Something that puzzled me about evolution?

Question

We adapted and changed due to the sole reason of survival. Why then do we have a conscious and have moral judgments? Techically we did not require these things to survive. We may have even done better in survival if we didn't have morals "nice guys finish last" in the wild in a dog eat dog world you'd imagine the most brutal, the most violent and the most powerful would defeat the nicest. Hence kindness and niceness should have been elimated from the genetic gene pool. Such as people who favored night time and heights have all died out due to dangers of the night and height. A man who lacks moral conscious would obvisiously benefit from survival more than a person who is nice and giving. Why have we evolved all other aspects for survival and yet evolve a trait that would harm us in survival? Dunno this doesn't seem to make sense

Answer 1

If Morals are Genetic:
Evolution does not simply create organisms with the most favorable variations. Rather, those with the most favorable variations survive. The variation of humans without morals (if it ever existed) would not survive well in a community of humans with morals, so this variation is not naturally selected. However, if humans did not have morals, and a variation led to a few humans with morals then these could survive just as well as those without, probably better because they would work together. This leads to the spread of the trait of morals over time, causing them to be predominant in our population.

If Morals are Not Genetic:
People develop morals because it allows them to benefit themselves best in a society of people. If you consider someone without morals, who strives to have the best possible life, this person would probably not be a savage if they live in a community. This person would quickly realize (although not necessarily consciously) that he should conform to society. From that point on, this person would appear as though this person has morals. His/her children would also see this, and they too would develop morals.

Answer 2

fortunately morals do contribute to survival. There are actually quite a number of studies on this subject especially in animals (it's a less loaded subject if people look at animals). Humans like a lot of other animals survive clearly better in a group (imagine your survival chances alone versus with 50 people if you are faced by a lion). And moral behavior improves the survival of a group much more than immoral behavior. In addition we usually are very aware who is nice to us and who isn't, and we will help people who have helped us, but we are much less likely to help people who we are currently mad at or we had bad experiences with. Or in a more simple manner, if you kill everybody around you, there will be soon nobody left you can cooperate with. And if you don't kill everybody you made a lot of enemies who will now be out to kill you. That's definitely not generating a stable and successful society.
I don't want to write a whole essay on this. But if you are interested you can look up the sociobiology of cheating (humans), look up game theory, or there is especially a lot on social insects. As people have wondered why insect societies are stable, despite there is just one egg laying queen. All the workers won't reproduce. Why would a system like that evolve and be good for the workers and not only for the queen. If you read a book about bees, wasps, or ants you will find the answer.

And you can use those links to start your research. The first link is an example how cheating can get punished, even in insects.

Answer 3

Well sir it depends how you look at it. People are driven by emotion. anger is an emotion. Our bodies need to feel love. Even the toughest of the toughest. Even the meanist person ever can become loving if he or she has a child and knows that the little one is depending on them. That is what seperates us from the beasts of nature such as the wolf, wolverine and the bear. But what also seperates us is our brains. We are highly intelligent compared to other living things on planet earth. Not all problems need to be solved with physical response. They can be resolved through discussion and leadership which is a human attribute. Love and kindness will alwasy be there for human beings, because people will always love their parents and there children. When a child watches there parents cry because they lost one of their parents that instills something in the child that will cary through into their adult hood. Besides it seems, if one was to look at evolution, that the world has become less chaotic since generosity and consideration for others has increased.

Answer 4

When you compare our physical characteristics to the rest of the animal kingdom, we are pretty pathetic. We are not fast, we don't have sharp teeth or claws, and we are weak.

Instead of developing better physical characteristics, we developed our mental capabilities, which included teamwork. It didn't take us long to realize that several humans working together were more effective than one working alone. It was likely, through this ability, that we developed our sense of compassion and empathy. Keep in mind, though, that this was a very primitive sense of consciousness: while we would care for our injured comrades, when they died, they were left uncermoniously where they fell. Honoring the dead wouldn't evolve as a concept for several thousand years.

In this day and age, however, you might be correct. Congeniality, manners, correct speech - they are all dying in western civilization. But don't consider this backwards evolution, just the downfall of our society.

Answer 5

"We adapted and changed due to the sole reason of survival."

