Question about evolution

Confession? :grin: :sweat_smile: :laughing:

Probably one of the easiest sins we are at least prone to commit is gossip. It is probably especially easy when you can join a multitude to do evil – the Twitter mob, for example. Ann Applebaum recently published a very in-depth commentary on that. She has her expertise on the skullduggery of the former Soviet Union and the pall their strategies have left on many of the eastern bloc countries, but I think she nails it pretty well.

It is the sort of nonsense that we can, if we chose to, participate in that is plenty vailed enough that we can both benefit from it and largely hide our tracks in the flood. Of course, it is a double-edged sword. When you’re in the position you wanted so badly, don’t be surprised if people do that to you as well. Who hasn’t said or done something outrageously dumb at some point in their life?

I remember a work by Kai Nielson titled “Why should I be moral?”.
[Kai Nielson “Why Should I Be Moral?” Methodos, XV, NO 59-60, 1963] I cannot find an original copy of it. Anyway, one thing he poses is that if you do something immoral

… for limited patterns of behavior, no decisively good reason can be given to some individuals that would justify their doing the moral thing in such a context [i.e., doing something immoral]. (It would be another thing again if they repeatedly acted in that way. Here the case for morality would be much stronger.)

Of course, this presumes that there is only this life, and then it is done; that you won’t have to answer to God for your amoral egoism in the great beyond. All the “costs” are figured based upon knowable probabilities and consequences.

Another problem with this notion is that sin usually has a progressive quality about it. You don’t start out as an embezzler by stealing large swaths of cash. It starts with the pennies and moves progressively to nickels, dimes, quarters, dollars, $10s, etc. Eventually, you are very likely to become too confident and greedy.

So, even from a rationalist egoist’s standpoint (putting myself in those shoes), I am not sure that this is as valid an argument because of our general human nature. However, it is hard to argue that an unscrupulous person couldn’t get away with murder if it is done in an errrrr “well-thought-out” and calculating way and only on very rare occasions, especially if the person has no regard toward the things of heaven and considers this life the only one that is.

It does suggest to me why religion plays an important role in mitigating such behaviors. Even the nihilist or the egoist might back off if there is some inkling that some severe and indeterminant consequences might be meted out in the great beyond.

by Grace we proceed … indeed

1 Like

Your examples are good – we are definitely susceptible to them and they are easy to fall into, but I guess I cannot characterize them as “benefiting us significantly.”
 

Very much so and in no other way.

OK, maybe what you mean by “us” is “humanity as a whole”. My examples might benefit an individual, but not necessarily humanity as a whole. In fact, I don’t think those examples actually benefit the human race in the long run.

The fact that some 80% or more believe that there is something more, even be that some sort of amorphous mechanism that sends you up or down the chain, would suggest that the fear of reprisals in some “after” confers a selective advantage. So for sentient beings who can plan and calculate, we have duties that animals don’t. Moreover, places in the world where people are reduced to dire penury (such that they behave close to animals), are not societies that are particularly successful.

I sincerely believe in some abstract way, God was somehow involved in the evolutionary process here on earth, though I cannot really say how. However, as far as I can tell, evolution qua evolution is largely amoral in its operation. Parasites like the coronavirus are, in terms of evolutionary mechanisms, simply trying to make a living. It is not a sentient organism that knows that it is doing evil, but I don’t like it.

For example, there are all sorts of awful parasites. There’s a wasp that lays eggs on a caterpillar. The caterpillar even gets some sort of signal to eat more in the service of raising the wasp’s young, Although neither organism is sentient, it’s kind of yucky. The thing that makes that parasite in “Aliens” seem particularly evil is that it is also somewhat sentient; though hard to take seriously as something that would actually happen.

Those aspects strike me as just a ruthlessly cold and pitiless machine, a powerful but amoral tool that depends on the “hands” that direct it.

What do I mean by “directing it”? Well, I talk of parasites being essentially evil. Yet, on the flip side, with viruses, perhaps eventually we will learn from viruses how to deliver payloads into cells so we can repair them. We may even end up “employing them” in that effort. It would be cool if we could do that. It is sort of like turning swords into plowshares.

… and maybe “parasites” in our society too. I was really impressed with that line in Kurosawa’s movie “The Hidden Fortress” where the general says “I trust their greed”. Those two peasants were pretty low on the totem pole of morality. I guess that is also embedded in the old Chinese children’s story “the journey west”. 西遊記 … maybe we need to think more cleverly about how we can redirect bad behavior in a good direction. After all, “pigheadedness” can become "persistence, “indolence” can become “innovation”.

Anyway, I see evolution as “a tool”; largely an amoral process that will go whatever direction is convenient at the time. However, we, as sentient beings, have the intellectual power and the duty to direct those tendencies in a good direction. Metaphorically speaking at least, we were given the job to tend the garden. … God, in some inexplicable way, also may have somehow done the same. At that level, I am still a stubborn creationist. :grin:

by His Grace

Predator-prey systems don’t work that way in nature.

