|
On January 31 2008 00:57 f0rgiv3n wrote:
However-- If you take two twins and raise them in the SAME family they won't be the same either... So what that shows is that they are different somehow other than the way they were raised and their culture.
Of course they wont be the same ^^ nevertheless they will have some things in common ( language, acquaintances, education ...) But you know, humans are able to take decisions about their own existence so this is why we are all differents.
So this example only shows that genes arent really important regarding human social behaviour  it implies nothing about education or culture because free will can prevail on it  .
|
Read Pinker's "The Blank Slate" as well. In many studies of identical twins raised together or apart, the overall trend is that about 50% of the variation of most human characteristics (personality traits, intelligence, etc.) is due to genetics. Interestingly, the family in which they're raised has almost no impact over the long term. That is, whether identical twins are raised in the same or different families has almost no impact on their long-term personality traits, which tend to be quite similar in any case. The cause of the other 50% variance is unknown, believed to be through chance events or peer groups.
Edit: My point here is that although our behaviour isn't determined by our genes, research shows that genes DO play a large factor.
|
On January 31 2008 00:35 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:12 Xiberia wrote:
Both have a role. Genes lay the foundations, but your experiences are what shapes your personality. Facts please because if you take two babies twins ( so it is two ppl with the same genes ) and raise them in different families, when they will be adults their behaviours wont be the same. No offense but i dont agree . Culture and education >>>>>>>>>>>> Genes regarding human social behaviour Btw: saying that genes are important in human social behaviour is a standart idea among racist people.
So you're saying genes have no effect on a persons behaviour whatsoever? That is just simply not true. You seem to think that by stating that genes DO have an impact on an individuals personality, i mean that they are the only factor. That is however not what i meant. I simply meant that genes DO play a role. I also think that your enviroment has a greater impact than your genes, but the importance of the genome in regards to a persons personality can't be ignored.
|
btw catholic teology says that atheists who lived good life go to heaven.
|
One more comment closer to the initial discussion:
It's true that from a biologist's point of view, one can understand ethical behaviour very well in terms of the evolutionary advantage of promoting genes.
However, this doesn't mean that an individual's ethical decisions are directly caused by evolutionary reasoning. If a father rushes into a burning building to save his children, he's not busy thinking 'My two children will likely pass on more further copies of my genes than I would, so it is imperative that I save them', he's acting out of love, compassion, duty, and other very human emotions.
Now, evolution has shaped our reward systems so that we feel love towards our kin such that we'll tend to act as if we were maximizing our gene-spread. However, this doesn't replace or conflict with the usual (secular) ethics, or suggest that one should act to maximize their genes. You can be an evolutionary ethicist and still decide not to have children or be more compassionate than pure calculating reason would suggest.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that in evolutionary psychology, it's easier to write that "organisms do X to maximize the spread of their genes" than "organisms do X since genes have over time shaped their reward systems to on average encourage that behaviour".
|
On January 30 2008 20:11 Boblion wrote:
Human behavior =/= genes
Human behavior is related to culture NOT to genes ( except if your are mentally handicaped ).
So i disagree with you.
This is totally wrong. Genes lay the foundations for human behavior, they also constrain human behavior. Theres a reason humans are much the same all over the world. Whats your explanation for this obvious fact?
No matter how much cultural re-education you try to impose, even in the most totalitarian regime where all culture is controlled from the top, parents will still love their children, people will still respond to personal incentives, etc.
There have been numerous very catastrophic and horrible attempts in the 20th century to prove otherwise.
|
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
This is totally wrong. Genes lay the foundations for human behavior, they also constrain human behavior. Theres a reason humans are much the same all over the world. Whats your explanation for this obvious fact?
Genes lay foundations for primal human behavior ( eat / mate /survive ) moreover we havent the same ideas and opinion around the world. .... there are several cultures....
The constitution of United-States isnt written in your own DNA .....
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
No matter how much cultural re-education you try to impose, even in the most totalitarian regime where all culture is controlled from the top, parents will still love their children, people will still respond to personal incentives, etc.
There have been numerous very catastrophic and horrible attempts in the 20th century to prove otherwise.
