about selfless or selfish behaviors, but you get the picture. So I suppose it does appear that organisms can act altruisticly (as far as they know), but that genes (and hence evolution) cannot. But the altruistic animal is the puppet for the selfish gene.

Of course, we have to start abandoning a lot of the gene programmed behavior stuff when we get to really complex life, notably humans, but maybe a little underneath us too.

But these things will be good thought candy for my lectures, not for this particular discussion. Suffice it to say that yes, self sacrifice can be genetically beneficial. We can create a seperate darwinian debate thread, if you'd like. I didn't intend to hijack this one.
 
Artfully Martial said:
I don't think religion is to blame for anything here. We have to take responsibility for our own actions. We can't attribute them to a religious leader or even author. We always have a decision.
Click to expand...

While true we have to take responsiblity personally, so does relition. Religion has been the cause of angst in that part of the world since the earliest recorded history. Lets not give the religionS a pass here. One religious idea that is used as a weapon by the Islamists is Martyrdom. St. Peter was a martyr. He was taken prisoner for his beliefs, asked to renounce them under penalty of death, when he refused...he was killed by the Romans. This was an innocent, resigned, sacrifice of ones life by a man with peace in his heart. The Islamists have reajusted the term Martyr to mean any person that commits suicide during a conflict with people of another faith. This is a totaly different, there is no innocence in the deed, and the killings are unjustified. Those people are common murderers and their acts are commited out of hatred. How can a man who dies in a fit of hatred be called a Martyr? What an ugly way to slander the meaning of that term.

Hamas, a longtime terrorist organization, and the new ruling party in Palastine has been a key player in this redifinition of the term Martyr. They use the term to justify the murder of women and children, and aid in recruiting angry young men to do more murder. After their election the world, understandably hesitant, gave them a list of things they must do before being considered a legitimate political party. Firstly they must recognize Israel, which they have patently refused while simultaneously requiring Israel to negotiate with them. How can on negotiate with an entity it refuses to recognize as exsisting? The Quaran has some thoughts on this idea of recognizing Israel that are very interesting too. Here are a few passages maybe Hammas has not considered.

26:59 Thus it was, but We made the Children of Israel inheritors of such things (the promised land)

20:80 O ye Children of Israel! We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a Covenant with you to give you the right side (the blessed side) of Mount Sinai, and We sent down to you Manna (special food) and quails.

17:104] And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, scatter and live all over the worldand when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land.
 
Anyone hear the rumor that the head of Hezbola did his broadcast from the Iranian embassy in Lebanon?

I see today the 'rumor' is the captured soldier may be released. Pretty savy move; this will put pressure on Israel to stop. If i were Israel I would not stop, I would increase troop strength and keep going.


munk
 
The Jerusalem Post this morning had an Associated Press report that Nasrallah is in Damascus.

If there is a rumor that "the" soldier will be released, that's the man in Hamas' custody, not the two held by Hizballah. Released or not, that fighting will go on at some level, since hamas can declare all the cease-fires it likes, but if the other factions don't honor it -- and they won't, Israel will continue to attack them -- all in the same area.
 
I'm going to have to agree with Sartre here. We can never blame any outside entity. Every individual makes every choice for themselves. Even if someone holds a gun to my head and says give me all your money, I still have a choice, even though it looks like I don't. We can't blame religion...it's like giving the "martyrs" a free ride.
 
What you're saying sound like giving religion a free ride to me.
 
I thought that evolution, understood in light of the existence of genes, was a process in which traits (embodied in genes) more suitable for survival in the extant environment tended to survive and be passed on whereas less suitable traits (genes) tended to die out.

If that is true, evolution does not "act on" genes. It occurs and has an effect on the species as more survival-worthy traits/genes are passed on and less survival-worthy traits/genes die out.

As for suicide as a survival-worthy trait, consider the Honey Bee.
 
Death by war, famine and pestalince and the abuse of nature has been predicted for ages, and for some reason we are shocked when it happens in our generation.

Revelation 6
1And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as it were a voice of thunder, `Come and behold!'

2and I saw, and lo, a white horse, and he who is sitting upon it is having a bow, and there was given to him a crown, and he went forth overcoming, and that he may overcome.

3And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, `Come and behold!'

4and there went forth another horse -- red, and to him who is sitting upon it, there was given to him to take the peace from the land, and that one another they may slay, and there was given to him a great sword.

5And when he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, `Come and behold!' and I saw, and lo, a black horse, and he who is sitting upon it is having a balance in his hand,

6and I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, `A measure of wheat for a denary, and three measures of barley for a denary,' and `The oil and the wine thou mayest not injure.'

7And when he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, `Come and behold!'

8and I saw, and lo, a pale horse, and he who is sitting upon him -- his name is Death, and Hades doth follow with him, and there was given to them authority to kill, (over the fourth part of the land,) with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and by the beasts of the land.
 
I heard one of the guys that's in Hezbollah and also in the Lebanese parliment on NPR last night. The reporter was asking him questions like if he believed Israel had a right to exsist, why Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place, and stuff like that and all he wanted to do was evade these questions and focus on how many people the Israelis were killing. Also I'm pretty sure they don't want a cease fire any more than Israel does cause they think they can win.

