Crow is right that by the time there was "man" there was social life. It is an interesting question to ask how far back we have to go until we get an organism with no empathic concern whatsoever. But given that contemporary apes do show it, it doesn't really make sense to argue that early humans didn't have it.



Why would you? You don't even believe in prehistoric man.

Well this would have saved us all a lot of time if you guys would have just said that when you made the statement that morality evolved, that you meant it had already evolved as soon as man became man, and since apes have it now, that's all the proof we need.

See then I would have realized you didn't want to have a debate, you just wanted to claim victory without any requirement to prove anything.

It's just common sense that man was moral once he evolved past Neanderthal 2.0

Or Piltdown plus 3 decades after the appendix became useless for the next 3 thousand years.

After all, we have youtube videos of how man lived 4500 years before written history which allows to us make any claim that we want as long as it is consistant with what we 'know' to be true.

How easy it must be to argue points that are won by the very nature of them existing.





And what's funny to me is you guys are completely baffled why this is not completely obvious.

While I am equally baffled at how you are blindly accepting something with nothing but claims to authority as your foundational truth on the subject.

So it's not possible that I do understand evolution as a theory, but don't agree to the conclusions that you think they 'prove'?

The only possible answer is that I don't even understand the basic theory of evolution. Because anyone who understands even the basic theory of evolution would believe the entire thing? There is no chance anyone could disagree?

That's what you want to claim as your strong point? That a contemperary man raised in public schools with no religious influences until I was in my twenties, I have no understanding of the basic theory of evolution.

See, this is why you are not going to evolve in your ability to debate people, you can't entertain the simple possibility that you are wrong about anything. I used to be that way also, I grew up. Here's hoping for you.


And evolution is bogus. DNA should be enough to make anyone rethink the theory, but keep focusing on Richard Dawkin's badly thought out conclusions, no reason to apply your own reasoning skills.

Already began to evolve, yes. I don't think its ever done evolving.




That would certainly be a possible scenario for someone to be in, but honestly you have not demonstrated that this is the case.



No, of course someone could disagree. But the way in which you disagree is revealing. For instance, if someone objects to the statement that electricity running through wires powers the lights on the basis that "they don't see any electricity on those wires", we know this is not a serious objection to our theory. It is quite clearly a misunderstanding on the part of the objector. There are other forms of evidence which would cause us to re-think the explanation (e.g. this here voltmeter shows zero!), but this isn't one of them.



Please explain what you mean by this outrageous statement. Outrageous I say!

blah blah mischaracterize the opposing side's position blah blah shift burden of proof blah blah

blah blah mischaracterize the other sides statements some more blah blah claim to know more about DNA than 99.9% of working biologists blah

Curious when and where it began. Because you are really in danger of relying on the watchmaker theory for your proof...which I wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of. you could lose your tenure...I hope noone reports the ethics violations from the Rose head fake thingy you did.





Probably not. Honestly, whenever I start, I realize it's bigger than I want to get into. Plus there is the history of whenever we get into it crow begins the redefinition thingy where he accuses us of not knowing what it even means...deja vu?

I guess we could get into why I think evolution is a manmade creation that is no different than the creation of gods to explain lighting at night...maybe you and I can have a cigar and explore this debate from a respectful position...or we can let the hit and run artist throw us off track and watch the debate fall apart...hmmm the choices are both pretty sweet.



Well you are possibly missing my point, and failing to see how I have began my groundwork for letting your side prove that you believe that there is purpose in evolution, which of course there cannot be, because evolution has no goals. At least not evolution that is scientific. And by goals I mean preconcieved direction that has an end result predicted...



Dude, that 'stash is heavenly...heavenly I tell you!

Rough estimate somewhere around 200 mya. Most of the empathic brain circuitry seems to be in the neorcortex, which reptiles didn't have, so probably the earliest we will see true empathy is going to be in mammals. (although i bet there are emotional resonance type phenomena that happen even in reptiles)



I think there's some truth to what you say here; the theory of evolution is certainly a man-made creation. But it differs from other man-made theories about the origins of life (e.g. Genesis) in that it explains the available evidence.



The concept of purpose and goals is something I wouldn't mind discussing. I don't think it's as clear-cut a purpose v. no purpose. Off the top of my head I think viewing anything as having a purpose is just a matter of perspective.