????? Seriously re-read my posts please ....
You overstate genes part in human behaviour. You should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
This boy was like an animal until he was found by "civilized" people.
Btw: there are some parents who kill their own children ... Humans are way more complex than animals.
We should discuss via PM because i think that we are quite off-topic ^^
|
On January 31 2008 03:59 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
This is totally wrong. Genes lay the foundations for human behavior, they also constrain human behavior. Theres a reason humans are much the same all over the world. Whats your explanation for this obvious fact?
Genes lay foundations for primal human behavior ( eat / mate /survive ) moreover we havent the same ideas and opinion around the world. .... there are several cultures.... The constitution of United-States isnt written in your own DNA .....
All cultures are run by male-bonded social networks. All cultures human beings believe in the supernatural. All cultures human beings respond to personal incentives and incentives for their kin. All human cultures are based on kin networks. They are all built around family units that are based upon marriage or sexual union. In just about all human cultures, males generally desire fertility and youth in female partners. In just about all human cultures, females generally desire resource investment and long-term commitment from male partners. Etc. Etc. Kinda strange, don't you think?
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
No matter how much cultural re-education you try to impose, even in the most totalitarian regime where all culture is controlled from the top, parents will still love their children, people will still respond to personal incentives, etc.
There have been numerous very catastrophic and horrible attempts in the 20th century to prove otherwise.
On January 31 2008 03:59 Boblion wrote:????? Seriously re-read my posts please .... You overstate genes part in human behaviour. You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_AveyronThis boy was like an animal until he was found by "civilized" people.
A lot of animals require the normal social environment for their species when being reared in order to function properly as adults. Case in point- tigers raised in the zoo can't hunt properly in the wild, vervet monkeys deprived of social interaction make poor mothers and might even become slightly insane, etc.
For example:
Humans won't learn language if they never hear it spoken, but the ability to learn language IS hard-coded genetically. Unless there is a genetic defect, all human infants will learn and speak language simply from hearing any language at all in their formative years.
On January 31 2008 03:59 Boblion wrote:
Btw: there are some parents who kill their own children ... Humans are way more complex than animals.
There are animals that do that too.
|
Well i give up. We are off-topic anyway. Free will and culture dont exist -.-. DNA prevails.
Edit: ok one last ...
On January 31 2008 04:24 FieryBalrog wrote:
All cultures are run by male-bonded social networks. All cultures human beings believe in the supernatural. All cultures human beings respond to personal incentives and incentives for their kin. All human cultures are based on kin networks. They are all built around family units that are based upon marriage or sexual union. In just about all human cultures, males generally desire fertility and youth in female partners. In just about all human cultures, females generally desire resource investment and long-term commitment from male partners. Etc. Etc. Kinda strange, don't you think?
Kinda strange that Merkel runs Germany. Kinda strange that Hillary might be the next US president. Kinda strange that i m an atheist. Kinda strange that many ppl dont want to have children, blablabla and so on.
btw: sarcasm sux.
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
A lot of animals require the normal social environment for their species when being reared in order to function properly as adults. Case in point- tigers raised in the zoo can't hunt properly in the wild, vervet monkeys deprived of social interaction make poor mothers and might even become slightly insane, etc.
For example:
Humans won't learn language if they never hear it spoken, but the ability to learn language IS hard-coded genetically. Unless there is a genetic defect, all human infants will learn and speak language simply from hearing any language at all in their formative years.
I totally agree with it. A monkey wont be able to speak English because of his genes whereas a human will. Big news !!!
Nevertheless the fact that you learnt English as language isnt related to our genes it is related to the culture of your parents. That is why English isnt my main language.
On January 31 2008 04:24 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 03:59 Boblion wrote:
Btw: there are some parents who kill their own children ... Humans are way more complex than animals.
There are animals that do that too.
For the same reasons ?
We should start a thread DNA vs free will instead of polluting this blog ^^
|
The Big Bang goes against Black Hole Physics.
Here is how, if one ignores the "Dark Matter", which is theoretical, and has no proof, just "theoretical proof".
Black Holes suck anything in. Even light, we all know that. However, many people have been leaving the Black Holes out of the "theoretical Big Bang equation" as I would label it.
