We are of course talking hundreds of millions of years and many contributing environments.
Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes
by cofty 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cofty
So when talking about "adaptation" above, we're definitely referring to physical/physiological (whichever is the proper term) adaptation and not behavior.
Hmm?
Our behaviour is influenced by our personality and preferences which are strongly influenced by our genes. So yes, our behaviour cannot be divorced from natural selection.
Our tendency to believe in supernatural things like god is an evolutionary adaptation. In other words, its in our genes. We descend from many generations of ancestors who had a genetic propensity to ascribe agency to random events. Was that rustle in the bushes caused by a sabre-tooth or by the wind? Our potential ancestors who didn't worry tended to become cat food before they could raise offspring. Similarly our ancestors were genetically programmed to believe and obey adult authority. Those who didn't got burnt, eaten, fell over cliffs or drowned.
Our religiosity is probably an atavistic feature that resulted from the influence of these sorts of genes. We ascribe agency to all sorts of things and we believe the memes passed on to us by the ancients.
-
DJS
Another example:
Consider Maslow's hierarchy and the Myers Briggs Personalty Type Indicator. There are 4 major personality types, and Guardians make up almost half of the total. Artisans and Idealists? Not so much. That is exactly what would be predicted when you consider the struggles to pass along DNA that have existed for 100,000 years. Those with the personality type to protect themselves and their offspring, and excel at safety/security/food (the bottom rungs of Maslow's hierarchy) would be the 'fittest' in the early parts of the homo-sapien journey (and get the girls).
Civilization likely had to be more firmly stablished before idealists and artisans, who sit at the top of Maslow's pyramid in the self-actualization categories, could flourish - and live long enough to pass along their DNA (and get the girls).
-
Ruby456
cofty I don't understand why you seem to need to nit pick. textbooks on evolution say adaptation to the environment and if that's okay for textbooks surely it is okay for me to do so? is there a particular reason why you would object?
-
cofty
textbooks on evolution say adaptation to the environment
Do they? Which ones?
Do you have that reference from Matt Ridley yet? The one where you claim he said he was only speculating.
-
Ruby456
matt Ridley never says he is only speculating and I have never said that of him either.
-
cofty
Ruby - Go back and read your previous comments.
You very clearly tried to dismiss the data that religiosity is genetic as speculative.
Matt Ridley shares a lot of imaginative personal opinion and speculation and freely admits to doing so. As a thinking person I can disagree with his opinion and speculation.
Matt Ridley openly admits that this is the speculative thesis he argues from
At that point I remind myself that Matt Ridley admits to speculating.I asked you for a reference in context to support these assertions.
When Matt Ridley presents abundant evidence for the influence on genetics on our personalities and choices there was nothing speculative about it.
McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen & Keyes 1999 cited in "Nature via Nurture" by Matt Ridley
I also provided you with a link to a similar paper...
-
Ruby456
Your edit of my post tells me that you did not understand what i said. If you read my unedited post you will see that I was simply saying that I would approach Matt Ridley as an active reader which is to say that I would not passively accept what he has to say. Is this being dismissive? NO. Part of active reading means that one would consider reviews of the book (something I'm sure you have done but don't want to share) why not? Most are positive but there are a few that advise caution. here are three
1.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/apr/19/highereducation.scienceandnature
2.
Matt Ridley. 2003. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human. Harper Collins, New York. 336 pp. $26.95.
I should mention a small exception to the book’s very high level of technical accuracy. NvN claims (p. 78) that twins raised together, seeking distinct niches, are less similar than twins reared apart. Students find this very intuitive, but I am afraid that the evidence does not support it. It is a major finding of behavioral genetics that twin correlations for many traits are nearly the same for twins reared apart and twins reared together (environmental similarities don’t produce behavioral similarities). But I don’t know of any examples where the correlation is significantly smaller for twins reared together. M. FRANK NORMAN University of Pennsylvania, USA
3.
Review of Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human.
Authors:
Source:
The American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 161(10), Oct, 2004. pp. 1932.
Page Count:
1
Publisher:
US : American Psychiatric Assn
Other Journal Titles:
American Journal of Insanity
In the chapter on schizophrenia, the author plays with a number of themes that he has picked up from the literature or from conversations with diverse characters in and around the field. I think he too readily accepts what he reads or hears at face value without regard for the inconsistency or banality of the conclusions that it leads him into. He concludes that there is something highly heritable about the syndrome and that "many genes clearly influence susceptibility to schizophrenia." But which genes and why is there no consistent linkage? He is particularly vague on epidemiology. There is a discrepancy here, and it matters. If one takes the first view one is quickly lost in speculation about diverse and elusive environmental causes. If one takes the second (in my view correct), uniformitarian interpretation one encounters the central paradox that schizophrenia is a genetic condition that persists in the face of a fecundity disadvantage. The book represents opportunistic journalism, not a serious inquiry into the origins of psychosis or humanity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Ruby456
btw I have read the book and it is a good read. thanks for recommending it but if you want to have a discussion you need to stop twisting what i have said and be more open, thoughtful and respectul. otherwise forget it. -
cofty
Ruby - You made strong assertions about Ridley's central point which turned out to be based on book reviews.
Did you read the paper in the OP? It is a peer reviewed study it is not speculation.
A few days ago you said you would not read the book, now you say you have read it. Wow.
If you have read it you will now have a better idea how thorough the research is showing the evidence for a connection between personality, life choices, beliefs and genetics.
______________________________________________________________
Identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.
Thomas Bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.
The correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter. His colleague. Kathryn Corson repeated the study with a different set of questions and got similar results - 69% for monozygotic twins raised apart and no correlation for dizygotic twins.
Similar huge differences were also found by large studies in Australia.
Which particular religion a person chooses is entirely environmental however.
McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen & Keyes 1999 cited in "Nature via Nurture" by Matt Ridley