Evolution and human behavior?

Question

Now here's another one, put your thinking caps on. If human behavior is a result of evolution, and according to evolution things improve overtime, then why aren't humans peaceful loving creatures?

If not then, wouldn't you be implying that some people evolve to be violent and cruel? Do you excuse such behaviors as an mutation? Will man evolve to be loving? If man is not concern about his fellow man, and despite this improves his social conditions and of those around him, why can't his attitude evolve too? Who says that only being nice is good for the betterment of man. Why can't being cruel be good for the betterment of man. Doesn't being nice hold back human evolution?

No emotional answers please, only logical ones.

Not, everything happens as a result of evolution. Evolution doesn't only apply to dna and rna, it applies also to human behavior.

Togetherwithbeingcondescending, nice try. According to the definition of evolution it states:

Descent of organism from common ancestors with the develpment of genetic and phenotypic changes over time that make them MORE SUITABLE to the environment.

Plus: Evolution also explains how species ADAPT to specific habitats and ways of life.

With that said, if you have to adapt to something you are improving something. An adaptation is an improvement of something. According to the definition of adaptation as it applies to biology it states:

Biology: An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual IMPROVES its condition in relationship to its environment.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/adaptation;_ylt=Ahp_1.PvknrlbAg2XrvXhXSsgMMF
____

So I would advice you to get an education, and stop using cookie cutter tactics when you don't jack. This theist doesn't buy the BS.

Joe R, you are correct. Words like good and bad doesn't really fit.

"And any behaviour that contributes to the success of the culture can then be viewed as a 'good' thing."

That's kinda scary if you think about it.

By the way I gave you a thumbs up. Don't get too exicited now.

Leopold,

Where did I mention religion? I didn't mention anything about religion. Plus just because I notice a disparity in evolution and human behavior that does not mean that I am associating it with religion. Every criticism in evolution, the big bang theory, and Darwinism has nothing to do with religion. They have everything to do with gaps that scientist cannot explain. To use religion as an escape goat isn't logical it is avoidance.

Did I say things? I said humans. Plus life isn't just exclusive to humans, animals, and plants.
"there is no active improvement, only in the ability to survive. "
You know how backwards that sounds. How can there not be an improvement that doesn't result in the ability to survive? What you are saying is that survival just happens. It doesn't just happen. Even if the weak die off that is an improvement. If something is eliminated that could be looked as an improvement to the current situation. Without that weak link, things will be easier to accomplish.

"Given that, evolution does not predict that humans should evolve into peaceful beings."

At least you are partly correct. So what makes advances to evolutional human behavior better as it implies to survival. To be peaceful or to not be peaceful? If you say peaceful, then you would be partly right. But if a society is peaceful, they will not learn how to protect themselves. Heard of the peaceful monks who had to fight

The need to survive is constant.

Answer 1

Struggle and conflict is the path to change and growth.

And acting from self-interest often gets a bad rap.

Answer 2

Evolution affects the survival characteristics of a given species. These tend to come to be out of a need created by their environment (adaptation).

What survival characteristics are associated with being peaceful and loving? Objectively speaking, that has no survival value. On the other hand, being territorial and afraid of the unknown DOES have survival value (in protecting our food-bearing lands and staying safe within the familiar).

Coupled with the fact that humans no longer vie for mates, there's no 'survival of the fittest' or natural selection occurring. Virtually anyone can find a mate and bear offspring - no changes necessary. The human evolution process has most likely slowed to a crawl because of this.

What does that (most likely) mean? That we have a lot of old hold-overs from pre-history.

Answer 3

Evolution is such a complex force, that it created complex results. Being greedy, mean, selfish, etc is a positive trait to the individual. But if you take to the extreme, it will cause the whole population to suffer, thus being a negative trait. Being overly loving is positive to the population, but hinders the individual. Therefor, a balance is best reached to promote the species. When you think about all the different civilizations in all parts of the world in many cultures, and see how common they really are, you can see that we all have reached a similar behavior bot individually and as a group.

For example, murder has been universally seen as negative for most of history.

Answer 4

No, no, no. evolution does not improve things overtime and is not survival of the fittest. Differential reproductive rates MUST be involved.

When referring to behavioral evolution, only list biological traits:

Aggression, altruism, deferral are necessary.

If man is too altruistic in that he significantly limits his own success over the success of his group, than that factor might not be adaptive. Do laid back people become more successful as aggressive ones all the time? No, that's why it wouldn't be selected.

