Quote:
|
In my book I talk about an evolutionary phenomenon reflecting the human mind's tendency toward sin, that is, concentration of the self over devotion to the community. The entire spectrum is represented in nature, from alpha male lions killing the males juveniles of a pride for sexual primacy, to a worker bee stinging an attacker for the sake of defending the hive.
|
Freudian anal complexes? Yes.
Alot of this is, especially with community(as in mammals) has to do with the "Strongest" getting all the bitches, it is basically a simple way of breeding genetic strengths while killing off the weak... Of course, it's not guaranteed to work, there's always the chance they could be born with some strange condition that makes them dance funny. It doesn't matter how big you are if you can't dance. Than you just breed a danceless society. Those die out soon enough.
Kings, queens, nobility? Although I'm pretty sure Dawkins speaks against inbreeding. Maybe because part of evolution is the connection of myriad (different) genes? I don't know. Just guessing. But all the same that represents some kind of flawed anal-evolution, societally. Which makes me wonder why he's the inventor of memetics. Somebody "Clarifying" something as serious as evolution, ranting on about societal mal-nourishments?
Does he[Dawkins] assume mammals are more evolved(don't make me clarify this with some kind of jargon) than reptiles, big papa goat? Or does evolution consider that? I guess that would be objectively true, at the very least.
"The point Dawkins was trying to make I think was that genes have a tendency to code for phenotypic traits that result in their (the gene itself) own propogation, not that there is some gene that codes for a phenotypic trait of selfish behavior."
I agree entirely. By it's very nature the seed is meant for sowing, no?
"Why can't I fly?"
If you were dating a woman with crazy terodactyl like wings that threatened to claw you and take you back to it's nest with a tail would you try to have sex with it? Okay than.
"And from a genetic reproductive stadnpoint, a colony of social insects can really best be considered a signle organism"
I agree, that's why I was bringing up the anal stages, those are generally considered entirely mammalian; not even reptiles have it which you can see by their mating habits. They are purely fight and flight characteristic. Which brings me back to teradactyl woman. See? She wouldn't even want to have sex with you, she'd just want you to fertilize her eggs and bring her food, than she'd go die in a desolate cave after being struck by some autoimmune disease or falling into a river.
"Is there any way to truly prove how old the earth is? "
Yes? I mean, unless all the ways we have to test things is wrong, but for the most part it seems pretty observable and even seems to be in accordance with religious predictions(egypt was in the bible, afterall). Of course, the hilarious thing is that supposedly the book of Genesis was actually from syria which is a culture founded around the time the Egyptian culture was founded. Which is speculated to be pretty far back, and the original syrian genesis tablets supposedly say the world has been around for a long long time. Of course, religious experts would describe it as mythology. Other people might even describe it as bullshit. But if you read genesis it seems to go further back than just a couple thousand. That's just by going by cultures other than Christian influenced, and I'm sure by alot of Christians as well, though.
What is the approximate year religious experts say the world was created?
"That's a good perspective. If there is a God would it not be possible that he doesn't intervene in everyday activities and instead life moves on through natural selection and what works."
Sure. While we're at it why don't we just stop assuming God is a person and start assuming God is just the whole of the functioning world around us. Obviously if he was just the functioning world around us, he would be omniscient(he'd know all the knowledge we know, because we know it-- even what is false, because it's in the universe), omnipotent and omnipresent(he is everything in the whole universe right??). Then evolution is just a part of God, part of his body. But you know, what do I know. He's just omnipresent.
According to some sources, though, God isn't even here. Why else would we goto heaven to be in union with God? But then God has what, ten different names? Maybe there's different Gods who are all the same God but are God's of different places or levels of existance/consciousness. That would probably put it in contrast with all the other religions in the world and even with many forms of science. The father, the son and the holy ghost or some such bullshit could maybe be used as an example.
I met mescalito last night. MESCALITO DOME DECREE. I didn't fall asleep until like five in the morning. Godspeed and neurosis are the best music when you're entering the realms of the unreal with Henry Darger.
Good morning.
Linear Mode
