After reading your post I realised you did not really want to respond with serious backing to my question I decided to awnser myself since you dont seem to feel like it.
Yes it does make sense so much so that evolutionists had to work on the problem specifically. It is not so easy to brush off as you claim.
Scientist wouldent have considered it a problem and nor would I have thought of it as big loophole, I dont have a lot of factual knowledge but my logic is not weak and isnt that rusty.
See:
Quote:
Evolutionists have developed several models to explain the apparent contradiction of suicide and evolutionary theory. Denys de Catanzaro has conducted a lot of research into this field.
http://www.answers.com/topic/suicide-and-evolution
I think we need to clarify this "apparant contradiction" of suicide and evolution. Firstly, the contradiction is restricted to Man on the following premis:
Other than humans do otherwise healthy and reproductively-capable individuals of any other species perform actions foreseeably guaranteed to result in their immediate death?", the answer is NO. Violate any one of the conditions in the preceding statement, and the answer is YES. This contradiction with evolution relates specifically to humans as your source clearly points out. However, your source is related to apparent suicide and self sacrifice. To take your point further you would need to clarify your position as referencing suicide of healthy reproductively-capable individuals or sick and lame species or even self sacrifice for without this clarification this debate is clouded by smoke-screens.
I look forward to you clarifying this. Below is a snippet from your link that confirms the source you posted is not referencing suicide parsae.
It can be used to predict how likely a mother or father is to sacrifice herself or himself to save their children, or other situations of that sort. De Catanzaro takes pains to recognize that his formula is only a base on which to predict likelihood of suicide or self sacrifice.
I just dont think its logical to beleive that a series of events that created life that are purely survival driven , will create or evolve into state of conciousness that will allow self destruction.
I am confused with the apparent non-sensicle construction of your point here. I simply do not understand what you mean by "created life". perhaps you can clarify.
There is even a book called "Suicide and Evolution" that I have put on my purchase list after this post of yours.(I will find the awnser myself thank you!)
Might be worth a read, what would really be interesting is wether it tries to address why otherwise healthy and reproductively-capable individuals perform actions foreseeably guaranteed to result in their immediate death? Or looks at differing species who will outside of this premis seem to take action that garuntees a quick demise. It may even be looking into self sacrifice. Again, it could be just one any two or all three. However, the importance of clarity to which one we are referencing is very important as I would hope you can appreciate.
PS... I would also conside another book by Richard Dawkins titled "The ancestors tale"
Your next quote was interesting also and again I felt it was very non-specific.
Source:
http://www.pdbookstore.com/comfiles/pages/JonTolass.shtmlSuicide occurs 2,000 times per day throughout the world: that’s 80 to 100 self-inflicted deaths per hour! In fact, author Jon Tolaas relates that suicide is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States.
Again, is this suicide of otherwise healthy reproductively fertile humans or are other circumstances involved for example Euthonasia due to terminal illness. It's important this distinction be made as I have expressed in this post.
80 - 100 self-inflicted deaths per hour compared to 14,709 births per hour. I would consider the 80 - 100 insignificant even though you seem to object. Again your material was of a very generalised nature.
PS... Suicide is the 8th cause of death amongst men, it does not figure in the top ten for all persons.
If you keep talking to me about your "beleifs" without really giving me any real factual evidence of your claims then I will probably start ignoring you.
If you expect me to do your homework and research then perhaps you best. If you want a source because you doubt a point I make (ask for it)!
Because debating with a person who is "Seamingly smart" is the worst kind It will never end with you ! And you will keep presenting your "beleifs" in a "seamingly" logical way.
Seemingly or apparantly!
Also you did not reply to my other points?
I know, I am only interested in the points I quoted. However, if you would reminfd me which points in particular. I will.
Like you stated we do not have free will then you went on to say science is agnostic to the free will factor so which is it?
I am agnostic on the question. However, thanks for wasting my time searching where I have allegedly stated "we do not have free will". I double checked and don't see it.
I found your writing style to be quite asinine.
).