The latter case (high ratio of predator to prey) often lead to a situation that is sometimes called the ‘predator pit’. It is a situation where strong predation pressure prevents prey populations from increasing. This may lead to a prolonged phase, where both the numbers of prey and predators seem to remain relatively stable and low. Prey numbers because predation keeps the numbers low, predator numbers because there is not enough of food for more predators.

Sooner or later, the ‘predator pit’ turns into a ‘predator escape’. Maybe the number of predators drops too low or a rise in the amount of high-quality food allows a higher rate of offspring production in prey. As a consequence, the ratio of predators to prey drops below the level where predation can prevent population growth in prey. When that happens, prey numbers start to increase towards densities where food limitation or some other factor stops the population growth. For example, the mouse plagues are an example of a ‘predator escape’ situation.

The population fluctuations of small rodents are a drastic example of this kind of dynamics because small rodents can multiply in a short time period. In larger mammals, the offspring production is slower and the development of population peaks takes more time. Yet, if the increase rate of prey is higher than the increase rate of predators, similar kind of ‘predator pit’ - ‘predator escape’ dynamics will follow, unless someone interferes.

In nature, a stable balance between predators and prey is rather an exception than a norm. That, together with a continuous change in the environment, is a reason why there is no balance of nature.

Edit:
I’m not good in math but I guess the same could be said in a more accurate way by saying that the attractor of predator-prey dynamics is not a point and the location of the attractor in the phase space changes as the environment changes. In addition, the trajectories of population densities are not smooth due to more or less frequent disturbances. There is a published paper showing that regular (cyclic) population oscillations + stochastic disturbances lead to chaotic or semi-chaotic dynamics.

2 Likes

Sometimes the line between competition and predation is fuzzy. Allelopathy is usually included within competition. A plant killing another with harmful chemicals is listed as competition, even if the dead plant will be decomposed and the killer gets nutrients after the decomposition process.
The release of antibiotics in the relationship between fungi and bacteria is an example of allelopathy. If part of the play is that fungi gain nutrients and energy by eating the remains of killed competitors, it could also be listed as a consumer-resource interaction (predation).

In that sense, you are correct, that could be called predation.

2 Likes

Actually, I meant individually. How can sin ever be beneficial, near term or long? We are being deceived if we think there is any real gain. This comes to mind:

As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
 
Matthew 13:22

 
With respect to evolution, God’s providential direction settles it for me. Just as he wondrously orchestrates events in his children’s lives without breaking any natural laws, he is sovereign over nano-detail and mutations as well as macroscopic events. Regulars here may yawn, but I will again cite Maggie’s testimony and my nephrectomy as empirical evidence.

We are called to be childlike in our faith and love for God and to trust him as our Father, and that his plan is good even amidst the horrific, including natural evil. This first creation was subjected to futility from the start, even before there was life.

1 Like

Depends on what we mean by sin. Acting against the will of God may bring short-term benefits, money, power or enjoyment. This kind of short-term gain has a terrible long-term cost. In that way it is deceiving.

In psalms, it’s not rare that the writer wonders why the righteous suffer and the ungodly seem to prosper. It’s the difference between short-term and long-term costs and benefits.

Edit:
We cannot see the inside of others. Individuals that seem to prosper and have an easy life may suffer within themselves. The money, power and pleasures gained by sin do not bring genuine and lasting happiness. Short-term benefits gained by sin have both short-term and long-term costs. Not worth it.

1 Like

Ain’t what David saw and we all see Kai. Truly ghastly people die peacefully in their sumptuous beds surrounded by their adoring, grieving grandchildren. We Westerners stand on the bowed shoulders of the innocent poor who were plagued with mental illness. We are brilliant at deceiving ourselves.

1 Like

@wkdawson @SkovandOfMitaze @gavin_kemp @knor @jstump @beaglelady

@knor, if there is a paper, and I am not doubting this, then please share that information with us. Why is everything so non-specific?

There is no explanation of how this situation comes about. You say there are two basic situations, high ratio predator and low ratio predator… The low is stable, the high is not. You cannot claim that predator-pray relationships are inherently unstable WHEN many (low ratio) are stable! There is none in between and no way to get from one to the other, so something must be missing.

If there is as you say a predictable connection between the predator’s pit and a predator’s escape, then there is a stable relationship between the predator and the prey, which you deny.

It seems that you confuse “stable” with “static.” Static does not change, while stable means dynamic, which does change within limits and is self correcting as is your example, which you say indicates there is no stable balance of nature, just chaos. Really?

A quick search of the web, which you should have done, reveals documentation of the predators’ pit in the American wilderness where the predators have outstripped prey such as the elk and moose. No such luck for predators’ escape. The example that you provide, the mouse plagues, are not appropriate, because they took place in Australia, the land of marsupials, where mammals, mice and rabbits, have no predators.

