The origin of morality

[Mystical]

You too Godschild, you sound like an idiot. Go read up on some shit, for real.

I'd say check out this specific video which is actual science, but then I realized it's PBS so you're probably like, whaaaat? Devil worshippers? Hell no!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...44_02.html

Paul Nurse demonstrated that a strain of yeast with a defective gene could use the human version of that gene to repair itself. That we not only share a common genetic code with other organisms, but that we actually share specific genes, is powerful evidence of our common ancestry.

The Human Genome Project is revealing many dramatic examples of how genes have been "conserved" throughout evolution -- that is, genes that perform certain functions in lower animals have been maintained even in the human DNA script, though sometimes the genes have been modified for more complex functions.

This thread of genetic similarity connects us and the roughly 10 million other species in the modern world to the entire history of life, back to a single common ancestor more than 3.5 billion years ago. And the evolutionary view of a single (and very ancient) origin of life is supported at the deepest level imaginable: the very nature of the DNA code in which the instructions of genes and chromosomes are written.


Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendents, including us.

[Minimalist]

but that we actually share specific genes, is powerful evidence of our common ancestry.

Don't tell that to G-C. He likes to think his god played in the dirt to make him.

[Godscreated]

Can't you all see a ribbing, I mean seriously.

[Mystical]

whatcha sayin? be clear.

[Godscreated]

I was joking,

[Mystical]

Oh. I can't ever tell when you're joking

[fr0d0]

Secular mortality pales in comparison to the standard of absolute morality championed by Christianity. It's not the same beast at all, but a taster of the real thing. I would call secular morality savage. There is no justification for forgiveness, for example. Listen to defenders of our legal system and they cite Christ as the standard for this. Society demands retribution and an eye for an eye.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits

Fail. Having a survival or reproductive benefit does not make something moral, since some behaviours we consider immoral would be evolutionarily advantageous. Attack the neighboring tribe, steal all their women, rape them, and raise the children to be part of your clan. And that's just one example.

You shouldn't drag outdated theories from the dustbin of science to support your argument. Just because it's on the internet and supports your position doesn't make it true.

[KichigaiNeko]

Secular mortality pales in comparison to the standard of absolute morality championed by Christianity. It's not the same beast at all, but a taster of the real thing. I would call secular morality savage. There is no justification for forgiveness, for example. Listen to defenders of our legal system and they cite Christ as the standard for this. Society demands retribution and an eye for an eye.

I wouldn't get on my high religious horse fr0d0 if I were you. Your morality (xtian standard or lack there of) is the sole perpetrator of the most heinous crimes of immorality to date (quickly being overtaken by your sister religion islam) I wouldn't be proud at all if I were you

[The Grand Nudger]

Fail. Having a survival or reproductive benefit does not make something moral, since some behaviours we consider immoral would be evolutionarily advantageous. Attack the neighboring tribe, steal all their women, rape them, and raise the children to be part of your clan. And that's just one example.

Attacking the neighboring tribe is not always a ood idea (but some cultures did- and do- extoll the virtues of tribal warfare). Stealing women to rape has a long and illustrious history, check your good book.

You shouldn't drag outdated theories from the dustbin of science to support your argument. Just because it's on the internet and supports your position doesn't make it true.

Dustbin of science? Troll response. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are plugging along exceedingly well. They do a fine job of offering up explanations for -empirical morality- as that's what science is interested in and calls it;s aoo - that you demand normative morality (and clearly assume that your version of normative morality has a greater value) is your own personal tic. Doesn't detract from what we've learned about the subject we call "morality". That this distinction can be and is made - and the vast array of things we find in empirical morality - tells us a great deal about our concept of normative morality - cheifly, that it's very very shaky - at best.