Black Holes, if one believes in them, suck in everything by great amounts of mass (or gravity, which is more accurate, because lead is heavier than per say hydrogen.) They are formed by great masses colliding/compressing in some way. Generally it has been stated, they are formed from two neutron stars, which collide, and then compress, until they start pulling everything in, making a Black Hole.
Not only does the Big Bang thoery exclude black holes in the equation, it also ignores the fact that matter does not just appear out of nothing, or else it would happen every now and then. Gravity is very clearly existent, due to the fact that things drop. Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), should be evident in some physical way, if you do not believe in a God. We should have evidence of more than one Big Bang, not a single massive one.
Black holes refute the Big Bang theory, because if all of the universe ever was compressed, it would turn into a black hole. It would obviously include a damn lot more than two neutron stars. It would include every single neutron star in our current universe, every star, and everything in this universe. It is impossible for a Big Bang to happen, without escaping a black hole, and if it is impossible for light to escape, it is also clearly impossible for any means of an explosian to happen.
Basically what I'm saying is;
1. Nothing can exist without a creator (a God), or atleast spontaneous generation on a broad, evident scale.
2. A single Big Bang, is not possible, it would be more likely for there to be many large mega-planets, explode into whatever we have in this universe.
3. There are some many people that do admit to believing in God (and God does exist), or else there are thousands/millions/maybe billions of people that are crazy, and would be persecuted (some even unto death), for a god of some sort.
4. Many people have been changed, and say that God is the reason for it.
|
On January 31 2008 04:33 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 04:24 FieryBalrog wrote:
All cultures are run by male-bonded social networks. All cultures human beings believe in the supernatural. All cultures human beings respond to personal incentives and incentives for their kin. All human cultures are based on kin networks. They are all built around family units that are based upon marriage or sexual union. In just about all human cultures, males generally desire fertility and youth in female partners. In just about all human cultures, females generally desire resource investment and long-term commitment from male partners. Etc. Etc. Kinda strange, don't you think?
Kinda strange that Merkel runs Germany. Kinda strange that Hillary might be the next US president. Kinda strange that i m an atheist. Kinda strange that many ppl dont want to have children, blablabla and so on. btw: sarcasm sux.
Just going to respond to this. I'm not being sarcastic anyway. Merkel/Hillary/whomever are figureheads in a giant governmental apparatus. This apparatus was constructed by male-bonded social networks, maintained by such, and is still maintained by such, all over the entire world- patriarchal society. This can only be explained through sexual selection exerting pressures on the human genome, and it does need an explanation.
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control.
|
On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
The explanation isnt genes... otherwise i wouldnt be human since i m an atheist.
On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control.
It is because of their DNA and genes ?
"i dont want children" -----> you say it is because of genes
"well wait, after reflexion i want children " ----> you say it is because of genes too.
So DNA can change ???? Mutants Ftw !
I think that you mistake genes and DNA for brain / ideas /culture ...
On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Just going to respond to this. I'm not being sarcastic anyway. Merkel/Hillary/whomever are figureheads in a giant governmental apparatus. This apparatus was constructed by male-bonded social networks, maintained by such, and is still maintained by such, all over the entire world- patriarchal society. This can only be explained through sexual selection exerting pressures on the human genome, and it does need an explanation.
Even is there are no "true" matriarcal societies there are several matrifocal and matrilinear societies known. How can DNA/genes can explain this ?
moreover
+ Show Spoiler +In the StarCraft universe, the Dark Templar Tribes of Shakuras are ruled over by Matriarch Raszagal. Near the end of StarCraft: Brood War, she is killed, and names her Prelate, Zeratul (a male), the new leader of the Dark Templar, thus ending the Dark Templar matriarchy. 
|
On January 31 2008 05:43 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
The explanation isnt genes... otherwise i wouldnt be human since i m an atheist. Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control. It is because of their DNA and genes ? "i dont want children" -----> you say it is because of genes "well wait, after reflexion i want children " ----> you say it is because of genes too. So DNA can change ???? Mutants Ftw ! I think that you mistake genes and DNA for brain / ideas /culture ...
