It is interesting that we are debating the level of "wrongness" that rape constitutes. Under the supposed assertion that long ago maybe it was less wrong. Fulhamish was correct it bringing up this criticism because evolution proponents do bring it up first when we write on this stuff. Pres Eden did a great job at explaining basic evolution earlier on and was spot on. Although I think he called me stupid - I am not certain exactly who he was directing that toward. Evolution alone, in its basic state doesn't get too far into human behavior. Most (not all) uniquely human characteristics would fall out of sexual selection dynamics - which doesn't help much. Hence the reasonable challenge of how does natural selection explain all or even some of human behavior? In the end it will always come up short. What evolution and natural selection does do is give us a mechanism to question and understand. Sometimes an answer resonates with the stuff we observe (not believe but observe) to be taking place in the world. Using evolution to describe human behavior is certainly a bit of a reach, but it does seem to yield results that help general understanding.

Rape is offensive and revolting - we can sit about and compete about how offended and revolting it is. I'm more revolted, no I'm more revolted, no me I'm the most revolted. Yet between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 women will face some level of sexual assault during their lifetime. Of course now we're just more revolted. But the ugly question is - why? Both why are 22% of women sexually assaulted AND why are we so revolted if this behavior is, while rare, nowhere close to elimination. It crosses cultures, continents and generations at a pretty steady rate. This is evidence that somehow it is part of us. So why?

Look at it momentarily from the other side. Not the side of the victim - the side of the revolted. The righteously indignant. The male gets to be protector and defender (a knight in his castle and all that). There is a very real and clear "bad guy" to motivate males to play this "crucial role". It has been 100,000 years since the lions and tigers and bears (oh my) routinely ate our kids and neighbors . . . big strong men with braun over brain should become obsolete quite quickly with the big critters driven out of the bushes - but no. We have ourselves to protect us from. When Dawkins invoked cultures where women are most severely oppressed, note that within those cultures it is under the guise of protection and safety and "cherishing" that the oppression is supposedly justified. What teenage guy hasn't been fed the line "you make me feel safe . . ." So long as there are real bad guys out there males continue to have a purpose under the might-makes-right banner. Is this THE explanation?. .. I don't know, but it is an explanation that makes one think. It is also a fascinating place that feminist philosophy and evolutionary psychology suddenly and unexpectedly intersect.

This will seem a non-sequitor, but with a bit of imagination it makes sense that it belongs in the same chapter under genetic propagation over 100,000 years. A number of guys out there are talking to girlfriends and wives. Here is a conversation topic that gets people going - though I wouldn't bring it up with a stranger in an elevator. Guys will typically pursue multiple sexual partners without emotional connection if given the chance. One night stands and the like. Note, this is not a 100% rule but certainly not a crazy generalization. In the same vain, women will assess males on one of two spectrums: Is he a good father, provider, protector, trustworthy? We all get that one. The surprise is another spectrum of quick analysis: I want to have his baby? Rarely it seems women will encounter a male and immediately and unexpectedly just think "I want to mate with this guy . . . don't want to know his name, don't want to know him - really . . . it would be better if he just didn't talk at all." The great lie is . . . "of course honey you score high in both!"

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/

"Although I think he called me stupid - I am not certain exactly who he was directing that toward."

Nein. I wasn't calling any one person stupid; I was calling a claim here that natural selection justifies rape (and the insinuation therein that proponents of evolution support rape) stupid, because frankly, it is.

FYI for those who in there late 30’s or older, the definition of rape has changed and expanded.

Back in the 70’s and 80’s if a woman went to a party or bar, had a few drinks (maybe to many) and woke up the next morning having had sex but no recollection of the sex being forced or objecting to it but also not an entire recollection of the course of the events that occurred up to that next morning would take accountability to the extent that upon reflection would later account ‘what was I thinking’ or ‘I drank to much’ or something to that effect.

Today, having talked to younger woman or woman I know who have children in their teen’s/early 20’s the opinion or social position has changed. Many young woman now feel if they wake up the next morning knowing they had sex but don’t remember the ENTIRE event, regardless of their personal knowledge that the sex was absolutely not forced or rejected by them, but feel any level of regret having had sex then they, in their minds, were raped. Yes, a growing consensus is that the feeling of ‘regret’ can be equated as having been raped because (I kid you not this is the rational as explained to me directly); “If the sex was 100% consensual then the feeling of regret or remorse would not exist. If the feeling of regret or remorse exists then I couldn’t be 100% agreeable to the act and therefore if I’m not 100% agreeable to the act then I was raped.”

