Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?

Having read Kaichos Man's ravings, I replied to them. However, having now read the title of the thread, I realize that his nonsense is off-topic.

Let me try to relate it to the topic. Kaichos Man is a fanatical creationist. And you have seen how he behaves.

So, is it possible for fanatical creationism to "accommodate morals"? He spews out falsehoods like he's a lie-factory. Would it be possible for someone to behave like him and be honest?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Darwin was saying that the evidence for phyletic gradualism wasn't there. It isn't. I was -and am- agreeing with him.

Sorry I thought you were saying "Darwin was sure that future fossil discoveries would exhibit his gradualism" which is what I was addressing. Since it is my position that Darwin did not think what you thought he thought.

You described the evidence. And I agree with the evidence- absolutely.

Since we both agree that Darwin didn't think evolution was necessarily at constant speed, and that it varied - in line with the small point I originally made. Would you like to take the opportunity to now address the topic of survival of the fittest and morals?

Survival of the fittest has been changed to what best fits the current environment. Morals is a human invention that aligns with the herd type mentality that humans fit under this behavior classification.

Morals act as a mechanism to keep "peace" in the herd.

Edited by barbara, : No reason given.

Morals is a human invention that aligns with the herd type mentality that humans fit under this behavior classification. Morals act as a mechanism to keep "peace" in the herd.

Morality isn't a human invention - though describing, rationalising and communicating them probably is. I wouldn't quite classify it as 'herd mentality' more like 'social mentality'.