You're just using mya because you know I don't know what that means...




Explains? Or uses different material? The Torah explains the origin of life, but from a metaphsyical perspective.




Believing that evolution is the answer gives you a direction for seeing all evidence, as does believing in Creationism. I doubt that it is possible to see the evidence with a neutral mind.

OK, one million years ago (mya) = 166.67 earth-ages. ( one earth-age = 6000 years )




Explains the evidence. The Torah does not explain dinosaur bones.



No, what I meant by that is that I don't think we understand the whole concept of "purpose" well enough to put evolution and creationism in different categories in relation to purpose.

That's what I thought ( after I read your answer )




The Torah doesn't bring up dinosaur bones so it wouldn't need to explain them. It does bring up the problem of human sin. It does explain this.




See...these things quickly become so deep that honestly I get tired thinking about debating it on the interweb.

How about you boys quiz me on this evolution thing and I will answer with the same answers you'all would answer with ( within degrees ) Then you can lay to rest this whole "You don't understand evolution" dodge that has been crow's favorite way to pretend he's won the debate.

If it wants to be a useful theory about the origins of life it needs to explain them. If it just wants to be a recommendation on ethics, yeah it doesn't need to.



Not bad, not bad. I will work on this. We'll do it game show style of course.

depends on it's purpose though doesn't it? I mean you would be a little confused if the Torah explained the plot lines for Lost...




Of course.

Rose can be your Vanna.








Too soon?


And to be clear, I will give the answers that I know / believe without any google search etc for anything except for spelling, because as we all know, if you misspell a word than you are wrong about everything you think.

if you agree moral behavior is a survival benefit for individuals of a social species how does it contradict evolution.

Based on your contributions to this thread, the answer is a resounding no.

I think you should read the statement you are quoting of mine, then read your question, then ask yourself...


Which of these things doesn't belong?




who am I kidding, you will never see yourself as anything but correct...so I'll tell you.


In order to answer a question 'like you'all' then you will need to ask me a question about evolution.


*edit* preferably with a modicum of attempt at fun for yourselves since this is not going to result in the same conclusions as you think it will.


But hopefully it will allow you to release your thought process to explore the super duper remote chance that your parents are right, you are wrong, and it's not too late to correct your evil ways.

Strangely, this doesn't hurt my side of the argument at all.

You of course will not even remotely understand why.

you don't understand much of anything from what I have seen

i just did.

i can take it back a level if you want. can moral behavior be a survival benefit for individuals of a social species? if not, why not.

DOES NOT COMPUTE!



I am prepared to discuss any specific example you wish to provide at length.

Here are my questions to test your knowledge, should you choose to answer them.

1. Define:
   
   1. gene
   2. allele
   3. chromosome
   4. homozygous
   5. dominant gene
   6. phenotype
   7. DNA
   8. virus
2. Describe the theory of evolution.
3. What are the causes of genetic drift?
4. What is natural selection? Explain its interaction with habitat.
5. What are the advantages of sexual reproduction for a species?
6. Explain in as much detail as you can the natural selection of the peppered moth.
7. How old do scientists believe the Earth is?
8. How long do scientists believe there has there been life on Earth?
9. What methods do scientists use to find these dates?
10. What are sources of error in these methods and how do scientists attempt to mitigate them?
11. Name some early invertebrates.
12. Of mammals and reptiles, which do scientists believe appeared first? Why do they believe this?
13. Name the distinguishing characteristics of mammals.
14. Use evolutionary theory to explain the presence of a hip bone in whales.
15. Of the species that have been found in the fossil record, approximately what fraction of them have been found alive today?
16. How does the size of a population affect the rate of evolution?
17. Describe speciation.

My parents don't believe in god by the way. Well, at least my dad doesn't. My mom equivocates but lives as if she doesn't.

Might take me a few days to pull this together, I'm pretty busy the next couple days, but will not forget.

Hahaha.

What a terrible waste of letters and question marks.

Have you guys actually been reading this thread?

I do however give you a nod for a decent set of well presented questions that would be engaging to see addressed by a person who had the slightest clue what the fuck they were talking about when it came to relevant data and material.

This, though, is tantamount to discussing aerodynamics with a caveman. He isn't currently equipped to have any sort of meaningful discussion on the issue.

