Whats The Point Of All This?

[Mattnxtc 0]

And that arguments is dealt with by my and Yorke's above post, and so the running around in circles continues...To reiterate: the articles that you posted that have a problem with morality being evolved have a problem in that they are looking at evolution the wrong way. The animal/person/whatever doesn't make a "moral" decision by thinking "what will be the best way to have my species survive" but rather chooses the moral decision, the decision to do the right thing because, for whatever reason, it feels good. Dealing with people specifically, if the person is religious, it feels good because they feel that it is what God wants them to do and makes them closer to God or, in the case of more pragmatic people, because it might help them get into heaven, whatever. The point being that we do the right thing because ultimately it feels good. Now, this leads to the question: Why does it feel good? Religious people may argue it feels good because we have an inate sense of morality given to us by our creator. The other argument, the one that myself and others are making, is maybe if feels good because it is in our genes. Those species for which it wasn't in their genes made decisions that were harmful to the survival of their species, and thus were less likely to survive and aren't seen as much, ala survival of the fittest, as the desire to help the group is clearly a trait which is beneficial to the species.I will repeat as this is the key to the entire argument. For whatever reason, a random mutation occured that made certain animals feel good about doing the "right" thing. Those animals were more likely to survive then ones who did not have this gene. Thus, we look at the world and see animals, namely humans, that have this trait. And thus, morals can come from evolution. Do I know that this is the case? Of course not, but it does make a good point and gives a counter to people that feel that morality must come from a creator.

and as ill repeat, yu make a good case, one problem though, you have absolutely no evidence. Another problem is you base it on what makes people "feel good". Last time i checked that isnt what morality is. And thats a major point you seem to have missed. If you steal food when your hungry, you might "feel good" but is that morally correct? Of course not. And thats your problem. You try to base morality on what feels good. Scientist try to base animal morality based on what the animals do that looks good. All a huge problem. I hope you can see this. Anytime you start off an argument with "what feels good" then you aer going to be doing a lot of circles.As for your last paragraph, there are huge problems with this to. We can look at species that show no signs of morality yet still exist. Animals that eat their young, but still exist. Those would not be considered moral creatures or even creatures that do whats best for thier species, yet they still exist. Do you see the problems with your thinking?

[BuffDan 0]

and as ill repeat, yu make a good case, one problem though, you have absolutely no evidence. Another problem is you base it on what makes people "feel good". Last time i checked that isnt what morality is. And thats a major point you seem to have missed. If you steal food when your hungry, you might "feel good" but is that morally correct? Of course not. And thats your problem. You try to base morality on what feels good. Scientist try to base animal morality based on what the animals do that looks good. All a huge problem. I hope you can see this. Anytime you start off an argument with "what feels good" then you aer going to be doing a lot of circles.As for your last paragraph, there are huge problems with this to. We can look at species that show no signs of morality yet still exist. Animals that eat their young, but still exist. Those would not be considered moral creatures or even creatures that do whats best for thier species, yet they still exist. Do you see the problems with your thinking?

