Why do we pee?

[shkrobius]

The textbook answer is that animals need to urinate in order to excrete extra salts and nitrogen metabolites from their blood. The ammonia in aquatic animals, insoluble uric acid in birds, diapsid reptiles, and insects, and soluble urea in amphibians and mammals are the means of disposing the N generated by transdeamination of unwanted amino acids

Comments

ot

[eta_ta]

Need your assistance here.
I refuse to adhere to the author's view that development of morality is contradictory to theory of evolution; still, can't provide coherent reasoning. I think you wrote something on the subject in the past - or is it tooo broad for you?

Re: ot

[shkrobius]

It is a bit too broad, but I can suggest you a book where you will find the arguments you need to strengthen your case. It is "The origin of virtue" by M. Ridley
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Virtue-Matt-Ridley/dp/0670863572
Ridley reviews various evolutionary theories of altruism, co-operation, and conformism. I think you will enjoy this book; it is exceptionally well written and goes over a lot of different theories; it is also thin and it has no technical slang in it. The "burning house" situation is explicitly examined there. Perhaps your opponent might be interested in reading it, too.

Re: ot

[eta_ta]

many thanks

Re: ot

[eta_ta]

'eta-ta', not quite as pretty as your other name, but anyway, you might also like to try Ridley's "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature". A fascinating book which I will now have to re-read so that I am ready for your criticisms. However, I should warn you that the neo-Darwinist arguments used to explain altruism are almost painful to behold in their extreme contortions! Anyway, if Richard Dawkins says that morality does not exist in a Darwinian world, who am I to argue?

"Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." 'The Selfish Gene', ch.1, p.3.

David Duff - http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com

Re: ot

[eta_ta]

David, it's not as pretty only because you don't know Russian (hint: it's a pun: a nod to a line from our famous poet + my nickname + a letter from my last name)
Anyway,
I appreciate the reading sugestion.

Have to tell you, though - you might decide never talk to me again when you learn that I consider altruism, as a guiding principle, appaling and people who constantly demand others to be altruistic - suspect. What's more, I'm a prime example of what's called a "Randoid". My apologies.

Re: ot

[shkrobius]

If you liked the Red Queen, "The Origin of Virtue" is a better book and it has a broader scope. BTW, I do not see why is it totally impossible to explain morality, altruism, unselfshness, cooperation, conformism, etc. using the existing evolutionary theories. Your own body is "a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good." If it troubles you that these individuals are genetic clones, consider Myxomycete slime molds. Genetically varied individuals get together on their own accord, form a slug, move out, form a fruiting body, and multiply. Ca. 10-30% of these individuals selflessly die in the process. Why isn't this "a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good?" Dawkins may believe that morality cannot emerge in a Darwinian world; he is entitled to his opinion. If morality does not emerge in his version of the Darwinian world, this only means that we do not live in such a world, and better theories of evolutionary transitions are required.