Martinez19:
I made a mistake with that INTRA-specie stuff.
An organism can learn from anywhere.

I admire your intellectual honesty

MuttleyLaff:
vaxx this is a disappointed, done too hurriedly, carelessly
and feeble explanation to why human and other primate babies have to learn to walk slower than other animals

I accept without demur that compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and sensitiveness are innate, that they don't disappear when not in used, because they are part of one's make up.

I equally agree without demur that innate behaviour can be turned on by itself


You guys both are familiar with the story of the traveler who fell into the dastardly hands of robbers and got stripped of clothing, beaten and left half dead alongside the road.

Notice, the pastor or the Daddy G O or Bishop (i.e. the priest), the choirmaster or usher or church worker (i.e. the Levite) switched off the "compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and/or sensitiveness" innate behaviour button

The priest was going down the road the man was left half dead, but when the priest saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
So too, the Levite, when the Levite came to same spot and saw him, he passed by him, by crossing on the other side of the road.

I believe it goes deeper and beyond emotions.
You either have it or you dont

Just in that popular narrative, some just dont have it anymore in them, to switch it on.
Some have become desensitized, some have misjudged priorities.
Some are selective to whom and/or when to show or give "compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and/or sensitiveness" to
Some dont know when its right to show or give "compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and/or sensitiveness"

I will like to see my flaws in that sir? The bolded.

vaxx:
i wish i can give you more than a hundered likes for this video.

There used to be one poster that had multiple monikers
This poster must have found a backdoor, because this poster was able to paste hundreds of likes to most of his/her comments
I started noting down his/her monikers but stopped at five.

I am pleased to see and say, that Seun or the Mods have caught up with poster,
and have taken down his monikers plus hid away the posts with the fraudulently acquired likes

vaxx:
I will like to see my flaws in that sir? The bolded.

I have already said that the flaw is that you hurriedly, carelessly & in a weak way,
tried to explain away, why human & other primate babies have to learn to walk, slower than other animals

MuttleyLaff:

I have already said that the flaw is that you hurriedly, carelessly & in a weak way,
tried to explain away, why human & other primate babies have to learn to walk, slower than other animals

i do not have to explain it in details since that will stair us away from the main discussion, I only wanted to highlight some needed details. But anyway thanks for your observation.

vaxx:
i do not have to explain it in details since that will stair us away from the main discussion, I only wanted to highlight some needed details. But anyway thanks for your observation.

I doubt the truthfulness of this comment though:
"...therefore with enough evolutionary advantage, primate with two leg (human ) will walk, without having the drive to do so"
but OK, I hear you

MuttleyLaff:
I doubt this comment though:
"...therefore with enough evolutionary advantage, primate with two leg (human ) will walk without having the drive to do so ."
but OK, I hear you

if you are not rejecting evolution, then you shouild subscribe to this possibility. Anyway it is an assumption at the moment.. It is fact that the human hips were made for walking upright.
So hypothetically, it will get to a stage that whenever baby stretch up to get something that is too high for them to reach by crawling, they will quickly realize that there is benefit to stand upright.

Martinez19:
According to me, morality is govern by reason and empathy/compassion. Morality varies because of the influence of religious and cultural upbringings. Since religion and culture upbringings are different from place to place and they influence reason, morality will vary from place to place. Religious and cultural norms have to be taught because they are not innate but compassion cannot be taught because it's innate.

Take away religious and cultural upbringings, people will agree on what's moral on many more issues. The recent legalisation of homosexuality and homosexual marriage; abolishment of slavery despite what the holy books say etc. are due to "upgrade" in reasoning. Normally parents would take care of their children but JW parents would cut ties with their children if they(children) reject JW doctrines to the extent that they wouldn't want to see their grandchildren (not even on their birthdays) and these parents don't see anything wrong in that. Why is this? Because their reasoning are influenced by jehovah witness' doctrine. Take that jw brainwashing away and see them act like compassionate parents.

Sorry to have defile your rule at OP because I'm not an Atheist....this also contributes to this thread.

Firstly, when I opened this thread and I read about your rule that "this thread is strictly for Atheists, no theist should contribute" I adhere to this but I change my mind later to comment.
What does it mean to the thread?
It means irrespective angle I choose to change my mind "I'm still wrong to have defiled your rule" This is not subjective but objective.

