Comments on: Love on Campus

By: Cicero

Cicero — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:08:35 +0000

As Love existed before the world was created, I think we would have to agree that Love can not be biological, but must be a choice made by intelligences.

This also means that all intelligences are capable of love- not just humans.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:10:08 +0000

The study of Anthropology is how man is like an animal/how he is not like an animal. The study looks at man moving from a state of “Nature” to a state of “Culture”. In doing this, there becomes a mixed state of “Natural Sexual Selection”, to “Cultural Sexual Selection.”
Each type of these selections has it own rules and goals. Many times these rules and goals will come into oppositions the other’s. Rape is okay in Natural Selection, not in (most) Cultural Selection. “Personal Love”, has come very late to this process. ( Per Anthropology).

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:13:50 +0000

I’m sorry, I mis-cited the article I was thinking of, and misspelled Dobzhansky’s name. The article is actually by Karl Popper, and there is a link to it on stephenjaygould dot org, or you can just type in falsifiability theory in google and it will take you there. Although Dobzhansky is great, too. He wrote an article called “nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:10:49 +0000

#13
Actually, a good theory doesn’t explain things, it predicts things that can be falsified. That’s the ultimate usefulness of a theory. There is a great article written by Dobzhanski about what a theory is and isn’t – I recommend it to everyone interested in the influence of science.

By: kristine N

kristine N — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:58:13 +0000

Um, actually it’s most popular with scientists. I suspect most artists, musicians, and storytellers like to think they’re doing something higher than simply trying to attract a mate or advertise their good genes.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:28:46 +0000

Very interesting summary, Kristine N. I’m sure that line of thinking is especially popular with … artists, musicians, and storytellers. I wonder if bloggers fit under the “storytellers” category? I think blogging definitely qualifies as an “energy-wasting endeavor.” Somehow I’m not sure the “blogging as a fitness signalling activity” justification is going to fly compared to mowing the front lawn as a fitness signalling activity, but I’ll give it a shot.

Threre’s also the argument that a man who’s willing to make a large, non-productive and non-recoverable investment as a sign of his affection — specifically, buying a diamond ring — is engaged in a form of fitness signalling to the target of his affections. I’m just throwing that in so the non-artists of the world know they still have a chance as long as they’re willing to ante up at the jewelry store.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:26:56 +0000

Fwiw, the first thought I had after reading the entire post was, “I’m glad the apostles generally have stopped speculating about questions like this.” “Who can say?â€ is such a great answer for someone whose calling is not as a biological scientist.

By: Mark M

Mark M — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:13:16 +0000

Thankfully, my anecdotal life is nothing like either of those “news” articles!

By: kristine N

kristine N — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:57:06 +0000

Dave–if you count sexual selection as choice then I am pretty sure there are some credible evolutionary biologists who would consider choice to be at the heart of evolutionary theory. Darwin gave us natural selection, but he was also very interested in sexual selection. There are many characteristics of animals and humans that are much better explained by sexual selection than by natural selection. For instance, bright coloration in some birds. It’s much easier to evade predators if one blends in with the surroundings, so why do so many birds have bright plumage? Probably to attract mates. Why are these displays so compelling? The thought is the handicap is an indicator of superior genetic quality–an individual capable of evading predators while still being more brightly colored than other individuals must have superior genes. You can apply the same principle (called the handicap principle) to a lot of human characteristics, too–including our big brains. Why are we so smart? why do we waste so much time doing art, making music, or telling stories to one another? The thought among some is that again, an individual with the free energy to devote to brain development and the free time to devote to such energy-wasting endeavors must be genetically superior. A genetically superior man will attract similarly genetically superior women, who can then choose to mate and produce genetically superior children. The thing is, human babies need a lot of extra calories early in life in order to develop big brains that will later be attractive to other, big brained humans, so there’s definite selection in favor of mates who not only have the good genes themselves, but also the proclivity (or good sense) to stay with a mate long enough to help their offspring become as smart as they are genetically capable of being.

sorry to be so long-winded. I think it’s kind of a cool idea, myself :)

By: Patricia Karamesines

Patricia Karamesines — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:13:20 +0000

Dave, I’m as concerned about whether or not “most biologists” would agree with me as I am about whether or not I’ll agree with myself in five years. I am very much interested in what the rhetoric people use to construct theories about “reality” tells us about their narrative designs.

IMO, genetics is in its Newtonian, deterministic stage of theoretical development. There are yet more new things under the sun, or at least, old things we might yet see anew.

I use the modifier “thoughtful” here to mean “contemplative.”