He is more likely to gutturally express baffled surprise and indignation, thinking you some sort of fool for making these strange, soft sounds like "the" and "plane" instead of running from the shiny monster birds swooping across the sky.

He'll have a good laugh at your expense as he pounces about his fire (THOG MAKE FIRE THOG SMART) flickered cave, painting glorifying images of the terrible but Ultimately Just sky monsters... shrewdly appeasing their mighty wrath.

Yea..not going to happen.

That's disappointing. Could you perhaps provide an entertaining excuse? Would you like us to take a theology quiz first?

I would be willing to bet that no one on this forum could take that quiz and score very well with the exception of LLY and maybe VB; without using the internet, google and books they have laying around.

They may pretend they know the answers to most of this, but without looking it up, I bet most people would not do well on this set of questions you have written up.

I suspect they will not take this quiz as they don't have anything to prove, and if they do, I would be willing to bet they cheat.


Also I am not of the belief that it is necessary to know the minute details of evolution to understand it.

After all, it was invented back when they thought our appendix was useless and the smallest thing in existance was a human cell.

Hi Folks!

I'm here to announce the first episode of Evolution Jeopardy! coming soon.

Stay tuned....

Because you believe that other people would cheat if they took the quiz, you're not going to. That's pretty weak.

Don't answer the ones you think are "minute details"; answer the ones that you feel demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Hell, make up your own 10 questions and answer those. Use the internet and books. I don't give a shit. You've asserted a knowledge of evolution and offered to demonstrate. Show me any way you can.

Base your questions are too hard, and some of them are not really relevant to assessing BG's understanding of the theory.

Plus, they are just not funny at all.

HAHAHA, Thanks, I've had a bad day and that made me howl. Awesome.



So when has BG been funny? He's done nothing but occasionally pop in, spout some rhetoric about whatever inane thing pops into his head, (because he read half a book about something), and gets some sort of joy out of fucking with people when he obviously doesn't believe his own dribble.

:highfivespades:

I am excited and scared all at the same time.

If I get points off for not answering in the form of a question, I will be very dissappointed

i'd settle for you just explaining your own assertion that evolution contradicts morality.

Which ones do you want to take out?

I wanted the quiz to be hard enough and open-ended enough that a person who really knew the topic could demonstrate it, but still have something for your average guy to have a shot at. Like I told BG, it's not meant to imply , "You're a dumbass if you don't know all this."

We're talking about demonstrating an ability to independently evaluate the scientific evidence. That's not a trivial level of understanding.

And to be clear, I couldn't answer some of these as well as I'd like to.

Fine..I will take it and PM you, feel free to report my score/success level without revelaing answers till some of the others get a chance to answer for themselves.

All responses must be in the form of a question.

And you won't be advancing to Final Jeopardy if you're not in the positive.

Eh, I'm not qualified, I'll leave it up to Alex to handle this.



I didn't mean to imply that BG was funny.

The point is that in order to secure his involvement, the questions have to be funny. Why would the guy just sit here and take some high school test for our judgement and amusement? In order to laugh at how wrong his answers are we need to bait him into taking the test.

That's good thinking..he'll never know what hit him.

Everyone knows it does

the only thing i've claimed in this thread on grounds of it being obvious is that empathetic behavior among humanity as a whole is gradually becoming more prominent than in the historical past, which i would be happy to debate if that's what you really want. i'm sure you don't since that's the implication of your own religious belief, and you're just dodging the previous question anyway.

And the only thing I've claimed on the grounds of it being obvious is that it didn't.

But you demand my data, and don't have any problem not revealing yours.

Which is why I don't feel inclined to get all detailed for you.

You are the king of making blanket statements with complete claims to authority and then act indignant that I dare to do the same thing to you.

I am not willing to put in more effort than you are. And I find your style of arguing much easier to win with. I mean just declare the whole world on your side and whammy, you win.

Wow this is so incredibly funny that you are accusing me of being the humorless twat who pops into this thread and spouts garbage without the remotest sense of understanding what's going on around him.