You have failed to show in nature that a stable, not a static, balance between predators and prey is the norm than the exception. Symbiosis is the reason why, despite continuous change in the environment, there is continuity as well as change in the balance of nature

That is not my claim.

No one said they were smooth.

The words sound authoritative, but really do not mean much. Math can describe, but cannot prescribe.

Math is necessary to science, but it cannot be the sole tool of science. That is the way to the crashing of the system as when prey and predator get out of balance, but without symbiosis to restore it.

One psychiatrist once told me that depressed individuals have often a more realistic picture of their situation and surroundings than so called ‘healthy’ persons.

As believers, our state in Christ is probably better than we imagine - the opposite of ugly. The truth of us and our actions is a different story, something that may be too ugly to see in detail. Maybe our inability to see the whole truth is an adaptation that lets us act in a positive way. Facing the ugly truth might make many so distressed or depressed that it would affect our behavior in a negative way.

We want cheap gasoline, cheap flights, cheap clothes, cheap imported food, continue the lifestyle we are used to even if the world chances around us. The poor, nature and the future generations pay the price of our behavior. They suffer because we are selfish. This makes us bad housekeepers in front of God and humanity. The ‘good’ of our actions is often made from selfish reasons, rather than being acts of genuine love. We love our family and care of many who live around us but what have we done for the poor and suffering living in other parts of the globe?

Yet, letting the truth paralyze us is a wrong reaction. We can’t save the world but our actions may save someone and add to the joint effort to improve the future and reduce suffering.
Facing the truth may make us free.

It’s not for nothing we are told to fix our eyes on Jesus and rejoice. We make a continuous moral choice as to what we pay attention to and what our minds are doing!

Who is to say that we are believers? As Jesus said, “A tree is known by its fruit.” If we do not confess our selfishness and repent, we are still wallowing in it.

I was thinking of the paper by Hanski et al. 1993 in Nature 364: 232-235.
A rapid literature search showed that there are many other papers showing that various things, even seasonality, can shift population fluctuations from regular to chaotic. Maybe I should clarify that chaotic fluctuations mean population oscillations that fulfill the mathematical definition of chaos, which is something else than the total chaos as used in everyday talk.

Anyway, it seems that the apparent disagreement between our viewpoints is largely due to the different way we use the words. Symbiosis and balance of nature seem to mean something else to you than to me. When you speak of symbiosis and balance of nature, I would say that species coexist in the same system. The fact that species have coexisted for centuries in the same system tells that the system has properties that make the long-term coexistence of these species possible. I would not call these properties symbiosis.

It also seems that we are focusing on different spatial scales. My focus is at relatively small scales. At small scales, it is evident that things change. Succession changes the environment, species are replaced by other species and species with wide population fluctuations often face local extinction. You seem to think of larger spatial scales. Even if species face extinction at a small scale, they may coexist in the region.

Did I get it right?

Aye, I’m happily depressed. I’ve no idea what the truth is. We’re not wired for it whatever it is. We’re goal driven. I’ve no idea what genuine love is either. Don’t worry, China will save us…

The truth is whatever we say it is and the best we can get to ‘genuine’ love is behaviour that levels up, that reaches out a hand, that walks naked; ‘me too’. It’s all enlightened self interest, like my picking up litter in the park. It’s for me. Had an interesting interaction with a long term socially marginal acquaintance yesterday. Ah gave 'im some tough luurve. And a pizza. In that order. I couldn’t turn away. It would have made the baby Jesus cry. And if he doesn’t get his act together he’ll get even tougher love and no pizza.

That is a good question. Not all of us are believers, not even all of those that call themselves christian and are members of christian churches. I assume that many of us are and I hope that those who are not would find peace with God, through Jesus Christ.

So is what Jesus did. (Everything we do is out of self-interest – frequently not so enlightened, however.)
 

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 
Hebrews 12:2

That joy is us :slightly_smiling_face:, if we belong to him.

What’s your de-reconstruction of that?

What makes you think it needs deconstruction?

Because it’s meaningless in contemporary terms.

First of all, Jesus did not hang on a tree because it was in His enlightened self interest. He died because it was in our self interest, yours and mine. Not His and not the Father’s, and not the Spirit’s.

Second, Love is not acting in our own self interest, enlightened or otherwise. We can love God, because God, Father, Son. and Spirit first loved us. I can love others because the Father loves us enough to give up the Son for my life and not for just my life, but for the lives of everyone.

It is in a true sense in our enlightened self interest to love God and others, but that is not love. Love is really caring about the welfare and wellbeing of others, not about what we will get out of it. Jesus taught us that we must love the least of these His brothers and sisters to be saved,. those who cannot repay for what we do for them.