Evolutionary dilemma

[supersport]

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young. Many construct homes and shelters...(all without knowing/understanding she's even pregnant) and do so with great care and attention to detail.

So I've got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food to their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous -- she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn't there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? Why go to the trouble of building a nest to protect the young? Wouldn't it be easier just to skip all that? I thought evolution was all about being selfish..........so why do so many animals put others' needs before themselves? What's the advantage to that?

2) Why wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature.....but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young...even when they're hungry. But wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it didn't starve? Mothers should be consuming their offspring everywhere in nature -- afterall, it would advantageous getting that extra nourishment.

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this "love" or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What's the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember -- evolution cannot plan ahead.

----

and now, two more bonus questions:

1) Evos say humans are more intelligent than chimps because of our big brains. Well if that is true, then why aren't Labrador retrievers twice as smart as chihuahuas?

2) Wouldn't it be "advantageous" for all animals to be intelligent like humans are? So why aren't they?

[cloudsrider]

Originally Posted by supersport

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young.

So I've got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous -- she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn't there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk?

2) Why wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature.....but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young...even when they're hungry. But wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it didn't starve?

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this "love" or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What's the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember -- evolution cannot plan ahead.

Wow - Because living things that pass on their genes pass on their genes. And despite the fact that you will not understand, that really is a complete and comprehensive explanation...

[scarlets79]

supersport, you continue to be the evolutionists nightmare. Congratulations.

[scarlets79]

PS. Sport, the only downside to your views is that you will never be interviewed on any Attenborough documentary. It appears you do not hold the party line. Intelligent independent thoughts are not welcome.

[ergaster]

Originally Posted by supersport

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young.

So I've got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous -- she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn't there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? I thought evolution was all about being selfish..........so why do so many animals put others' needs before themselves? What's the advantage to that?

Ur...survival of life....?

Oh wait---you just posted this to get a rise out of scarlets! He thinks you're serious!!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Well done, sporty!!!11!!1!11!

[CACTUSJACKmanki]

Originally Posted by supersport

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young.

So I've got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous -- she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn't there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? I thought evolution was all about being selfish..........so why do so many animals put others' needs before themselves?

Is this a serious question? This is ELEMENTARY. the advantage is that the mothers give their young a better survive and make the next generation. where do you think the next generation is gonna come from if the mother is totally selfish?

2) Why wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature.....but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young...even when they're hungry. But wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it didn't starve?

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this "love" or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What's the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember -- evolution cannot plan ahead.

same reason as above. Maintaining the species is the #1 priority.

and now, two more bonus questions:

1) Evos say humans are more intelligent than chimps because of our big brains. Well if that is true, then why aren't Labrador retrievers twice as smart as chihuahuas?

Youb have asked this before and it was explained to you then. It's not raw brain size, it's the ratio of brain-weight to body-weight.

2) Wouldn't it be "advantageous" for all animals to be intelligent like humans are? So why aren't they?

Not necessarily. it takes a lot of energy to run our brains and our brains take up a lot of space, partly why pregnancy hurts so badly. Furthermore, there may not be sufficient selective factors for many species. social animals are generally more intelligent than solitary ones because social interaction requires more brain activity to recognize social cues.

[scarlets79]

Originally Posted by ergaster

Ur...survival of life....?

Oh wait---you just posted this to get a rise out of scarlets! He thinks you're serious!!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Well done, sporty!!!11!!1!11!

all you can do is mock, his points crush your feeble thinking skills. Maybe it is easier for you to just repeat the party line so you don't have to think for yourself.

[B.C.Amarali]

Originally Posted by scarlets79

all you can do is mock, his points crush your feeble thinking skills. Maybe it is easier for you to just repeat the party line so you don't have to think for yourself.

His so called points are so poorly thought out that it is ludicrous, now go read Cloudsriders and CactusJack's posts to see how easy it is to answer.

I will now make a one word response that completely debunks his "argument".


Oxytocin

[supersport]

Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmanki

Is this a serious question? This is ELEMENTARY. the advantage is that the mothers give their young a better survive and make the next generation. where do you think the next generation is gonna come from if the mother is totally selfish?
.

bzzzt. that's not how evoluiton works. Evolution works because each individual is selfish and looks out for HIM or HERSELF. he/she does not live life for the benefit of others or because he or she knows that the next generation will be better off. Organisms do not do things because of future benefit....especially when it involves when the benefit involves someone else.


try again.

[supersport]

Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmanki

Youb have asked this before and it was explained to you then. It's not raw brain size, it's the ratio of brain-weight to body-weight. .

that's a new one. What does body weight have to do with intelligence? got a link to verify that piece of genius?

[B.C.Amarali]

Originally Posted by supersport

bzzzt. that's not how evoluiton works. Evolution works because each individual is selfish and looks out for HIM or HERSELF. he/she does not live life for the benefit of others or because he or she knows that the next generation will be better off. Organisms do not do things because of future benefit....especially when it involves when the benefit involves someone else.


try again.

Here it is again.


Oxytocin

[ergaster]

Originally Posted by scarlets79

all you can do is mock, his points crush your feeble thinking skills. Maybe it is easier for you to just repeat the party line so you don't have to think for yourself.

So where did you read this "think for yourself" chant? Must be a new idea for you, you've used it often enough. Betcha think it's real clever and devastating and everything, huh?



Sporty's posts get what they deserve. He's just feeling left out because we have a new plaything and he's not getting the attention he used to.

Let me guess--you DO believe what he posted though, don't you?