It's like you are doing this to be ironic...except I don't think you are capable of grasping how freudian this is becoming for you.

but maybe Spademan will bail you out if you kiss his butt some more.

you did no such thing until this statement. all you did was the same thing you are doing now - attack me to avoid debating an issue.

since you are now asserting that moral tendencies in humanity as a whole have not increased in recorded history, i'd suggest you re-read your bible. many of the accepted rules of behavior in most ancient cultures including the jews are considered patently immoral today by most of humanity. also you might read up on the history of slavery & study the history of ratial tolerance.

you will find that a lot of what you consider moral behavior has only relatively recently become prominent, and the inescapable conclusion is that much of modern morality is the product of cumulative social experience and learning. there is no evidence that humans were ever in touch with a pre-existing objective set of moral laws.




nobody is demanding data from you in this case. you are just being asked to explain in evolutionary terms that make any sense your assertion that morality contradicts evolution, something you have yet to do.



*WARNING STILL STUCK IN OVER MY HEAD: must continue to mischaracterize and attack the other side to avoid debate blah*

Ya know BG,

Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

Well since I hold morality is seperate from the subjective methods you hold to determine right from wrong, then I also hold that they are unchanging.

You're bad understanding of what the Bible says is not the same as changes in morality.



Slavery..that thing that has gotten worse since the Atlantic slave trade and is now at it's apex for numbers of living slaves...what was I supposed to learn about how morality has changed through evolution from that? That evolution once again failed to result in the changes you tell us that it did?





Except for the Bible, and the entire Jewish faith.





No, you are first requiring that I know your flavor of evolution, because whatever I say that you disagree with you will just pull out redefinition block 101 that is your typical response. It's old, I'm not playing anymore. Feel free to declare victory once again.




Pretty dumb avoidance technique I used..starting this thread and discussing it for weeks. Although your declaration that evolution created morality is still in the 'just another wrong atheist phrase' state in my book, because you can't give any argument but; "We know it did" Sorry if I don't let you have your cake and eat it too.

Besides you are distracting me form getting ready for my Jeopardy appearance.

I'll take crow's debating techniques for $100 Alex.

What is 'demanding the person who questions your declarative statement first explain why it's wrong' technique?

I think that's more like how Jeopardy works.

Man I am going to get killed...

I should cheat.

Okay, if you don't agree with Webster's definition of morality and want to create your own, could you please enlighten us as to what morality is in your opinion?

Or maybe you have some other definitave explanation that we aren't privy too? You say it isn't subjective but absolute, so give us some of the absolutes? That has to be easy, right? I have a bad understanding of the bible, so explain to me where God tells us what morality is in there.

slavery, muder, and genocide are all morally justified in the OT and have been by most other ancient cultures in the past. as hard as you try you aren't going to be able to equivocate yourself around that fact.



slavery is still a serious problem, but to say it is "worse" now than in the past misrepresents facts - percentage of world population held as slaves is way down this century. that's not even the point. there are local exceptions, but in general human attitude towards slavery is obviously shifting from the historical past, when it was at one time almost universally accepted as a moral practice, and number of governments recognizing human rights is way up.

i'm arguing the stupidly obvious here for your sake.



see above.



my flavor lol? there is only one theory and you can't disprove it by rewriting it.




you're still doing it right now - misrepresenting my position so you can attack it and avoid actual debate. attacking me doesn't make you look any less the fool.



still doing it.

No, you just misread the OT.

Also you don't understand that the OT is a collection of books, some of which are history books. Something happening isn't the same as something being promoted.

i'm not talking about anything being "promoted". as history the bible (and many, many other ancient writings) demonstrate ancient people had radically different standards of what constitutes moral or immoral behavior than they in general do now. you don't even have to go back very far at all to see moral standards shifting for things such as slavery, racial prejudice, what constitutes cruel punishment for criminals etc. shifting standards are obvious throughout human history.


and since you were nice enough to finally make a post without attacking my motives or whatever, i'll restate my position one more time.

in your OP you stated morality could not have come from anywhere but god or something similar - implying morality could not simply be evolved behavior (and restated that numerous times in this thread). all i and others are arguing is that morality COULD have evolved, and god isn't necessary to explain it. i have not made any declarations that morality absolutely did evolve and it's up to you to prove it didn't or anything similar. this should be just a debate about what constitutes a best explanation for behavioral phenomena based on evidence, and i'm willing to keep it that way if you are.