Animals, people, and how evolution may or may not play a role.

This is from another blog that ended getting way off topic. Below is the pasted convesations up to the present, feel free to comment constructively.

How is it possible that people, of all mammals on Earth have a moral bone that says murder is bad; (because basically all other animals kill their own and have no reprecussions) or rape is wrong (again because basically all other mammals have recorded occurances of such happenings with no reprecussions) or any other wrongdoing for that matter. Some mammals eat their young. Where did our moral understanding that eating our young is wrong come from? We're all from the same species or unicellular organism... right...????
reply | write to author | quote
Critters!
Susan's picture
Submitted by Susan on Mon, 2007-07-02 23:23.

Animals rarely do anything without a reason.

For instance, a tomcat will kill a litter of kittens. It's my understanding the reason is because the tomcat is strong enough and healthy enough to kill the kittens, he can now mate with the queen and continue his own (healthy & strong) genes.

Critters rarely kill for the "fun" of it. A cat teasing a mouse to death in the wild, will then eat it. The animal is eating to survive.

A mother cat or dog will abandon a pup or kitten that she deems unlikely to survive so as to give the healthy babies more milk so they will survive.

What you are defining as rape in the animal world, if I understand correctly, is simply the mating instinct to keep the species from dying out.

In the animal world, the weak or injured become dinner to a predator. This allows the strong and healthy to reproduce and keep the species going.

I think what you are defining as "moral code" is simply the level of intellectual ability. As humans, we have the ability to empathize and sympathize with pain and suffering. We care for the weak and injured instead of tossing them aside because we can understand their suffering.

reply | write to author | quote
yes true.
Submitted by caposkia on Tue, 2007-07-03 17:10.

Susan wrote:

Animals rarely do anything without a reason.

people rarely do anything without a reason. Just... many times, others don't understand their reasoning, but to them, their reasoning was sound. Think of the Bloods and Crips. We might see their fighting and killing as pointless and without reason, but to them, it's defending territory (like animals do) or due to colors, which to them is a big deal and a good reason to pull a gun.
Susan wrote:

What you are defining as rape in the animal world, if I understand correctly, is simply the mating instinct to keep the species from dying out.

So then rape is ok because I want to keep the species going. We are after all just mammals who happen to have a more intellectual mind. I fear the wars will start to diminish the numbers of people in the world!

BTW, I would never actually do that, or condone that, but that's just what I'm understanding from that statement above.
Susan wrote:

I think what you are defining as "moral code" is simply the level of intellectual ability. As humans, we have the ability to empathize and sympathize with pain and suffering. We care for the weak and injured instead of tossing them aside because we can understand their suffering.

ok, how is it that only humans have that intellectual ability and no other animal species has an intellectual ability even close to that magnitude? There would have to be neanderthals out there with the median intelectual ability to us.


reply | write to author | quote
What?
snafu's picture
Submitted by snafu on Tue, 2007-07-03 19:08.

caposkia wrote:

ok, how is it that only humans have that intellectual ability and no other animal species has an intellectual ability even close to that magnitude? There would have to be neanderthals out there with the median intelectual ability to us.

Err, I like to think that's it's because of evolution but others prefer to say that God made it that way because thery can't understand evolution. Either way though those median neanderthals that you're looking for are out there. You can either go back a couple of hundred thouseand years to find them or look around at some of the higher primate societes in existence today. I'm pretty sure there's not much rape or baby munching going on there but still a lot of other stuff that we would class as immoral

reply | write to author | quote
caposkia wrote: Susan
Susan's picture
Submitted by Susan on Wed, 2007-07-04 20:06.

caposkia wrote:

Susan wrote:

Animals rarely do anything without a reason.

people rarely do anything without a reason. Just... many times, others don't understand their reasoning, but to them, their reasoning was sound. Think of the Bloods and Crips. We might see their fighting and killing as pointless and without reason, but to them, it's defending territory (like animals do) or due to colors, which to them is a big deal and a good reason to pull a gun.

Animals don't do things out of anger or retribution. People do.

Animals don't look to "smack someone down" if their sister, mother, religion or whatever is insulted.

Animals don't look to "make you pay" for your insult.

When the kitty piddles on the bed, first check RUN to the vet because it may be physical and kitty is trying to tell you it hurts. Not physical? It very well could be attention-getting behavior.

