Killing Jesus

Westside Steve

Because it is Woody. We make them up to try and pretend we are not animals, but we are. There is absolutely no natural reason to do half the shit we do.

I'd give you some examples but you tend to whine when I ask you to answer questions. Let's just try one and you can snort about that.

Is it immoral to use F bombs to four year olds?

WSS

koalabazooka

@mld-woody said:
Why is our set of moral rules unnatural?

Because morality is a social construction. Pedophilia and slavery used to be institutionalized in much of the world.

Westside Steve

Except for the fact that the two things you mentioned are probably more in keeping with the nature of humans as mammals. Most of us here seem to believe that homosexuality is not immoral because it occurs in nature. So does the desire to enslave those weaker than you and for many the desire to have sex with children. We have placed moral values on both of those practices. Cannibalism for instance. There's probably no scientific nor natural reason for that being immoral but it most certainly is. Why? Somebody just made it up.

WSS

Osiris

@koalabazooka said:
Because morality is a social construction. Pedophilia and slavery used to be institutionalized in much of the world.

Here is my 2 cents:

I don't believe morality is a social construct. I believe it is a highly-complex evolutionary construct. Just like we developed walking on two legs, spiders develop venom, and porcupines develop spines, all are aimed at increasing the survival of the species. Give me a moral/immoral choice and I bet it can be boiled down to survival instinct (instincts which operate through our nervous system by letting sense emotions like fear, pleasure, etc), not including choices made by people with mental illness.

And Cannibalism is an interesting one to look at. As a society we deem it immoral because it evokes a feeling of revulsion. Why? Because eating your own species does not help propagate it. It thus counteracts a collective instinct for survival. So why do we see cannibalism in some cultures? Well, look at those cultures, they are usually very tribal, and there is often conflict between tribes. Cannibalism for them could also be argued to be born of a desire for self preservation as well as the preservation of the tribe. It both eliminates a threat (an opposing tribe's warrior) and fills a need (food).

Westside Steve

I think you have a pretty solid basis for your theory but remember that cannibalism doesn't produce revulsion in every society. It can, I assume, be learned from birth depending on your sociological surroundings.lots of mammals eat the offspring of there competing clan members. And if you recall Soylent Green? it's almost like trickle to eat members of society who are past their useful age and reproduction ability no?

I read a book many many years ago called good to eat which dealt with a lot of that. Among other things they say we don't eat horses because horses are useful. We don't eat dogs because dogs are companions. However we will eat them if there's a shortage of meat and we all want meat.

And if propagation of the species is your basis why in the world would it be considered immoral to fuck any woman you can? Especially the youngest and most able to reproduce you could find?

I think it will be interesting to look at different morals in that light.

WSS

Westside Steve

Also would tthat mean that those who feel homosexuality is immoral are on solid scientific ground?

WSS

Osiris

@westside-steve said:

I think you have a pretty solid basis for your theory but remember that cannibalism doesn't produce revulsion in every society. It can, I assume, be learned from birth depending on your sociological surroundings.lots of mammals eat the offspring of there competing clan members. And if you recall Soylent Green? it's almost like trickle to eat members of society who are past their useful age and reproduction ability no?

I read a book many many years ago called good to eat which dealt with a lot of that. Among other things they say we don't eat horses because horses are useful. We don't eat dogs because dogs are companions. However we will eat them if there's a shortage of meat and we all want meat.

And if propagation of the species is your basis why in the world would it be considered immoral to fuck any woman you can? Especially the youngest and most able to reproduce you could find?

I think it will be interesting to look at different morals in that light.

WSS

Right, cannibalism doesn't produce revulsion in every society, but I'm arguing that in societies that it doesn't, one can make an argument that in that particular environment, it has a perceived benefit to survival (note I take a broad definition of the term survival). For example, the eating your enemies example I stated earlier. In the case where clan members eat competing offspring, it is a selfish sort of survival in which the cannibalistic animal is trying to ensure that it is responsible for a larger portion of the gene pool. In some sense, if the parents of the offspring can not defend their children from the parents of other animals, the overall effect is that the gene pool of the mammal that is stronger/fiercer survives while the weaker pool does not.