[supersport]

Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmanki

Not necessarily. it takes a lot of energy to run our brains

so. wouldn't more energy be advantageous?

[supersport]

Originally Posted by scarlets79

PS. Sport, the only downside to your views is that you will never be interviewed on any Attenborough documentary. It appears you do not hold the party line. Intelligent independent thoughts are not welcome.

[ergaster]

Originally Posted by supersport

bzzzt. that's not how evoluiton works. Evolution works because each individual is selfish and looks out for HIM or HERSELF.

BZZZT That's not how evolution works. If offspring did not survive to reproduce there would BE no individuals to be selfish or anything.

EPIC FAIL.

But it's not going to work. YC is STILL more fun than you right now.

[B.C.Amarali]

Originally Posted by supersport

so. wouldn't more energy be advantageous?

No, it leads to a much shortened lifespan.


As it is someone like Michael Phelps need to consume more than 12,000 calories per day just to maintain his strength and body weight.

[CACTUSJACKmanki]

Originally Posted by supersport

bzzzt. that's not how evoluiton works. Evolution works because each individual is selfish and looks out for HIM or HERSELF. he/she does not live life for the benefit of others or because he or she knows that the next generation will be better off. Organisms do not do things because of future benefit....especially when it involves when the benefit involves someone else.


try again.

No, individuals protect their genes. By aiding their young they are increasing the likelyhood that their genes will continue to persist in the population. This is what evolution is ALL about. if you dont understand this then you know NOTHING about evolution.
Bees spend TONS of time and energy on their young. Mammals and birds nurture their young. It is extremely pervasive in nature and is one of the more well understood phenomena.

[grannym]

Originally Posted by magisterludi

Re whether Labs are smarter than chihuahuas: I don't know that they're not, do you? If so how?
BTW, think body/brain mass ratio...

As the owner of two of them, I really do have to speak up, here, for chihuahuas. They weren't bred to be smart. They were bred to be cute. And intensely loyal to their owners. "Tiny but mighty!" Mine would die for me. The male has chased a 100 pound doberman down the street. Not smart, but cute and loyal.

The body/brain mass ratio is important, I think. Still, consider the difference in IQ between an Irish setter and a border collie. Border collies need to be smart; Irish setters don't, and aren't.

[wataru]

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young. Many construct homes and shelters...(all without knowing/understanding she's even pregnant) and do so with great care and attention to detail.

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young?

That kid is 50% identical to her. If she saves two over her life time she breaks even as far as getting her genes out there.

If she's only going to have one litter or has already had a few kids, then she's ahead. If she saves two kids and a cousin, she's ahead too.

And remember, mothers often give food to their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous -- she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn't there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate?

If the kid dies, she doesn't get her genes passed on.

Why the unnecessary risk?

For her genes, the risk is entirely warranted.

Why go to the trouble of building a nest to protect the young?

So her genes will be passed on. Evolution is gene centered, as well as population centered. The individual organism has a fairly minor role.

Wouldn't it be easier just to skip all that?

Yes, but it would defeat the point of having kids in the first place.

I thought evolution was all about being selfish..........

Sure from the perspective of a gene, and it is very selfish for those genes to ensure copies of them get passed on to the future. That means that organisms will do very unselfish things out of the selfish (metaphorical) nature of their genes.

so why do so many animals put others' needs before themselves? What's the advantage to that?

Their genes get passed on to the future. That's a pretty big advantage.

2) Why wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young?

That would defeat the purpose of having the kids in the first place and prevent the genes being passed on. The only time that would be any sort of advantage would be under starvation conditions where the kids wouldn't live anyway.

I know it sometimes happens in nature.....but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young...even when they're hungry. But wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it didn't starve?

And starvation is the only time it really happens in most of the more intelligent animals. For the less intelligent ones, kids are fair game, but they tend to have a lot of kids (too many for them to eat).

Mothers should be consuming their offspring everywhere in nature -- afterall, it would advantageous getting that extra nourishment.

But it would be very disadvantageous to the genes, which would in turn cause the genes not to get passed on to the future (or at least less of them would be passed on). Hence in a few generations that trait would disappear through natural selection. If you eat your babies, you don't have grand babies most of the time.

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this "love" or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What's the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember -- evolution cannot plan ahead.

It's very simple for both questions. Evolution is about passing your genes on to your grand children. If you let your children die or eat them, you have less chance of having grand children. If you don't have any grandchildren, your genes are gone and your trait of letting your children die or eating them does not get passed on.

The only exception being those species that simply have a lot of kids and then leave them or eat them. In this case, having a lot of kids ensures that some survive you and everyone else. If you get too good at eating them, then your genes lose and get weeded out of the population.

1) Evos say humans are more intelligent than chimps because of our big brains. Well if that is true, then why aren't Labrador retrievers twice as smart as chihuahuas?

Where does anyone say that? A lot has to do with brain structure as much as size, and it's about comparative size. That is, is a labs brain really twice the size of a chia's, in comparison to total body size?

2) Wouldn't it be "advantageous" for all animals to be intelligent like humans are?

No.

So why aren't they?

Being smart has a high cost. We're busy trying to kill ourselves and everyone else and fueling this big brain requires a lot of food and protein in particular. It's not advantageous to need that much food if food is scarce or if there's little protein in your environment.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by supersport

Why wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young?

Charles Babbage (mathematician and computer pioneer) once commented:

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Supersport's question above elicits a similar response in me...
F.
S.
T.
D.
T.