Evolution explains everything...

[_Nephi]

You have a problem Nephi, and that is that you believe that what you think automatically becomes true. This si why you believe in Mormonism, why you take stock in psychoactive drugs and why you thought Phish could actually be entertaining.

Wow. Personal attacking. Your argument must be very strong here.

Individuals such as yourself delude their interpretation of experiences into the interpretation they wish so as to make a pathetic life easier to accept. Are you pathetic? Quite possibly.

All of this being said, you have no proof that in the long term outlook that Evolution demands, emotions are not a byproduct of that process. This was the statement you have the burden of proof to provide. Not just because you stated it first but because you do not hold a majority opinion. Evolution Trump's most of your silly assertions and it will continue to do so. If you want to find coroborating evidence put down the pipe and use google if you want evidence.

Lazy people like you make boards boring places because you wont even do any research. you EXPECT evidence to always be glaring because in your mind, all you need is the warm fuzzies to feel that something is true. I am sure I will be telling you to go to hell in the future several times.

More personal attacks... All this before showing your link and references. Your reference must be super strong. Let's see here...

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/emoevo.html

Furthermore:

The psychology side of the evolutionary psychological approach to the emotions is largely centered on the theories of several American psychologists. The first of these was William James. According to James, "Instinctive reactions and emotional expressions thus shade imperceptibly into each other. Every object that excites an instinct excites an emotion as well," (7). In other words James proposed that an a stimulus from the outside environment would create an internal physiological reaction as well as an external reaction/expression. Thus, emotion is the feeling of both the physiological and behavioral processes (1). Several years later, a Danish physician by the name of Carl Lange constricted James' original theory to state that emotion is simply the perception of physiological changes taking place internally. The two theorists were clumped together, and their ideas are referred to as the James-Lange theory. Much like Darwin's claims, the James-Lange theory faced serious criticism. Walter B. Cannon published research on animals whose internal organs were separated from the nervous system yet continued to display emotional expression (1). These three scientists theories form the basis of the psychological view of the emotions.

Of course, you robably do not accept these because they contradict your tantrum. Grow the hell up and learn how to do your own research. Maybe you just might change your opinions instead of being a jackass defending them until everyone proves you wrong.

I do not accept them, but not because they contradict my tantrum, it is because he lacks actual evidence. Its a good theory, but not testable and only uses ideas of evolution to explain ideas of emotions. This is exactly that which I was pointing out. A Dr. of Psychological Medicine is using evolution to explain emotions. Again, the idea is nice and works well, but it is not testable and (unfortunately) is being used by someone who does not have a high educational degree in evolution or biology.

A similar idea would be if an auto mechanic says that the changes in car engines are a result of evolution because it weaker engines are thrown away and better designs stay around longer. It fits the idea of evolution, but is not evolution. Besides, he is a master of car machines, not evolution (he is not a biologist).

Am I saying that your reference lacks any knowledge? Not at all, and the idea is a good way to think of it, but it is not shown without a doubt that evolution is happening. There can be a whole slew of other reasons for what is happening, and a Dr. of psychological medicine doesn't have proper education on evolution and what the current studies on the subject is. What would make the paper stronger would be if it were a joint paper of a psychologist and an evolutionary biologist.

I know, you don't agree with this interpretation of the reference, and you have the right not to agree. Your reference is better than most, but I do question how much knowledge of evolution a Dr. of Psychological Medicine has. Would you trust a pediatricians ideas on open heart surgery? Not the worst person to ask about, but definitely not a master of such knowledge.

by the way: Why do you find it so necessary to be-little those who ask you to reference yourself? Is this part of what you deem to be good debate?

[_Mercury]

Why do I personally attack you? Because your approach is unsound and I think although you put on a soft facade you are waiting to show your true colors, that of a tool.

Your simpleton antics and middle school argument method is trite and bumpkinish.

So...go back to Walmart, eat some pork rinds and hope for that great hippie dream in the sky where what you believe becomes true JUST because it makes "more sense" to you. Thinking is hard and I guess its easier to understand things that are simple.

You were not going to accept the evidence I gave to you no matter what. The demand for evidence was hollow to begin with.

Do some F****** research instead of thinking you are an erudite educated proponent of honest intellectual debate.

Also when someone GIVES you something to chew on, accept it and come up with a better argument than "It can't be so because it contradicts my original argument". that's all you did Nehi. that's ALL. Come up with something better.

I see now why you joined the Mormons. You started with the conclusion and worked your way through the "evidence".

Its sad, really. As for the personal attacks, im just stating reality. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you.

[_Nephi]

Why do I personally attack you? Because your approach is unsound and I think although you put on a soft facade you are waiting to show your true colors, that of a tool.

