NationStates Jolt Archive

I think Cuxil said in one of his rants that religious belief couldn't possibly be carried in our genes. This article suggests otherwise. I tended to think of it more as the equivalent of an internet meme. Would any believers like to present a counter argument?

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

"If a person is willing to sacrifice for an abstract god then people feel like they are willing to sacrifice for the community," says James Dow, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, US, who wrote the program – called Evogod (download the code here).

Dow is by no means the first scientist to take a stab at explaining how religion emerged. Theories on the evolution of religion tend toward two camps. One argues that religion is a mental artefact, co-opted from brain functions that evolved for other tasks.

Aiding the people
Another contends that religion benefited our ancestors. Rather than being a by-product of other brain functions, it is an adaptation in its own right. In this explanation, natural selection slowly purged human populations of the non-religious.

"Sometime between 100,000 years ago to the point where writing was invented, maybe about 7000 BC, we begin to have records of people's supernatural beliefs," Dow says.

To determine if it was possible for religion to emerge as an adaptation, Dow wrote a simple computer program that focuses on the evolutionary benefits people receive from their interactions with one another.

"What people are adapting to is other people," he says.

Religious attraction
To simplify matters, Dow picked a defining trait of religion: the desire to proclaim religious information to others, such as a belief in the afterlife. He assumed that this trait was genetic.

The model assumes, in other words, that a small number of people have a genetic predisposition to communicate unverifiable information to others. They passed on that trait to their children, but they also interacted with people who didn't spread unreal information.

The model looks at the reproductive success of the two sorts of people – those who pass on real information, and those who pass on unreal information.

Under most scenarios, "believers in the unreal" went extinct. But when Dow included the assumption that non-believers would be attracted to religious people because of some clear, but arbitrary, signal, religion flourished.

"Somehow the communicators of unreal information are attracting others to communicate real information to them," Dow says, speculating that perhaps the non-believers are touched by the faith of the religious.

Ancient needs
Richard Sosis, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, US, says the model adds a new dimension to the debate over how religion could have evolved, which has previously relied on verbal arguments and speculation. But "these are baby steps", he cautions.

Sosis previously found that in some populations – kibbutzim in Israel, for instance – more religious people receive more assistance from others than the less faithful. But he notes that the forces that maintain religion in modern humans could be very different from those that promoted its emergence, thousands of years ago.

Palaeolithic humans were probably far more reliant than modern humans on the community they were born into, Sosis says. "[Now] you can be a Lutheran one week and decide the following week you are going to become a Buddhist."

Journal reference: Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Stimulation, vol 11, p 2

Why would anyone need to present a counter argument? There isn't a shred of anything in that article, let alone evidence.

The guy 'assumes' that this is genetic, puts it into his own computer model, makes a couple of other 'assumptions', then wow, what a surprise! It says what he wanted it to say.

If this is the best science has to offer, I think religion will be sleeping easy tonight.

But when Dow included the assumption that non-believers would be attracted to religious people because of some clear, but arbitrary, signal, religion flourished.

"Somehow the communicators of unreal information are attracting others to communicate real information to them," Dow says, speculating that perhaps the non-believers are touched by the faith of the religious.

epic lulz

I doubt that the complex behaviors, emotions, and social interactions which make up "religion" are all directly coded in our genes. That would be inefficient. I also highly doubt that all these traits are coded on the same gene (or genes), i.e. "the religion gene." That would be 1) impossible, and 2) very silly.

The alien intelligence which seeded humanity instilled that trait in order to make us more subservient and obedient to them... :)

While we do have lots of junk DNA, I don't think a person's religious inclinations are hidden somewhere in there. Although.... If we were originally animals with an alpha male type of society, then perhaps making the "alpha male" a supernatural figure would help reduce in-fighting for control, since there'd be no point in trying to usurp a being that supposedly could smite you where-ever you are. That way the group could concentrate more on their mutual survival (and the smartypants could remain the de-facto alpha, and have less problems keeping his position).

Still, I don't really have anything to base this on, and I have a wide track record of being wrong.

Ok, I'll humour this article and say it's possible. After all, why else would I be an Atheist if my parents weren't? Take that article! :D

Now on a serious note, the only possible reason it may seem like it is this way is because children are mimics and they tend to mimic their parents early on. Sometimes those actions follow them into their adult years because they stuck during the formative years. This isn't always true though. But it could serve as a possible explanation.

