Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Again I ask, is this really the way you want to proceed with discussion of your topic? Raise inapplicable analogies then insist endlessly that they're not at all inapplicable? Contrive examples that don't correspond to the real world, then ignore the criticisms, and anticipating your next step, endlessly defend them?If you can't see that concluding ethnicity from things like shadows bears no resemblance to concluding increased neuron activity on the basis of brain imaging and magnetoencephalography studies, then any hope of rational discussion with you is lost.If you want to work through analogies and examples that's fine, but adjust and improve them as the feedback comes in. Simply insisting that they are too excellent analogies and examples isn't going to get anywhere. The only thing you're convincing us of so far is that your opinions are based upon remarkably cloudy thinking.--Percy

based upon remarkably cloudy thinking let them be, though I don't believe this why didn't you criticize BlueJays examples too, I sense favoritism in this chat room. Anyway the bottom line remains you haven't been able to refute any of my examples significantly although accusing them of being poor, if they're so poor then why haven't you demolished them already. What's more I'm sensing that you're trying brush the evidence I provide aside and only focusing on such things as the examples I proved.Please quite trying to invalidate my style of making claims and start dealing with my claims.

Basically the brain consists of neurons and glial cells. Glial cells can't send signals like neurons and aren't involved in the actual thinking process. So when someone thinks about a certain type of problem and the corresponding part of the brain lights up on a brain imaging device, by what reasoning could one conclude that the activity is due to glial cells and not neurons, and that the increased activity is unrelated to thinking processes?Since you like analogies, take your example of a family living in a house next door, but this time they have cats. You hide a beeping device in their house (analogous to giving a test subject a problem to think about) and observe what happens. The shades are pulled so you can't see much, but from various indirect observations you can tell that there's an increase in activity in the house. By what logic would you conclude that the increased activity is due to the cats?You wouldn't conclude it was the cats, of course, because you know about people and you know about cats. Just like we know about neurons and we know about glial cells. When there's increased activity in the brain in response to thought, it's no mystery what cells are involved.I sure hope we don't have to get to this level of detail over every little thing.--Percy

Again I ask you, do you want to discuss your topic or not? It sure doesn't seem like it. You seem to be trying to draw the thread into endless niggling about anything but your topic.Anyway, why would I criticize Bluejay's examples when they make sense to me? I'm criticizing things in this thread that don't make sense, which seem to all be coming from you. In other words, your response to all the detailed criticism is to ignore them and simply declare them to be just fine. I can see this discussion running out of gas soon. We have dealt with your claims, specifically and in detail. You ignored them. What should we do, cut-and-paste them into a new message and post them to you again?--Percy

Hi Cedre,Can I ask you a favour? Could you please choose a different avatar picture?You may think that it is witty, but I can only imagine that is because you have never lost a loved one to heroin. I have. I find it less witty. In fact, I find it disgusting.Your picture is pretty sick. Please find another. There are plenty of people out there who do not need reminders of needles. Why you would want to compare your own faith to an mind-rotting addictive narcotic anyway is beyond me. In fact, I doubt that it was intended as a pro-Christian statement; it seems more like a satire to me.Heroin destroys lives. It is not something that can be considered a positive comparison.Thank you.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Cedre,
In every one of my post I've asked you to prove to me that researchers are baffled by human altruism like you claim at the start of this tread, but you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim. You claim that Christianity provides the most satisfying answer; that we are made in gods image. I ask that you provide scientific evidence of this and none has been forthcoming. Please don't use the "because the bible says so" line. The bible is not a scientific document. I'm a person of science, not of faith! You can never convince me that humans are altruistic because we are made in gods image until you show me that scientific evidence!
So please provide the evidence for both of these claims! Until than you have not convinced me of your claim. It is you that bares the burden of proof. It is only painfully obvious Cedre, that you don't really want to understand the origins of altruism because you have closed your mind to there be any explanation but a Christian one.

Hi, Cedre.As Percy has pointed out, we've strayed considerably from the topic, so this will be my last post about experimental evidence. Name one.You talked earlier about wild imaginations. Your alternative to mirror neurons is pure imagination: you have no idea whether there are any other types of cells that can do what mirror neurons do, but you insist that we must take your non-explanation seriously.However, scientists have definitive proof that mirror neurons do in macaques what they observed happening in humans. Therefore, they have two similar phenomena, the cause of one of which is known. They are simply extrapolating what they do know into unknown places where the pattern is consistent.It simply is not imagination to attribute similar phenomena to similar causes. In fact, this type of extrapolation is an integral part of the scientific method, and it has led to numerous monumental discoveries throughout the history of science.-----Now, I hope we can get back to the topic of morality.Here are a list of analogies that have been brought up in this thread (by no means exhaustive):Reclusive shadow neighbors
Diseased squirrels
Pack-caring wild dogs
Carcass-sharing lions
Bees and flowers
Shrewd businesspersons
Thievery and recompenseIn each case, you have argued either that morality is detrimental to a population or that human morality is somehow inherently different from animal morality because humans are self-aware.We could provide you hundreds more examples of behaviors from the animal kingdom that seem to be driven by the same altruistic principles as human charity, and essentially overwhelm you with data. I suspect that, were we to do so, you would simply deflect them away by insisting that animals don't really show altruism and/or that humans are different.The entire point of a discussion like this is to get at the core disagreement, which is whether or not morality is beneficial for evolution by natural selection. As Percy has pointed out, we've spent an awful lot of time debating silly analogies and virtually no time at all debating the core concept.You are burying your core argument behind a smokescreen of analogies, so that nobody on this thread has yet been able to evoke any sort of discussion from you about your core topic.I would like to see a discussion about the principles you propose, but I have so far been thwarted by your insistence on dealing only with analogies. In my next post, I hope to directly address the topic, but I may not have sufficient time to put it together today or tomorrow.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

