Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 10:45 AM
27 online now:
DrJones*, edge, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,700 Year: 4,737/19,786 Month: 859/873 Week: 215/376 Day: 8/57 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?
Den
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 1 of 64 (551228)
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Those who believe Evolution as fact push the agenda that man has evolved along with all other animals and mankind is just another product of evolution "another animal".

Since rape, murder and poligamy is common in the animal kingdom and I dont know of any case in the animal world where biological science considers that any animal which uses either rape, murder or poligamy in order to pass on its genes unsuccessful.

For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses when they take over a new pride, rape is common in Dolphins, yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

My question to the Athiests/ Evolutionists is why can rape, murder and poligamy in the animal kingdom be seen as natural and successful in the eyes of natural selection for all animals, but why does science exclude homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour? why are those people who rape and murder put in prison instead of respected, such as the strong lion? why dont we imprison other animals which commit such acts? isnt this a double standard?

Can you please explain this contradiction in these scientific beliefs?

Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom? Could this mean we have a different origin? a unique purpose?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 03-22-2010 4:59 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 03-22-2010 5:08 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Vacate, posted 03-22-2010 7:21 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 03-22-2010 8:37 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 7 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2010 8:56 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-22-2010 9:27 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Drosophilla, posted 03-22-2010 4:33 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2010 7:21 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 11 by bluegenes, posted 03-22-2010 7:42 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 11:20 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2010 11:54 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Peepul, posted 03-23-2010 2:43 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-23-2010 5:36 PM Den has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2010 1:17 AM Den has responded
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-24-2010 11:24 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 34 by MrQ, posted 04-09-2010 5:43 PM Den has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 64 (551239)
03-22-2010 2:33 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 3 of 64 (551253)
03-22-2010 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


In a more general sense, morals are present throughout social animals. For instance, wolves will not generally kill and eat their own pack. This has an obvious advantage for the wolves as hunting in a pack gives them a survival advantage, but it is effectively a moral code.

As for the specific example of rape, I can explain a logical progression from very simple survival pressures. For instance:

Primates survive much more effectively in groups, especially humans which lack physical prowess but make up for it in ingenuity and cooperative ability. Thus, "Don't kill members of the tribe" would in general be a behavior that is encouraged through natural selection. It is also obviously in the best interests of males to protect the females they impregnate from other males, and we can see this through many different species.

The progression comes about when these two imperatives are combined; it is necessary for males to protect their females while also not permitted to kill each other in pursuit of that goal. Males would then tend to split off the females into mating groups with poaching of other's groups viewed as unacceptable; if a male poaches another's mate, it is viewed as a threat by males as-yet unaffected. It is sort of like a deer seeing another deer eaten by a leopard, the extension of the concept to itself is not hard.

Now you ask why rape and polygamy isn't accepted by society? Well... the truth is that you are viewing the issue from a tiny data set of your particular society. Even in the US it has only been a few hundred years since women were considered to be "owned" by their husbands, if that long. In the 'Middle East' it is still widely socially acceptable for males to have many wives, and to have sex with them regardless of their feelings. Fathers regularly consider marriage as giving their daughters to another man, rather than the woman making a choice that is her right; ever hear of a dowry? The modern American culture still expects the suitor to ask the bride's father for her hand in marriage, as that was where the real decision was made.

So, in answer to your original question I would have to say that the contradiction is hardly present in the quantity that you would like to believe. We still act much like other animals, even in what we would consider civilized society. The fact that we now consider rape wrong would, in my opinion, be an extension of the empathy with our own that our intelligence allows. By considering women as beings with their own rights, feelings, and goals we respect their choice of mate. Is this so different from a monkey not stealing another fellow monkey's food? I think not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2198 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 4 of 64 (551255)
03-22-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


One point I'd make is that you are looking at the mores of modern society, specifically modern western society, and using them as universal standards of human behaviour.

Were the vikings being failures when they raped and pillaged? Why has rape such a long history as a commonly used tool of terror during wars? Why does the bible consider rape to be such an insignificant act that as long as the victim is unmarried the only punishment is 50 silver pieces and having to marry her?

If you are trying to say that rape isn't common in human societies then you are talking rubbish. You are also talking rubbish when you say that science excludes 'homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour'. There is plenty of scientific research, of variable merit, on the concept that rape is so common partly because it has historically been a successful evolutionary strategy. There is also plenty of justification for suggesting that murder and polygamy can be succesful evolutionary strategies in people as well as any other animal. But laws aren't generally written on the basis of scientific research or what might be considered a successful evolutionary strategy.

Your main argument seems to be one of stupidity, when you ask why don't we imprison animals that rape and kill then the obvious answer is, 'we do' if they do these things to humans. Animals which kill humans are generally killed, were you not aware of this? I'm not aware of any cases of animals raping humans, but if they did I'm sure they would be put down as well.

Would you also advocate that we arrest any humans who eat meat for cannibalism? Your main argument seems to be that you can't tell the difference between humans and other animals, and also that you like to just make shit up about what Atheists/Evolutionists should believe based on your own messed up ideas.

