Why is it that everyone need someone to love?
How does that fits with the theory of evolution?
51-55, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Most of human´s characteristic emotions are related to the part of our brains that appeared with mammalians and not earlier.
The closer kin with other species, the nearer are their emotions to ours, even in gestures.
That is, even so, mediated by our social nature as species.
Not in a linear way, not as result of an unique factor, the increase of the social complexity together with the biological one is, not a prove, but a result of the increasing complexity of what defies Entropy, called Negentropy (material agregates, life, intelligence, society, love).
The closer kin with other species, the nearer are their emotions to ours, even in gestures.
That is, even so, mediated by our social nature as species.
Not in a linear way, not as result of an unique factor, the increase of the social complexity together with the biological one is, not a prove, but a result of the increasing complexity of what defies Entropy, called Negentropy (material agregates, life, intelligence, society, love).
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@infiniterealism Thank you, Infinite.
Perhaps your question was related to another aspect of the same.
How the conflict inherent to competence for survival in evolution fits the emotion of love?
Well, to begin with, to reduce the evolutive mechanisms to only one isolated factor and, worst, to the popular words to describe it, is not an adecuate formulation of it.
Is the kind of poor argument that someones pick to "refute" evolution, for purposes that are not strictly scientific ones.
A bit like some childish use of probabilities and the abuse of the word Logic for what it is not.
I´m not at all attributing those intentions to you, BTW.
Perhaps your question was related to another aspect of the same.
How the conflict inherent to competence for survival in evolution fits the emotion of love?
Well, to begin with, to reduce the evolutive mechanisms to only one isolated factor and, worst, to the popular words to describe it, is not an adecuate formulation of it.
Is the kind of poor argument that someones pick to "refute" evolution, for purposes that are not strictly scientific ones.
A bit like some childish use of probabilities and the abuse of the word Logic for what it is not.
I´m not at all attributing those intentions to you, BTW.