Are you really this naive? Because something has a genetic basis every single individual in the species must express the trait in equal amounts invariantly?
Genes influence species-wide trends in behavior. Not every male natal group of chimpanzees actively hunt in cooperation. But some do. Yet the behavior has a definite genetic basis. Not all gorilla silverbacks put on the same displays or use threat displays in the same situations. Yet threat display is a behavior with a strong genetic basis. Etc.
Do you even know how genetics work? Genes vary, their level of expression varies, and genetically-based behaviors depend on environmental feedback. A fox that has a small litter in times of environmental stress might have a large litter in times of plenty. Basic example of same freaking genes, environmental feedback. Just because a human is thinking about it doesnt mean the options he's thinking and considering and discarding aren't influenced by his genetic make up. Of course they are.
To start with a basic point for humans- why do humans around the world love and invest in their children? Magic? Free will? Culture? Its a behavior with a very strong genetic, innate basis. And yet it manifests as love, as thoughts, as emotions as feelings. Obviously not everyone loves their kids. Some people even hate their kids. Yet the genes are still there.
|
On January 31 2008 05:43 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
The explanation isnt genes... otherwise i wouldnt be human since i m an atheist. Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control. It is because of their DNA and genes ? "i dont want children" -----> you say it is because of genes "well wait, after reflexion i want children " ----> you say it is because of genes too. So DNA can change ???? Mutants Ftw ! I think that you mistake genes and DNA for brain / ideas /culture ...
You keep responding to posts like you think everything we say is an extreme. We're not saying that our personalities are hard coded from birth. The point is that genes DO play a part. Or are you denying that too?
|
I love my family because of my genes. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA
On January 31 2008 06:13 Xiberia wrote:
You keep responding to posts like you think everything we say is an extreme. We're not saying that our personalities are hard coded from birth. The point is that genes DO play a part. Or are you denying that too?
No .
I m not saying that genes have no effect. I only said that culture/free will >>>>> genes regarding human social behavior.
Fiercybalrog are you denying that culture and free will play a part in human behaviour ?
|
United States22883 Posts
I think he's saying that neither approach is exclusively correct. Genes play directly into the way culture affects human behavior, as we are naturally drawn to those that are physically similar to us.
|
On January 31 2008 05:27 GeneralZap wrote:
The Big Bang goes against Black Hole Physics.
Here is how, if one ignores the "Dark Matter", which is theoretical, and has no proof, just "theoretical proof".
Black Holes suck anything in. Even light, we all know that. However, many people have been leaving the Black Holes out of the "theoretical Big Bang equation" as I would label it.
Black Holes, if one believes in them, suck in everything by great amounts of mass (or gravity, which is more accurate, because lead is heavier than per say hydrogen.) They are formed by great masses colliding/compressing in some way. Generally it has been stated, they are formed from two neutron stars, which collide, and then compress, until they start pulling everything in, making a Black Hole.
Not only does the Big Bang thoery exclude black holes in the equation, it also ignores the fact that matter does not just appear out of nothing, or else it would happen every now and then. Gravity is very clearly existent, due to the fact that things drop. Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), should be evident in some physical way, if you do not believe in a God. We should have evidence of more than one Big Bang, not a single massive one.
Black holes refute the Big Bang theory, because if all of the universe ever was compressed, it would turn into a black hole. It would obviously include a damn lot more than two neutron stars. It would include every single neutron star in our current universe, every star, and everything in this universe. It is impossible for a Big Bang to happen, without escaping a black hole, and if it is impossible for light to escape, it is also clearly impossible for any means of an explosian to happen.
Basically what I'm saying is;
1. Nothing can exist without a creator (a God), or atleast spontaneous generation on a broad, evident scale.
2. A single Big Bang, is not possible, it would be more likely for there to be many large mega-planets, explode into whatever we have in this universe.
3. There are some many people that do admit to believing in God (and God does exist), or else there are thousands/millions/maybe billions of people that are crazy, and would be persecuted (some even unto death), for a god of some sort.
4. Many people have been changed, and say that God is the reason for it.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap.
|
On January 31 2008 06:15 Boblion wrote:
I love my family because of my genes. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA
Laugh all you want, its true Why DO you love your family? Whatever the reason its, it wasn't your decision, so I don't even see why you would get upset if it was deeply rooted in genetics (which it obviously is).