Impressive research, Carpy. You should get a grant.

@fulhamish, you said: "Furthermore, I would ask those who instinctively support Dawkins if they believe that '' the hypothesis of Natural Selection will be able to explain all human behaviour''? I have asked this question several times on this forumn before and have been met with a stoney silence. " First off, why it met stoney silence from me at least was I found the question to be a peculiar one...

First off, is there anyone who claims such a thing? Secondly, natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution... others include mutation, genetic drift, and genetic flow... so natural selection isn't the whole picture of evolution, much less anything else. It is an element of the puzzle. Thirdly, one must realize that natural selection, though selecting individuals in a population as more or less fit, does not directly determine the behavior of those individuals... it merely determines which individuals pass their traits on to the next generation. And fourthly, there is the nature vs. nurture aspect... how much of behavior is genetic? Twins, though genetically identical, still have differences even growing up in the same household (and similarities in behavior growing up in different households)... it is not a clear-cut either-or.

So - I guess my answer is a definitive "no" - but not for the reasons you may have been implicitly suggesting (God, or some "designer", I imagine). So far, over hundreds of years of science, natural causes for phenomena found in the natural world have been sufficient to explain these phenomena without invoking spirits... Obviously, there are plenty of things yet to understand fully... but the "need" for an intelligent designer, though hard to definitively disprove, is also completely unproven. Said another way, the theory of a purely materialistic/naturalistic universe has not been falsified. The theory of evolution through variation and natural selection does a fine job of predicting/explaining behaviors of populations of organisms... it is not intended to predict/explain behaviors of individuals... Individual behavior can vary significantly from some average of a population - and, individual behavior can be very un-fit and not survive to the next generation (and so not be explained/predicted by ideas of fitness).

@spyman ''fullhamish do you believe human behavior is inconsistent with natural selection? ''

Well it is interesting how much of academia the paradigm has extended to. In no particular order we have:

1) Social Darwanism. For example, see the work of Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinism was a strong influence on the eugenics movement and Nazism (ref supplied if needed).

2) Darwinian economics. For example see the work of Milton Freedman. Here Darwinism is used to support the philosophy of the primacy of the market above all else.

3) Darwin psychology. For example see the work of EO Wilson who emphasis the need to enhance fitness by looking after oneself and one's immediate family above all.

4) Darwinian ethics. I came across a good example of this the other day with the work of from the Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University Julian Savulescu. He suggests that we sort and select embryos by intelligence to develop a fitter humanity equipped to face the challenges of the coming century. http://vimeo.com/7515623

I have rather skated over these issues (and no doubt there are many others which I haven't mentioned) as we have discussed them here on many occasions before, albeit the last one is something that has not come up yet.

Do I think that these issues help with the understanding of human behaviour? Most definitely not, unless one brings a very right wing agenda to the table and is looking to ''science'' to support one's political prejudices.

I also have specific problems with Dawkin's populist description of Natural Selection, which I can expand upon if you wish.

I believe that all

@ President. You write.... the insinuation therein that proponents of evolution support rape..........I do hope that you wern't accusing me of making this assertion when I went out of my way to write -.......'' I must be clear and say that they clearly thought it (rape) wrong in today's context. ''

Just trying to keep the debate polite, I hope that you understand.

And nowhere in Fuls ramblings was there an answer to the question if human behavior is inconsistent with natural selection.

And still he can't tell the explaning something apart from defending it.

