On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666



budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Ed Yong atwww.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

Exactly. But of course this kind of thinking challenges the very
fabric of religious dogma. If the organized religion can no longer
sell "morality", then they're in deep shit.

Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

Budikka

Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

Exactly. But of course this kind of thinking challenges the very

On Aug 28, 9:54 am, John Locke <johnlocke98... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666



budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Ed Yong atwww.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

Exactly. But of course this kind of thinking challenges the very
fabric of religious dogma. If the organized religion can no longer
sell "morality", then they're in deep shit.


I wouldn't say "deep shit" because believers will believe anything
anyway. But if it gets hammered home enough into public consciousness
the nutters will loose a lot of credibility on one of their favourite
fallacies (sorry, arguments).

So true. I keep forgetting that religion has a lot of other crap they

Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

Budikka666 wrote:

No gods required.



Budikka

you are sorely lacking in world history, world events and world tradition

Budikka

Budikka666 wrote:
No gods required.
Budikka

you are sorely lacking in world history, world events and world tradition


Heh heh, compared to YOU??

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA
Al)" <alwhipp at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On Aug 28, 9:54 am, John Locke <johnlocke98... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666



budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Ed Yong atwww.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate
Research Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to
probe the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show
the strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them -
friends and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave
similarly. Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the
prosocial tokens when the other monkey was a blood relative. They
were also willing to help out unrelated members of the same group
but the line stopped at unrelated strangers, who only received a
tasty treat during half of the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed
down ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy.
All humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

Exactly. But of course this kind of thinking challenges the very
fabric of religious dogma. If the organized religion can no longer
sell "morality", then they're in deep shit.


I wouldn't say "deep shit" because believers will believe anything
anyway. But if it gets hammered home enough into public consciousness
the nutters will loose a lot of credibility on one of their favourite
fallacies (sorry, arguments).

So true. I keep forgetting that religion has a lot of other crap they
can sell to the deluded flock. Salvation from damnation is still a hot
item. (oops, bad pun)

Budikka666 wrote:
Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.



The main thing it shows is that you do not understand the relationship
between morality and evolution. Some of our moral thinking probably
results from our evolutionary heritage, as most of our actions do. But
there is a fundamental difference between evolution, which DESCRIBES what
happens, and MORALITY, which PRESCRIBES what action SHOULD be taken. It
just plays into the hands of theists to suggest that morality can be
derived from evolution. As Dawkins and many others have pointed out, the
point is that humans can make choices that override evolution.

Budikka666 wrote:
No gods required.

Budikka

you are sorely lacking in world history, world events and world tradition

How does using a brain, itself the result of evolutionary development,
override evolution?

Budikka666 wrote:
No gods required.
Budikka

you are sorely lacking in world history, world events and world tradition

Budikka666 wrote:
Ed Yong atwww.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience:
http://tinyurl.com/6dsesl
Reviews a peer-reviewed science paper which studied altruism in
capuchin monkeys. The work was done by a team under well-known
primate researcher Frans de Waal, at Yerkes National Primate Research
Center.
Yong writes: "The capuchins hailed from two different social groups
and the team's close knowledge of these cliques allowed them to probe
the boundaries of the animals' charitable side. Humans show the
strongest degree of empathy towards those closest to them - friends
and family - and you would expect the capuchins to behave similarly.
Indeed they did, and were most likely to pick the prosocial tokens
when the other monkey was a blood relative. They were also willing to
help out unrelated members of the same group but the line stopped at
unrelated strangers, who only received a tasty treat during half of
the trials."

In short, they evolved this behavior not because some god handed down
ten commandments, but because it's a great survival strategy. All
humans have done is taken that evolved behavior a step or two
further. No gods required.

The main thing it shows is that you do not understand the relationship
between morality and evolution. Some of our moral thinking probably
results from our evolutionary heritage, as most of our actions do. But
there is a fundamental difference between evolution, which DESCRIBES
what happens, and MORALITY, which PRESCRIBES what action SHOULD be
taken. It just plays into the hands of theists to suggest that morality
can be derived from evolution. As Dawkins and many others have pointed
out, the point is that humans can make choices that override evolution.