I doubt that the complex behaviors, emotions, and social interactions which make up "religion" are all directly coded in our genes. That would be inefficient. I also highly doubt that all these traits are coded on the same gene (or genes), i.e. "the religion gene." That would be 1) impossible, and 2) very silly.

I must admit my reaction is pretty much the same. Though I have been reading a lot of Dawkins recently, and he seems to be betting that complex social behaviours are likely to be genetic, though clearly not on one gene, on the grounds that such processes are likely to produce differences which can then be selected for if advantageous. Which leads to the reason I posted this, which is that this would lead to the suggestion that religion might be baseless but has positive advantages.

I've never really been fully convinced by the idea of memes.

ethnicitiy and cutlural values promote religeous ones to a degree, but indeed there is nothing "geneitic" about enthnicity. not intrinsically. given a particular genome in a particular geographic location, those people in that place will develop their own spiritual prespectives as a society and a culture.

this may appear to create a link between geneitics and spirituallity, but it is, after all, a totally illusory and circumstatial one.

this thread sounds like someone is trying to lay the foundations for once again arguing the hitler excuse.

=^^=
.../\...

im in the "religion is a mental artefact, co-opted from brain functions that evolved for other tasks" camp.

so as i read the paper sounds like they are about as far along as finding the gene for homosexuality. i wonder if they turn about to be the same gene?

could explain the priest child molester thing.

so as i read the paper sounds like they are about as far along as finding the gene for homosexuality. i wonder if they turn about to be the same gene?

could explain the priest child molester thing.

So would the bizarre idea that celibacy is important...

When I read that article, I laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair. Neither of my parents are religious, nor their parents, and yet I am a trainee minister... I think genetics is not looking so good on this point.

Neither of my parents are religious, nor their parents, and yet I am a trainee minister... I think genetics is not looking so good on this point.

You could be a mutant ;)

You could be a mutant ;)

Everybody's a mutant.

Everybody's a mutant.

No they aren't. A mutant is a result of a structural change to to a gene or chromosome that is new. People generally inherit existing genes from their parents not entirely new ones.

I don't have an opinion on the subject, but as an undergaduate in IT I'd suggest you not to trust so much the results of a computer model, especially one concerning social sciences.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_simulation#Criticisms_of_Social_Simulation)

No they aren't. A mutant is a result of a structural change to to a gene or chromosome that is new. People generally inherit existing genes from their parents not entirely new ones.

There's always random changes, the inheritance is never perfect. So everybody's a mutant.

So would the bizarre idea that celibacy is important...

When I read that article, I laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair. Neither of my parents are religious, nor their parents, and yet I am a trainee minister... I think genetics is not looking so good on this point.

ha, maybe the milkman is religious?

so as i read the paper sounds like they are about as far along as finding the gene for homosexuality. i wonder if they turn about to be the same gene?

could explain the priest child molester thing.

:D

There's always random changes, the inheritance is never perfect. So everybody's a mutant.

Is the mutation rate high enough in humans for it to affect everyone?

The alien intelligence which seeded humanity instilled that trait in order to make us more subservient and obedient to them... :)

This "theory" sounds much more pausible... maybe we should build a computer program that "proves" it.... I can do it in the weekend. Ill publish my works soon....stay tuned.

Religious belief is not a genetic trait. It's that simple.

Is the mutation rate high enough in humans for it to affect everyone?

Usually the mutations are neutral and don't have any effect.

so as i read the paper sounds like they are about as far along as finding the gene for homosexuality. i wonder if they turn about to be the same gene?

could explain the priest child molester thing.


So saying in a joking manner that atheists are rude and insensitive to the beliefs of others is trolling, whereas this denegration of both a massive percentage of the population, their sexual orientation, and and an entire sector of employment is pure genius.

Riiiight

So saying in a joking manner that atheists are rude and insensitive to the beliefs of others is trolling, whereas this denegration of both a massive percentage of the population, their sexual orientation, and and an entire sector of employment is pure genius.

Riiiight

the correlation is there, if that is the cause is the question.