I agree, saying something "feels good' is a simplistic way of wording it, but I think in the end, that is what it comes down to. Yes, it also feels good to do the wrong thing, but I think when people choose to do the right thing, they are also ultimately doing it because it feels even better. Think about what happens when you choose to do something morally good. You are doing it because it feels like it is right. Why? Because ultimately it feels good to do what you think God wants you to do, it feels even better than the instant gratification of doing the opposite. So yes, ultimately, people are doing what feels good to them, it may feel good in some complicated way, but that is still what is driving us, just like it feels good to be succesful, rich, etc, it feels so good that people are willing to feel bad temporarily to feel better in the future. Just like when they choose to help the poor or whatever; it will feel good to do what God wants or to go to heaven, whatever.As for only observing animals actions, yes we cannot ask a monkey what he thinks; but we can observe him putting the interests of his group ahead of his own, which I would submit to you is nothing less than what human morality, in all of its complications, is. Finally, yes, not all species are moral, just like not all species have wings, not all species eat meat, etc. There are many different ways species can evolve, and apparently some of them have evolved to having some kind of morality.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I agree, saying something "feels good' is a simplistic way of wording it, but I think in the end, that is what it comes down to. Yes, it also feels good to do the wrong thing, but I think when people choose to do the right thing, they are also ultimately doing it because it feels even better. Think about what happens when you choose to do something morally good. You are doing it because it feels like it is right. Why? Because ultimately it feels good to do what you think God wants you to do, it feels even better than the instant gratification of doing the opposite. So yes, ultimately, people are doing what feels good to them, it may feel good in some complicated way, but that is still what is driving us, just like it feels good to be succesful, rich, etc, it feels so good that people are willing to feel bad temporarily to feel better in the future. Just like when they choose to help the poor or whatever; it will feel good to do what God wants or to go to heaven, whatever.As for only observing animals actions, yes we cannot ask a monkey what he thinks; but we can observe him putting the interests of his group ahead of his own, which I would submit to you is nothing less than what human morality, in all of its complications, is. Finally, yes, not all species are moral, just like not all species have wings, not all species eat meat, etc. There are many different ways species can evolve, and apparently some of them have evolved to having some kind of morality.

Again you are confusing two different points. Morality and feelings. You are trying to interpret something feelings based on their actions and this has obvious flaws in it. If you want to go down this road then at times you would questions a mothers morality for getting a baby shots. B/c from the action alone we would assume the mother is causing the child pain. Or when a child is spanked, that action looks wrong but has a much greater purpose. The problem is you want to try to combine them when in fact you cant. I would say that you have yet to read the article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6221which i have now posted for the 3rd time. I could re-explain his arguments but i think he does more than enough to show the fallacies in your arguments. A point you bring up is that we ought to help out the group. Since you neglected to read the article i presume I will post the answer:

This observation uncovers the most serious objection to the idea that evolution is adequate to explain morality. There is one question that can never be answered by any evolutionary assessment of ethics. The question is this: Why ought I be moral tomorrow? One of the distinctives of morality is its "oughtness," its moral incumbency. Assessments of mere behavior, however, are descriptive only. Since morality is essentially prescriptive--telling what should be the case, as opposed to what is the case--and since all evolutionary assessments of moral behavior are descriptive, then evolution cannot account for the most important thing that needs to be explained: morality's "oughtness." The question that really needs to be answered is: "Why shouldn't the chimp (or a human, for that matter) be selfish?" The evolutionary answer might be that when we're selfish, we hurt the group. That answer, though, presumes another moral value: We ought to be concerned about the welfare of the group. Why should that concern us? Answer: If the group doesn't survive, then the species doesn't survive. But why should I care about the survival of the species? Here's the problem. All of these responses meant to explain morality ultimately depend on some prior moral notion to hold them together. It's going to be hard to explain, on an evolutionary view of things why I should not be selfish, or steal, or rape, or even kill tomorrow without smuggling morality into the answer. The evolutionary explanation disembowels morality, reducing it to mere descriptions of conduct. The best the Darwinist explanation can do--if it succeeds at all--is explain past behavior. It cannot inform future behavior. The essence of morality, though, is not description, but prescription. Evolution may be an explanation for the existence of conduct we choose to call moral, but it gives no explanation why I should obey any moral rules in the future. If one countered that we have a moral obligation to evolve, then the game would be up, because if we have moral obligations prior to evolution, then evolution itself can't be their source.

I believe that will be mor ethan enough to cause more doubts in your theoryFinally your last paragraph is a contradiction of another you posted. You initially said that animals who were moral would end up surviving while others that arent would die off. This doesnt seem to be a sound theory either as we have plenty of examples of long lasting animals that show no morality whatsoever yet still exist. So this appears to be flawed thinking on your part.

