Science, religion, racism, technology, politics...are evolutionary traits

[Itoero]

Science, religion, racism, technology, politics...are evolutionary traits which are present in many animals.

Because they evolved and developed differently it looks like those are properties of humans.

The fact that we are animals should be sufficient evidence for this.

 

-Many species use some kind of tools.(technology)

-When an animal has a bad experience with someone from an other species, he will (to increase his chance to survive) threat all animals from that species as the one he had a bad experience with, the same....this causes racism.

-Racism and other unscientific beliefs can lead to religion. Science evolves via unscientific beliefs.

-Animals teach/learn how to use tools, how to hunt/gather food, what to eat...animals teach/learn science.

-Animals which live in group have often a hierarchy...which leads to politics.

 

What do you think of this?

[CharonY]

I think it is a massive oversimplification of widely different and complex issues.

[SamCogar]

I think that ....... if that's what you want to believe, ...... then believe it.

[Strange]

-Many species use some kind of tools.(technology)

 

I'll give you that. Especially as they actually make the tools in some cases (rather than just using a stick or a rock they have found).

 

-When an animal has a bad experience with someone from an other species, he will (to increase his chance to survive) threat all animals from that species as the one he had a bad experience with, the same....this causes racism.

I would like to see some evidence for that.

 

1. That distrust of other species is based on bad experience (rather than learned from others or being innate).

2. That distrust of other species in animals is connected with in/out group behaviour within the human species.

3. That ingroup/outgroup behaviour in humans is caused by a bad experience with a member of (what becomes) the outgroup

4. That this causes racism. (Actually, I would give you that one if it hadn't been built on such a precarious pyramid)

 

 

-Racism and other unscientific beliefs can lead to religion.

 

 

I would really need evidence of that.

 

Science evolves via unscientific beliefs.

 

 

I'm not sure I even know what that means. So I would some explanation as well as justification.

 

-Animals teach/learn how to use tools, how to hunt/gather food, what to eat...animals teach/learn science.

 

 

Science is a process of developing hypotheses and testing them against the world by means of experiment. Is there any evidence that other animals do that?

 

-Animals which live in group have often a hierarchy...which leads to politics.

 

 

Animals that live in groups sometimes have no hierarchy ... which leads to anarchy.

 

Nah.

 

 

What do you think of this?

What the previous two posters said.

[cladking]

Of course animals use science but this knowledge is of limited value until you can determine the nature of this science and its metaphysics.

 

It's a difficult concept for humans because we lack experience with a couple of its components and they are not intuitively visible.

 

I believe once you understand the science you'll no longer believe in animal religion.

[dimreepr]

Of course animals use science but this knowledge is of limited value until you can determine the nature of this science and its metaphysics.

 

It's a difficult concept for humans because we lack experience with a couple of its components and they are not intuitively visible.

 

I believe once you understand the science you'll no longer believe in animal religion.

 

What are you talking about?

[Strange]

 

What are you talking about?

 

 

That would be an appropriate response to every one of cladking's posts.

[Raider5678]

I would like to see some evidence for that.

 

1. That distrust of other species is based on bad experience (rather than learned from others or being innate).

2. That distrust of other species in animals is connected with in/out group behaviour within the human species.

3. That ingroup/outgroup behaviour in humans is caused by a bad experience with a member of (what becomes) the outgroup

4. That this causes racism. (Actually, I would give you that one if it hadn't been built on such a precarious pyramid)

I'm not saying anything solid, but perhaps there might be a case where animals started distrusting another group of animals for one reason or another.

Like lets say maybe flying squirrels and red squirrels were living in close proximity to each other in a forest, and then for one reason or another a lot of the red squirrels got rabies, but very few of the flying squirrels did. If this happened often enough, and the red squirrels didn't die out, do you think perhaps the flying squirrels would eventually simply start avoiding red squirrels whether they had rabies or not, or even if the flying squirrel had never met a red squirrel?

 

Would that scenario possibly happen? Because if it did, that would be strong evidence correct?

The flying squirrels would be being racist(in a defensive manner at least) against all red squirrels, and would teach their kids the same.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Raider5678

[cladking]

 

What are you talking about?

