Creationism vs. Evolution

[Meg 368]

Men have an intense biological imperative to have sex but a very weak biological imperative to care for the resulting children.

I'm supposed to believe this is "intelligent design"? Doesn't seem too intelligent to me.

(I encountered yet another young adult male who is ignoring his daughter and her mother because he is "not into it".)

[fukuda 351]

There are cultural and societal factors at work, too.

In several cultures men are not allowed (by the family and/or social structure) the choice of "not being into it". Other cultures have differing points of view about what both parenthood and a father's responsibilities are.

It's a bit complex... Human behavior is not limited to biological evolution or genetics.

[Meg 368]

There are cultural and societal factors at work, too.

In several cultures men are not allowed (by the family and/or social structure) the choice of "not being into it". Other cultures have differing points of view about what both parenthood and a father's responsibilities are.

It's a bit complex... Human behavior is not limited to biological evolution or genetics.

True.

I'm just saying that the so-called "design" of the biological imperatives is bad.

Yes, cultural and societal norms can be imposed. But the combination of the biological imperatives themselves leaves much to be desired. If that is intelligent design, it's pretty sad excuse for it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There are cultural and societal factors at work, too.

In several cultures men are not allowed (by the family and/or social structure) the choice of "not being into it". Other cultures have differing points of view about what both parenthood and a father's responsibilities are.

It's a bit complex... Human behavior is not limited to biological evolution or genetics.

True.

I'm just saying that the so-called "design" of the biological imperatives is bad.

Yes, cultural and societal norms can be imposed. But the combination of the biological imperatives themselves leaves much to be desired. If that is intelligent design, it's pretty sad excuse for it.

I think you'll find that 'not being into it' is more than slightly against family law. Men who don't like their progeny are broken and should be removed from the gene pool, imho. They deserve the fate of male spiders.

[Sam 163]

True.

I'm just saying that the so-called "design" of the biological imperatives is bad.

Yes, cultural and societal norms can be imposed. But the combination of the biological imperatives themselves leaves much to be desired. If that is intelligent design, it's pretty sad excuse for it.

It is certainly possible it is "intelligent design" but of human origin rather than any non-human deity or supreme power, i.e. the remnants of the social structures our ancestors created for themselves. We wouldn't say our ancestors were unintelligent, some of them were certainly intelligent enough, and powerful enough, to set up social systems that were more favourable to some people over others, rather than based on mutual respect. Even though progress has been made in addressing the various inequalities over time and in some parts of the world, there is still plenty of work to be done, as your example illustrates.

However yes, there are many things in biology to start with that don't make much sense unless absence of intelligence is considered as a factor.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

I think you'll find that 'not being into it' is more than slightly against family law. Men who don't like their progeny are broken and should be removed from the gene pool, imho. They deserve the fate of male spiders.

From what I've seen, it isn't an issue of not "liking" their progeny. It's more that they are totally indifferent. It seems that, in their minds, it's just not about them.

How do you propose removing them from the gene pool?

. . . It is not biological, and no, it is not fair to women. Women are usually stuck with the upbringing of their children. Biologically, men have no such motivation because we can find more women and make more children. There is no drive for us to "stick around". . . . It is creepy, but it shows how male biology is geared toward producing offspring, but not caring for them.

That is my point exactly. What possible purpose would there be in designing it to be this way?

Monogamy is one of the few areas where I have to say I agree with the Catholic Church.

I question the degree to which cultural and societal norms can override the way people are hard-wired.

Or maybe I've just been reading too much Heinlien. His characters tend to live in group marriages with half a dozen men, half a dozen women, with all of them messing around with each other but all of them taking care of the children.

I know people who claim that marriage should consist of three people. Doesn't matter what combination of genders but one of them has to stay at home.

Looking at the question of how to best care for the children, the nuclear family is a fairly recent social construct and not a particularly effective one. A couple of centuries ago, extended families where the norm. There was always a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or cousin around to help care for the children. These days we expect two people to handle it all. There is a lot of evidence that two adults are not enough to handle the stresses of everyday life.

That said, much of male biology needs to be controlled by education, by birth control, and by a swift kick in the posterior.

I can't argue with you there. That's all we've got.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Looking at the question of how to best care for the children, the nuclear family is a fairly recent social construct and not a particularly effective one. A couple of centuries ago, extended families where the norm. There was always a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or cousin around to help care for the children. These days we expect two people to handle it all. There is a lot of evidence that two adults are not enough to handle the stresses of everyday life.

its amazing how whats "normal" family life has changed over the years.

I think those extended family's were around a lot more recently then

a couple centuries ago. more like only 3 or 4 generations,especially in rural areas

were you may not have moved out of the family farm house and if you did it was

just down the street.

now the nuclear family is disolveing, i think mostly due to fininacial concerns.

both parents need to work to afford the suburban life.that is if there are 2 parents.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[EyeofMobius 27]

Interesting streams the conversation is rolling along right now.

