>> As for dogs saving babies its not difficult to see the benefits. That dog is 
>> made for life by that one risk. Its now king dog. The cats in the 
>> neighbourhood must be kicking themselves. They do all the serious symbiotic 
>> work keeping the vermin population down and some stupid dog puts on a big 
>> display and steals all the limelight.
 
You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward. What if 
the dog saved the baby, then after the child was safely out of the water it 
went on its way? It's a stretch to give the dog that much strategic abstract 
capacity to be able to make the link that -- if I save the drowning child I 
will collect a huge reward. Now I know dog's can be crazy smart and they 
certainly do seem to be able to read us very well, but that is giving them too 
many superpowers -- for a dog... though sometimes I get the impression my dog 
can easily read me and that I am an open book to him :)
 
Chris D
 

________________________________
 From: chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
  


 
Hi Chris

I think alarm calls are explained adequately by the benefits afforded to 
individuals in a group that share some genetic material. If you are a monkey 
with a few  brothers and sisters in a troupe and plenty of cousins then a lot 
of 'your' genes get protected
 by putting yourself at risk by alarm calls. Whatever genes underpin alarm 
calling then have a good chance of passing on.  If members of another species 
then derive some benefit from that then that in fact is a form of cheating. 
There might be mutual cheating
 insofar as both species might have evolved alarm calling and both noticed the 
alarm calls of the other species. I dont see the need to invoke group selection 
here.

As for dogs saving babies its not difficult to see the benefits. That dog is 
made for life by that one risk. Its now king dog. The cats in the neighbourhood 
must be kicking themselves. They do all the serious symbiotic work keeping the 
vermin population down
 and some stupid dog puts on a big display and steals all the limelight.

Acts of kindness to complete strangers is harder to explain. I think humans 
evolved in small groups where genetic relatedness was high. Even though we live 
in groups of thousands and even millions in cities our behaviour reflects what 
would be adaptive in much
 mich smaller groups. 

All the best




--- Original Message ---

From: "Chris de Morsella" <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
Sent: 14 August 2013 3:05 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

  
Chris P – I agree, classic Darwinian selection is usually sufficient to explain 
the presence of traits, such as altruism (which as you noted is not a 
specifically human one) as long as one extends it to account for group survival 
fitness. This hypothesis would seem to be supported by a high correspondence of 
genetic closeness with altruistic behavior.  
It becomes a little more indirect when for example one considers the case where 
loose groupings, comprising of multiple species exhibit this behavior. For 
example in the case of the various monkey and bird species that seem to forage 
the tropical rain forest together, the individual animal that sounds the alarm 
call for some predator is increasing its own risk of becoming predated in order 
to alert individuals who may not even be the same species. I still think 
however that by increasing the overall group fitness of the loose multi-species 
confederation that individual benefits, on average. The linkage is however less 
clear. 
Altruism however becomes harder to explain – using Darwinian selection -- when 
it is pure altruism, such as an act of kindness to some complete stranger (that 
provides no easily discernible benefit to the individual initiating the 
altruistic act) or even a cross species acts of altruism, which on occasion 
seem to occur, for example the classic headline say of “stray dog jumps into 
pool saves drowning baby”. This pure altruism that occurs between individuals 
that are not closely related is what interests me most. In these cases what is 
the fitness payback for the individual who behaves in the altruistic manner; 
unless it is the indirect fitness payback that comes from that individual’s act 
helping to build in a higher degree of altruism into their social group 
dynamics thus helping to lower transactional costs perhaps. 
Cheers, 
-Chris D 
  
  
From:everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong   
  
Hi Chris d m

The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism 
by which the machinery of translation, transcription and replication evolved. 
As cellular organisms became more complex this mechanism gives way to vertical 
genetic transfer which
 then dominates evolution. They call this hypothetical period the Darwinain 
Transition. At this point selection at a genetic level takes over. I cant vouch 
for the ideas plausibility.

I think that selection at a genetic level is enough to account for altruism. 
Hamilton's law predicts that behaviors will be undertaken so long as the 
benefit multiplied by the degree of genetic relatedness outweighs the cost. 
This equation gets healthy support
 from the study of bees, wasps and ants etc where the unusual 2/3 relatedness 
between female siblings gives rise to unisially co-operative behaviour and 
between sisters.

All the best




--- Original Message ---

From: "meekerdb" <meeke...@verizon.net>
Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong  
On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:  
What co-evolutionary traits have been shown to have occurred in dogs and cattle 
because of their association with humans (so which are therefore part of the 
equation)?  

Dogs are just wolves that, thru (un)natural selection have evolved to bond with 
humans as with a pack.  Cattle similarly evolved to be docile and tolerant of 
humans.


 
For example with sheep – is sheep dog behavior evolved? Or are they expressing 
genetic potential that was already innate in their species? That would also be 
an interesting example, if it can be shown that an evolved set of behaviors 
(e.g. instincts) developed in those dog species that were bred for working with 
cattle or sheep that is absent in other dog species that there are epigenetic 
and/or DNA encoding differences that are related to and underpin the behaviors 
and traits being observed. 

Wolves herd sheep too, so there was innate potential.  But dogs can also learn 
a lot of words.  I don't know whether wolves can or not.  That might be an 
evolved capability.

Brent 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
   
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to