ant wrote:Are you stating that the second law of thermo helps to explain life?

ant wrote: Communication Theory dictates that noise destroys information. For a system to have the ability to create useful information from a noisy source is in itself miraculous. How does that come about by happenstance?

All I'm saying is that there is no violation of the 2nd law. It's not happenstance, mutations are random, but evolution is not a random process. If you're talking about trying to explain the origin of life, there are still speculative theories, but they are more sophisticated than just saying "poof"

...order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... tml#thermo

Moral behavior has it's roots in evolution.

Recognizing simply that cooperation is more effective than going it alone is all we need to realize to understand morality's evolutionary germination.

http://www.wimp.com/helpimpulse/

We see it in many different animals working in groups of like kinds, but also in species to species examples of cooperative effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42MpfPqWkhk

This might be fun to discuss.

What is the Darwinian explanation for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HJTG6RRN4E


Was it because the dog that risked its life wanted his pal alive to help him hunt for his next meal?

Or

Did the dog want to preserve the other dog for his next meal?

Cooperative effort? How so in this particular instance?

I can't say with authority, but it looks to me that what you have there is a dog trying to save another dog because it saw that it was in danger.

That does seem to be a selfless act, though, doesn't it? If morality is just an aspect of evolutionary life, then that can be explained. If it is instead granted to humans through divine providence as a special gift to humans, then it become more problematic to explain.

Let me try to clear up any messy language i might have used in that previous post.

cooperative work is more successful than going it alone. But it isn't the case, necessarily, that the dog is thinking "i should save that dog so he can help me later", but rather, through generations of dogs which have helped one another survive when they would otherwise have been destroyed, those disposed to helping have proliferated and that activity has become more pronounced. Especially when you factor in the human selective pressure of friendly dogs for pets.

So there would be a tendancy toward helpful behavior, rather than a tendancy toward domineering behavior.

These things can be subverted through aggressive training or desperate survival scenarios, but that's what you have there.

The point i want to make is that it isn't necessarily a calculated move.

This doesn't mean cooperation is the only way to live successful lives, because there are many forms of life without this more charitable aspect, but this is the evolutionary root of morality, if you ask me.

but it looks to me that what you have there is a dog trying to save another dog because it saw that it was in danger.

That is self-evident

If morality is just an aspect of evolutionary life, then that can be explained.

Are you saying that because it is safe to say that science has provided a reasonable explanation for the development of morality, then this dog's heroic actions may simply be a moral action/decision it made to risk life and limb?
I thought since this was a much lower level of intelligence, that this dog would follow self preservation instincts by reflex? He clearly is not preserving himself to assure both his next meal and the spreading of his genes.

but rather, through generations of dogs which have helped one another survive when they would otherwise have been destroyed, those disposed to helping have proliferated and that activity has become more pronounced. Especially when you factor in the human selective pressure of friendly dogs for pets.

Okay, so this dog reasoned in perhaps this manner:

"The priority here is neither my next meal or my next hump; I (self awareness? I'm wondering to what extent) need to get that dog out of harms way."

The point i want to make is that it isn't necessarily a calculated move.

If you were the one that ran onto the freeway to save the dog, it would have been a calculated more. However, from the perspective of the dog, it was not, because it was one of its own. So, heroism was necessary to save the dog to keep his species alive to see tomorrow.

Hmmmmm...,interesting

I thought since this was a much lower level of intelligence, that this dog would follow self preservation instincts by reflex?

Not self-preservation, but gene-preservation. Which means a potential attachment to other organisms. Primarily related organisms, but this can be short-circuited(a goose raising a duckling).

Interbane wrote:

I thought since this was a much lower level of intelligence, that this dog would follow self preservation instincts by reflex?

Not self-preservation, but gene-preservation. Which means a potential attachment to other organisms. Primarily related organisms, but this can be short-circuited(a goose raising a duckling).

Self preservation to preserve genes that will hopefully be passed on at a later time.
The dog in this video - what is your explanation?

here's a video discussing morality in animals.

http://www.wimp.com/moralbehavior/

good stuff.

Excellent TedX presentation. I have a TedX conference in my future.
Did he say at the end this is the way we have morality develop without god getting involved ?
He is talking about the god of traditional religious views.
Its not unfathomable to think every living thing developed from the same source
This should not discourage progressive believers in the least. It should fill them with a greater reverence for all life.

ant wrote:Excellent TedX presentation. I have a TedX conference in my future.
Did he say at the end this is the way we have morality develop without god getting involved ?
He is talking about the god of traditional religious views.
Its not unfathomable to think every living thing developed from the same source
This should not discourage progressive believers in the least. It should fill them with a greater reverence for all life.

Yes, you can always interpret evidence as consistent with God. You say there is evidence that whales evolved from mammals? Well, God made them similar, of course!

But the evidence on morality in animals shows that God is less necessary to explain it in humans. Most theists, especially the evolution deniers, believe that there is a sharp dividing line in these characteristics between humans and other animals, the evidence shows this is not tenable.