As for eating members of society that become too old and 'useless', that most definitely can be linked to survival instincts if that society has pressures on available food, than you are eliminating a mouth to feed while feeding other, more 'useful' mouths. Still, other societies revere the elderly as a source of knowledge that can be used to enhance the chances of survival for the younger, less wise, members of the species.

I would posit that it is considered immoral to have as many sex partners as one can, on a survival basis, for several reasons. The first is that by remaining monogamous, the chances of survival of the offspring is increased. You will notice that in many mammals that have long gestation and maturation stages (like humans, elephants) there is more of a tendency to remain with one partner. That's because these offspring are a major investment in time and resources, and therefore the parents want to protect that investment. So it is a concept of producing quality offspring. Other animals opt for quantity over quality: fish, reptiles, turtles, that lay large numbers of eggs, for example, but do little in the way of parenting.

The homosexuality question is a good one, and it's one I've thought about. One could argue that homosexuality benefits societies with population pressures, in that it allows members of that society to fill their need to pair with another member of society, but allows the population growth to slow such that fewer resources are expended. I'm not sure I'm completely satisfied with that argument. No theory is perfect.

DieHardBrownsFan

Evolution is a myth.

sadbrownsfan

@diehardbrownsfan said:
Evolution is a myth.

Yet it has more proof than most, if not all, religions.

Westside Steve

Oddly enough Elephants do not made for life. I didn't think so but I had to look it up. Actually there are 11 species most of them birds. Along with termites and a breed of worms. None of which, I would assume, have a long gestation period.

But elephants don't eat their young either.

WSS

DieHardBrownsFan

@sadbrownsfan said:

Yet it has more proof than most, if not all, religions.

Just because you say so? Prove it.

MLD Woody

@diehardbrownsfan said:
Just because you say so? Prove it.

I know how this will end. If you can't prove every little aspect, and answer every question DieHard has, then creationism is just as valid as evolution...

...

MLD Woody

Osiris, it is nice to have you around this board. Intelligent debate is a nice change of pace

Osiris

Thanks Woody, trying to stick to debate without the diatribe.

And evolution is not a myth. I see it an action every day at my job at a genetics research institute. Ever hear of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance? Guess what, that's evolution. Every time you pop antibiotics you threaten the millions of bacteria on and in your body. Most die, but some don't, because they have genes that give they evolved genes that make them immune, and then they survive, multiply, passing that gene on to their offspring. In fact, they can pass them on to other bacteria species that live in the same environment. That's evolution.

WSS thx for the correction, I might have been thinking of some other mammal. Still I think my points hold.

DieHardBrownsFan

It is a myth. If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? You really have no clue.

DieHardBrownsFan

Plus, didn't you say you were a writer before? Now you work in genetics?

Osiris

There are still apes for the same reason there are still crocodiles. The collection of traits they have remains a viable strategy for survival. At some point in time, some apes faced pressures that forced them to evolve bipedal motion, opposable thumbs, etc. this population of apes created a new branch in the evolutionary tree that led to us. Other populations of apes didn't face these pressures, and remained more similar to their ancestors.

And yes, I am a bioinformatics analyst by day and a freelance writer by night. You've never heard of anyone having two jobs before?

DieHardBrownsFan

I call horse shit on both accounts. I take it this must be your freelance writing?

DieHardBrownsFan

@osiris said:

There are still apes for the same reason there are still crocodiles. The collection of traits they have remains a viable strategy for survival. At some point in time, some apes faced pressures that forced them to evolve bipedal motion, opposable thumbs, etc. this population of apes created a new branch in the evolutionary tree that led to us. Other populations of apes didn't face these pressures, and remained more similar to their ancestors.

And yes, I am a bioinformatics analyst by day and a freelance writer by night. You've never heard of anyone having two jobs before?

Articles

email this

share this

tweet this

If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Download If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes? PDF

This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it.

First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.

Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same.

A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require.

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized.

We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed.

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.

MLD Woody

Lol, the "Institute for Creation Research" ... hahaha

You've posted that article before. This is my favorite part:

"A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling"

The irony in that statement... my god. This is a creationist complaining that something is just "story telling"

I won't barge in on Osiris' dealings with you. He can have a fun "debating" you.

These debates are always good though, imo, of adding or taking away credit from other posts on this board.