I think Cuxil said in one of his rants that religious belief couldn't possibly be carried in our genes. This article suggests otherwise. I tended to think of it more as the equivalent of an internet meme. Would any believers like to present a counter argument?

Religion as a genetic trait...

There's no possible way of proving that. I, for example, come from a very religious, Catholic, Apostolic and Spanish family and the fervor wasn't passed down to me.

Besides, internet memes are... unreliable...

Religious belief is not a genetic trait. It's that simple.

Don't be so fast at discrediting that. Maybe it is a genetic trait. Maybe all people have it. Maybe it is what make people wanna seek God and become religious, if that is an inborn characteristic.

Is this theory more appealing to you now?:p

the correlation is there, if that is the cause is the question.


There is no higher percentage of child molesters in the clergy than everywhere else. Nor is there a higher proportion of homosexuals in the clergy. It is the same as in the general population.

Don't be so fast at discrediting that. Maybe it is a genetic trait. Maybe all people have it. Maybe it is what make people wanna seek God and become religious, if that is an inborn characteristic.

Is this theory more appealing to you now?:p

Attempting to have a fructiferous argument with Cuxil can be... arduous.

Now that you mention it, the belief in something might well be ingrained on our genes and it's triggered when the right conditions are met... Maybe... Who knows...

Don't be so fast at discrediting that. Maybe it is a genetic trait. Maybe all people have it. Maybe it is what make people wanna seek God and become religious, if that is an inborn characteristic.

Is this theory more appealing to you now?:p


Not really. Human curiosity and methods of thinking is probably more of the reason. Humans love to know things, so it's not specific to religious belief.

Not really. Human curiosity and methods of thinking is probably more of the reason. Humans love to know things, so it's not specific to religious belief.

How does wanting to know things lead to religion?

Superstitious thinking appears to be innate, so I would expect a predilection for religious thinking to also be innate.

Not that your innate thinking can't be overcome, but a lot of people who are atheists still manifest superstitious thinking.

I also think that a lot of people who claim to be atheists are actually just hating the religion they grew up with. A lot of them are far more tolerant of any other religion other than the one they grew up with.

How does wanting to know things lead to religion?

Well before astrology, the common man put it down to superstition. If humans don't know something, we'll just make something up in the meantime. That way we feel like we know.

Because some things cannot be found out to definitive degrees, we'll just make something up in the meantime.

It is here that religion makes it's debut

Well before astrology, the common man put it down to superstition. If humans don't know something, we'll just make something up in the meantime. That way we feel like we know.

Because some things cannot be found out to definitive degrees, we'll just make something up in the meantime.

It is here that religion makes it's debut

That would be 'stopping thing leads to religion'.

No they aren't. A mutant is a result of a structural change to to a gene or chromosome that is new. People generally inherit existing genes from their parents not entirely new ones.

There's always random changes, the inheritance is never perfect. So everybody's a mutant.

Is the mutation rate high enough in humans for it to affect everyone?
Every single living human has many, many mutations in their genes. Like, a really really lot of mutations.

Now, a great many of those mutations aren't "functional," in the sense that they don't change much of anything (that we know of). But they're still there, and we're all still a bunch of filthy mutants. :D

Every single living human has many, many mutations in their genes. Like, a really really lot of mutations.

Now, a great many of those mutations aren't "functional," in the sense that they don't change much of anything (that we know of). But they're still there, and we're all still a bunch of filthy mutants. :D

Well I have learned something new today thanks to Benevulon and you, always a good thing.

Not really. Human curiosity and methods of thinking is probably more of the reason. Humans love to know things, so it's not specific to religious belief.

True. Religious belief has more to do with our inate need to find and interpret patterns in everything we see and experience.

Well I have learned something new today thanks to Benevulon and you, always a good thing.
I checked some numbers, and it works out that the average human has something like 100 mutations at any given time, but of those only about 3 will actually change a protein (i.e. will "do" something within the body).

I checked some numbers, and it works out that the average human has something like 100 mutations at any given time, but of those only about 3 will actually change a protein (i.e. will "do" something within the body).

I presume this is quite a good thing in that it makes us able to adapt to new environments pretty quickly. I was thinking it would be maybe one mutation every few generations. Damn my school for only using biology as a health education class.