The cat does not piddle on the bed because it's "pissed" at you. (I get soooo tired of hearing people say that and believe it.)

When the dog destroys the doorframe or sofa pillows when you're gone, it very well may have separation anxiety. Or it may be that there has been a lack of training and attention. Maybe the dog is just plain bored because the owner leaves it alone for too long.

When a critter defends its territory, it's a survival trait to assure there's enough food. Case in point, when there is plenty of food, critters become much less territorial in the wild.
caposkia wrote:

Susan wrote:

What you are defining as rape in the animal world, if I understand correctly, is simply the mating instinct to keep the species from dying out.

So then rape is ok because I want to keep the species going. We are after all just mammals who happen to have a more intellectual mind.

Huh? What I said was "what you are defining as rape". I assumed you meant something along the lines of what appears to us as an unwilling female.

For critters, it's instinct. For us humans, rape has nothing to do with sex, love or keeping the species going; it has to do with anger and control. Human rape has nothing to do with instinct.

caposkia wrote:

I fear the wars will start to diminish the numbers of people in the world!

I do hope you're kidding.

caposkia wrote:

BTW, I would never actually do that, or condone that, but that's just what I'm understanding from that statement above.

I figured that. Smiling
caposkia wrote:

Susan wrote:

I think what you are defining as "moral code" is simply the level of intellectual ability. As humans, we have the ability to empathize and sympathize with pain and suffering. We care for the weak and injured instead of tossing them aside because we can understand their suffering.

ok, how is it that only humans have that intellectual ability and no other animal species has an intellectual ability even close to that magnitude? There would have to be neanderthals out there with the median intelectual ability to us.

That's just the way it worked out with evolution. Humans got lucky.

Look at how intelligent chimps, gorillas and dolphins can be. Can you just imagine if they had the physical ability to speak?

By the way, there are neanderthals out there. Trust me. I've dated a few.

reply | write to author | quote
animals rarely do anything without a reason.
Submitted by caposkia on Mon, 2007-07-09 16:48.

Susan wrote:

Animals don't do things out of anger or retribution. People do.

Animals don't look to "smack someone down" if their sister, mother, religion or whatever is insulted.

I do have to say that animals do in fact attack out of anger at times. Though their anger trigger would be very different than humans. Also, I agree, not for retribution.

Also, how would I go about insulting my cat's mother? Eye-wink
Susan wrote:

When the kitty piddles on the bed, first check RUN to the vet because it may be physical and kitty is trying to tell you it hurts. Not physical? It very well could be attention-getting behavior.

The cat does not piddle on the bed because it's "pissed" at you. (I get soooo tired of hearing people say that and believe it.)

When the dog destroys the doorframe or sofa pillows when you're gone, it very well may have separation anxiety. Or it may be that there has been a lack of training and attention. Maybe the dog is just plain bored because the owner leaves it alone for too long.

When a critter defends its territory, it's a survival trait to assure there's enough food. Case in point, when there is plenty of food, critters become much less territorial in the wild.

100% agreed. I do wish people were more in tune with their pets. They can't talk to us in English, but they do have a pretty strait forward way of telling us what they want or need.
Susan wrote:

For critters, it's instinct. For us humans, rape has nothing to do with sex, love or keeping the species going; it has to do with anger and control. Human rape has nothing to do with instinct.

yup, agreed

caposkia wrote:

I fear the wars will start to diminish the numbers of people in the world!

I do hope you're kidding.

of course I was, lol
Susan wrote:

That's just the way it worked out with evolution. Humans got lucky.

Look at how intelligent chimps, gorillas and dolphins can be. Can you just imagine if they had the physical ability to speak?

By the way, there are neanderthals out there. Trust me. I've dated a few.

lol, I hear ya there, but if I may, there is some higher intellegence out there among men. Ya just have to search a little ;p.

Anyway, if anything I almost feel this response enforces my view of how this chance of evolution; e.g. humans 'getting lucky' is somewhat farfetched. Humans getting lucky would mean many other animals would have to have bits and peices of this intellegence that humans have. Yes, I know the high intellegence of Dolphins and many other mammals, but most of them have a DNA structure further away from humans than other mammals not as intellegent.