I'm totally with you Granny Magda. I lost a bother to heroin addiction. He was a schizophrenic that self medicated using street drugs. The irony is, I completely place the blame on Christianity for it!
You see my mother is a Jehovah's Witness fanatic and instead of seeking professional help for my brother she remedied the situation with more bible study for him and in turn more confusion. Telling him and herself that the voices were from demonic possession. The behavior was because of Satan's influence. To this day I blame her for letting that religion interfere with both of them finding real help for his disease. Help from medical professionals that don't believe in demonic possession.
So you see Cedre your avatar is especial painful to me; He and my mother tried Christ and it did hurt!!! He was an addict and she is a Christ addict.

Why should I bother to care about your feelings, there's no guidebook that instructs me to care about your feelings. You're just organized mass of chemicals and advanced animal so then why should I bother myself about your feelings. What makes human's so special that they should be treated any differently than other animals. This is the logic that will arise out of an evolutionary worldview. Hopefully my mind has been wonderfully and fearfully created in the image of God's and will not accommodate this kind of evil logic. But first I must ask SammyJean to replace her semi-nude picture with something that's a bit more appropriate, I find that semi-nude female especially offensive. And Grany Magda should also change his avatar the inscriptions on it are offensive as well.

Because it benefits ourselves as humans beings both as individuals and as a species to balance altruism with self-needs and wants. It also benefits the rest of the biosphere if we accept this harmonious balance and use it as a foundation to our numerous moral codes as well (not to say that is what we are perfect in doing this as a species at the moment). Read the Humanist Manifesto and it will explain this in greater granularity. Humanism originated long before the idea of evolution was formulated and long before Charles Darwin penned his "Origin of Species...". What you consider evil, many of us consider good. BTW, I have no problem with your religious views as long as it does trample on the rights and freedoms of others. Case in point! Is this picture nude? Does it shrow bare breasts or other genetilia? I think not. Grow up. If you don't like you do not have to post on here, do you? And I consider your avatar and your very presence here offensive. See where that gets us? You have no more right to dictate conditions and terms on this forum than we do. Get over your self-righteous self.BTW, have a good day. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Do you want to discuss your topic, or are you going to continue to talk about anything but?--Percy

Many anti-evolutionists assume take that view. Why in the absence of God is anything good or bad?The answer is - our definition of what is good and bad is built into us. Those who are not religious are just as good as those who are not. People generally regard other people as valuable without being told to by God or religion. Does being told by God or religion that people are valuable contradict your own internal feelings? I doubt that it does.BTW, the fact that others on this forum do not believe in God does not excuse you from treating them well - you DO believe in God and therefore by your own view MUST treat them well.

Why? Is God's morality such that the naked form is offensive? Shouldn't he have thought about that before he designed it? Or do you just despise what God created and saw as good?

I never thought I'd actually say this to someone but man, you are a self righteous asshole aren't you?

---

I hunt for the truth

Wow. I've never before seen the moral high ground ceded with such lack of grace or purpose. Congratulations Cedre. You have demonstrated quite clearly that the religious have no claim to any superior morality.If you don't want to change your avatar, you are not obliged to do so. However, I find it hard to imagine why you would want to keep it; it is making you look callous and foolish.It's a joke picture Cedre! It is an anti-Christian satire, not a pro-Christian statement. Think about it. The picture is comparing your religion to a narcotic drug that turns people into slaves and dullards and has been responsible for countless deaths and the ruination of millions of lives. I actually think that's a pretty accurate comparison with Christianity, but I can't imagine why you would want to bring it up.

quote:

---

But first I must ask SammyJean to replace her semi-nude picture with something that's a bit more appropriate, I find that semi-nude female especially offensive. And Grany Magda should also change his avatar the inscriptions on it are offensive as well.

---

How many loved ones have you lost when they were killed by semi-naked women Cedre? How about the city of Atlantis? Is that responsible for any traumas in your life?It's not the same and you know it. Your disregard for the feelings of others speaks volumes.Of course, if you want to behave this way, you are free to do so. Just be aware that it fatally undermines your claims to understand morality. This is no way to demonstrate your superior moral code.That is all I have to say on the subject. If you ever find yourself able to address my previous message, or if you should desire to return to the topic of your thread, we can carry on from there. Perhaps you could start by addressing the chimp/toddler study that I cited, since you have failed to meaningfully do this so far.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade