1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How did Love Evolve

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by sandy whitelinger, Oct 29, 2005.

  1. sandy whitelinger

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    Scripturally speaking it is not reciprocal. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. I John 4:10
     
  2. Angama

    Angama Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +12
    As I said, only enough to survive. And I can help someone survive without loving them. I don't follow?

    AA
     
  3. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    It's not about what you or I do to/for other individuals - it is what the species does. Studies in one of the Scandivian countries have shown that without interactive love human children have less chance of surviving. Animals would become extinct rather quickly without maternal love. Mother's love is seen and duplicated in the recipient.
     
  4. sandy whitelinger

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    Isn't an integral part of the theory of evolution survival of the fittest? It still seems to me that the more love evolves (that is assuming it did) and that caring and nuturing the weak are part of love, that love would insure the survival of the weaker. Wouldn't this cause a weakening of the species and circumvent evolution?
     
  5. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Yes, it is. But the definition of fittest is not the strong, per se, but those that can adapt, reproduce and bring the offspring to reproductive capability within a particular environment. The "weak" primarily refers to the young who are not able to survive without assistance.
     
  6. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    Just some thoughts.
    animals have different stratagies for caring of offspring. Quality (K) verses Quantity (r).
    In r dominate species its not how you care for your kids its how many of them you can make, the best exaples of extreme r species are animals like sponges, oysters, and so on. They pump out millions of eggs and sperm and after that thier job is done. Without any further assistance of the 5 million eggs produced by the oyster for example only a few hundred will survive.

    Lobsters are less r ... they carry thier eggs (hundreds of thousands of them) untill they hatch then the mothers job is done and the microscopic larva must fend for themselves.

    This pattern continues throughout the animal kingdom, the more parental care involved the fewer offspring you have. Caring for offspring is difficult and it takes a lot of the parents time and effort... even placing the partents own life at risk. However the fewer children you have, the better care you can give them, the higher the survival rates for those children become.

    Extreme K oriented species, such as us Humans, Apes and Elephants, have only one (relitively rarely more) child at a time. How often they do so varies and this is part of how we can see the evolution of human "love".
    Chimps for instance have only one child at a time, the mother will not be fertile again untill her current child is old enough to fend for itself. This take about two years. Male chimps have little to do with thier offspring, and rival males are not above killing the infant to get mom "in the mood"... she also can't count on much help from the other females, they have problems of thier own. Thus Chimp reproduction while effective at producing high infant survial rates is slow.

    The same goes for Elephants who have one child every five years... because this rate is so much slower than Chimps, Elephants came up with a way to improve thier childrens odds of survival. Once again males have little to do with the kids, but instead of leavin mom allone to fend for her child, her female relitives come to her aid. They will all share in looking out for the baby. Males are frankly emotionally unstable and are kept away from the infants. The baby can grow up and will (if female) stay with the herd for the rest of her life, over 60 years.

    Extreme K has its problems and both the elephant and the chimp are facing extinction due to it. While you put so much time in effort into one child the death of that one child has a greater effect on the species as a whole. One plague can wipe out whole generations and threaten the whole species with extinction. One extremely effective predator (humanity) can kill healthy adults faster than they can be replaced by new generations.

    Humans are the most successful of the extreme K species... the key to our success is our use of two parent care and group care.. and our tecnology. From a biological only perspective.. we are successful because while we breed slowly one child every few years, we can have multiple children of multiple ages at the same time. (my sister for instance had seven)
    How do we do it, we have a better support system. Not only does the Father stick around to help but grand parents, aunts and uncles and so on help out.

    Now what about altruism... well that is older than humanity as well. Care for the sick and elderly existed ammong the Neandertals, as evidenced by [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]"Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints" who dispite not having teeth survived for quite some time and by the Shandar finds... one of a man with a withered right arm and who had also suffered a crushing injury to his left eye that likely blinded him for at least a while, both injuries had healed... only possible if someone was helping him. Another Shandar individual had a piercing injury to his ribs and the wound showed signs of healing, though the fact that it didn't heal completly indicates that was what killed him... both individuals had been purposely and carefully burried.
    Homo erectus also cared for his elderly and likely his sick... in [/size][/font][size=-1] Dmanisi a toothless skull was found, the bone around the teeth was grown in indicating he had been toothless for some time. Without teeth he would have needed help in eating and likely in getting food in the first place.

    so at least altruism predates us... by careing for others you improve your species chances of survival...and if you care for others, others will in turn care for you. :D

    wa:do
    [/size]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Cynic

    Cynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,437
    Ratings:
    +182
    So what happens if we don't love the Christian God in return?
     
  8. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    You are totally incapable of love.............:biglaugh:

    (surely you could have worked that out for yourself ?)
     
  9. Cynic

    Cynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,437
    Ratings:
    +182
    So all those who aren't Christians are incapable of love?
     
  10. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    well, it is plainly obvious, isn't it ? - it is the only conclusion; you poor non-Christians have been deluding yourselves into parrodying the surface visible signs of love, without really understanding what it is all about..................:biglaugh:

    (in the very unlikely event you think I am being serious, I am not, I assure you)
     
  11. Angama

    Angama Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +12
    It truly sounds like you are confusing love for caring. To say that I love my species like I love my girlfriend is absurd. Cause I don't. Anything I would do for the species is only to preserve myself. I can see that with caring, but loving them? Sorry, I disagree.

    AA
     
  12. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    [QUOTEMINE] I knew it. You're a bigot, and you've always been a bigot. How dare you insinuate that non-Christians can't feel love?[/QUOTEMINE] ;)

    Is your girlfriend an ape?

    You seem to be misunderstanding somewhat - nobody ever made the claim that each human loves each other human the same. However, each human is capable of love within the species - and unless your girlfriend is not a member of the species, that's what we're talking about. The species, as a whole, possesses the characteristic of love. Each individual - such as the Scandinavian children - loves a specific person.

    By the way, Pah, where is this study? It doesn't sound very ethical... children having less of a chance to 'survive?'
     
  13. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10553454&dopt=Abstract
    http://www.familyhelper.net/arc/inst.html
    I think we can disregard the medical problems mentions as not originating in the institutional care given

    http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2003/0214neglect.shtml
    I thought it was a Swedish study but I could not find one.
     
  14. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,709
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    What if a loved one is not in the species, What then? Would you risk your life for someone you don't love?

    If one pushes far enough on this statement you will see why Anagama see's it as caring and not love.

    Loving a specific person can only serve as a danger to species as a whole. Just think about it..;)

    ~Victor
     
  15. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    actually love for specific individuals is good. It enhances community function by ensuring that everyone in the community cares for at least one other member of the tribe/clan/whatever.
    Love for your mate inhances your abilities to create and raise children... love for the children inhances your ability to care for them... Love for your parents inhances your ability and desire to help them.... and so on and so forth.

    as for interspecies love... An African Lioness adopted an Eland antilope calf. She groomed, and guarded the calf from predators... she eaven let the calf nurse from an Eland cow. This wasn't even her first adopted calf, but her second. :D
    Sadly the first calf was killed by another group of lions while she was absent. (either sleeping or eating I can't remember off the top of my head)

    wa:do
     
  16. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    Ok, a retrospective observational experiment, then? That makes more sense.

    Two different questions?
    If a loved one is not in the species, then I'd expect you'd still treat he/she/it the same as a loved one within the species. After all, the word "love" stands for quite a powerful emotion. Could you give an example of someone truly loving someone outside of their species? Then we could go from there.
    Would I risk my life for someone I don't love? Within the species - perhaps. "Love of country" would make me risk my life, even if I don't love each citizen personally. If I were a highly paid bodyguard, I also might not love the one I risk my life for...

    I meant it only within the context of what was said. Each member of the species has the capacity to love other members of the species (or... not of the species).

    If you qualified that statement by saying "Loving ONLY a specific person," then I might be inclined to agree. As it is, though, I only have to think up one counter-example to disconfirm your statement.
    Let's see: husband loves wife. Husband and wife procreate. Children are beneficial to the species. How is that harmful? (I know this man COULD be having sex all willy-nilly with every girl he meets and producing more children, but even the few he has with this wife are still beneficial to the species - not to mention the strong familial bonds and their positive impact on society!)
     
  17. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,709
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Which is caring? Not loving..

    Exactly..

    I have no idea...but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was saying that most all people won't even extend that love within the species. Caring yes, love no.
    Caring is technically all that is needed to to have the species move forward.

    ~Victor
     
  18. Darkdale

    Darkdale World Leader Pretend

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,216
    Ratings:
    +413
    Been watching for a while... anyway, Victor, could you define love... or at least tell me how many definitions it has? This thread confuses me because love is used in so many ways. I'm not sure I know what it is everyone is talking about.
     
  19. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,709
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I gave you my definition of love a while back and you didn't like it. But even your own definition will work for this thread. Whatever love is to you could you extend that to a whole species? I don't believe one can.

    ~Victor
     
  20. Fatmop

    Fatmop Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +64
    Well, I was under the assumption that when you said 'loved one outside the species' you meant a person ACTUALLY FELT "LOVE" FOR SOMETHING OUTSIDE ITS SPECIES. So sorry if my response was based on too literal an interpretation of your words.

    You're saying most people within the species never fall in love? Never love their families? Either you're being vague with your definition of 'love,' or you need to send me some statistics that I must be unfamiliar with.

    If you mean, judging from your most recent post, that the love a human being feels for a wife or child can not be extended to the WHOLE species, then yes, we're agreed. That's pretty much what I was saying all along, and maybe I was unclear - a person will not value all members of his/her species equally. However, all members of the species have the capacity to love AT LEAST one other being.

    Frankly, most species don't even need that much. However, I can see how caring would be all that humanity needs to move forward; I also happen to think that the bonds of love do humanity a service.
     
Loading...