[BuffDan 0]

Ok, let me try again. The article which you keep quoting, and which I did read, by the way, said that evolution cannot explain why an animal would choose to be moral in the future. I have said that it could be somewhere in the animal's genes, it has a predisposition to choose this. I said that this occurs because it makes it feel good, but this doesn't have to be why; but for whatever reason, the animal tends to choose to help the group. It does not choose to help the group because it knows this would be good for the survival of the species, it chooses to help the group because that is what its genes tell it to do, it doesn't even have to know why. That is why the article is wrong. This is the same for any other evolutionary trait. The giraffe didn't choose to have a long neck because it knew that would help it reach higher in trees; rather, the giraffes that did have the longer necks had a better chance of survival, and thus we see more of them. Simirlarly, the monkey or whatever other social animal you pick doesn't choose to help the group because it "knows" this will help its species survive; rather, those with a genetic predisposition to helping the group were more likely to survive, and thus we see more of them.As far as my last point, I will explain it again. Does every animal we see have long necks? No, but that doesn't mean that giraffes didn't evolve to have long necks. Similarly, does every animal act morally? No, but that doesn't mean that certain animals didn't evolve to act morally.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Ok, let me try again. The article which you keep quoting, and which I did read, by the way, said that evolution cannot explain why an animal would choose to be moral in the future. I have said that it could be somewhere in the animal's genes, it has a predisposition to choose this. I said that this occurs because it makes it feel good, but this doesn't have to be why; but for whatever reason, the animal tends to choose to help the group. It does not choose to help the group because it knows this would be good for the survival of the species, it chooses to help the group because that is what its genes tell it to do, it doesn't even have to know why. That is why the article is wrong. This is the same for any other evolutionary trait. The giraffe didn't choose to have a long neck because it knew that would help it reach higher in trees; rather, the giraffes that did have the longer necks had a better chance of survival, and thus we see more of them. Simirlarly, the monkey or whatever other social animal you pick doesn't choose to help the group because it "knows" this will help its species survive; rather, those with a genetic predisposition to helping the group were more likely to survive, and thus we see more of them.As far as my last point, I will explain it again. Does every animal we see have long necks? No, but that doesn't mean that giraffes didn't evolve to have long necks. Similarly, does every animal act morally? No, but that doesn't mean that certain animals didn't evolve to act morally.

Again you run into some problems when you use your line of thinking, the monkey helps b/c it makes him feel good. Problem with that is that you are saying that helping the group is better than helping yourself. Since darwinism lives under the "survival of the fittest" these two theories contradict each other. But you still run into the problem of what the monkey "ought" to do. You say its a genetic predisposition. Thats great, but all it does is move the timeline back. What we are left with is saying that they either had it from the start or they didnt. Further with the animal kingdom specifically we find that killing seems to be a way of securing a future not helping, wouldnt you agree? I mean animals kill each other daily to survive so there seems to not be the coordination you desire from themto direct it back to humans we are also left with this same problem. Where did this initial "ought to" come from? You base it on a genetics but then you run into the problem of you dont have the evidence for it. Even more so you cant really explain how this evolution occurred since it really cant be gradual at all. It would need to be extremely fast.

[copernicus 0]

Interesting Royal Society paper on the possible evolutionary origins of happiness.

[crowTrobot 2]

Problem with that is that you are saying that helping the group is better than helping yourself. Since darwinism lives under the "survival of the fittest" these two theories contradict each other.

helping the group IS helping yourself. that's the point. those two things are complimentary.

But you still run into the problem of what the monkey "ought" to do. You say its a genetic predisposition. Thats great, but all it does is move the timeline back. What we are left with is saying that they either had it from the start or they didnt.

why? why couldn't it develop as family/clan behavior developed? in fact the benefits of empathetic-like behavior are likely WHY clan behavior evolved to be dominant in higher animals.

Further with the animal kingdom specifically we find that killing seems to be a way of securing a future not helping, wouldnt you agree? I mean animals kill each other daily to survive so there seems to not be the coordination you desire from them

there are exceptions, but most higher animals do not kill members of their own clan, and will come to the aid of injured/threatened clan members (and in a few documented instances, to the aid of members of a their species outside their clan) - apparently human-like empathetic behavior.

to direct it back to humans we are also left with this same problem. Where did this initial "ought to" come from? You base it on a genetics but then you run into the problem of you dont have the evidence for it.

there is plenty of evidence for it in nature.

Even more so you cant really explain how this evolution occurred since it really cant be gradual at all.

that's stupid. there's no reason "moralistic" behavior can't have developed gradually just like any other aspect of evolution.

