furthermore, since i have argued the case for platonic idealism, it's stupid of you to criticize me for quoting plato himself.

@ dexter, so from your posts it seems as though you are left with just memes and NS to explain the evolution of human behaviour

1) On memes I would say this (courtsey of Alistair McGrath)

1. There is no reason to suppose that cultural evolution is Darwinian, or indeed that evolutionary biology has any particular value in accounting for the development of ideas.

2. There is no direct observational evidence for the existence of `memes' themselves (I would add that this is the most telling criticism).

3. The existence of the `meme' itself rests on an analogy with the gene itself, which proves incapable of bearing the weight that is placed upon it (I would add particularly in respect onf the transmission of ideas being viewed as single mutations coding for particular traits).

4. Quite unlike the gene, there is no necessary reason to propose the existence of a `meme'. The observational data can be accounted for perfectly well by other models and mechanisms.

I would add

5) There is no code script

6) It proposes the reduction of highly complex and inter-related ideas into a series of singly isolated pieces of ''information'', each subject to the supposid laws of NS. This again smacks of greedy reductionism to me.

Now maybe they will turn out to be the equivalent of some great undiscovered ''steam engine'', using dexter's analogy, who knows? I would simply point out and, I am sure that on other circumstances he would agree, science by analogy is fraught with dangers.

2) On Natural Selection dexter's answer on a single recipiant of a mutation potentially specifying an advantageous moral characteristic in the general population is terribly over-simplistic and highly implausible. Would ypu, for example, like to be the only guy with the atruism gene in the hunter gather group? I wouldn't, quite frankly, give much for your chances of long term survival. Moreover, what is always missing from this type analysis is a proper account of other mutations coding for differing or even competing advantages. We are always seemingly in the position of taking a single trait in isolation and saying - ''are yes that must have been coded for''. Moreover rarely, if ever, in terms of human behaviour, do the proponents of NS point to a single gene/sequence of nucleic bases and back up their hypothesis with hard data. It wouldn't do in physics, geology or chemistry, strange how it is acceptable in this matter.

@fulhamish,
I'm, regretfully, growing tired of the conversation... but I'll respond to your latest. Starting at the end:

"Moreover rarely, if ever, in terms of human behaviour, do the proponents of NS point to a single gene/sequence of nucleic bases and back up their hypothesis with hard data. "

Your ignorance is not an argument. Most traits, even hair and eye color, are affected by more than one gene. The idea that one can look for and find a single gene for, let's say love, is absurd when even hair color is not that simple. But yes, there has been enormous progress in figuring out such things - you are simply ignorant of that fact. ...and do keep in mind that even sequencing the human genome is a pretty recent advance... figuring out what each gene does and how it is triggered or how it interplays with other genes is an immense puzzle... but Biologists are making significant progress on this.

If your comment was meant in regards to memes, then it is completely off-base... as no serious person proposes that a meme is carried genetically.

"Alistair McGrath"?? Wikipedia informs me: "Anglican priest, theologian, and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture"

Not exactly what I would call an expert on the topic.

"There is no reason to suppose that cultural evolution is Darwinian"

Oh really??

We go from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial to information... We go from polytheism to monotheism (progressively - with holdovers like sacrifices) to progressively less literal interpretations that account for expansion of human knowledge about the world... We go from tribal sharing to barter to gold to paper money to electronic money... We go from hieroglyphics to alphabetic writing... We go from monarchy (with classes and slaves) to representative democracy (with classes and slaves in varying degrees) to representative democracy (with classes less pronounced and slavery abolished and full suffrage and some direct democracy mixed in)...