 

Of course animals use science but this knowledge is of limited value until you can determine the nature of this science and its metaphysics.

 

It's a difficult concept for humans because we lack experience with a couple of its components and they are not intuitively visible.

 

I believe once you understand the science you'll no longer believe in animal religion.

 

 

We can't understand a logical language and logical language is at the heart of animal science. Humans had such a language until it became too complex and had to be jettisoned. Animals use such language which has the same natural logic as mathematics and is patterned on the species' brain. It is a very simple science which holds all things are as they appear and is based on observation and the natural logic of that animal's language. We must use observation and experiment because our language is no longer logical.

 

These things are nearly invisible from a mind that is organized by and thinks in our languages. But it is how beavers transform their habitats and termites practice agriculture and live in air conditioned cities. It even explains more mundane behaviors such as alligators "cooking" their food or bees creating hives. It isn't "intelligence" that sets humans apart; it is complex language that allows knowledge to be passed from generation to generation. People need to rethink what they know to communicate with animals. If we were so smart we'd learn their language rather than teaching them ours.

[Strange]

I'm not saying anything solid, but perhaps there might be a case where animals started distrusting another group of animals for one reason or another.

Like lets say maybe flying squirrels and red squirrels were living in close proximity to each other in a forest, and then for one reason or another a lot of the red squirrels got rabies, but very few of the flying squirrels did. If this happened often enough, and the red squirrels didn't die out, do you think perhaps the flying squirrels would eventually simply start avoiding red squirrels whether they had rabies or not, or even if the flying squirrel had never met a red squirrel?

 

Would that scenario possibly happen? Because if it did, that would be strong evidence correct?

The flying squirrels would be being racist(in a defensive manner at least) against all red squirrels, and would teach their kids the same.

 

 

While there may be some truth in that (e.g. predators and their prey), I am not convinced that this inter-species behaviour can be extended to in-group/outgroup behaviour in humans (and possibly other animals?)

[Raider5678]

 

 

While there may be some truth in that (e.g. predators and their prey), I am not convinced that this inter-species behaviour can be extended to in-group/outgroup behaviour in humans (and possibly other animals?)

Fair enough.

[DanTrentfield]

I think it is a massive oversimplification of widely different and complex issues.

Massive is an understatement. The world's mess of politics, media rave, racism, and general problems could not accurately be summed up if I typed all night and into the next morning.

[Itoero]

I think it is a massive oversimplification of widely different and complex issues.

You think that because you don't understand my point...again.

This is logic thinking based on the 'fact' that We are animals and evolution is a continuous process.

Science, religion, politics and technology did not just appear when we were homo sapiens.

Those properties are/were present in the entire animal kingdom but evolved differently.

If you deny this then you deny evolution.

 

 

Science evolves via unscientific beliefs. When unscientific beliefs are proven they become science.

For example.

The holographic principle, the many worlds interpret, wormholes....are not proven, they concern unscientific beliefs.

When they are proven, they become science.

You can believe that something works, but you have to experimentally show it really works...you turn an unscientific belief into science.

 

Religion concerns with unscientific beliefs. Therefor unscientific beliefs can evolve into religion.

 

When a coyote has a bad experience with a wolf, he will ignore/hide from other wolves, based on one bad experience.

Something like this causes what we call 'racism'.

[Strange]

You think that because you don't understand my point...again.

This is logic thinking

 

 

You seem to be using the word "logic" to mean: "it makes sense to me".

 

Science, religion, politics and technology did not just appear when we were homo sapiens.

Those properties are/were present in the entire animal kingdom but evolved differently.

 

Well, science certainly did as it is a man-made invention. It took millennia for humans to develop the concepts and skills required for science. And then centuries for the process to be refined into something genuinely useful.

 

You could provide evidence (you know, as in science) that there are animals that do science.

 

As for the others, that probably depends on your definition of the words. For example, I doubt that any animals have a religion. But it is probably impossible to know. But feel free to provide some evidence, in place of assertions.

 

 

 

If you deny this then you deny evolution.