[copernicus 0]

helping the group IS helping yourself. that's the point. those two things are complimentary.why? why couldn't it develop as family/clan behavior developed? in fact the benefits of empathetic-like behavior are likely WHY clan behavior evolved to be dominant in higher animals.there are exceptions, but most higher animals do not kill members of their own clan, and will come to the aid of injured/threatened clan members (and in a few documented instances, to the aid of members of a their species outside their clan) - apparently human-like empathetic behavior.there is plenty of evidence for it in nature. that's stupid. there's no reason "moralistic" behavior can't have developed gradually just like any other aspect of evolution.

I would go even further. I doubt that there is any aspect of behavior, emotion or mood that hasnt in some manner been influenced by evolution. Behavior, emotion and mood are nothing more but the manifestation of chemical/electrical impulses triggered by the current circumstances. Chemical levels, numbers and arrangements of neurons, functions of different types of neurons are the mechanical means for displaying them, and to assume that evolution had some impact on all of those mechanics isnt a huge leap."Mimicing neurons" in the human brain are now theorized to be the main mechanism of empathy, and their much larger numbers in humans may indeed be what differentiates much of our behavior from our ape cousins.

[brvheart 1,752]

Baptism is no good if you don't know why it's being done. You guys have no idea why- you aren't even in the vicinity.

I was baptized because my savior told me to be baptized. So if by obeying his word I'm somehow doing something wrong.. that sucks for me.Matthew 2818And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.I am a disciple of Christ. I have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So isn't Jesus with me, as he promised me?

Are you God? Because it's the only way you could make such bold and silly statements.Riiiiiight. Because only an invisible man in the sky could possibly be able to differentiate between fiction and non-fiction.

Did you even read your own posts? You just restated my point. You say that an invisible man in the sky is stupid, and therefore the Bible is stupid. I say, how do you know that God doesn't exist? To know for a fact that God did not exist you would have to know everything and therefore you would have to be god.

[brvheart 1,752]

Who's touting? Every species on earth is a product of evolution.YOU are an ape, you are not a divinely inspired creation. You are the product of happenstance. Deal with it.

Come now Timothy. You are just being antagonistic here. Clearly you are not God, (obviously ) so there is no way you can know this for certain, which is turn makes you look bad... and since you and I are buddies I have to call you out. You should probably rewrite this statement something like this:

Who's touting? Every species on earth is a product of evolution, or at least I belive that to be true. Sure we've had 150 years to prove this theory and are no closer to that end, in fact, maybe we're further from that now, but I still believe it. I understand that in the 14th chapter of The origin of Species Darwin himself admits that something, probably God, HAD to be involved, but that did not dissuade my close mindedness. (In fact, I, along with most of the evolutionists on this very thread, haven't even read The Origin of Species, I don't know how I knew that.) Anyway... the main reason for this, is because that is what my 9th grade teacher taught me and I, like many evolutionists, can't fathom that wacko Christians might be right.YOU are an ape, you are not a divinely inspired creation. You are the product of happenstance. I realize that what I just said is insane, because I'm not god, which is obvious due to my love of baseball, but I'm just trying to be antagonistic, because Tim Wakefield isn't playing today, so I thought to myself, "Hey, let's go pick on some stupid Christians. That will be tons of fun!".Deal with it, because I know that I will have to once I die. Hopefully I won't find out that there is in fact an 'invisible man' in the sky and that he hates it when people pick on or insult his people. Of course, on the off chance I'm right, we'll all just be dead and so it won't matter to anyone.

[Mattnxtc 0]

helping the group IS helping yourself. that's the point. those two things are complimentary.

this assumes prior morals which as an evolutionist you cannot assume. B/c if you follow this reasoning, morals always existed and well thats bad for an evolutionist. The rest of your answers can be summed up with this. Further you confuse survival with morals. They are not the same. An animal who does what is necessary to survive is not necessarily doing it b/c of moral reasons but b/c it wants to survive. The problem you encounter is you are tryin to infer intent from actions and that just really doesnt make sense. You wouldnt do it with humans but you try to do it with animals.