Also, the odds that humans and only humans got lucky the way we did are close to 1x10 to the 60th power or so. I might be slightly off, but the odds are definitely better on winning the powerball. Check out the science for yourself.

it's my understanding, but as i always say to everyone, if you have any concrete specific information that clearly refutes that, I'm all ears... er... eyes in this instance.

snafu's picture

[quote caposkia]Humans

[quote caposkia]Humans getting lucky would mean many other animals would have to have bits and peices of this intellegence that humans have[/endquote]

You only have to look around you to see that this is the case. I would even go sofar to say that there are animals whose intelligence surpasses ours in cedrtain areas. For instance the Dolphin must be more intelligent than us when it comes to spatial awarenaess and 3D mapping of the environment because it builds a sonar picture of its surroundings. Likewise bats. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean when you say "this intelligence that humans have".

[quote caposkia]Also, the odds that humans and only humans got lucky the way we did are close to 1x10 to the 60th power or so.[/endquote]

I'd be interested to see where you get this figure from. You're also forgetting that, due to evolution, this "luck" doesn't have to happen all at once but can be spread out over the whole history of evolution. If you think about the number of generations there must have been since the beginning of organic life and divide your figure of 1x10 to the 60 then I'm sure the chance of each successive generation improving on its predecessor, not forgetting that organisms rarely produce one offspring, is actually pretty good.

(mine was the original blog that this arose out of.  I'm glad its prvoked such a discussion) 

"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens

Mikayla_Starstuff's picture

Humans are different from animals because...

I cringe whenever I hear someone say "Humans are the only animals that [do this or that or the other]". Each time we have thought that we were the only animals to do something, some scientific study has shot that down.

We used to think humans were the only ones to use tools. Chimps use tools.

We thought that were where the only ones to show empathy with the weak. Chimps do this. (http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2007/04/4209_how_chimpanzees.html).

Are we the only ones that care about members of other species? In the book Our Inner Ape, Frank De Waal told the story of a bonobo that helped a bird that had fallen by picking it up, carrying it up a tree, and holding it up with it's wings outspread. I don't remember eactly what happened but I think the bird eventually got airborne again. And this shows that that bonobo not only desired to help, but had some notion of what the bird thought and wanted--it had a theory of mind about the bird.

We really can learn a lot from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. 

So is it likely that we are the only species a sense of morality, which really comes down to a sence of empathy and fairness? 

I doubt it.

-Mikel

snafu wrote:   [quote

snafu wrote:

 

[quote caposkia]Also, the odds that humans and only humans got lucky the way we did are close to 1x10 to the 60th power or so.[/endquote]

I'd be interested to see where you get this figure from. You're also forgetting that, due to evolution, this "luck" doesn't have to happen all at once but can be spread out over the whole history of evolution. If you think about the number of generations there must have been since the beginning of organic life and divide your figure of 1x10 to the 60 then I'm sure the chance of each successive generation improving on its predecessor, not forgetting that organisms rarely produce one offspring, is actually pretty good.

(mine was the original blog that this arose out of. I'm glad its prvoked such a discussion)

Well, like I said, I was considering the fact that I was a little off on that 1x10 to the 60th.  I did the research becasue I truely cannot remember where I heard it, but then I found my answer.  I was way off.  What i found was from a biology Professor from the midwest " 

J. Galanek

He did the math for the odds, this is what he had to say;

 "The truth is that there are 0 examples in the over 250,000 fossil species record that has been compiled over the past 100 + years to corroborate evolution’s claims. That DNA is far too complex to be random. In fact one pin tip of DNA from one human has enough code to fill 500 stacks of books from the earth to the moon. Ask any computer engineer if that much code, or any for that matter, is random. The fact is that the mathematical odds of humans evolving from apes is 10 to the 40,000 (1040,000) power or one billion trillion, trillion, trillion to one."

However, I want to point out that evolution exists, it's very apparent and proven, however, the idea that one species evolved into a completely different species is just that far fetched.  The idea that a species evolves over years to accomodate it's living arrangements or abilities is much more plausable and in fact proven.  

Btw, if you can show me some statistics that explain otherwise, I'm all for seeing them and their source.  and by all means challenge the source above.  Maybe he was way off himself, I know the actual odds are very small for Darwinistic claims to actually hold water, so... 

I guess if all animals really did evolve from fish or a single celled organism, then I need to play the powerball more often.