I checked some numbers, and it works out that the average human has something like 100 mutations at any given time, but of those only about 3 will actually change a protein (i.e. will "do" something within the body).

damnit, i just checked that myself only to find you'd already done it.

God wouldnt make religion a genetic trait. That would violate our free will. God wants US to chose between salvation and damnation, not some stupid genes.

Besidas all that DNA bullshit is just a theory.

I presume this is quite a good thing in that it makes us able to adapt to new environments pretty quickly.

Honestly, mutations aren't categorically good or bad, they're just the result of how biology works on this planet.

You have to remember that genes don't magically zap from one generation to the next. Rather, our bodies have to manufacture gametes (sperm or eggs), and then THOSE cells have to merge to form a fertilized egg, and then THAT cell has to divide a bajillion times in order to eventually maybe possibly end up producing a whole new human.

The mechanics of replicating DNA, segregating it into new daughter cells, recombining the DNA, and sorting it all out again are pretty massive.

And it's not over when we're born, either! Our cells have to keep dividing. That means DNA is continually being copied, and every time it's copied there's a chance that a mistake will occur...and that "mistake" is a mutation!

In addition, our cells are constantly exposed to substances that can break or alter our DNA, and so there's a constant process of checking and repair that has to keep things together.

Mutations actually occur quite often, but we've got cellular mechanisms that are dedicated to catching mutations and fixing them. They don't work perfectly all the time, but let's all be really glad that they work as often as they do!

I was thinking it would be maybe one mutation every few generations. Damn my school for only using biology as a health education class.
In mammals (including humans), mutations occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million nucleotides added to the chain. Considering that there are six million base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains around 120 new mutations. But over 90% of our DNA doesn't encode genes, so most of these don't "do" anything.

One other fun fact: males contribute more mutations to their offspring than females contribute. This is due in part to the fact that a female's gametes (her eggs) are made at a pretty early stage in her development. Very few mitotic divisions have taken place at that stage, which means there have been relatively few opportunities for mutations to occur and to be passed to the egg cells. On the other hand, the sperm of a 30 year old man is the descendant of over 400 mitotic divisions since the fertilized egg that formed him. That's a lot of opportunities for a mistake to occur in the process.

Mutations actually occur quite often, but we've got cellular mechanisms that are dedicated to catching mutations and fixing them.

How do the repair mechanisms know when they have found a mutation? Presumably they have some kind of reference copy - but presumably that too could have mutations in it?

There is no higher percentage of child molesters in the clergy than everywhere else. Nor is there a higher proportion of homosexuals in the clergy. It is the same as in the general population.

which proves it. clergy are less likely to admit to being gay or a child molester then the general public due to religious reasons. so if the numbers are the same then there are in fact a greater number of closet cases.

you Sir are a Genius and have proven that being religious is in fact gay.

How do the repair mechanisms know when they have found a mutation? Presumably they have some kind of reference copy - but presumably that too could have mutations in it?
Short answer: There's a "template strand" that is used for reference, and it is possible for it to have mutations as well.

Longer answer: There are many different kinds of DNA damage/mutations, so there are a lot of different mechanisms, and not all of them require a template to work.

For instance, uracil glycosylase is an enzyme which removes the base uracil from DNA. Uracil is not supposed to be in DNA, but it can end up there if there was a mix-up during gene translation (which is how RNA-->DNA), or it can also occur if a cytosine (which is a base that IS supposed to be in DNA) is deaminated. So the uracil glycosylase enzyme just trucks along knowing that there's NEVER supposed to be a uracil in the DNA, and it can safely get rid of any it finds.

Another kind of checking mechanism is carried out by a group of proteins that look for mis-matched base pairs. You've seen the double-helix picture of DNA, right? It's got two long chains (the helices) that are connected kind of like a ladder, rung by rung, to form one big structure. Those "rungs" connect a base on one helix to a base on the other helix. These are called "base pairs." The catch is, bases aren't supposed to pair up with just any other base. If they pair up with an incorrect base, then the "rungs" in that DNA ladder won't fit correctly, and the "ladder" will be deformed. So a group of proteins can travel along and look for places where the "ladder" is warped and can find the mis-matched pair of bases.

Sometimes DNA damage can simply leave a hole in the chain, too, and obviously that's pretty easy to spot. Ditto for a place where an extra base has been inserted, making the chain too long.