Darwinists create clever model to account for bad survival traits
Evolution has a problem with fairness and spite. At least at face value, there‚Äôs little gained by sharing your food in a world of survival of the fittest. At the other extreme, humans will sometimes expend energy to harm another person, even though the antagonist stands to gain nothing (except sour satisfaction). You‚Äôd think natural selection would have killed off creatures that waste resources in this fashion.
Lay aside doubts about evolution and play along for a minute. In a recent study, two philosophers from Massachusetts, Patrick Forber and Rory Smead, think they‚Äôve found a common origin for fairness and spite. Their experiment involves a computer simulation of a common lab game researchers use to study human behavior, called the ‚Äúultimatum game.‚ÄĚ
The game goes like this: Player A gets a chance to share a resource (an apple pie, let‚Äôs say) with player B. He can offer any amount‚ÄĒhalf the pie...
It seems as though they're saying that this "ultimatum game" is the basic concept of survival boiled down into a few principles, and upon understanding those principles our ancestors created concepts of fairness and spite.
Ignoring other "doubts about Evolution" as they write, and even ignoring my own doubts about the basic premise, that this game is the basics of survival life, this understanding still falls flat on one point.
They expect me to believe that animals with brains significantly less developed than my own pulled together concepts of present and future, we're capable of weighing out the results of their actions, and chose to behave in ways they never behaved before (since we're talking about the origin of such actions). And all without a single shred of science (science being defined in the traditional way of something being confirmed through use of the scientific method).