 

Nonsense. No other animals have language. That doesn't deny evolution.

 

 

 

Science evolves via unscientific beliefs. When unscientific beliefs are proven they become science.

 

Nonsense. You clearly don't have a clue how science works.

 

 

 

The holographic principle, the many worlds interpret, wormholes....are not proven, they concern unscientific beliefs.

 

Nonsense. They are ideas based on scientific theories. One is simply a description of a well established ("proven" in your dialect) theory. Others are hypotheses awaiting evidence for or against.

 

If I have an unscientific belief in the existence of invisible pink unicorns, how is that going to become either science or religion?

When a coyote has a bad experience with a wolf, he will ignore/hide from other wolves, based on one bad experience.

Something like this causes what we call 'racism'.

 

You can, of course, reference the science that demonstrates this effect?

 

Or did you just make it up? (In other words, it is what you call "logic".)

[DanTrentfield]

To point out an interesting thing I noticed, a study was conducted and published as a broadcast on TEDx that noticed that human DNA contains information that determines sexual orientation regardless of sex, and seeing as that is a cornerstone of personality and etiquette, I wonder if personality itself is determined by that as well. Also, I digress with Mr. Darwin simply because I do not see enough evidence behind many of his studies, though I do concur with the general theory of adaptation, albeit at a much faster rate than he predicted, because if you've noticed how personal adaptation affects the next generation of humans in terms of intelligence, interests, and sometimes even skills, it is very likely that political and religious views could be hypothetically passed down from parents to children. Like the old saying goes: "Like father, like son."

[tkadm30]

Science, religion, racism, technology, politics...are evolutionary traits which are present in many animals.

Because they evolved and developed differently it looks like those are properties of humans.

The fact that we are animals should be sufficient evidence for this.

 

-Many species use some kind of tools.(technology)

-When an animal has a bad experience with someone from an other species, he will (to increase his chance to survive) threat all animals from that species as the one he had a bad experience with, the same....this causes racism.

-Racism and other unscientific beliefs can lead to religion. Science evolves via unscientific beliefs.

-Animals teach/learn how to use tools, how to hunt/gather food, what to eat...animals teach/learn science.

-Animals which live in group have often a hierarchy...which leads to politics.

 

What do you think of this?

 

Try to find a squirrel that can use the Internet...

 

"Animals teach/learn science"

 

You seems to confuse the animal kingdom with Homo sapiens.

[Strange]

Also, I digress with Mr. Darwin simply because I do not see enough evidence behind many of his studies

 

 

I think that is a bit unfair; he and Wallace spent many years collecting data before each (independently) came up with the idea of natural selection.

[Bender]

To point out an interesting thing I noticed, a study was conducted and published as a broadcast on TEDx that noticed that human DNA contains information that determines sexual orientation regardless of sex, and seeing as that is a cornerstone of personality and etiquette, I wonder if personality itself is determined by that as well. Also, I digress with Mr. Darwin simply because I do not see enough evidence behind many of his studies, though I do concur with the general theory of adaptation, albeit at a much faster rate than he predicted, because if you've noticed how personal adaptation affects the next generation of humans in terms of intelligence, interests, and sometimes even skills, it is very likely that political and religious views could be hypothetically passed down from parents to children. Like the old saying goes: "Like father, like son."

"I have noticed" is not really a reliable source.

[Delta1212]

To point out an interesting thing I noticed, a study was conducted and published as a broadcast on TEDx that noticed that human DNA contains information that determines sexual orientation regardless of sex, and seeing as that is a cornerstone of personality and etiquette, I wonder if personality itself is determined by that as well. Also, I digress with Mr. Darwin simply because I do not see enough evidence behind many of his studies, though I do concur with the general theory of adaptation, albeit at a much faster rate than he predicted, because if you've noticed how personal adaptation affects the next generation of humans in terms of intelligence, interests, and sometimes even skills, it is very likely that political and religious views could be hypothetically passed down from parents to children. Like the old saying goes: "Like father, like son."

 

Citation on the sexual orientation thing? I'd like to see the context, and TEDx is occasionally iffy as a source even when the talk isn't being summarized second hand.