If I was to pick what animal the human beings' biological behaviour is most like I would choose grizzly bears. Typically a solitary animal. Males are territorial and striving for dominance against other males. Cubs are treated as threats/food to the males which will kill them off before they are large enough to even be able to retreat from an adult male onslaught. Since the females have built in biological equipement to support cubs and also aren't territorially spurned by males they have fallen into the role of early nurturing and mentoring young cubs. Without the females operating the way they do the species would destroy itself... I'll argue that this is the biological side of humans that we try to supress and deny. I believe that in some of our more violent subcultures this is the way things play out; for example some of the more violent chapters of biker gangs definitely involve constant displays of male dominance and the trading and abuse of females like possesions.

I do not agree that monogamy is suited for me but I support those that choose it even though many that choose it tell me its the best and most responsible way to have a family. I was from very early on the only child to no more than one parent at a time. Needless to say I was cooking for myself before was 8 years old many nights since whichever parent I was with frequently had to work late so my independance was very early. Things would have been much more sour if I didn't have an aunt and uncle as well as a set of grandparents plus all the freinds houses I could go and stay over at. When my dad remarried when I was in my teenage years I suddenly had two stepsisters who are finally not consuming as much of my dad's time; during the period when I was finishing high school the only time I really got any attention was when I was in trouble for something. This has partially scared me away from monogamy but it has also shown me that if kids match or outnumber paternal figures the paternal figures are usually overwhelmed because they cant shut out their own issues as well as the needs of the children around them.

Child-rearing is a true full time job; It is definitely nicer to have enough adults around to take it in shifts and to cover the bases when one of the other adults is temporarily unavailable.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Philosophically, I am not against polygamy. It is an ancient practice, and is currently practiced in some countries, including some groups in the west. A large extended family is a good thing, but the competition of the women and the siblings needs oversight. This is the duty of the male progenitor, as well as providing the means of living. King Solomon (Suleiman the Magnificent) was said to have 900 wives. And this doesn't include miscellaneous dalliances with people like the Queen of Sheba.

{Begin devil's advocacy}

With respect to Conan the Indifferent, his removal from the gene pool can be done in one of several ways. Harems always need guards, and such males can be neutered for the purpose. If a male chooses to be an interloper in the harem of another male, it is up to the owner of the herd to chastise him appropriately. Not being allowed to breed is thus another way of keeping them out of the gene pool. Of course this increases aggressive tendencies all around. If a fight to the death results, then winner take all. This is nature's way.

As far as the so-called nuclear family, this is a fiction dreamed up by the various societies that have had the proper balance to allow it to occur, and by the Christian church for reasons known only to the church fathers and mothers. St. Augustine was married and had nine living children.

Concubinage used to be an honorable estate, and only the current western moral code forbids it. Silly when you have all these healthy women around in excess numbers, and fewer real men. If you want to continue the race, it is necessary to get over Puritanism.

{end devil's advocacy}

Really, my solution in this society for Conan the Indifferent is to put him to work by law for the support of his family.

I was born just before WW II, and I grew up, effectively in a society of women as part of an extended family, and we looked after each other. Something happened in there, because I am now a lonely old widower, estranged from his nearest kid, while the rest of my family is scattered across the continent. Where did everybody go?

The modern age has caused a diaspora of the extended family unit. I expect we will soon regret it as the public social systems fail.

  Edited May 4, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[fukuda 351]

As alluded to after your post, there are societal impacts that, though unsaid, mean that monogamy is cultural for humans. It is not biological, and no, it is not fair to women

Certainly, since not all cultures are monogamous. But we aren't exactly discussing monogamy or polygamy here, we are discussing parental(male) abandon of offspring. And that's not necessarily related to monogamy or polygamy. Parental abandon is strictly abhorred in most polygamist cultures too.

Biologically, men have no such motivation because we can find more women and make more children. There is no drive for us to "stick around".

It is creepy, but it shows how male biology is geared toward producing offspring, but not caring for them.

My point is that we need to consider (keep in mind) that humans are still animals, and many are under the influence of their biology, whether they know it or not (and I think knowing is a part of potential control).

Hm, I kindly disagree. let's talk fitness and natural selection since we are in the correct thread.

Natural selection is driven by fitness, that is, differential reproductive success.

But reproductive success is not measured by the reproductive sucess of the parents, it is measured by the reproductive success of their offspring!

Mating a lot of times and having a lot of offspring is useless if the second generation cannot mate more than their peers.

Let me illustrate this point by using a common experiment performed in animal behavior:

We are used to female fish (in this case guppies) selecting more "beautiful" males to mate with. But this choice is easily overridden if we show her a less beautiful male with other female fish swimming around (decoys).

Why? Behavior has evolved to maximize not their own but their offspring's sexual success. By choosing a less beautiful but more successful male the female fish's male offspring will (luckily) inherit the atttracting trait (if inheritable) and be more successful.

Ok, but we're talking about human beings here. What's my point?

Let's analyze the problem of male parental investment in humans from a biological standpoint, is it really advantageous to abandon your children to go mate with another woman?

It is in animals whose offspring develop faster and don't need much parental investment, but human children (yes, I know that's redundant) have a long and costly developmental period.