On January 31 2008 06:15 Boblion wrote:
Fiercybalrog are you denying that culture and free will play a part in human behaviour ?
No I'm not. I am denying this:
On January 31 2008 06:15 Boblion wrote:No . I m not saying that genes have no effect. I only said that culture/free will >>>>> genes regarding human social behavior.
and, what I am saying, which is a little more sophisticated than you seem to give people credit for, is that genetics and evolutionary history place constraints - limits - on cultural modification of behavior. Behaviors that are too far outside the permissible realm introduce stress and poor health. Memes that are too far outside the acceptable or plausible don't catch on. Etc.
Here is a meme: "we should arrange society in such a way that our children are raised collectively by the state in mass nurseries from the day they are born."
Perfectly feasible.
Will never catch on, even if a totalitarian govt introduces it, people will fight every step of the way and it won't change their feelings.
Why?
Humans are genetically incapable of subscribing to such beliefs en masse.
Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
|
On January 31 2008 07:42 man wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 05:27 GeneralZap wrote:
The Big Bang goes against Black Hole Physics.
Here is how, if one ignores the "Dark Matter", which is theoretical, and has no proof, just "theoretical proof".
Black Holes suck anything in. Even light, we all know that. However, many people have been leaving the Black Holes out of the "theoretical Big Bang equation" as I would label it.
Black Holes, if one believes in them, suck in everything by great amounts of mass (or gravity, which is more accurate, because lead is heavier than per say hydrogen.) They are formed by great masses colliding/compressing in some way. Generally it has been stated, they are formed from two neutron stars, which collide, and then compress, until they start pulling everything in, making a Black Hole.
Not only does the Big Bang thoery exclude black holes in the equation, it also ignores the fact that matter does not just appear out of nothing, or else it would happen every now and then. Gravity is very clearly existent, due to the fact that things drop. Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), should be evident in some physical way, if you do not believe in a God. We should have evidence of more than one Big Bang, not a single massive one.
Black holes refute the Big Bang theory, because if all of the universe ever was compressed, it would turn into a black hole. It would obviously include a damn lot more than two neutron stars. It would include every single neutron star in our current universe, every star, and everything in this universe. It is impossible for a Big Bang to happen, without escaping a black hole, and if it is impossible for light to escape, it is also clearly impossible for any means of an explosian to happen.
Basically what I'm saying is;
1. Nothing can exist without a creator (a God), or atleast spontaneous generation on a broad, evident scale.
2. A single Big Bang, is not possible, it would be more likely for there to be many large mega-planets, explode into whatever we have in this universe.
3. There are some many people that do admit to believing in God (and God does exist), or else there are thousands/millions/maybe billions of people that are crazy, and would be persecuted (some even unto death), for a god of some sort.
4. Many people have been changed, and say that God is the reason for it.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap.
GeneralZap, as well as a few others, please try to keep your discussion on topic. If you feel strongly about your argument, please either save it for another time, or find another place to post it. Thanks. My advice however, if you wish to use science to prove the existence of god, is to at least become a little more well read first. Try starting with Stephen Hawking. I've noticed videos of his about on Youtube.
|
On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote:
Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
What the fuck seriously ? what totalitarisms have to do with culture / genes ?
If totalitarisms didnt worked it was because people enjoy freedom ( oh for sure it is because of DNA -.-).
You are also describing a kind of totalitarism with your DNA / genes stuff, you deny ppl free will:
- you love your family because of your genes. If you dont like your family it is because of your gene too ( obviously ).
- you are ( not ) good at school because of your genes
- you are posting on tl because of your genes
- bablbalbblalbalblalbla because of your genes
What a wonderful ideology. Heil DNA !
Sry if i'm Bm/stupid/whatever you want it is because of my genes 
edit: after reflexion i understand your idea.
And as a nice guy ( because of my genes ) i will tell an ever better idea. Your social behaviour isnt related to your genes but to atoms because we are all made of atoms and even genes are made of atoms !
I deserve a Nobel prize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