[crowTrobot 2]

this assumes prior morals which as an evolutionist you cannot assume.

no it doesn't. it assumes randomly developed empathetic behavior can lead to a better chance of survival - and that can be on the individual OR clan level - or both, which is a logical, testable scientific axiom. you still have no clue how natural selection works, or how well science understands it at this point (pretty well).

An animal who does what is necessary to survive is not necessarily doing it b/c of moral reasons but b/c it wants to survive.

here's where you continue to be confused. an animal doesn't do what is necessary to survive for either reason. its behavior (response to environment) is based on genetically encoded tendencies, not intent.

The problem you encounter is you are tryin to infer intent from actions and that just really doesnt make sense. You wouldnt do it with humans but you try to do it with animals.

why not with humans? our actions as humans are certainly influenced by our genetic makeup, again both on individual and clan level. our human self awareness is an additional factor which complicates what is going on, but most of our behavior still ultimately boils down to response to environment based on genetic tendencies.

[MDXS 0]

Who's touting? Every species on earth is a product of evolution, or at least I belive that to be true. Sure we've had 150 years to prove this theory and well, have just about proven it just like it was proven O.J. Simpson committed that double murder. Any reasonable person can examine the evidence and realize that the case is closed beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are gonig to be those people either with an agenda or whose minds are already made up, or just plain retarded who are immune to logic, reason, evidece, and common sense. I understand that people will manipulate details and pull things out of context to support their own flawed beliefs, but ignorance is bliss, right? Anyway... the main reason for this, is because that is what my 9th grade teacher taught me, because he was competant and able, having studied for years, and it lined up well with my own personal research because education doesn't stop once you're off school grounds. I, like many evolutionists, can't fathom that wacko Christians might be right, because they lack any sort of case. Once they have, you know, evidence, then maybe I'll take them seriously.YOU are an ape, you are not a divinely inspired creation. You are the product of happenstance. I realize that what I just said makes perfect sense and to claim that I am created in god's image is rather silly, arrogant, and doesn't have anything to support it except a collaborative work of fiction thousands of years old. Maybe I'm just trying to be antagonistic, but it doesn't change the facts. Deal with it, because I know that I will have to once I die. Hopefully I won't find out that there is in fact an 'invisible man' in the sky and that he hates it when people pick on or insult his people. Thankfully, the odds are in my favor that god doesn't exist in the first place, or if god does, it's unlikely to be the Christian god, and odds are that a.) doesn't care about human events, or b.) might actually appreciate the effort towards furthering the process of evolution by trying to get some people to stop being stupid ****ing sheep and finally embrace their opposable thumbs, so to speak. Of course, chances are we'll all just be dead and so it won't matter to anyone.

Hey Tim, I thought the first fix didn't quite cut it, so I refixed it. Nothing like putting words in the mouths of others.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I understand that in the 14th chapter of The origin of Species Darwin himself admits that something, probably God, HAD to be involved, but that did not dissuade my close mindedness. (In fact, I, along with most of the evolutionists on this very thread, haven't even read The Origin of Species, I don't how I knew that.)

I'm not sure exactly to what you're referring in this chapter. I guess you're talking about something like these:

Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.

Anyway, Darwin's brief allusions to a "creator" or something that "breaths life" are merely metaphors and are a product of the time during which he wrote.Reading The Origin of the Species isn't really necessary to have an understanding of evolution. Darwin's writing are to evolutionary theory as Newton's writings are to physics. You can understand physics without reading Principia, or whatever, and for that reason few do. I mean, I have read Origin of the Species, and I'm sure that many posters here have, but it's not necessary to understanding evolution.

