Bolder-dash writes:
BTW, since you have already determined it as fact, that animals are behaving based on their knowledge of right and wrong, and not based on the threat of violence or reprisals from the stronger animals for not obeying the stronger animals desires- (like when the strongest male lion does we he wants until he is no longer strong enough to do as he wants?)
Lovely strawman. It comlements you're flawed understanding of evolution nicely. In fact, we could just have called this thread "Bolder-dash defeats his own brand of evolution" and watched you beat your strawman to death without having to waste time trying to explain to you how evolution is actually understood to work.
Bolder-dash writes:
then I am now declaring that it is FACT that people are moral not because it benefits them or their alleles, but because we have this thing inside us called a conscience-which is not an evolutionary trait.
So, animals know right from wrong ERGO humans act according to some kind of supernatural conscience. What was your evidence again? Oh, yes, you didn't have any. But you declared it. Very well Bolder, I declare that the earth is flat because all you stupid Round-Earthers can't explain why Scandinavians like to take hot sauna baths before skinny-dipping in the snow. So take that! Hah!
Now to address your previous post:
Bolder-dash writes:
Now it is no longer something that just happens to be inside us that we inherited, it is actually something which we can control.
You can not control the "innate" moral framework you have as a human. You can not simply decide to all of a sudden feel good about eating babies. To feel good about something we feel innately is bad requires loads of brainwashing and rationalizing.
The fact that we can sometimes act against our instincts, is nothing stranger than the fact that we can act against our instinct to avoid pain. If a burning house was coming down on me, I would rather get through the burning corridoor and experience pain for a few moments, than die in the collapse. This doesn't mean that I can turn the pain off.
Likewise, if someone I loved was being threatened by someone, I would be compelled to go against my inhibitions toward killing another human. And if there was great reward in doing something "immoral", my brain would have to judge whether I'd be better off doing the immoral thing or not.
Let's take infidelity as an example. Let's assume I was married, and at some point tempted to have an affair. How would my brain resolve the situation? Well, it might begin by weighing the instinctive desire to have several mates, against the consequences of such a decision. One (of many) consequence would be the social one, people wouldn't like me as much if they found out I was a cheater. (Just look at Tiger Woods) This of course is BAD, and would have been bad for our ancestors who needed the support of their group to survive. It is not surprising that natural selection would favour those individuals who felt bad about violating the rules of their group.
Contrast this with an individual in an open marriage. Now there is an agreement with his spouse, and with the community as a whole, that he can have extra-marital relations. Would he feel bad if he slept with another woman? No, because the consequences are gone! If, instead, we acted according to divine morals, wouldn't we still feel bad about sleeping with someone besides our wife?
Bolder-dash writes:
In a crowded world that would mean smashing a lot of people who are in competition with us for food, resources, mates, etc.. Nothing wrong with this, because as you have just explained, this is how we are wired
In the western world, people rarely compete for food or mates. In fact, the food on your table is probably produced by other people, so if you went around smashing them you'd have to make your own. We'd all revert to the stone age if that's how we lived. Each one gathering his own food. Do you really think you'd be more successful if you started "smashing" people indiscriminately?
Bolder-dash writes:
Well, now you are not playing fair at all (perhaps that is wired into your being). Everyone of the statements about evolutionary presumptions are not based on fact.
Kindly provide an assertion by "evolutionists" that is not based on facts and we can go from there.
Bolder-dash writes:
Here again, you are at odds with the theory others here have put forth, that they have an innate morality inside them for all of humanity, which is beyond reasoning. You suggesting that it is just a reasoning proposition-morality for those we need (allies), and immorality for those we don't need. Smashing that stranger vying for your job wouldn't seem a very unreasonable thing under your scenario.
Ok, let's look at the scenario you've given us. You're applying for a job, it goes pretty well, but as you leave the office you notice that the next applicant in to see the employer is a well-dressed, highly educated and effluent person. One week later you get a letter from the employer thanking you, but telling you that the position has been filled by someone else. For a moment there, don't your fists ball up? Might you not let loose an obscenity or two? Might you not fantasize about doing something mean to the person who took the job you wanted?
Your brain is expressing it's anger at the person who took the job, but, unless you happen to be psycho, it will also remember that killing the person will not get you the job either, and the social consequences would have you even worse off. It goes as far as it can go, muttering an obscenity, and then you return to your job hunt, hopefully better luck next time.
Notice, this is exactly what we expect from Natural Selection. Would NS favour an individual who killed his competing kin? Do you really think psychopathic individuals stand a better chance of survival in the real world? Why do you keep insisting that evolution would make us immoral?
Bolder-dash writes:
And, not so oddly as it turns out, bee attacks are mysterious, as are any genetic traits for a defense mechanism which when utilized causes instant death (ie bee stings). That one requires a whole lot of story telling, which almost sound they are statements of fact- a practice you claim to be firmly against (or at least against when non-evolutionists do it).
Statement of fact: Bees that sting in defense of the hive would not have passed on their genes if they survived. They are sterile, so the only way they will ensure the survival of their alleles is by keeping the queen (egg-layer) alive.*
Statement of fact: Bees that defend themselves violently against intruders will survive better than bees that don't. (Unless they are kept by a beekeeper who happens to have a fence).
Statement of fact: The fact that bees give their lives is not incompatible with evolution. The bees that die ARE making sure their genes are passed, yet they do not survive themselves.
Statement of fact: I'm a beekeeper, so if you have any other questions about bees, ask away.
Statement of fact: I sincerely doubt you even gave much thought to the reasons for bee behaviour before making your silly claim that "bee attacks are mysterious".
Bolder-dash writes:
Ah, once again, these are observable facts when observed by an evolutionist. Quite convenient. When exactly did you observe an animal knowing the difference between right and wrong as a fact-as opposed to an animal just doing what it wants to do?
Chimpanzees have been known to give their lives to rescue their kin.
Link
Elephants and dolphins have been known to help injured individuals.
These are both statements of fact by the way.
Now these animals have evolved this behaviour in the exact same way that we have. Because by helping our kin, who share our alleles, we are promoting the survival of our alleles. We may not be promoting our own survival, but we are promoting the survival of our genes, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS!
Back when these altruistic traits would have evolved, individuals were usually surrounded by close relatives. By promoting the survival of nearby individuals, our ancestors would have promoted the survival of their own altruistic genes. In today's world it is no longer true that we are surrounded only by close relatives. But our genes don't know that yet, so we still behave similarly to our pack behaviour.
I challenge you to find something in my above statements that is pure fairy-tale, and we can discuss that. For now, accept that you've been misrepresenting how evolution really works, and try to understand what other people actually are saying to you.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
*Male bees (drones) also give their lives for the survival of their genes. They die in copulation. This means the hive will no longer have to support them after they've fulfilled their only purpose in life. But it also means that the queen gets the maximum amount of semen out of them (their genitalia are torn off and remain in the queen). While they die in their violent desire to have sex, and bees that sting die in defense of the hive, they are both doing it for the same reason. Which one is more moral? Which one is more in-line with a supernatural conscience bestowed upon the bees by a creator?
Edited by Meldinoor, : Removed spiteful comment. Sorry, I'm feeling rude today
™ Version 4.2
(1)