Now, let's look at the natural word we are today, taken for instance, the global warming! There's a campaign against green house emission that is causing increase in global warming.

We can then ask:
As a human, why should I stop any act I'm enjoying just because it's weakening the world I'm living?

Why must we stop green house emission just because some people say so? e.t.c

But the reality is, our earth has some natural rule which human are defiling and remember the side effect of this is going to be devastated for human existence.

In summary, the call for global warming check is a natural rule human are defiled which can put and end to human existence.

Lastly, when it comes to morality, morality is the golden rule of NATURE itself for human continuity. Whether will like it or not, the morality of human existence continuity where other morality were designed is objective, so either you accept that it's being put forth by nature itself or higher being it's left for you.

tintingz:

You mean having sad feelings, emotional towards an innocent victim is not inborn?

Yes, that is exactly what I have said all along. Not everyone has "sad feelings, emotional towards an innocent victim". Some people would even stand there screaming " crucify the fuqer"! If its innate, it is selectively innate, and one should ask why it is not innate in those in whom it is missing.

The capability to have emotions at all is innate, just as it's innate to feel pain if hit on the thumb with an hammer. But to have empathy towards animals or the innocent requires cognitive activity. You and your siblings would not feel empathy towards a stone!

vaxx:
It is fact that the human hips were made for walking upright.

No they werent! The hip adapted to humans walking upright and got better adapted over time.

Muttley, remember that chicken and egg question you once posed? This is a clear example. Its like saying the course of a river made the water in the river flow along the course it flows along. When in actual fact, the water in the river creates its own course.

Emusan:


Sorry to have defile your rule at OP because I'm not an Atheist....this also contributes to this thread.

Firstly, when I opened this thread and I read about your rule that "this thread is strictly for Atheists, no theist should contribute" I adhere to this but I change my mind later to comment.
What does it mean to the thread?
It means irrespective angle I choose to change my mind "I'm still wrong to have defiled your rule" This is not subjective but objective.

Now, let's look at the natural word we are today, taken for instance, the global warming! There's a campaign against green house emission that is causing increase in global warming.

We can then ask:
As a human, why should I stop any act I'm enjoying just because it's weakening the world I'm living?

Because if the earth is continually weakened, it would negatively affect our existence in the long run.

[(Neither torturous nor pleasurable) or (pleasurable)] + bad consequences in the long run = bad

Why must we stop green house emission just because some people say so? etc

That is to be reasoned out.

But the reality is, our earth has some natural rule which human are defiling and remember the side effect of this is going to be devastated for human existence.

True. I have to say that we can exploit natural rules but can't defile them. Such exploitations can have good or bad consequences and the consequences will help us determine if that exploitation is moral.

In summary, the call for global warming check is a natural rule human are defiled which can put and end to human existence.

Global warming is the natural consequence(law) of....

Lastly, when it comes to morality, morality is the golden rule of NATURE itself for human continuity. Whether will like it or not, the morality of human existence continuity where other morality were designed is objective, so either you accept that it's being put forth by nature itself or higher being it's left for you.

Morality is objective but the norms people adopt will differ until they upgrade their reasoning.

budaatum:

No they werent! The hip adapted to humans walking upright and got better adapted over time.

humans have always been a upright standing and bipedal (walking on two feet) species..

even our pre-human, ape like ancestors like Australipithicus afarensis were bipedal millions of years before the first Homo species evolved.

We know this from both fossil footprints and from the anatomy of hip and foot bones.

""The pair of tracks below show an adult and child bipedal walking from three hundered thousands years ago in Eastern Africa""

So if they can, so do we as human baby.

budaatum:
No they werent!
The hip adapted to humans walking upright and got better adapted over time.

Muttley, remember that chicken and egg question you once posed? This is a clear example.
Its like saying the course of a river made the water in the river flow along the course it flows along.
When in actual fact, the water in the river creates its own course.

I am so sorry bud, I dont remember the chicken and egg question posed

budaatum:

Yes, that is exactly what I have said all along. Not everyone has "sad feelings, emotional towards an innocent victim". Some people would even stand there screaming " crucify the fuqer"! If its innate, it is selectively innate, and one should ask why it is not innate in those in whom it is missing.