[Mattnxtc 0]

no it doesn't. it assumes randomly developed empathetic behavior can lead to a better chance of survival - and that can be on the individual OR clan level - or both, which is a logical, testable scientific axiom. you still have no clue how natural selection works, or how well science understands it at this point (pretty well). here's where you continue to be confused. an animal doesn't do what is necessary to survive for either reason. its behavior (response to environment) is based on genetically encoded tendencies, not intent. why not with humans? our actions as humans are certainly influenced by our genetic makeup, again both on individual and clan level. our human self awareness is an additional factor which complicates what is going on, but most of our behavior still ultimately boils down to response to environment based on genetic tendencies.

woah woah woah Crow. You get way ahaed of yourself and make way to many assumptions. Now you are tryin to say its random? Not even the leaders in the industry (Dawkins) is going to support this assertion. So you might want to check with them. The fact is this. To say that any species has an understanding of what is good for a group is to say that the person can see the future or already has an understanding of right and wrong. You are tryin to play the random card and im sorry but no species will exist if you wish to play this card. Nobody of any credibility is going to back this assertion. so please try againAgain what I love about you assertions. They continue to follow no science. You who claims to follow science has no evidence whatsoever that it is "in the genetics." Not even darwin would make this assertion. Survival of the fittest right? In ordre to get to where you want to go with darwinism you have to assume morals. Last paragraph. again pure nonsense. But you do get to an interesting point. Humans seem to have the ability to understand what helps in the long term. Animals dont. They live off of instinct. Humans have that ability to understand what is "for the greater good", animals dont. you say it is genetic makeup. Wheres your proof. You ask for all this biblical proof which from historical records we can provide. I would expect that ill be seeing the evidence for your assertions.

[crowTrobot 2]

woah woah woah Crow. You get way ahaed of yourself and make way to many assumptions. Now you are tryin to say its random?

the pool of genetically influenced behaviors natural selection has available to work from would be random, yes. you continue to confuse the mechanism (natural selection) which is necessarily NOT random with genetic variation which is random.

The fact is this. To say that any species has an understanding of what is good for a group is to say that the person can see the future or already has an understanding of right and wrong.

who said anything about understanding? natural selection of a beneficial trait is purely mechanical. no awareness required. doesn't matter if the trait is good for the individual or good for a group (or both). natural selection works either way. parents of many higher species will defend their young to the death. obviously that behavior is better for group/species survival than individual, but it is still the result of natural selection.

Again what I love about you assertions. They continue to follow no science. You who claims to follow science has no evidence whatsoever that it is "in the genetics." Not even darwin would make this assertion.

so you think there is no scientific evidence that behavior is influenced by genetic makeup? geez matt, just how deep is that cave of yours.

Humans seem to have the ability to understand what helps in the long term. Animals dont. They live off of instinct. Humans have that ability to understand what is "for the greater good", animals dont. you say it is genetic makeup. Wheres your proof.

that's why i said it's more complex with humans. our self awareness allows an extension of empathatic behavior to virtually anything, not just our clan members. however animals do display the same behaviors at various levels, so there's no reason to think they didn't initially evolve in humans, expanding in tandem as our self awareness evolved.

[Mattnxtc 0]

the pool of genetically influenced behaviors natural selection has available to work from would be random, yes. you continue to confuse the mechanism (natural selection) which is necessarily NOT random with genetic variation which is random. who said anything about understanding? natural selection of a beneficial trait is purely mechanical. no awareness required. doesn't matter if the trait is good for the individual or good for a group (or both). natural selection works either way. parents of many higher species will defend their young to the death. obviously that behavior is better for group/species survival than individual, but it is still the result of natural selection.so you think there is no scientific evidence that behavior is influenced by genetic makeup? geez matt, just how deep is that cave of yours.that's why i said it's more complex with humans. our self awareness allows an extension of empathatic behavior to virtually anything, not just our clan members. however animals do display the same behaviors at various levels, so there's no reason to think they didn't initially evolve in humans, expanding in tandem as our self awareness evolved.

and if we were trying to discuss evolution most of this would be relevant, the problem is we arent. as for your normal personal attack. No there is no evidence to support morals as being a genetic mutation. sorry to disappoint youYour problem is you still continue to try to add to morals. You start a nice like circle when you try to describe behavior. In order to help the group you must know it is better for yourself. But if you want to help yourself you must help the group. and aroudn we go. thats your problem You try to say it is some "natural selection" but for this to even be possible there must be something that says it "ought to be this way" and im sorry but until you offer any evidence. Your theories amount to nothing.