Yes, but often cooperation is a strategy for survival. So it is NOT just "every man for himself" or "nice guys finish last." That is way too simplistic. For example, wolves and lions hunt and live in packs ... and so do humans. That "dog eat dog" phrase doesn't even apply to dogs, much less to humans.

Similarly, the instinct to protect one's offspring also has obvious survival advantages *for the genes that produce that instinct*. (This is what Dawkins means by the "selfish gene.") In fact, caring for your siblings or their offspring is a way of spreading your own genes ... or any family members.

But the real evolutionary source of "morals" is the same as that for intelligence ... a massive brain. With intelligence comes the logic of knowing that caring for others has long term benefits that outweigh any short-term gains from screwing them. It brings longer memories that recall old favors and injuries. It brings full-blown empathy ... the knowlege that your emotions, affections, fears, etc. are shared by others, and you can feel their affections, fears, etc.

"Morals" can be explained by all of these things ... it makes a lot of sense. Do I think it explains ALL of it. No. But that's my private, personal belief, and I have no way of proving that belief scientifically. I just believe it ... and that's good enough for me.

Answer 6

You've struck upon one of the most challenging questions in evolutionary science: How did altruism evolve? This is one of the central questions in a branch of biology called "sociobiology."

First, although we're the only species that can articulate our desire to help others into conscious moral judgments, we're not the only selfless species. Many social animals, from bees to rodents to mokeys, at times act in ways that put the interest of others above their own. What gives?

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

There are a few main theories out there, and rather than explain them in detail, I suggest looking at the above link. The leading theories, briefly, are kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Kin selection suggests that self-sacrificing animals will spread their genes successfully if their sacrifices help their relatives (who share their genes of course.) Recirocal altruism invovles the idea that morality is based in a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" sort of arrangement. We act morally out of a desire that others would do the same for us. (The old Golden Rule.) Theoretically, if such behavior were to occur in a group of individuals, they would all increase their evolutionary fitness.

Morality might also be an evolutionary artifact of sorts. We may have evolved powerful brains capable of abstract thought to help us survive, only to find that abstract thinking leads to notions of fair play and ethics and all that jazz. That's where some more philosophical arguments come in to play. C.S. Lewis argued that the existence of morality was the single best evidence for the existence of God. He wasn't arguing against evolution or in favor of creationism, just for the existence of a benevolent higher power. From Lewis's concept, it's not much of a stretch to imagine man as a highly evolved thinking machine, whose analytical brain made him receptive to divine morality.

It's all great food for thought. Enjoy!

Answer 7

Humans are symbionts and have symbiotic relationships with plants, animals and the ecosystem and cannot survive without them. Those who have been conservationists, ecologists, hydrogeologists, miners, toolmakers, farmers and hunters have survived, essentially survivalists, like the early settlers and nomads that lived off the land but did not abuse it. If we had no conscious or morality we would have no empathy for wildlife and the environment and fellow man. So for example, early man could have easily turned to cannibalism. We see no record of this happening.

Answer 8

You are absolutely wrong.

Humans are social animals. Being part of societies hugely increases our individual survival chances. Social behaviour depends precisely on the traits you say cannot be understood. They are essential evolutionary developments to reach this hugely successful social survival peak.

A good example is cooperative behaviour. Game theory can show that tit for tat behaviour is actually the most beneficial solution - it is precisely the result you would expect from evolution.

Answer 9

i forget the name of it but u do nice things for the greater cuase of the human race as a whole. By saving some1s life u may save the person who cures AIDS or cancer or something, thus allowing more of ur people to survive. Also, you hope that by helping some1 now some1 will help u later on if u need it. It focuses on the group mentality of people rather than the individual approach

Answer 10

We believe in something because of two reasons. 1. We as humanbeings always look for an answer to everything. (2) We are afraid.

Darwinism is possible, but flawed. If it was correct, howcome we arent seeing any major changes now. We could not have come to a rest (as you know the basic state of any object is chaos). Also the time-frame for the homo-sapiens to transform into humainbeings according to darwinian theory has not passed. That means technically, we shouldnt be humanbeings as we see ourselves today, yet. So thats Darwin contradicting himself.