We see each of these societal behaviors supported by ideas (memes if you will) start in a place and spread - through example and migration and conquest and word of mouth and writings and media... And you say there isn't evidence of memes? ...and I'm being much more ambitious in my examples that Dawkins apparently was in his book (I haven't read it yet). Wikipedia notes: "Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion and the technology of building arches." I'll follow up on one that I stumbled across a few weeks ago... the idea that blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Everyone these days probably assumes that this is a universal and long standing idea base on some instinctual "femininity" of pink and "masculinity" of blue. Not at all true. As recently as the 1940s this standard was not arrived at... Clothing manufacturers/retailers were in some cases promoting quite the opposite. Eventually the current meme won out and is now the dominate meme by a long shot. Ever hear of the marketplace of ideas? I bet you don't object to *that* phrase... but when the very same thing is called a meme by well known devil Richard Dawkins, then it must be wrong. Here's the link about pink and boys: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

"There is no direct observational evidence for the existence of `memes' themselves"

Total nonsense. See above. See also this quick example of numerous ones I've seen over the years... In this case, in a controlled experimental environment, the meme - the idea suggested to the participants changed how they judged a situation - in this case, crime: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/02/17/is-crime-a-virus-or-a-beast-how-metaphors-shape-our-thoughts-and-decisions-2/

"The existence of the `meme' itself rests on an analogy with the gene itself"

Not at all. Certainly Dawkins thought about genes first and memes second - but the idea is not dependent on genes. I don't care if people were made from clay 8,000 years ago, they still obviously trade in ideas... those ideas have differing utility and fashion... are spread and shared and written about... are adopted as strategies to "fit in", to be sucessful in one way or another, or some similar... If anything, a meme is a more obvious and less technical concept than a gene. For one thing it requires no scientific background to understand. Secondly it requires no mechanistic genetic coding to explain it.

"There is no code script"

Of course not! These are ideas - not chemical instructions for protein production. Though I guess you *could* actually say that language is the code... genetics depends on only 4 nucleic acids in endless patterns... ideas in English depend on only 26 letters - again in endless patterns.

"Quite unlike the gene, there is no necessary reason to propose the existence of a `meme'. The observational data can be accounted for perfectly well by other models and mechanisms."

Sure... maybe. But the fact that there are functional models that fit the data does not preclude additional possible models that also fit the data. This McGrath guy has no idea how science works, does he?

"It proposes the reduction of highly complex and inter-related ideas into a series of singly isolated pieces of ''information'', each subject to the supposid laws of NS. This again smacks of greedy reductionism to me."

Only in your greedy reductionist misunderstanding of the laws of Natural Selection. Your view of genes is rather primitive. I recommend some serious reading of... well, Dawkins himself would do nicely (assuming you could get past your bias against him)... but there are plenty of others.

"On Natural Selection dexter's answer on a single recipiant of a mutation potentially specifying an advantageous moral characteristic in the general population is terribly over-simplistic and highly implausible. Would ypu, for example, like to be the only guy with the atruism gene in the hunter gather group? I wouldn't, quite frankly, give much for your chances of long term survival."

Actually Jesus might be a good example of such a mutation. And yes, his survival was limited by his contemporaries who mostly were not ready for the new memes, if you will, that he was arguing for. Eventually, however, these memes spread far and wide and have proven to be very successful, haven't they. Along the way, numerous martyrs attest to the resistance of the old memes to the new ones (competition in memes) but eventually the new ones won out. ...and such memes - of cooperation and peacefulness and faith - will also act on a population genetically - as people select mates based on their "moral fibre" or their compassion or generosity... so, something can start out as an idea, and then become more and more reinforced both as an idea that works and as a criteria for mate selection and social acceptance.

Once again, though - your thought that it would reduce to a single gene lays bare your ignorance on the matter. Not that I expect much more than that from a non-scientist... probably most lay people think in such terms... the problem is when you speak with an aire of authority on a subject about which you are ignorant. Most people at least realize that they don't know much about biology. You, having read theologians and Christian apologists, believe that you do and are more willing to fight about it than to learn. I would take someone who knows they are ignorant and wants to learn over someone who is obstinately confident that they already know what they need to know on the topic (having read nothing of value on the topic).