Your simpleton antics and middle school argument method is trite and bumpkinish.

So...go back to Walmart, eat some pork rinds and hope for that great hippie dream in the sky where what you believe becomes true JUST because it makes "more sense" to you. Thinking is hard and I guess its easier to understand things that are simple.

You were not going to accept the evidence I gave to you no matter what. The demand for evidence was hollow to begin with.

Do some F****** research instead of thinking you are an erudite educated proponent of honest intellectual debate.

Also when someone GIVES you something to chew on, accept it and come up with a better argument than "It can't be so because it contradicts my original argument". that's all you did Nehi. that's ALL. Come up with something better.

I see now why you joined the Mormons. You started with the conclusion and worked your way through the "evidence".

Its sad, really. As for the personal attacks, I'm just stating reality. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you.

Nice retort.

[_Mercury]

It was, actually. Talking down to you is too easy.

[_Nephi]

It was, actually. Talking down to you is too easy.

Hey, as long as I keep getting sig love from you, and you like condescending replies, I am glad I can help then :)

Back to the matter at hand, the specific issue here we are debating is called evolutionary psychology, and it is not "universally" accepted within the psychological community. The main aspect that is argued is that since we know so little about psychology to begin with, we are jumping to an extreme conclusion with the data we have at hand. Many other criticisms of evolutionary psychology exist (you can read both pros and cons of the ideas here).

[_Mercury]

It was, actually. Talking down to you is too easy.

Hey, as long as I keep getting sig love from you, and you like condescending replies, I am glad I can help then :)

Back to the matter at hand, the specific issue here we are debating is called evolutionary psychology, and it is not "universally" accepted within the psychological community. The main aspect that is argued is that since we know so little about psychology to begin with, we are jumping to an extreme conclusion with the data we have at hand. Many other criticisms of evolutionary psychology exist (you can read both pros and cons of the ideas here).

Hmm, typical. Your aproach is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

http://www.moviewavs.com/0095461785/WAVS/TV_Shows/South_Park/Episode_203_Chickenlover/203_dumbass.wav

[_Nephi]

It was, actually. Talking down to you is too easy.

Hey, as long as I keep getting sig love from you, and you like condescending replies, I am glad I can help then :)

Back to the matter at hand, the specific issue here we are debating is called evolutionary psychology, and it is not "universally" accepted within the psychological community. The main aspect that is argued is that since we know so little about psychology to begin with, we are jumping to an extreme conclusion with the data we have at hand. Many other criticisms of evolutionary psychology exist (you can read both pros and cons of the ideas here).

Hmm, typical. Your aproach is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

http://www.moviewavs.com/0095461785/WAVS/TV_Shows/South_Park/Episode_203_Chickenlover/203_dumbass.wav

I am not stipulating that your side is wrong, but it does not contain a solid theory because it cannot be proven. Kinda like string theory. Its a great theory, but it lacks the ability to be tested and therefore doesn't really constitute a theory.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

You know, your own side of argument here can also be given the same logical fallacy claim, as all you have done is point to an article which explains that what is being observed looks like evolution, but fails to establish a way to test this hypothesis. How can evolutionary psychology be proven false when there is no way to test the hypothesis?

[_Mercury]

Kinda like string theory

Don't you mean Kinda like Mormonism? String theory is by far more likely than the bull you learned from the elders.

[_Mercury]

You know, your own side of argument here can also be given the same logical fallacy claim, as all you have done is point to an article which explains that what is being observed looks like evolution, but fails to establish a way to test this hypothesis. How can evolutionary psychology be proven false when there is no way to test the hypothesis?

Take an anthropology course and call me in the morning.

[_Nephi]

You know, your own side of argument here can also be given the same logical fallacy claim, as all you have done is point to an article which explains that what is being observed looks like evolution, but fails to establish a way to test this hypothesis. How can evolutionary psychology be proven false when there is no way to test the hypothesis?

Take an anthropology course and call me in the morning.

Kinda like string theory

Don't you mean Kinda like Mormonism? String theory is by far more likely than the bull you learned from the elders.

Merc are you here to discuss the ideas of evolutionary psychology or here to just attack Mormonism and/or my beliefs and choices in life?

Your argument for evolutionary psychology lacks supporting evidence. All that has occurred is a hypothesis was established to fit that which is observed without any plausible way to test it. As I've stated before, I am intrigued by the idea that evolution can create and cause the whole multitude of emotions that humans express, but there is no current way to test it.

This is similar to string theory. It gives a whole slew of math that seems to fit that which we see around us, but gives us no real way to test the hypothesis, so until it can be tested, its just a good idea. I am not attacking evolutionary psychology, I am not attack you, I am not attacking anything here. I am just stating that without the ability to test this hypothesis, it is just that - a hypothesis.