Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Evolution has no right and wrong, good or bad, it just is whatever it is.
Evolution is amoral.
For if it becomes necessary to kill to survive or develop a new species, all that may be considered fair and honorable, can be thrown out the door, the end justifying the means.
If for the present time, toleration is a means of surviving, then sooner or later the survival of the increasing masses will threaten their own survival, demanding a stronger species to reduce the number of competitors.Evolution ultimately has no rights for anyone to live, or any to have quality of life, or any to claim equality.
The species which survives does so because it can and does and for no other reason. There is no purpose for any species except what happens next.
The laws of probability are the name of the game.

That's what I said Evolution is amoral.

Colbard writes:
Evolution has no right and wrong, good or bad, it just is whatever it is. Somebody just talked about gravity etc, which are claimed to be amoral/physical laws.
Morality has a law, which has a law giver, that's why Darwin is turning in his grave.And to be strict, if you are an evolutionist only the second part of your response is acceptable, because there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in evolution, it just is what it is and nothing more.

"Sobering" is a moral term and cannot be applied scientifically in evolution.You can say "fearful," or anything an animal reacts with.Evolutionary creatures don't have "sobering" moments, they have strategies, reasoning, tactics, cunning, memory, instinct, etc. Humans are just advanced animals.

There is no 'scientific' proof of morality or of any moral laws or associated law giver such as God.
There is no such thing as morality in evolution, although there are accepted strategies of behavior for the survival of the species, which some term morality.
Evolution must remain amoral, otherwise it is not alone in the game.

According to evolution neither are moral or immoral, and are both playing a role in the eventual survival of a fitter species. nice feelings are just hormonal responses which in the long run help the species or ruin it, depending on chance and circumstances alone.
Both are acting on inbred or accumulated behaviors, and neither can be held accountable for their actions, it is totally natural.Edited by Colbard, : add

Evolution by its nature does not have any morals, so morals can never belong to any of its results such as human beings, which you say are responsible for morals.
If there are no morals then a human being could not be responsible for creating something that does not exist in the process of their existence.Morals say that there is right and wrong. If people say that, then that is evidence of something which evolution does not have and neither claims to have. A thorn for the sad and unwashed mummy's boy - Charles Darwin.If humans claim that there is "right and wrong," then they are either deluded or evolution is wrong, because morals are spiritual in value, which point to spiritual authority, for which science and evolution do not account for.If there is no spiritual authority on morals, then human beings are their own authority on morals, which means that it is just a notion of human beings, as part of a process in evolution, and a future which may dispense with those notions called morals by human beings, once again confirming the lack of base for any permanent morality.Any morality which is not everlasting, permanent and unchangeable cannot be a moral, but only an instruction or order of the time. For a moral to exist, it has to be able to stand alone for ever, and also to have been there from eternity, otherwise it is only a temporary changeable notion, a circumstantial event, which is what evolution is. A true moral cannot change due to circumstance either.True morality points to an everlasting law giver of morals.If not, and morals are just human, then these will change with each passing generation, and so can never be right or wrong in the true and absolute sense.If there are no absolute truths, then the morals of humans will be circumstantial and individually variant. So for some people, it will be OK to burn your child to a molten image, and to others not.The evidence of absolute morals comes from their functionality with life, and there are no greater laws than the ten given to Moses of Divine origin. These laws provide the safety framework for every descent country. Hence we don't have Christians fleeing to go to Atheist Russia or China, or Islamic countries, but it's the other way around. Oppressed people seek freedom.For a long time - 1200 odd years, we had many intelligent people fleeing the Papacy, because it was breaking the moral laws of God in every way while claiming to uphold them.The long saga between good and evil has been going on for thousands of years, and is proof of a moral battle. History proves it.However, if this is just the saga of invented religions, then in essence we cannot argue about the issues of good and evil, and morals, which do not exist by nature or the evidence provided in the theory of evolution.

The topic of the thread calls into question the issue of morals, which is not a subject of evolution, but of religion.
You don't have to explain to the world what is threatening you, because no one is attacking you...

Morals don't evolve, their application may evolve, but they cannot evolve, because they are absolute. You can't half steal. Stealing is stealing.
Morality is about good and bad, which in your world are subjective, and therefor no better than notions of the day.

Tangle,You are confusing your feelings about what goes on in the world with morals.
There is nothing moral or immoral about any event under evolution, otherwise you are dealing with an evolution with religious intent.
Just because a majority of people may be getting feelings about certain behaviors does not make it a moral issue, because that can all change. We know that very educated and sensible men indulge themselves in killing campaigns called missions in war. Tours of duty. So killing is part of your morality.
And there is nothing wrong with mass exterminations in evolution, because it is part of the process of development by chance.
You may like to look at the actions of religious bodies as necessary to develop our upgraded society, rather than a despicable murderous history.It seems to me that you are an oversensitive evolutionist which will probably be exterminated by a stronger species shortly.There is no right and wrong in evolution, just WHATEVER is.

Oh, you mean getting rid of wankers who burn their children?
Or do you mean that bloke who slept with a cow?So you would like God to be more fickle and accommodating of pedos and the likes?

Who is attacking you? Why are you suddenly so defensive? I am not talking about you at all, but the general principles of the topic. This isn't about you or me, so why the personal notes?I don't want to know your shame thank you, but the word "hubris" gives you away entirely. I'm not sure I want to reply to you any longer, just so you know why.

So now, because young Tangle does not have answers to why suffering is allowed, suddenly out comes the blame finger and the down god thumb.Well according to the theory of evolution and scientific evidence, you don't have a god to blame anything on. Who said people who have not heard about God can't be moral?
If you want to study religion you'll have to differentiate between what the Bible says and what religions say. Note the large differences as day is to night.
Then you will know what I mean about the falsehoods in both religions and science, and the elements of truth ion both, and that true science is actually true religion as well.

If you did not bother coloring the others motives, then you'd probably have more clout. Just chill out a bit...

If you truly believe in evolution you can't accuse the God of Christians for anything because he does not exist.
Every argument against God is bringing him back to your reality.
You can't even afford to call yourself an atheist, because that is saying you don't believe in someone that actually exists.
The perfect atheist would never call himself one and never mention or complain about God or any of history of God.So a genuine evolutionist does not teach morals at home to his or her children, they can only mention physical or social consequences of certain behaviors, and their own preferences as parents.
A dictator is not "bad" he just has a different instinct. People cannot be good or bad just different in behavior.