Theistic evolutionists, shouldn't God be upset...

[yodachoda]

that we DON'T allow mass quantities of people to die off from starvation, disease, and predation at an early age?  If you take a step back and look at Earth from an evolutionary perspective, of all the millions of species that have ever existed, we are the only one that is an exception to natural selection, the so called law that God used to create us.  That means, in order for us to exist, our ancestors in east Africa had to have, probably like us, 4-5 kids or so.  But since they were under selection, their population remained roughly the same, so most of the people (well, primate like people) had to die early in life.  If they didn't there would be no selection pressure toward bigger brains and we wouldn't exist today. 

For us, we have been on an exponential increase and this seems "unnatural", no?  Maybe we are not yet the "goal product" of evolution and we are foiling God's plan by allowing the weak to live? 

[The Magic Pudding]

Maybe we are not yet the "goal product" of evolution and we are foiling God's plan by allowing the weak to live? 

We are only temporarily foiling god's plan, we'll probably crash soon and god's chosen cephalopods will take over.

[xSilverPhinx]

Maybe we are not yet the "goal product" of evolution and we are foiling God's plan by allowing the weak to live? 

We are only temporarily foiling god's plan, we'll probably crash soon and god's chosen cephalopods will take over.

Nonsense, god wouldn't want walking brains proving that he doesn't exist.

that we DON'T allow mass quantities of people to die off from starvation, disease, and predation at an early age?

Actually...we do. ??? isn't that what's going on in Africa? Down to other issues though, clearly.

For us, we have been on an exponential increase and this seems "unnatural", no?  Maybe we are not yet the "goal product" of evolution and we are foiling God's plan by allowing the weak to live? 

Economist thinking: disaster.

[reddevil0126]

Human evolution is not just simple biological processes, even though its starting point might have been; like bipedal stance, vocal system, brain size.  The product of those biological processes was a lot more than a simple biological entity: a being with a lot more complex mental and intellectual activities that have never been experienced before.  The early human ancestors brought art, religion, more organized society, politics, agriculture, science, architecture, and you name it.  You cannot exclude these factors in human evolution.  Social events like war as well as humanitarian activities might have been byproducts of those evolutionary processes.  Development of better organized society with technological advantages could have easily expanded, of course with expense of other species.  So the exponential growth might have been possible by destruction of other species.  In fact, after the most recent world-wide catastrophe (around 15K yrs ago), the most dominant factor for extinction was human activity.  This may explain the rapid growth of human species.

This kind of non-biological evolution brought religion, different political systems, cultural and intellectual systems.  IMO, the essence in these processes was individual freedom and liberty (sex might also played significant part as well).  So, the development of atheism is very natural in this respect, considering the role of religion in our history and even in modern society.       

[Tank]

Human evolution is not just simple biological processes, even though its starting point might have been; like bipedal stance, vocal system, brain size.  The product of those biological processes was a lot more than a simple biological entity: a being with a lot more complex mental and intellectual activities that have never been experienced before.  The early human ancestors brought art, religion, more organized society, politics, agriculture, science, architecture, and you name it.  You cannot exclude these factors in human evolution.  Social events like war as well as humanitarian activities might have been byproducts of those evolutionary processes.  Development of better organized society with technological advantages could have easily expanded, of course with expense of other species.  So the exponential growth might have been possible by destruction of other species.  In fact, after the most recent world-wide catastrophe (around 15K yrs ago), the most dominant factor for extinction was human activity.  This may explain the rapid growth of human species.

This kind of non-biological evolution brought religion, different political systems, cultural and intellectual systems.  IMO, the essence in these processes was individual freedom and liberty (sex might also played significant part as well).  So, the development of atheism is very natural in this respect, considering the role of religion in our history and even in modern society.       

Evolution is the change of allele frequency in an interbreeding population influenced by natural selection. That's it, nothing else. The fact that human intelligence leads to a uniquely wide range of actual and potential behaviours that can be acted on by equally complex selection pressures is what makes human evolution uniquely complex, but it's nothing 'special' and somehow outside 'normal' evolution.

[reddevil0126]

"Therefore,biological and non-biological (social) factors act together in human  evolution."

I should have stated "Therefore, social system is a significant factor in human evolution."

[Tank]

Evolution is the change of allele frequency in an interbreeding population influenced by natural selection. That's it, nothing else. The fact that human intelligence leads to a uniquely wide range of actual and potential behaviours that can be acted on by equally complex selection pressures is what makes human evolution uniquely complex, but it's nothing 'special' and somehow outside 'normal' evolution.