The capability to have emotions at all is innate, just as it's innate to feel pain if hit on the thumb with an hammer. But to have empathy towards animals or the innocent requires cognitive activity. You and your siblings would not feel empathy towards a stone!

Maybe I should ask you, why did Abraham Lincoln showed empathy to the slaves and majority Americans didn't?

tintingz:
Maybe I should ask you, why did Abraham Lincoln showed empathy to the slaves and majority Americans didn't?

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery because free labour distorted the free market, amongst I am certain, numerous other reasons, being the highly knowledgeable individual he was.

vaxx:
humans have always been a upright standing and bipedal (walking on two feet) species..

even our pre-human, ape like ancestors like Australipithicus afarensis were bipedal millions of years before the first Homo species evolved.

We know this from both fossil footprints and from the anatomy of hip and foot bones.

""The pair of tracks below show an adult and child bipedal walking from three hundered thousands years ago in Eastern Africa""

So if they can, so do we as human baby.

How did the first bipedals become bipedal. Did bipedalism not evolve into being? Did it not involve the gradual adaptation of the hip to improve bipedal efficiency?

MuttleyLaff:
I am so sorry bud, I dont remember the chicken and egg question posed

I'm not surprised. You threw it in as a distraction at the time and I refused the bait. But do you see how chicken eggs relate here?

budaatum:

How did the first bipedals become bipedal. Did bipedalism not evolve into being? Did it not involve the gradual adaptation of the hip to improve bipedal efficiency?

we cannot say with certainity what causes evolution of anything. That answer is mystery


The oldest species where fossils are complete enough to know the species was bipedal is Orrorin tugenensis at 6 million years ago......

Read on bro....http://efossils.org/book/step-step-evolution-bipedalism...

budaatum:
I'm not surprised.
You threw it in as a distraction at the time
and I refused the bait

[img]https://s2/images/MuttGimmeBrkLaff.gif[/img]
You're such a party pooper

budaatum:
But do you see how chicken eggs relate here?

Not quite
Besides, I need to have where and when I threw in the "chicken and egg question" please.
There surely will be a context and valid reason for chipping it in then

vaxx:
we cannot say with certainity what causes evolution of anything. That answer is mystery


The oldest species where fossils are complete enough to know the species was bipedal is Orrorin tugenensis at 6 million years ago......

Read on bro....http://efossils.org/book/step-step-evolution-bipedalism...

Yet, we know bipedalism was inextant and gradually evolved into being, right? And we can study fossils to see how the ability to walk upright, and the hips that made it easier, evolved over time, right?

Do you seriously think upright walking species were given the ability to walk upright and therefore began to walk upright?

MuttleyLaff:
[imghttps://s2/imges/MuttGimmeBrkLaff.gif[/img]
You're such a party pooper

Not quite
Besides, I need to have where and when I threw in the "chicken and egg question" please.
There surely will be a context and valid reason for chipping it in then

I did ask for your point at the time but you gave none. If there was one, you'd have remembered.

budaatum:

Yet, we know bipedalism was inextant and gradually evolved into being, right? And we can study fossils to see how the ability to walk upright, and the hips that made it easier, evolved over time, right?

Do you seriously think upright walking species were given the ability to walk upright and therefore began to walk upright?

it was an evolutionary trait that is built in the early man to spot predators easier. Back then, there was just a lot of grassland in alot of places we now find homes and concrete. If we were quadripeds we would easily be stalked. Once upright, it is easy to see above the grass and look down from a better vantage point. Im sure there are more reasons but i believe this to be the "backbone" of it.

And this was the same hypothesis I have with regards to the crawling baby, with enough evolutionary advantage, baby may stand up right one day.

budaatum:
I did ask for your point at the time but you gave none.
If there was one, you'd have remembered.

It wasnt me bud
You have mistaken me for OkaiCorne who did

vaxx:
it was an evolutionary trait that is built in the early man to spot predators easier.

The predators were there in the early man's environment which the early man adapted to.

Though, that isn't quite what you've said here, which sounds more like, "The trait was there because predators appeared!"

Let me know how I misunderstand please.

vaxx:
Back then, there was just a lot of grassland in alot of places we now find homes and concrete.