Behavior is most certainly evolutionarily guided. However, the limits of evolutionary and genetic influence on behavior delves into the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology is controversial, but I have reviewed its mathematics and logic and would be willing to lend it some credit.

Answer 5

Evolution improves an organism's biological structure to survive in its current environment. Some human behaviour (like walking upright on two feet) are the result of these structural improvement to man's anatomy. Other behavioral responses are determined more by free will and moral values which are non-physical adaptations and certainly more complex. For example responses to physical discomfort like hunger or to sexual impulses are determined by free will and moral values which are in turn determined by current environment (social and community values, legal framework, etc.)

Perhaps a thousand years from now, we will have longer thumbs if cellphones becomes part of our lives that long.
But whether longer thumbs make us a "better person" is an issue too complex to make any meaningful speculation at this time.

Answer 6

Conflict and cooperation are both built into the natural scheme of things.
Aside from questions of prey (you have to kill your prey, usually) and rivalry (fighting over territory or possessions) there is, in most cooperative species, a competition for leadership and status. This competition is not usually to the death, but sometimes it is.
So, aggression as well as cooperation are encouraged by evolution.
Cruelty (purposely causing suffering) may also have its place; in some cases cruelty has the function of encouraging bravery and endurance.
Evolution tends to find ways of minimizing the damage done by conflict. This is seen in the development of infectious diseases, which evolve more quickly than larger organisms. If a microorganism quickly kills its host, it destroys its own livelihood. A more successful microorganism would cause a milder illness that doesn't kill the host. An even more successful microorganism will benefit its host as well as itself; for instance the lactobacilli of the digestive system.
I don't foresee a conflict-free world anytime soon, though.

Answer 7

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with things getting better, where did you hear that? Evolution is a struggle between winners and losers of niche filling, this does not mean thing improve. When humans manipulate the genetic structure of plants and ended up creating a whole new class of super weeds is that improvement or when you was your hands in anti-bacterial soap and help create super germs is that an improvement? Human evolution is really nothing more than those who are able to spread their seed and the mother able to care for that offspring. Where you have to factor physiological attractiveness and physical traits with just plan old rape and incest.
The rose below me sums it up good.

Answer 8

Two words.

LIMITED RESOURCES.

If everyone had EVERYTHING they wanted, ALL the time, they would probably be peaceful all the time (barring mental imbalance.)

Mankind IS loving, but complex emotions are a relatively new feature of our species, and they wouldn't influence evolution anyway. Evolution is a response to environmental pressures, not feelings. That, combined with the fact that humans ceased evolving when they started to control their environment pretty much assures us that things are as good as they are going to get.

(BTW - being cruel CAN certainly be useful, but evolution HAS seemingly rewarded cooperation over competition in the case of our species. Go figure?)

Answer 9

First I must contest your suggestion that evolution states that 'things improve overtime(sic)' and correct you. Evolution (specifically, natural selection) merely causes life (not things) to adapt to enable it to survive in its current environment, there is no active improvement, only in the ability to survive. Given that, evolution does not predict that humans should evolve into peaceful beings.

Secondly, despite what I pointed out in my first paragraph, people /are/ more peaceful now than they have ever been. Humans today, for the most part, are not all trying to kill each other. Obviously there are exceptions, but you may notice that the conflicts are mainly over apparently religious matters than anything.

Answer 10

I think being rid of some of our aggression would help improve humanity's conditions, but I don't think aggression has been selected against in evolution up to this point. Of course, we may eliminate our selves through aggressive nuclear annihilation, or even selfish destruction of the Earth's resources. If things really are as bad as they all say, perhaps then aggression will be a factor detrimental to our survival. Of course, we always have had some degree of co-operation. Surviving as a group woking together allowed us to come this far.

Answer 11

If early man loved so much then he wouldn't survive. If he loved his neighbor so much then he would die. Early man did not need or even want neighbors in his territory. The neighbors would eat his food which was very scarce. As time passed and civilization evolved. Man no longer needed to be competitive and in fact needed to in harmony with his neighbors. Man's behavior actually evolve a little by making his social ties and contacts a lot more bigger. It was for the better because man survived more better by being friendly to other people because food and shelter were no longer scarce because if he wasn't friendly that would mean the frequency of fighting would be at its peak. Unfortunately civilization evolve more rapidly than man's behavior.