@fulhamish, you (and others historically) mix natural selection with artificial selection... eugenics, for example, is not natural selection at all... it is selective breeding of humans. Natural selection takes care of itself and doesn't need human conscious oversight... indeed, selective breeding (as we see with dogs) often creates unintended negative mutations that are *not* selected out of the population like they would be in nature... so - selective breeding or eugenics by its nature is going to produce results that are often *less* fit in unintended ways than if nature proceded on its own. Unfortunately, opponents of evolutionary theory use this confusion (whether or not they share in this confusion is less clear) about "Darwinism" as a cudgel... claiming that Darwin or Evolutionary biologists directly or by extension support Nazism or similarly screwed up ideas... when nothing could be further from the truth. Survival of the fittest (which is a very relative idea - dependent on environment and survival strategy) is mis-used by Nazis and such (and fear mongers about the same) to support their prejudices about what they wanted to breed or exterminate... and has nothing to do with Darwin's original concept nor anything to do with modern evolutionary biological concepts.

@fulhamish, well, I can see to some degree how capitalism is seen by proponents as analogous to natural selection... however, they still try to control the environment in artificial ways by eliminating things they object to such as government regulation... when, really, it would be fair to see regulation as a natural part of the economic environment... and what libertarians/free-market capitalists want is an artificial construct more akin to a laboratory setting rather than an actual environment in nature. So... not very Darwinian.

As to Darwinian psychology... I can't speak to that to any degree as I'm unfamiliar with it... but it sounds reasonable enough to look after oneself and one's family as a path to happiness and success... though I'm not sure at all why Darwinian fitness in the larger sense should be an important consideration for the actions of an individual. Seems a bit overblown.

Darwinian ethics? Sounds like eugenics redressed. I don't see the connection between natural selection and artificial selection for some bloke's idea of ethics. Sounds creepy. Why do people keep wanting to mess with such things? Perhaps: 1) excuse for prejudice, 2) a misconceived idea of how evolution happens, 3) arrogance about our ability to design something so utterly complex.

If anything, eugenicists and Nazis and such are really more similar to Intelligent Design folks - they simply substitute themselves for God... and, in an amazing display of arrogance and foolishness, they believe they can better design people than 4 billion years of evolution has.

I don't see that evolution has done such a stellar job.

@ Dexter with respect you miss my point, and I apologise for not being clearer. The four examples I gave all seek to explain human behaviour with reference to natural selection. I think that they do no such thing; moreover, I am struggling to find a single explanatory example. Perhaps you can enlighten me by giving an example with a clear exposition of the mechanism involved. The mechanism issue is a vital one to adress if we are to talk in a scientific context.

@ Manganese ''I commend Ful on his awesome powers of telepathy.'' and ''And condolences on his inability to differentiate between explaining and defending.'' And now ''And still he can't tell the explaning something apart from defending it.''

Do you mean to refer to the the two analogies employed by Dawkins of of ''Muslim mysogony (genital mutilation etc.)'' and chewing gum? Is this an explanation and, if so, of what exactly?

(An answer minus the sarcastic a-h would be nice.) Correction....... any kind of answer would be nice. Go on Manganese give us an opinion, you know that you can do it, it is all inside of you waiting to come out.

manganese, perhaps not as great as we can imagine... but who says that our fancy is any decent gauge on what is possible or likely - certainly at our rather limited level of knowledge and ability?

Our efforts thus far to better nature include numerous disasters and I tend to believe that we will continue in that way... granted that evolution makes mistakes and ends up with some inefficiencies - but I'm concerned that our pace of technological change is so fast that we'll do something irreversible to ourselves or our environment and by the time we realize that it was a mistake for some other reason it will be too late. One of the most significant legacies thus far for the human race is the destruction of genetic variation in our food supply, for example. The green revolution has given us essentially four individual corn plants - cloned across the world (and similar concentration on very limited genetic variety in other food crops)... One epidemic effecting some vulnerability in those particular corn genetics and we're in serious trouble. One of the biggest strengths for a species to ensure that it survives and adapts quickly is genetic variation. With our moves towards designing ourselves and our propensity for one-size fits all (see also fashion models and cosmetic surgery) sets us towards working our own genetics into a similar corner.

"The four examples I gave all seek to explain human behaviour with reference to natural selection. I think that they do no such thing"
I agree. They have little to nothing to do with natural selection... and probably fall pretty short as far as explaining human behavior.

"Perhaps you can enlighten me by giving an example with a clear exposition of the mechanism involved. The mechanism issue is a vital one to adress if we are to talk in a scientific context."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you asking me to come up with one theory that explains everything in regards to human behavior? I think there are far too many influences for such a distillation to be effective.