The only people who ever seem to advocate using animal behaviour as a yard stick for how humans should behave are creationists/theists who wish to construct a strawman to represent the beliefs of atheists/evolutionists. So well done for carrying on a grand tradition of mendacious bullshit.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(1)
Message 5 of 64 (551266)
03-22-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom?

It would help your point if you began to show that all animals have a universal rape, murder, and polygamy moral code. If you cannot show this then your attacking a strawman. Sure some animals may show one or more of these traits but so what? The best you can do is say humans are unlike some animals but your a far cry from showing that humans are unlike any animal.

I would also like to know why you decided to stick with only animals? Single celled, asexually reproducing organisms have, apparently, far stricter moral codes and are rightfully separated from the much more morally repugnant multicellular organisms.

The Canada Goose is on the moral high ground too come to think of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 6 of 64 (551278)
03-22-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Den writes:
Those who believe Evolution as fact push the agenda that man has evolved along with all other animals and mankind is just another product of evolution "another animal".

Homo sapiens is a social species. It is adapted to a niche where cooperation is required between members of the social group. Morality comes from that social adaptation.

Den writes:
..., yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

Most evolutionists deny that there is a direction to evolution, other than adaptation to a changing environment. The "positive" idea comes from religion and philosophy, not from biology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2820 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 7 of 64 (551285)
03-22-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Your Limited Intellect
Can you please explain this contradiction in these scientific beliefs?

The contradiction lies in your inability to recognize that you're own thoughts are not necessarily correct. Something science does exceptionally well. That is why science doesn't have a moratorium against cannibalism, rape or murder. Science describes what goes on. It doesn't decide it.

Now, why people aren't big fans of naughtiness and ,yet, commit naughtiness is because there is not a single motive but many, competing motives. You and I could sit around the campfire and exchange knowledge on the best way to hunt turkey and deer, or I could shoot and eat you. Which one produces the most progeny for me in the long run can have an effect upon how my genes and those of my species prosper.

If I've a wee, red plastic trophy with the engraving "World's best cannibal, rapist, murderer." then I might find the latter a good strategy. But that's not likely to be the case. It's a big, wide world out there and there's a good chance I'll meat meet my better who'll wreck it for me. Presto, an uncharitable moratorium on naughtiness.

Natural selection has no regard for morality only degrees of success. Science merely notes it.

Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity.

Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity.

Edited by lyx2no, : Spellink.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18363
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 8 of 64 (551297)
03-22-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Den writes:

For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses when they take over a new pride, rape is common in Dolphins, yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

When you say "positive natural process" you're assuming a sense of good and bad that does not exist in science.

My question to the Athiests/ Evolutionists is why can rape, murder and poligamy in the animal kingdom be seen as natural and successful in the eyes of natural selection for all animals, but why does science exclude homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour?

What in the world leads you to ask why science tells people they shouldn't commit rape and murder? It isn't science that says this but society. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom? Could this mean we have a different origin? a unique purpose?

Animals don't have the cognitive horsepower to have a moral code.

And humans have different moral codes at different times in different societies in different places. There's no universal moral code. For example, in some societies it's immoral for a woman to show her face in public.

And regardless of any moral codes, some people rape, some animals rape. Some people murder, some animals murder. I'm not seeing a big difference.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

    
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 9 of 64 (551402)
03-22-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


....more reading required!
Can you please explain this contradiction in these scientific beliefs?

There is no contradiction in science (not beliefs as quoted above - science has no 'beliefs'), only your comprehension.

To try and clear your confusion:

Science (including the Theory of Evolution – or ToE) is not a belief system. It is a descriptive model of the best fit of the universe according to current available evidence. It is not a prescriptive treatise on how things should behave, merely a descriptive evaluation of how things actually are.

If you want to talk morals you can't talk science - for the same reason if you want to talk morals you can't talk mathematics - they just don't intermix. Now if you want to really talk morals you need to talk 'humanism' - which is the moral code that often accompanies (but is no way dependant upon) atheism.

Atheism is not a moral system either - it literally only means "lack of belief in gods." You seem hell bent on trying to attack the system that 'opposes' religion - well science and atheism are not the things you should be attacking. They are anti-religion in the same measure that mathematics is anti-religion. You need to address the humanism moral code.

So can I respectfully ask that you cease to make a jackass of yourself by prattling on about irrelevancies and instead go look up about humanism - decide what you don't like and then start a thread on that. At least then you'll be somewhere near the topic that you’re really aching to attack (the modern alternative to a religious code of morality - humanism)!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19803
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 10 of 64 (551451)
03-22-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


morals depend on the social structure of the species
Hi again, Den. It certainly doesn't look like you have improved your position, even with your recent equivocating on who you really are.

Amusingly, no reasonable person will believe much of anything you say now, as you "cried wolf" one too many times.

The problem, of course, is an overly simplistic and unrealistic portrayal of nature in general and human nature in specific.

For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses ...

It should be blindingly obvious that the natural behavior of lions are necessarily different from the natural behavior of humans, as each species develops patterns of behavior that provide the total population with the best opportunities for reproduction and survival. Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.