I can provide a couple of quick examples of a cases where a single gene *does* SOMETIMES have a dramatic effect on behavior... even now, in our very early pioneering days of genetics... Links:
https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/mouse-model-mirrors-social-quirks-of-williams-syndrome

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/01/19/saucy-study-reveals-a-gene-that-affects-aggression-after-provocation/

And an example of where a gene has a pronounced behavioral effect... but the outward expression of that effect is culture dependent (essentially two different cultures respond to an internal feeling differently):

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/08/16/genes-and-culture-oxtr-gene-influences-social-behaviour-differently-in-americans-and-koreans/

Well if you are getting ''tired'' then of course I will give you the last word on the matter. No matter that I disagree with more or less all of what you say. Thanks anyway for the conversation.

Just to defend McGrath, and as dexter has looked up wiki, I thought that I would actually fill out what dexter says here: "Anglican priest, theologian, and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture"

With the next but one sentence given on dexter's reference, which reads like this:
McGrath is noted for his work in historical, systematic, and scientific theology, as well as his writings on apologetics and his opposition to antireligionism. He holds both a DPhil (in molecular biophysics) and an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Oxford.

But no matter he is a theist, so he must therefore not be trusted and condemed, such as the nature of the new atheism

@fulhamish,
Granted that I didn't read that far (about McGrath). Sloppy of me. Sorry.
(What the f is "scientific theology", btw?) This isn't ultimately about the religious beliefs of the scientist... there are plenty of scientists - even plenty of biologists that are believers in god. Though obviously he makes his living on religion - not science. What is more pertinent is that the quotes you gave me for his ideas are, in my opinion, totally worthless. He makes unfounded assertions which I pretty easily refuted. Perhaps I don't understand the context in which those assertions were made by McGrath - or some other reason that I'm missing his point. But, as explained in the previous post, there is significant reason to not take the assertions seriously as they currently stand...

I'm not saying give me the last word... but please - though I've entertained some conversation about genetics and evolution, I feel like I'm teaching someone who doesn't want to be taught. (Which is a pointless exercise, believe me). If you don't understand the basics about evolution - what is the point of debating about how evolution might affect morality?

Again - I'm not asking for the last word... but I don't want to post involved and linked responses that directly answer your doubts and refute your assertions (*providing evidence*) if you're going to hang onto your doubts and assertions so tightly that you won't consider that you might be mistaken. For example... your assertion, more or less, that genes don't affect behavior (more exactly that they don't affect moral codes - which is surely a set of behaviors and emotions about said behaviors)... I presented specific cases where single genes dramatically affect behavior - indeed behavior that could easily feed into morals - mostly about aggression. Here's another one - sexuality:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/bisexual_flies_and_the_neuroch.php

There's not much point in me making points if those points are never heard by you. Thus my tiredness. Engage me, by all means... but engage with more effort at absorbing what I'm saying and, more importantly, what I'm providing distinct evidence for. If you say there is no evidence... and then I provide evidence... then you still believe there is no evidence... then there is a breakdown at some point. That is why I'm getting tired. I still haven't heard any response to my post from 5 pages ago (other than you being upset that I assumed [correctly] that you are a Creationist skeptic). And really, from my standpoint, I believe that conversation should either address those general aspects of evolution and how it works so you don't continually misunderstand how it works - and/or we should address specific evidence (of which I've offered some - most recently of both behavior being caused by genes and of experimental evidence of memes affecting judgement of an ethical question in a measurable way). Your move, good sir.

gregoire, I apologize. It was rude of me. I probably need to become better acquainted with the great philosophers, and then might have a better understanding of what people are talking about. Some stuff goes over my head.

@ dexter you have a habit of saying sorry in a way which makes it clear that you are not really sorry. Just to repeat the man has a PhD in molecular biophysics. Quite frankly I believe you did indeed read it and deliberately omitted it. Secondly there you again implying that I am a young Earth creationist, when I told you originally that I was a creationist, only in so far as that I believe that the universe was created. Again, in my view, a deliberate misrepresentation of my position by you. I too am growing tired.

@fulhamish,
Further... Perhaps you can present your (or McGrath's) theory on what explains behavior? I am open to thinking hard about it. If behavior is not determined at all by genetics and evolution and is not at all determined socially (by a similar process of variation and social selection)... then what? What is your model... please also provide (as I did) links to actual evidence that supports your model. Thanks.

