Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina  Re: Debate (Actually I'm really scared!) But when I pull myself together I post.OK.  |
Hey ... I'm a nobody. I had to read the Wiki on Lamarkian Theory. I'm impressed. I think you are in OZ. Did u see Channel 2 the other night. It was all about the resurrection of neo-lamarckian ideas with some excellent lab results ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina Once maybe clobbering the opposition on the head with a rock may have been necessary for survival...but for over 6000yrs we have had technology that has allowed the "anti-life" humans to have dictate the terms of survival. Weapons don't equal strong genes! What it has ensured is the survival of a certain type of mentality. |
There is no difference here. Strong Genes are not necessarily the most fit genes. If you kill with a bigger weapon you ensure your percentage DNA increase in the gene pool. in this sense you have the 'strong' genes. I see no great difference in our humanity or intelligence since our speciation 100,000 years ago. Our genes have certainly not changed. if you could travel back and steal a child from a Homo-Sapiens that lived 100,000 years ago and return to the present with that child .. then .. he/she would grow up as a normal person becoming a brain-surgeon, astronaut, or even someone posting on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina (In earlier post some discussed EVIL as reverse of LIVE. So can I suggest that your statement (reworded) below reads:'evil' may be judged as that which opposes LIFE. |
Yes ... thats cool .. I had never spelt it backwards before !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina Why did the human choose "morality" as survival route? And this is assuming morality has much to do with our problems. |
I am wary of the word 'choose' here. Lets say a genetic mutation occurred in one person and the mutation consisted of a more compassionate reaction to situations. Less violence and agression.
Lets say this mutation allowed that person to live a little bit longer than average, possibly thru a returned favour from another of the tribe, through someone else sharing their food with this person as a result of some past action, or something similar.
Lets assume this little bit of 'extra life' allowed this person to procreate one more time. In other words, one extra child ... and so pass on 'compassionate' genes.
This persons offspring now occupy a slightly, ever so slightly higher percentage of the gene pool. And all these offspring are slightly more compassionate. And so it goes on, and on, always increasing until the most agressive individuals genes are occupying a lesser and lesser percentage of the pool. Eventually we are all descended from this one compassionate mutation.
This may sound far-fetched but the human genome mapping project which is testing as many races and individuals as possible is discovering these 'Milestone' individuals or ' 'Adams' and has found direct descendants who are still living on the same spot. We are all related to these 'Adams'.
cool bananas ... greg