You should not ignore the contribution of social factors in the changes of allele frequency.  Arrival of human species, yes, it might have been mainly biological (I don't think it is not even close to 100%, considering behavior of other primates).  However, human evolution itself might have been significantly affected by other nonbiological factors that include formation of complex societies, new ethics and morals, cultures etc. Because these will affect mating habits as well.  Different social systems in our history affected mate selection process.  Different cultures brought different mate preference and mate selection.  Therefore, biological and non-biological (social) factors act together in human  evolution.  

I haven't ignored anything. Selection pressures can be physical and/or behavioural (social). But whatever the selection pressures are they operate on the allele frequency in the population by affecting survival, mate selection and reproductive success. Just like they do in the case of all sexually reproducing organisms. The selection pressures are uniquely complex in the case of the human genome.

[Whitney]

While social factors do affect survival (and therefore what genes win out in subsequent generations) it's important to not confuse our social tendencies as being something that is not biological...ultimately everything we do is rooted in our biology.  To state otherwise is introducing a soul-like view of our social abilities; for which there is no proof.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

One doesn't have to think that human evolution is anything different than the evolution of other species in order to be a theistic evolutionist.  Theistic evolution may simply accept that the initial conditions were set in order to eventually end up with intelligent creatures like us.  Given the initial conditions, no direct divine intervention was required during the process in order for our species to develop as it has. 

[Stevil]

One doesn't have to think that human evolution is anything different than the evolution of other species in order to be a theistic evolutionist.  Theistic evolution may simply accept that the initial conditions were set in order to eventually end up with intelligent creatures like us.  Given the initial conditions, no direct divine intervention was required during the process in order for our species to develop as it has. 

So the Adam and Eve, dust and ribs story thus proves the bible is fictional.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

One doesn't have to think that human evolution is anything different than the evolution of other species in order to be a theistic evolutionist.  Theistic evolution may simply accept that the initial conditions were set in order to eventually end up with intelligent creatures like us.  Given the initial conditions, no direct divine intervention was required during the process in order for our species to develop as it has. 

So the Adam and Eve, dust and ribs story thus proves the bible is fictional.

It proves that early Genesis is metaphorical.  It says nothing about the historicity of the gospels. It's not a one-size-fits-all analysis. Each of the 66 books of the Bible should be analyzed separately.

[reddevil0126]

While social factors do affect survival (and therefore what genes win out in subsequent generations) it's important to not confuse our social tendencies as being something that is not biological...ultimately everything we do is rooted in our biology.  To state otherwise is introducing a soul-like view of our social abilities; for which there is no proof.

Social behavior is rooted in biology.  However, in my view, maturation/progression in our social behavior may not be understood by biology itself.  Changes in our political system - monarchy, aristocracy, democracy etc - and progression in ethics and morality (like slavery, from retaliatory (in old testament) to more forgiving mindset (as in new testament), etc), I consider them evolution too - evolution in morality.  (I don't know what sociologists call it).  This mental activity-related social behaviors, even thought rooted in neurobiology, I can't explain it simply by biological factors (Or I don't know how to explain purely by biology).  But, these factors will affect our evolution more significantly than any other factors.     

[Tank]

While social factors do affect survival (and therefore what genes win out in subsequent generations) it's important to not confuse our social tendencies as being something that is not biological...ultimately everything we do is rooted in our biology.  To state otherwise is introducing a soul-like view of our social abilities; for which there is no proof.

Social behavior is rooted in biology.  However, in my view, maturation/progression in our social behavior may not be understood by biology itself.  Changes in our political system - monarchy, aristocracy, democracy etc - and progression in ethics and morality (like slavery, from retaliatory (in old testament) to more forgiving mindset (as in new testament), etc), I consider them evolution too - evolution in morality.  (I don't know what sociologists call it).  This mental activity-related social behaviors, even thought rooted in neurobiology, I can't explain it simply by biological factors (Or I don't know how to explain purely by biology).  But, these factors will affect our evolution more significantly than any other factors.     

The interesting thing here is that the more time people spend 'thinking' in the academic sense the less they reproduce. So people who don't 'think' as much reproduce more. Thus 'dumb' is evolutionarily advantageous in the short term. And the short term is the only thing that influences natural selection. I have three grown up kids. So far the academic under achiever is the one who has reproduced. The middle one is likely to reproduce. The one working on their PhD may well not reproduce as he is involved with another very bright woman who doesn't want kids to interfere with her career.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The one working on their PhD may well not reproduce as he is involved with another very bright woman who doesn't want kids to interfere with her career.

Maybe you could implant an embryo from them into the underachiever, and both would be happy?

[Tank]

The one working on their PhD may well not reproduce as he is involved with another very bright woman who doesn't want kids to interfere with her career.

Maybe you could implant an embryo from them into the underachiever, and both would be happy?

Rent a womb! You never know.