"Quite frankly I believe you did indeed read it and deliberately omitted it."

Perhaps hard to believe - but yes, I literally stopped reading when I got through the sentence I posted and partway into the next (where it mentioned what position he held).

"Secondly there you again implying that I am a young Earth creationist, when I told you originally that I was a creationist, only in so far as that I believe that the universe was created."

I do not propose that you are Young Earth Creationist. I said Creationist skeptic. I think that aptly describes you (so far). You deny and fight and doubt many aspects of evolution - though it is unclear how you both believe evolution as you claim and yet don't believe how it works. So: skeptic about evolution as the current science stands... that is for sure. Maybe you can affirm to me how you do actually believe that man and ape descended from common ancestors several million years ago. Maybe you can confirm your belief that land vertebrates and fish descended from common ancestors. Maybe you can confirm your belief that eukaryotes and prokaryotes share so many common features that it is logical and reasonable that they also descended from common ancestors. Can you? Is your only objection to a materialistic view of the physical world the view that God set off the Big Bang? ...and that you have no problem with any of the science since that point? Your posts seem to be at odds with that view.

Don't hold your breath and wait for Fulham to ever provide an actual response. He has been provided ample demonstration and evidence of how memes work, he has responded to none of it. He whines about the dismissal of McGrath, but he has no problem dismissing entire fields of study, including every single Darwinian. Nevermind that McGrath has published exactly nothing on the topic of molecular biology. It's all polemical works in defense of Christianity and numerous works attacking Dawkins. So much for the complaint that certain scientists are too polemical. It appears that the only "scientists" Fulham has any respect for spend all of their time doing polemics.

@fulhamish,
You described yourself as Creationist. And you've made it amply clear that you are a skeptic as to genetic variation and natural selection as a model for how evolution happens. I am unclear what your objection is to being called a Creationist skeptic.

@Putin,
I'm definitely not holding my breath.

@fulhamish,
btw... graduating with a degree in something is not a guarantee that they understand it... unfortunately. I actually once worked with someone who had somehow graduated with a BS in Geology and yet was, get this - a Young Earth Creationist. I can only guess that he simply learned what to parrot back at the professors and never actually believed it. Why someone would go to that trouble - and so studiously avoid learning - is beyond me... but apparently it happens. It's like someone going through a medical school only to come out at the other end and say they don't believe in germ theory. Staggering.

I was wondering what Fulham thinks about McGrath's self-plagiarism, or is plagiarism not an issue if you're a polemicist against Darwinism?

http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~llrdjb/how_to_be_prolific.htm

For a bit of humor, here is Dawkins in regards to McGrath:
"Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem "grumpy", could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats ("Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?") and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.

"McGrath imagines that I would disagree with my hero Sir Peter Medawar on The Limits of Science. On the contrary. I never tire of emphasising how much we don't know. The God Delusion ends in just such a theme. Where do the laws of physics come from? How did the universe begin? Scientists are working on these deep problems, honestly and patiently. Eventually they may be solved. Or they may be insoluble. We don't know.

"But whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don't know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows. He's signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence who is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a "glossy", "quick fix", naive faith that science has all the answers.

"Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an "ideological fanatic" because he doesn't believe in Thor's hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts."

Self-plagiarism is not an issue if your point is to puff up your resume and sell more books. I learn something everyday. Today I learned who Alister McGrath is.

I'm a religious man, and I believe in a system of virtue ethics in which behaving in a generally virtuous fashion will generally improve your quality of life-- so, in a sense, you could say that I believe in a form of objective morality since you could simply measure, on a demographic level, the subjective self-reporting of happiness among people following a particular set of virtue ethics and such objective measures as their productivity, their life expectancy, and so forth to identify the virtues that represent an optimal morality.

But, of course, in the *interpretation* of those virtues... you will always encounter far too much subjective interpretation to be able to claim that there is truly an objective *standard* of morality.