As a result, patricide is not only common, but virtually expected as "moral" behavior for spiders and mantids. It is also "moral" for a parasite to live off the flesh of a victim, eating them slowly while the victim is still alive.

The lesson of evolution is that those that survive and breed can pass on their genes to the next generation. The total population of surviving individuals forms the gene pool that produces the next generation, not just one individual.

All of nature is like one big trial and error computer, it keeps trying variations on a theme, and the ones that work become the foundations for the next round of trial and error tests.

To expect a specific moral system to rise up out of nature is like expecting a volcano to play a Beethoven Symphony: unrealistic because that is not the function of volcanoes.

Whether you are an immature fundy, a born-again atheist, a troll or just an undereducated person, the fact remains that your posts exhibit an ignorance of simple principles, of biological behavior in general, and of evolution in particular, that one should be ashamed to display in public.

But hey, this is America, and you are free to believe any foolish little thing your silly heart desires.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 581 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 11 of 64 (551456)
03-22-2010 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


Animal altruism.
Den writes:

Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals.......

Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom? Could this mean we have a different origin? a unique purpose?

We don't have completely different behaviour from other social animals, and no, there's no evidence to suggest we have a different origin.

I've posted this video before, but once again it makes the point that aspects of our behaviour that we tend to rationalize as coming from a "moral code" do not actually do so. The star of this video has never been taught the story of the good Samaritan, which is particularly about taking risks to help another, yet its ancestral wolves are social, and will demonstrate Samaritan behaviour (as many other species do).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3845
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 12 of 64 (551493)
03-22-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


... all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

...

My question to the Athiests/ Evolutionists ...

...

why can rape, murder and poligamy in the animal kingdom be seen as natural and successful in the eyes of natural selection for all animals, but why does science exclude homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour? why are those people who rape and murder put in prison instead of respected, such as the strong lion? why dont we imprison other animals which commit such acts? isnt this a double standard?

Excuse me?

Where did you get this tripe? Pull it out your ass?

You got some kind of comprehension problem?

Have you learned nothing here?

[ABE] I have got to learn to read the thread before I respond.
See all the responses above.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Dollar short ... again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 13 of 64 (551510)
03-22-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses when they take over a new pride, rape is common in Dolphins, yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

No, just as stuff that happens. No scientist believes that it is a moral good.

At this point your whole argument collapses.

---

It seems to me that you have a much bigger question to answer. You're a creationist, right? Very well then.

I attribute the behavior of lions to a blind, stupid, immoral process that knows nothing of good or evil.

But you attribute the behavior of lions to a God who is perfectly good and wise and who is love itself (1 John 4:8).

You have a problem there. I don't. I don't need to pretend that nature is moral. But you do --- or, at least, I shall be fascinated to hear your explanation of why it isn't.

Do tell me. You think that nature is the result of fiat creation by a perfect God. So why did he make dolphins rapists?

Your call.

Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom?

I don't know if you've noticed --- perhaps you never read a newspaper --- but we humans also commit rape and infanticide.

If you want to say that we are "completely different", don't say that we're better than animals, rather say that we are worse. It was not a lion or a dolphin who devised the Holocaust. It was a human. (And, I might add, a theist and creationist). Has any mere animal ever done anything so thoroughly wicked?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phage0070, posted 03-23-2010 12:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 05-26-2010 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 14 of 64 (551625)
03-23-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
03-22-2010 11:54 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

So why did he make dolphins rapists?

Not just that, but bedbugs actually have hypodermic penises that are stabbed into the female's body anywhere convenient. Because their circulatory system is open, the sperm can eventually find their way to the reproductive organs of the female.

Dolphins are at least biologically capable of not engaging in rape, but a particularly moral bedbug still has no other option but to assault a female with a needle-penis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2010 11:54 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 15 of 64 (551659)
03-23-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:45 AM


quote:
but why does science exclude homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour?

It doesn't. Where did you get the impression that it does? Our moral sense does that (or not, depending on which society you are talking about).

Science is starting to understand where moral senses come from, which is an interesting topic in itself.

Are you asking, underneath this, Why should I behave morally if I am an atheist?

If so, my answer is :-

- Morals do not derive from God. Morals are human creations, which some people project onto their image of God. But this is completely backwards. Gods are created in our minds as ideal moral beings - based on our own morals, or in some cases by the need of the rulers of societies to determine how their members behave. No insult necessarily intended to these codes, btw. The moral code espoused by Jesus is superb. The moral code espoused by the old testament God, however, is appalling by modern standards and one of the reasons I reject Christianity.

- We can see this because atheist individuals and secular societies are as moral as religious ones. Love is as important to atheists in general as it is to Christians in general, for example.

- In fact, it seems bizarre to me as a European to see the behaviour of the evangelical right in the US - who as a political movement are rich (condemned repeatedly by Jesus), uncompassionate (condemned repeatedly by Jesus), dishonest (condemned by Jesus) and punitive (condemned by Jesus).

If not, sorry for taking you off-topic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:45 AM Den has not yet responded

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019