That's closer. The environment, "was".

vaxx:
If we were quadripeds we would easily be stalked. Once upright, it is easy to see above the grass and look down from a better vantage point.

So, early quadripeds, seeing they needed to stand taller so they could "see above the grass and look down from a better vantage point" at their stalkers, started standing, and over time, their bodies, including their hips, adapted to standing better.

They, by standing, trained their body to stand.

vaxx:
Im sure there are more reasons but i believe this to be the "backbone" of it.

Yes, many more. The knowledge about it is very patchy. Besides, we are working from "the gods done it". A position of great influence that distorts the ability to observe reality, not to talk of understand what is observed.

The four leg bad two leg good idea occurs in the giraffe with its neck, the elephant's trunk, and the kangaroos marsupium, to mention a few.

vaxx:
And this was the same hypothesis I have with regards to the crawling baby, with enough evolutionary advantage, baby may stand up right one day.

That may well be. But we got way much to sort out on here so why add "hypothesis" ? Or don't you see yet that though we are speaking about "empathy", what we say may apply to anger, frustration, happiness, joy, depression, and maybe, stupidity, ignorance, and such likes?

budaatum:

The predators were there in the early man's environment which the early man adapted to.

our ability to communicate danger and well evolve brain make it easier for early man.

Though, that isn't quite what you've said here, which sounds more like, "[i]The trait was there because predators appeared![

budaatum fallacy. Spotted. You will have to provide where i say something of such.

Let me know how I misunderstand please.

it is one of those budaatum fallacy.

So, early quadripeds, seeing they needed to stand taller so they could "see above the grass and look down from a better vantage point" at their stalkers, started standing, and over time, their bodies, including their hips, adapted to standing

As i said earlier we can not say for certain what causes evolution of anything at all. The proto human were not quadrupled,.The evidence is that they were brachiators whose forelimbs were adapted more to swinging from trees than walking on level ground. So bipedal human ancestors evolved from creatures that were already bipedal some of the time (as monkeys and apes are). The evolution was not to make walking possible but to make it more perfected because the ability to walk was there already.
.

Yes, many more. The knowledge about it is very patchy. Besides, we are working from "the gods done it". A position of great influence that distorts the ability to observe reality, not to talk of understand what is observed.

I understand the credibility of science research and likewise i am also aware of its limitations. Science as a tool does not claim to know how the present man has evolved on earth(primordial era) Except you Buda knows. What we can understand is from the skeletal evidences of several intermediary forms, that appear to fill the blanks between apes and the present man. These have been discovered primarily from Africa and Asia, which tells a story of man’s possibly evolutionary link — that before the present form, there were species at different time periods and they are the forms the present Man has passed through in evolutionary time scale (millions of years ago). But we are ignorance as to what causes evolution of anything at all, as is still shrouded in mystery.

The four leg bad two leg good idea occurs in the giraffe with its neck, the elephant's trunk, and the kangaroos marsupium, to mention a few.

I am not hearing this for the first time.

That may well be. But we got way much to sort out on here so why add "hypothesis" ? Or don't you see yet that though we are speaking about "empathy", what we say may apply to anger, frustration, happiness, joy, depression, and maybe, stupidity, ignorance, and such likes?

whatever ways, it does apply.... I thought you were denying the possibility earlier, not until I show you how it might be possible using scientific method.

It will be ignorance to talk about emphaty without acknowledging it has a genetic foundation even if it can be learned.

vaxx:

it is one of those budaatum fallacy.

I'm glad you agree that, "The predators were there in the early man's environment which the early man adapted to", is the more accurate interpretation of what actually happened, and that to claim "the ability to stand was already there before the need to stand arose" is a fallacy.

vaxx:
It will be ignorance to talk about emphaty without acknowledging it has a genetic foundation even if it can be learned.

"Genetic foundation"!? Even reading can be said to have a genetic foundation if one really tried to be obtuse.

I do not agree that empathy is passed through genes. It is not the same as eye colour. Both parents may lack the ability to be empathic, while all their offspring do. This would be rare however, since the offspring are more likely to learn to be unempathic from their parents.

vaxx:
You will have to provide where i say something of such.

That is what yours above that I quoted means, though the interpretation you agreed with is what you were trying to say.

