Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

CON Forum
» back to
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolutionary psychology
       and Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS)

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin


|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.

In the "light" of creationism, nothing makes sense.

Behaviors, for instance.

How can creationism explain the fact that behaviors consist of Evolutionarily Stable Strategies or evolutionary byproducts?

Game Theory applied to Evolutionary Biology is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting branches of Science (not only in Biology).


I don't think there is a single animal whose anatomy and behavior harmonize with a pacific Garden of Eden.

We have innate mechanisms to protect ourselves against violence and lies (also to lie and excerpt violence).

Our body language and expressions (well, our emotions per se) don't seem to harmonize with it either.

Even the nice emotions and expressions!

Everything harmonizes with Evolution.

In a Garden of Eden where everything is fine, why would we need an innate expression to communicate that everything is fine?


From Wikipedia:

Evolutionarily stable strategy

In game theory and behavioural ecology, an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) is a strategy which, if adopted by a population of players, cannot be invaded by any alternative strategy that is initially rare. An ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium -- it is a Nash equilibrium which is "evolutionarily" stable meaning that once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant) strategies from successfully invading.

The ESS was developed in order to define a class of solutions to game theoretic problems, equivalent to the Nash equilibrium, but which could be applied to the evolution of social behaviour in animals. Nash equilibria may sometimes exist due to the application of rational foresight, which would be inappropriate in an evolutionary context. Teleological forces such as rational foresight cannot explain the outcomes of trial-and-error processes, such as evolution, and thus have no place in biological applications. The definition of an ESS excludes such Nash equilibria.

First developed in 1973, the ESS has come to be widely used in behavioural ecology and economics, and has been used in anthropology, evolutionary psychology, philosophy, and political science.

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at

Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:00 AM on January 22, 2010 | IP
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread


Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.