[copernicus 0]

the pool of genetically influenced behaviors natural selection has available to work from would be random, yes. you continue to confuse the mechanism (natural selection) which is necessarily NOT random with genetic variation which is random. who said anything about understanding? natural selection of a beneficial trait is purely mechanical. no awareness required. doesn't matter if the trait is good for the individual or good for a group (or both). natural selection works either way. parents of many higher species will defend their young to the death. obviously that behavior is better for group/species survival than individual, but it is still the result of natural selection.so you think there is no scientific evidence that behavior is influenced by genetic makeup? geez matt, just how deep is that cave of yours.that's why i said it's more complex with humans. our self awareness allows an extension of empathatic behavior to virtually anything, not just our clan members. however animals do display the same behaviors at various levels, so there's no reason to think they didn't initially evolve in humans, expanding in tandem as our self awareness evolved.

crow, natural selection driven by random genetic changes has been explained to him at least 15 times in the last 2 months. Either:1) he is a moron, and should be ignored2) he is a troll, and should be ignored

[BuffDan 0]

. You start a nice like circle when you try to describe behavior. In order to help the group you must know it is better for yourself. But if you want to help yourself you must help the group. and aroudn we go. thats your problem You try to say it is some "natural selection" but for this to even be possible there must be something that says it "ought to be this way" and im sorry but until you offer any evidence. Your theories amount to nothing.

NO NO NO!!! The animal itself does NOT choose to help the group to try to help itself. It helps the group because somewhere in its genes it has a primitive "conscience" or whatever you want to call it that says "help the group." The animal NEVER thinks "how can I best insure the survival of my species" rather it thinks "I should help the group out" for reasons it doesn't even need to understand, and those come from its genes. Ask yourself why you choose to do the right thing. Something inside of you says you ought to. You think that something is God instilling you with a conscience, but just maybe that something comes directly from your genes.

[timwakefield 68]

Come now Timothy. You are just being antagonistic here. Clearly you are not God, (obviously ) so there is no way you can know this for certain, which is turn makes you look bad... and since you and I are buddies I have to call you out. You should probably rewrite this statement something like this:

I'm a little late, but here:

Who's touting? Every species on earth is a product of evolution. This says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of God.YOU are an ape, you are not a divinely inspired creation. You are the product of happenstance. If you look up ape in the dictionary, you will see that the first part of my statement is true. I realize that the second part of my statement is inflammatory, but this is what I believe.

This bit I'll just respond to directly:

Deal with it, because I know that I will have to once I die. Hopefully I won't find out that there is in fact an 'invisible man' in the sky and that he hates it when people pick on or insult his people. Of course, on the off chance I'm right, we'll all just be dead and so it won't matter to anyone.

You're right, it makes perfect sense that dead people are judged by spirits in the clouds....and that those spirits only love Christians, and maybe some Jews, depending on how Jewwy they are.Also, all that talk about me trying to be agnostic..... to be fair, I have never on this board claimed to be an agnostic, atheist, or anything else.

[timwakefield 68]

Any reasonable person can examine the evidence and realize that the case is closed beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are gonig to be those people either with an agenda or whose minds are already made up, or just plain retarded who are immune to logic, reason, evidece, and common sense.

:)edit: Sorry that was supposed to be attached to the bottom of my last post.

[Canada 0]

NO NO NO!!! The animal itself does NOT choose to help the group to try to help itself. It helps the group because somewhere in its genes it has a primitive "conscience" or whatever you want to call it that says "help the group." The animal NEVER thinks "how can I best insure the survival of my species" rather it thinks "I should help the group out" for reasons it doesn't even need to understand, and those come from its genes. Ask yourself why you choose to do the right thing. Something inside of you says you ought to. You think that something is God instilling you with a conscience, but just maybe that something comes directly from your genes.