I think Israel made a strategic mistake by doing what they are doing, but I think Hezbollah may have made a REAL strategic mistake. Throwing aside the question of whether the retaliation at that level was justified, any time I have heard these guys on TV or radio, Hezbollah or Hamas, when they get free reign to speak their case they don't really do their cause any good. They sound like Bush trying to justify Iraq:D
 
ohoisin said:
Death by war, famine and pestalince and the abuse of nature has been predicted for ages, and for some reason we are shocked when it happens in our generation.
Click to expand...

It is particularly ominous when the prospect of war, pestilence and famine coincide as is presently the case. The middle eastern turmoil, bird flu and climatic shifts with their attendant effect on crops do put an apocalyptic spin on current events. However, the period from 1916 - 1936 (one example) presented similar prospects and the world did not end.

According to some Rabbis, the Messiah will not come until the Temple on the Mount is rebuilt in Jerusalem, and I don't see anyone laying brick on that project yet.
 
munk said:
Not so. Eventually, countries harboring terror will pay a price the pop is unwilling to pay. So there will be change.

it will be a painfull transition.



munk
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think eventually Israel will have the bomb, Iran will have the bomb, and it will be like the cold war, where everybody is afraid to start anything.
 
hollowdweller said:
I don't think so. I think eventually Israel will have the bomb, Iran will have the bomb, and it will be like the cold war, where everybody is afraid to start anything.
Click to expand...

Israel has the bomb(s), has had it for quite some time too.
 
cliff355 said:
It is particularly ominous when the prospect of war, pestilence and famine coincide as is presently the case. The middle eastern turmoil, bird flu and climatic shifts with their attendant effect on crops do put an apocalyptic spin on current events. However, the period from 1916 - 1936 (one example) presented similar prospects and the world did not end.
Click to expand...

I heard a Native American Shaman once say that the earth was like a bird. When the parasites threaten it's live it rolls in the dust and kills the parasites.

In the summer it gets hot and kinda wet in the barnyard. Suddenly I see the fly population exploding. Then just as suddenly it starts reducing and eventually I notice a big hornets nest in the barn and they are eating all the flies.

Nature seeks a balance.

The world population is exploding. The US and European countries have managed to curb their birth rate and increase the quality of life for most of their residents. Although the right to life people might say that we don't respect life because of the ready availabiltiy of contraception and abortion, there is no denying the quality of life is good here relatively speaking.

If you look at the places in the world where there is the most violence, disease and war, it is the places where they have not controlled their populations relative to the availabe resources.

So while the suicide bombing guys aren't doing it because of evolution, I believe at least in part it is a function of overpopulation where the human resource is so available it it less valuable.

And the question for the rest of the so called "civilized" world is in the interest of cheap labor and keeping inflation low do we allow a massive influx of people from the troubled parts of the world, hoping they will assimlilate? Or do we keep them out and encourage them to develop a sustainable level of reproduction? While the Chinese gov't has taken this to an extreme level with their population there's something to it.
 
Guys, lighten up a little. We're all gonna need towels and Kleenex if this keeps up!
What we have here is par for the Middle East course. The Arabs kill the Israelis. The Israelis kill the Arabs. This has been going on for thousands of years, and it will never stop.
The only difference now is oil. Oil is important all over the world, and the Israeli/Arab wars are only as important to us as they affect the supply of oil. I think the governments of the world know that, and will not put us into WWIII just because the Middle East is being Middle Eastern.
 
Thomas Linton said:
I thought that evolution, understood in light of the existence of genes, was a process in which traits (embodied in genes) more suitable for survival in the extant environment tended to survive and be passed on whereas less suitable traits (genes) tended to die out.

If that is true, evolution does not "act on" genes. It occurs and has an effect on the species as more survival-worthy traits/genes are passed on and less survival-worthy traits/genes die out.

As for suicide as a survival-worthy trait, consider the Honey Bee.
Click to expand...
Nice distinction! Evolution does not "act on" genes, rather it "selects for" any gene that makes one individual more survivable than another in a particular set of environmental circumstances (natural selection). That individual presumably leaves more offspring carrying his set of genes, particularly when the "non-selected" individual is abruptly terminated. IF the environment stays the same for awhile, then the gene pool has more and more individuals with the genes to be "comfortable" in that set of circumstances. The rub here is (1)the environment is a fluid situation, (2) there is no incentive for any "comfortable" species to change or adapt (if they are comfortable, they're already adapted), and (3) some genetic problems don't show up to cause weakness or death until AFTER the individual has already mated and passed on his genes (diabetes, for example). For the above reasons, and others, Darwin got it mostly right, but not having our understanding of genetics, remained frustrated with some of his own observations throughout his life.

The ebb and flow of Evolution, as species constantly adapt to fluid environmental situations, produces endless variation and competition in our biotic world. This should be infinitly more entertaining for a Creator both omnipotent and everlasting. Current thinking is that it took at least 20,000 years of back and forth adaptation to go from the Black skin of Africans to the White skin of Northern Europeans, all this just to optimize the balance between having too much ultra-violet and not enough Vitamin D. I for one do not believe for a second that the miracle and variety of Life is accidental, but I am constantly amazed by simplistic arguments from the Creationists who hold that you must take the Bible word for word as though dictated.

NOW, let's assist Israel in providing retroactive non-selection for Islamic terrorists. The muddy waters of human reasoning and interaction could use some genetic culling, and competition between groups and individuals has always been the mechanism of natural selection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top