Abandoning your children during their growth period can be very negative for their reproductive success. Let's talk about how it affects daughters for instance. A single mother (especially in the wild) has reduced means to feed their offspring, and this a critical point for female fertility. Female menarchy (first period) is quite plastic, mainly responding to the girl's nutritional state. It can range from 11-12 years old in well-fed girls to 18-20 years old in third world countries. A girl with two active parents taking care of her will have an extended reproductive period (probably up to one child more!) than young girls only brought up by their mothers alone, and that's not taking into account multiple kids.

Of course, this is a hypothetical example, but what are really the benefits of such an strategy for your children? It's your children, not you, who will spread your genes. is it really advantageous to abandon your wife instead of helping her take care of your children?

That said, much of male biology needs to be controlled by education, by birth control, and by a swift kick in the posterior.

Much of male biology is better controlled by a kick to the anterior side, specifically the lower regions

  Edited May 5, 2011 by fukuda  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Much of male biology is better controlled by a kick to the anterior side, specifically the lower regions

All other arguments aside, this is the one most positive action that can be taken by society. Nothing like a good old boot in the tooter.

Feckless males in our society need an object lesson to clarify our societal thinking. I like the idea of a strategically applied boot.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

BWT to day was the day in 1925 when John Scopes was arrested in tennesse.

[fukuda 351]

Last question first. Yes. The benefit being that the man can proceed to make more children with another woman. If you flood the system, you are guaranteed a spread of your genes.

But you cannot flood the system, as far as we know humans lived in relatively small groups until recent times. There's a limited amount of women, with long gestation periods and other competing men. What is a better strategy in a small group, to stay with a woman and have several children well taken care of (or stay with her until your kids are old enough, it's technically the same thing) or to try to mate with more women(if you're allowed to) and then abandoning your children?

For traits to be fixed in a population by selection there needs to be a clear and steady advantage against other traits, but is it really such an advantageous change?

The thing is that deep physiological bonding (towards mother and children) phenomena do occur within the male brain. This would actually be quite counterproductive if abandoning your wife and kids was so beneficial.

For humans, especially in the uneducated, this starts earlier and can last longer.

My bad, I meant the fertile period, not the reproductive period. That is, the period spanning from menarchy to menopause (the potential reproduction), not the one spanning from the first kid to the last. It only starts earlier in uneducated people living in a place where food is cheap enough that poor people can have an optimal enough diet, in other words, developed countries.

There were a couple of studies done not that long ago that revealed educated people have fewer children - with no guarantee those children will change the rule of their family trend.

Yes, this is a well described phenomenon.

Your emphasis on fitness is noted. In the animal kingdom, it is a certain fact. Within humanity, fitness is different - the driver is corrupted, so to speak. Yet our biology still influences certain behaviors. It's obviously a complicated maze, with far more caveats than animals in the wild.

Certainly, in fact that's the point I wanted to drive home. It's a really complex subject and I honestly was a bit perplexed at some matter-of-fact statements made earlier.

I wouldn't really say that the driver is corrupted, I would just say that it is different.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

http://www.wired.com...ntiscience-law/

Wasn't it Tennessee that also declared pi = 3?

The last tag wasn't really necessary.--hym

[Meg 368]

Science, bad. Religion, good. It's that how it was in the Dark Ages? Why go back there?

[Linoa06 1,374]

Yeah right..can't believe people actually hold any truth in intelligent design.

But then, whomever Jesus was (and others, but he the most), he most likely suceeded his work beyond his wildest dreams.

Still, no one's gonna tell me evolution isn't a real thing. Seriously. If my kids learnt otherwise at school I'd personally sue it.

[Meg 368]

I knew this topic was around somewhere.

Merged old topic with Moose's recent article.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I knew this topic was around somewhere.

Merged old topic with Moose's recent article.

Thanks, Meg. I thought it was thoroughly dead, something like the Pithecantropus.

[Meg 368]

I knew this topic was around somewhere.

Merged old topic with Moose's recent article.

Thanks, Meg. I thought it was thoroughly dead, something like the Pithecantropus.

It was buried fairly deep in the forums. But the recent bill counts as new information so it's not a bad thread bump. and merging could save a lot of "wait . . . didn't I already say this somewhere?" moments.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

The Flat earth society must be pleased.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Flat earth society must be pleased.

They can all go to a point in Newfoundland and jump off. According to Joshua Slocum who was the first man to sail solo around the world, when he met Krueger of South Africa, he was told the world was flat, and what he was doing was nonsense.

  Edited April 12, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Sgt Pepper 864]

So..such science is almost against the law entirely there?

[Meg 368]

So..such science is almost against the law entirely there?

Scary, isn't it?

[Sgt Pepper 864]

Very Scary. I thought Louisiana's education(being a native there) was worse or of more bigotry but that takes the cake.

[T Wrecks 10,209]

The mere fact that this discussion even takes place makes people shudder in some parts of the world... The world's most powerful and influential country, a civilised industrial nation, last remaining superpower, sitting on a huge arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons, and this is how it educates (part of) its youth?

I mean, it's normal that all kinds of people with the strangest beliefs and convictions exist everywhere, but it's the amount of influence they have over the lives of others that makes these things so scary.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My thoughts are free. Let no one interfere with them.