There is also the point that the creature - monkey, elephant or man will learn what displeases the group by the group's actions. This will encourage social behaviour through fear of punishment or retribution.Person 1 does something stupid. Person 2 hits person 1. Person 1 stops.==================================================You get the point but lets have some fun with it...Lets try it the Christian way now.Person 1 does something stupid. Person 2 turns the other cheek. Person 1 continues until Person 2's breaking point is reached. Person 2 pulls out an AK 47, kills 16 innocent bystanders and checks (back) into a mental institution.Of course there is documented evidence that some creatures are abominally stupid and don't learn from their mistakes despite the 'education' of the group.Eg Matt makes a retarded post. Persons 2 through 87 tell Matt he is a troll/****** clown/ waste of space. Matt makes a retarded post. Persons 2 through 87 tell Matt he is a troll/****** clown/ waste of space. Matt makes a retarded post. Persons 2 through 87 tell Matt he is a troll/****** clown/ waste of space. Matt makes a retarded post. Persons 2 through 87 tell Matt he is a troll/****** clown/ waste of space. Matt makes a retarded post. Persons 2 through 87 tell Matt he is a troll/****** clown/ waste of space. Matt makes a retarded post. Persons 2 through 87 tell Matt he is a troll/****** clown/ waste of space. Matt makes a retarded post.Now where did I put my AK ?

[Mattnxtc 0]

NO NO NO!!! The animal itself does NOT choose to help the group to try to help itself. It helps the group because somewhere in its genes it has a primitive "conscience" or whatever you want to call it that says "help the group." The animal NEVER thinks "how can I best insure the survival of my species" rather it thinks "I should help the group out" for reasons it doesn't even need to understand, and those come from its genes. Ask yourself why you choose to do the right thing. Something inside of you says you ought to. You think that something is God instilling you with a conscience, but just maybe that something comes directly from your genes.

wow yall are really out there. the animal never thinks about it? How often do you think about your morals? how often do you sit and contemplate whether it is right or wrong to kill someone in a situation. Please come back to reality. You all hit it on the head and refuse to awknowledge it. Deep down in you, you know what is right and wrong. Doesnt matter if you believe in God or not. You know that murdering somebody is wrong dont you? You call it genetic which is isnt (that whole lack of proof thing). So what we are all left with an internal understanding of right and wrong that transcends ourselves. Hmmm i wonder where that came from.

There is also the point that the creature - monkey, elephant or man will learn what displeases the group by the group's actions. This will encourage social behaviour through fear of punishment or retribution.Person 1 does something stupid. Person 2 hits person 1. Person 1 stops.

wanted to highlight this for Canada b/c it is just plain stupid. This doesnt make a difference from a morality standpoint and in fact this is just showing you can trian people. Since this has nothing to do with morality im assuming that what we are discussing is above Canada's head. Person 1 does not stop doing something from a morality standpoint, he merely stops to avoid pain. That isnt morality b/c all things being equal person 1 would still do the action but he is hindered by person 2 inflicting pain on him.

[crowTrobot 2]

Deep down in you, you know what is right and wrong. Doesnt matter if you believe in God or not. You know that murdering somebody is wrong dont you?

not in the sense you are talking about. murder isn't inherently evil because there is no such thing as good/evil as independant concepts - there is no "deep down" right and wrong. there is only behaviorial reactions to what is beneficial and detrimental to individual/group, which are learned/genetic. i guess you could say everyone arguing against you doesn't believe morality exists in the sense you are talking about, so no point for you to argue where it came from.Dostoyevsky wrote a little short story (lol) about this very thing over 100 years ago - crime and punishment. don't remember what he concluded.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Deep down in you, you know what is right and wrong. Doesnt matter if you believe in God or not. You know that murdering somebody is wrong dont you? You call it genetic which is isnt (that whole lack of proof thing). So what we are all left with an internal understanding of right and wrong that transcends ourselves. Hmmm i wonder where that came from.

You're losing track of your own arguement. Your claim (or rather the claim of the articles that you posted whose merits we are now discussing) was that morals are inconsistent with evolution. Many posters, including myself, have provided scenerios in which morals can emerge as a product of evolution. Anyone who understands evolution, even if they don't believe in it, would most likely agree that it is consitent with what we call "morals."This is the same as saying that, even for those who don't believe in god, the concept of morals are consistent with a view that god created all humans by his design.