Ful, your telepathetic abilities to discern unspoken agendas really did amaze me.

Your inability to discern a scientific model from political or philosophical movements loosely based on a misunderstanding of said model, do likewise.

@ dexter of course the opposite of the ''destruction of human variation'' is the increasre likelyhood of human speciation presumably via proto-species or races if you prefer:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
— Charles Darwin (The Descent of Man)

Dexter, I'm am not comparing the results of evolution to what, positive or negative, humans are capable of doing.

I am just stating the observable fact that it has come up with some really shitty designs.

But if I you (as your delightable false dichotomy craves) force me to choose between genetically modified babies grown in vat farms, and the continued reign of mass stupidity, I will be hard pressed not to sell my house and buy some vats.

Whether or not natural selection is the primary driver of evolution has no bearing which economic policies are best for our society, or socially policy or eugenics. You can be a communist and believe in natural selection, or you can be a proponent of eugenics and not believe in natural selection.

@ Dexter we seem to be in complete agreement about the inadequacies of natural selection to explain human behaviour, excellent. By ''mechanism'' I meant to enquire of, and discuss, genetic mutation and its obvious inadequacies as a driver for all of the various features attributed to the evolutionary paradigm.

Now may I ask you what you think of Dawkins' idea that natural selection works at the level of the gene? I consider it to be a classic example of his greedy reductionism (ref D,Dennet) do you agree?

@fulhamish, "@ dexter of course the opposite of the ''destruction of human variation'' is the increasre likelyhood of human speciation presumably via proto-species or races if you prefer"
Sure - there is a continuum between the extremes... and yes, new species arise all the time. But then species also go extinct all the time.

I don't get your point in your Darwin quote.

@ dexter, take little heed of Manganese, his only agenda is to be a ''scratch your eyes out bitch''. Move on everybody there is no debate to be had here.........

fulhamish said: "By ''mechanism'' I meant to enquire of, and discuss, genetic mutation and its obvious inadequacies as a driver for all of the various features attributed to the evolutionary paradigm." I'm still not following you here. Genetic mutations, natural selection and tons of time/generations - does quite adequately explain the variety we see. It's not like biologists were proposing the kind of severe and ridiculously rapid change one would have to see post-Noah's Ark in order to populate the Earth in the way it is.

One further note regarding the Darwin quote - Darwin, as was typical for the time, conflates here cultural advancement with genetic advancement... he, of course, had no idea about genetics - that revolution would happen well after Darwin's time. Darwin not having all the answers is not only unsurprising it is also irrelevant. We now know that human genetic variation is rather limited compared to other animals - far less than seen in common chimpanzees, for example... had Darwin known that I doubt he would have said that quote. But again, Darwin's personal prejudices, if any, are completely irrelevant to the value of his theory.

I don't think addition can explain the Navier Stokes equations.

fullhamish: "@ Dexter we seem to be in complete agreement about the inadequacies of natural selection to explain human behaviour, excellent."

fullhamish correct me if I am wrong, but you are implying that these "inadequacies" invalidate natural selection. Right. Is that what dexter morgan believes?

Human behavior might perhaps be understood as complex emergent property of biology, which in itself is an emergent property of evolution, of which natural selection is the main driver. The levels of complexity are many levels removed from underlying principles of the universe itself. Thus natural selection might not always be the best way of explaining human behavior. For example, I don't know why Manu won Dancing with Stars (Australia) last night. I thought Damien Leith was a much better dancer. The failure of natural selection to explain this miscarriage of justice in no way invalidates natural selection.

Back to my original question that you did not answer: Do you believe that human behavior is inconsistent with natural selection, and if so how?

"Human behavior might perhaps be understood as complex emergent property of biology, which in itself is an emergent property of evolution, of which natural selection is the main driver. The levels of complexity are many levels removed from underlying principles of the universe itself. Thus natural selection might not always be the best way of explaining human behavior. For example, I don't know why Manu won Dancing with Stars (Australia) last night. I thought Damien Leith was a much better dancer. The failure of natural selection to explain this miscarriage of justice in no way invalidates natural selection."

spyman +1

how much of this discussion is, has become, and/or disovled into rhetorical tautology?

I don't know, how much?