See the comment below, which agrees completely with the interpretation you agree with, even though its about something else.

vaxx:
Like many religious people, they don’t do much to take care of their own problems, and instead wish that an outside force would intervene on their behalf. It’s fine to hope to be blessed/have good things happen, but that wishing can’t be your primary way of dealing with the problems of life.

Wishing a thing is innate can’t be your primary way of dealing with the problems of life. If you wish you knew how to swim from birth, you will drown. And if you did it with empathy, you'd be not very good at it.

One may have the potential (the ability to do a thing), and doing that thing may also have a "genetic foundation", but not doing some work to develop that potential, is "wishing" being "your primary way of dealing with the problems of life", and would probably lead to a more lousy life.

budaatum:

I'm glad you agree that, The predators were there in the early man's environment which the early man adapted to", is the more accurate interpretation of what actually happened, and that to claim "the ability to stand was already there before the need to stand arose" is a fallacy.

You point here is similar to the novice who ask if man are from ape like why are will not seeing human running to apes. Evolution is not magic Buda, there is mechanism already in place that support evolution which is a gradual process, hippo traces her earlier ancestor to whales. we can see it happen now, but there are enough evidence to back it up that it happens .if there is no mechanism to support evolution, evolution will not work. There must be enough sequence of DNA match for scientist to claim one creature evolve from another. The mechanism that support walking is already there (inbuilt on proto human)if not no human will walk . You can't fly a car on air, unless the existing system to fly it is in place. Whatever human will evolve to in the nearest future, there is mechanism for it to take place.


"

Genetic foundation"!? Even reading can be said to have a genetic foundation if one really tried to be obtuse.

whatever Buda, I am not here to flap your ass, like I normally do. i will save it for another day.

I do not agree that empathy is passed through genes. It is not the same as eye colour. Both parents may lack the ability to be empathic, while all their offspring do. This would be rare however, since the offspring are more likely to learn to be unempathic from their parents.

Humans are the diploid organisms which means that there are two copies of each chromosome. One copy comes from mother and other comes from father. So, a child inherits half of its genome from mother and half from father. So empathy depends on 'nature' as well as 'nurture'. We all born with some basic traits but how we are brought up deeply influences us too. Different factors in our surroundings , parenting etc also help in shaping us into what we are.

vaxx:
The mechanism that support walking is already there (inbuilt on proto human)if not no human will walk.

Here you go again with the 'buda fallacy'!

Please explain to me how what you've said above does not mean "early humans could already walk upright, they just needed to stand up"!

Should we change it to the "vaxx fallacy" perhaps?

vaxx:
We all born with some basic traits but how we are brought up deeply influences us too. Different factors in our surroundings , parenting etc also help in shaping us into what we are.

There you go again. Are you now claiming empathy is a trait? Well, you at least admit that shaping (education) has to happen to develop that "trait" .

budaatum:

That is what yours above that I quoted means, though the interpretation you agreed with is what you were trying to say.

See the comment below, which agrees completely with the interpretation you agree with, even though its about something else.



Wishing a thing is innate can’t be your primary way of dealing with the problems of life. If you wish you knew how to swim from birth, you will drown. And if you did it with empathy, you'd be not very good at it.

One may have the potential (the ability to do a thing), and doing that thing may also have a "genetic foundation", but not doing some work to develop that potential, is "wishing" being "your primary way of dealing with the problems of life", and would probably lead to a more lousy life.

i still don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Because that post you quoted was demonstrating a self will which is synonymous to innate. I am talking about personal decision there.

budaatum:

Here you go again with the 'buda fallacy'!

Please explain to me how what you've said above does not mean "early humans could already walk upright, they just needed to stand up"!

Should we change it to the "vaxx fallacy" perhaps?


There you go again. Are you now claiming empathy is a trait? Well, you at least admit that shaping (education) has to happen to develop that "trait" .

Permit me to ask. Do you lack understanding? Then ask instead of giving a conclusion.

Yes emphaty is a trait find in both human and animal..


Sometimes our brain turn it on without learning......

vaxx:
i still don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Because that post you quoted was demonstrating a self will which is synonymous to innate. I am talking about personal decision there.

You were "demonstrating self will is innate", and also that it was "personal decision"?

I do not think you understand yourself!