Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation

Hi Jumped Up Chimpanzee, interesting thread. "good v bad / right v wrong" for whom?Evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation -- by definition occurs within a breeding population.Natural Selection -- the differential success of hereditary traits in individual organisms that allow them to survive and breed -- by definition occurs at the individual organism level within a breeding population, and it causes frequency change in hereditary traits in the breeding population, with a overall result in increased fitness\adaptation of the population to the ecology.Conclusion: natural selection of hereditary traits in individuals results in a net fitness benefit to the breeding population. In evolutionary terms, this should be fairly clear: whatever provides a net benefit to the breeding population to increase fitness\adaptation to their ecology is "good" and whatever provides a net disadvantage to the breeding population to increase fitness\adaptation is "bad" and whatever is in between is neutral ground. Behavior between individuals within a breeding population is part of the ecology that individual organisms occupy. In a social species this includes behavior between all individuals within the social group.Conclusion: "good" behavior results in a net benefit to the social group and "bad" behavior results in a net disadvantage to the social group.In this context we can look at some behavior patterns and compare the behavior of an individual against the behavior of the group:

• A predator that attacks members of a social group is not behaving "bad" according to it's "moral" pattern, it just has an unfortunate effect on the social group.
  ​
• An individual that kills the predator causes a net benefit to the group, and thus this "hero" behavior is "good" for the group.
  ​
• A group of individuals that hunt down and kill the predator cause a net benefit to the group, and thus this behavior is "good" for the group.
  ​
• An individual that kills for food causes a net benefit to his survival, but this alone is of relatively neutral benefit to the group.
  ​
• If he shares the food with others there is a net benefit to the group, and thus this "sharing" behavior is "good" for the group.
  ​
• A group of individuals that kills for food causes a net benefit to their survival, but this alone is of relatively neutral benefit to the rest of the group.
  ​
• If they share with others there is a net benefit to the group, and thus this behavior is "good" for the group.
  ​
• An individual that randomly kills members of their social group is providing a net detrimental "bad" effect on group survival.
  ​
• The behavior of the group to execute the killer provides a net benefit "good" effect on group survival.
  ​
• An individual (or another social group), from the same species but from outside the social group, killing members of a social group is providing a net detrimental "bad" effect on survival for that group.
  ​
• An individual that kills the killer/s causes a net benefit to the group, and thus this "hero" behavior is "good" for the group.
  ​
• A group of individuals that hunt down and kill the killer/s cause a net benefit to the group, and thus this behavior is "good" for the group.

Thus sharing is moral, murder is immoral, execution is moral, defense of the social group is moral, defensive war is moral.But the equations change for different species with different social groupings, and as social groups grow and evolve. This also gets into concepts of "US" and "THEM" and the relative morality of behavior to members of "US" being different for members of "THEM" even though the specific behavior is the same.Note that for a non-social species, or an antisocial individual that rejects belonging to a social group, that everyone else is outside their social group.Thus the concept of morality only applies is social group settings. From an evolutionary viewpoint there are just gradations of "bad" behavior, such as the difference between defensive war and genocide. It is my understanding, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the bible, torah, koran, etc that the above examples of evolved im/moral behaviors are all provided with the predicted results in confusion over seeming contradictions when they are attempted to be portrayed universally. Except that we have not derived what should be moral behavior according to an authoritarian source. It is entirely possible that the god/s set up the evolved behavior and then just record it.That should be a good start.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : add

---

Hi hawkes nightmare, and welcome to the fray. By the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in an accumulative process.Asking this question is more a betrayal of a lack of imagination than anythiing else -- it is the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance: this question has been answered so many times it rates as a PRATT

quote:

---

CB301: Eye complexity
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

• photosensitive cell
• aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
• an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
• pigment cells forming a small depression
• pigment cells forming a deeper depression
• the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
• muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

​

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

​

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

---

Note that there are many different kinds of eyes, from bugs to octopus to mammal, each showing independent evolution due to the differences involved in how the eyes operate. The logical fallacy of assumed knowledge of the possibilities, coupled with a blatantly false assertion, a straw man that is in fact unlikely because it is wrong.The image is turned over by the brain and the brain does all the processing. This was proven in the 1900's iirc, by a scientist making glasses that inverted the image so that his eye retina would see the pattern right side up. As a result the perceived images were up-side-down. After two weeks of wearing these glasses, the image turned over so that the scientist saw the images right-side-up. When he removed the glasses it took another two weeks for the original processing to be restored.enjoy.

---

Hi Peepul, As I have yet to see the actual Dawkins quotes in context with references, and given the source so far is a creationist, it is likely a quote mine take from some creationist website, and totally untrustworthy (sorry Minority Report for the skepticism here, but this is a common fact about creationist statements).See
Logic v Intelligent Design: Dawkins "Darwinism leads to Fascism"
and
Dawkins Flip-Flops on Link between Darwinism and Fascism | Evolution News
and
cheerful iconoclast: All Hail the Darwinian StateWhat a surprise eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added anotherEdited by RAZD, : subtite

---

Hi Minority Report, thanks. Hitler was also a christian, and he felt that this justified persecution of other religions. Curiously, opinion, no matter who's opinion, is not reality. What we consistently find is that people that want to implement programs like these will find excuses to do so, whether it be in religious texts or scientific theories. Interesting that you didn't investigate further before posting - would you do the same for quotes related to the evils of biblical teaching? Or are you looking for confirmation bias in what you find?Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.

---

Darwinism has also been used to justify racism, and this is typical of the misunderstanding: if the social application of the theory were true then programs would not be necessary to implement, as they would occur naturally. My personal opinion on the evolution of morality is that our morality is first predicated on our being a social, sexual species, and therefore our concepts of morality will deal with social interactions and sexual interactions.A morality based on a tiger species, where there is no social interaction, would be different, likely with murder and rape being perceived as moral behavior. In bees the morality would likely all be based around serving the queen.The reason for this is that there would need to be a benefit to such behavior for it to be preserved. If the sacrifices for unselfish behavior within a group did not lead to a net benefit to the group and thus back to the individuals in the group, then the ones exhibiting unselfish behavior would be out bred and out survived by the selfish ones. These then become behavioral memes that are passed down through the generations, and evolve with the species.We also see in many experiments with primates that there are some basic behavior patterns that are compelling in this regard:The Times & The Sunday Times

quote:

---

MONKEYS and apes have a sense of morality and the rudimentary ability to tell right from wrong, according to new research.

​

In a series of studies scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathise when a fellow animal is ill or in difficulties. They even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

​

The research implies that morality is not a uniquely human quality and suggests it arose through evolution. That could mean the strength of our consciences is partly determined by our genes.

​

The scientists say, however, that the evidence is clear. I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals, said Frans de Waal, professor of psychology at Emory University in Georgia in the United States.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html

quote:

---

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.

​

The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.

​

"It looks like this behavior is evolved it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.

---

For reference, capuchin monkeys are your typical "organ grinder" monkey, a fairly small species.From these studies I would conclude that such behavior is typical of all social primate species, which is also evidenced by the pictures of mutual grooming and troops posting lookouts while others forage, behavior that is not selfish, but can be regarded as enlightened self-interest.And when you get down to the basics of human morality, you find that it too is predicated on enlightened self-interest: the golden rule is pervasive in all cultures around the world, and it personifies enlightened self-interest.See What is the evolutionary advantage to religion? for some additional comments. It is a related topic eh?Enjoy.

---