Human evolution and inferior races

[Juvenal]

I confess I was wondering if we were seeing a gentler Tiggy return.

I confess I was wondering who'd out him first.

[Carrikature]

I confess I was wondering who'd out him first.

I had my suspicions but was hoping I was wrong.


But I might be slow, as I'm still not convinced...

[phank]

Very good post!!!

Thank you, shuny. It also got me thinking, because I felt there was some substance to seer's complaint, it just took me a while to pin it down.

If we wish to get really abstract, we could say that any organism that dies while still (at least potentially) able to reproduce, has been "selected out" by whatever killed it. I think seer was almost, but not quite, on the right track trying to distinguish between natural and unnatural selection, and getting hung up by the fact that ANY death could be a selection event, regardless of the "naturalness" of the cause. And I felt you were also almost, but not quite on the right track noting that the events in question tend to be temporary and local.

I speculate that what seer was looking for wasn't the naturalness, but the biological-ness, to coin a really ugly term. These genicides do not, usually even accidently, select for any biological, heritable physiological feature or even pattern of alleles. They tend to be entirely political, cultural, even economic. NOT heritable charactieristics. Not that they aren't evolutionary, because as I pointed out, very very few genetic variations within a population are even selectable, much less beneficial. And if selection does not occur along biological lines, it can't be adaptive in any biological sense. Purely cultural battles, among humans, are essentially random (orthogonal) with respect to future biological survivability.

Now, Shermer and others have proposed that human morality, observably similar across cultures, COULD have been biologically selected, if it were consistently the case that those individuals who internalized rules suitable for human living circumstances (specifically, some version of the golden rule) tend to out-survive those for whom the rules weren't intuitive for whatever reason. It's possible, in other words, that some aspects of human psychology can be inherited as neural network structures in the brain. But "being perceived as a political threat by the dictator", not so much.

[Carrikature]

Now, Shermer and others have proposed that human morality, observably similar across cultures, COULD have been biologically selected, if it were consistently the case that those individuals who internalized rules suitable for human living circumstances (specifically, some version of the golden rule) tend to out-survive those for whom the rules weren't intuitive for whatever reason. It's possible, in other words, that some aspects of human psychology can be inherited as neural network structures in the brain. But "being perceived as a political threat by the dictator", not so much.

This is more or less my stance. The common biological underpinnings are inherited, but the specific applications are not.

[phank]

This is more or less my stance. The common biological underpinnings are inherited, but the specific applications are not.

I think it makes sense.

Remember a few years back there was talk about a "god gene", something biological and heritable about belief in god(s). And of course, some people jumped on this as "proof" that their god had stuck this gene into people to facilitate being worshiped. Maybe it was even the "soul".

That seems to have died down, but it seems evident to me that humans are born with ingrained neurological teleological thought processes. When children first learn to talk and ask questions, they don't ask HOW things work, they ask WHY things work that way. That is, what is the PURPOSE behind the way things work. The projection of a purpose onto everything was very likely a survival characteristic, since humans' predators mostly had clear purposes. And since purposes are not always obvious (and generally beyond human agency), the invention of a sort of overriding purpose-haver makes sense.

As you say, the underpinnings of teleological thinking are there (and very hard to overcome, even for scientists!), the specific gods are not.