Evolution cannot account for morality

[Brian37]

We cannot get our morality from evolution because evolution does not care about how we treat others. Also, it makes no sense that we have instincts therefore it makes more sense that God wanted us to have instincts. Evolution only starts with life, which makes no sense, it should show how inanimate matter turns into life as well. Also, if evolution has all this power then where does evolution come from?

Bull! 

We most certainly got our morality from evolution. If this cat has no "morality" then why did it do this?





And why did these two elephants do this?





Humans ARE NOT the only species that display compassion and empathy and nurturing. Morality also is not stagnate either. A bull elephant however will stomp your ass in the wild if it wants your crop or your kid gets in it's way. Certain species of bird share parenting duties and the male can sit on the egg and keep it warm while the mother goes out and hunts for food for the baby chicks.

It is absolutely true that evolution does not care if compassion or cruelty work to get to the point of reproduction. But it is bullsh*t to say only humans are capable of compassion. We too as a species are also capable of great cruelty.

[Astreja]

Evolution is a side effect of organisms competing for resources.  Any difference between two organisms will become significant if that difference provides an advantage in mating or finding food or avoiding danger.  It's "survival of the {best fit for the current circumstances}":  Slightly longer legs (better for running away), more drab colouration (better for hiding in the underbrush), and so on.  The loser dies; the winner mates, and the advantage is passed on to the offspring.  That's all evolution really is:  A tendency for slight improvements to propagate to the next generation.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Do you think its possible that evolution can apply to non-life as well. If evolution only applies to life (mutations only apply to life) do you think that is strange? Why would evolution under the guise of another process maybe -not apply to non-life as well? What makes you think that matter turns into life and only then does evolution begin? The universe is there in the beginning, matter is there in the beginning, so why cannot evolution be there in the beginning?

The main driver for evolution is change.  Inasmuch as inanimate things can change, then something similar to biological evolution could occur.

For example, take technology:  100 years ago, music was available on 78 RPM records but those faded away as better methods of recording and distributing music were created.  However, that kind of "evolution" doesn't happen within the musical medium itself - Records don't reproduce themselves.

At the point where matter becomes capable of self-replication, IMO it's crossing the boundary of non-life to life and then becomes subject to evolutionary pressures in its environment.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This actually makes a lot of sense. Do you think its possible that evolution can apply to non-life as well. If evolution only applies to life (mutations only apply to life) do you think that is strange? Why would evolution under the guise of another process maybe -not apply to non-life as well? What makes you think that matter turns into life and only then does evolution begin? The universe is there in the beginning, matter is there in the beginning, so why cannot evolution be there in the beginning?

The main driver for evolution is change.  Inasmuch as inanimate things can change, then something similar to biological evolution could occur.

For example, take technology:  100 years ago, music was available on 78 RPM records but those faded away as better methods of recording and distributing music were created.  However, that kind of "evolution" doesn't happen within the musical medium itself - Records don't reproduce themselves.

At the point where matter becomes capable of self-replication, IMO it's crossing the boundary of non-life to life and then becomes subject to evolutionary pressures in its environment.

He keeps mixing up the concepts

[Jehanne]

The main driver for evolution is change. 

The main driver for biological evolution is high infant mortality.  Evolution is not "trial & error" (as Professor Carl Sagan stated in his Cosmos series), but, rather, "error & trial".

[Brian37]

The main driver for evolution is change. 

The main driver for biological evolution is high infant mortality.  Evolution is not "trial & error" (as Professor Carl Sagan stated in his Cosmos series), but, rather, "error & trial".

And Carl Sagan is right and I agree. 


Most humans make the mistake of looking at the mass diversity of life on the planet, and stupidly think there has to be some perfect efficient planner. But what they never consider for example, for every tree that makes it to tall heights and has acorns, the vast majority of those acorns fall to the ground and rot or become food for other animals. And the same failure ratio happens with sperm and eggs. For every sperm that is successful in fertilizing the egg, per load, there are millions more that die in the vagina or in the uterus, or are excreted through urination or masturbation and never make it to the egg. Even with eggs, for every pregnancy that is successful, females have far more many periods than pregnancies. 

If one postulates an efficient super cognition manufacturer the input of material would be a vast majority of waste and no sane factory boss wants such a lopsided ratio, they would go bankrupt in a day. There is no way I would hire this alleged being to run a factory with such a lopsided input and very little output. 

If this super cognition were efficient and perfect then one should expect to see no material wasted at all, a 1 to 1 ratio,  having a equal amount of material going in with 100percent used with no waste. 

In our planet's 4 billion year history, our planet has had 5 mass extinction events so far, and what we see still alive today, is a meager 1%. 99% of life has gone extinct over those 5 mass extinction events.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like you might have been the party incapable of proper discourse, Chkn, just as you are with respect to evolution, and morality. A proper discourse assumes some basis of shared knowledge on the subject of discourse…or at least the ability to use words in a cogent manner. You lack these, so I doubt you could have a proper discourse with anyone looking to quantum mechanics as an explanation for consciousness..

It would just be someone telling you things, and you expressing your incredulity at what you don’t understand.

As this thread has been.

[arewethereyet]

If we are going with goddidit then I assume he(?) was sampling some herb or other botanical when coming up with the platypus. May have made it out of leftover parts.

[Nay_Sayer]

Something smells.

You're quite the welcoming person! 

Yep. So who were you?

For the record, I believe the op to be a troll/poe

[Angrboda]

If we are going with goddidit then I assume he(?) was sampling some herb or other botanical when coming up with the platypus. May have made it out of leftover parts.

Maybe echidna.

[chiknsld]

This actually makes a lot of sense. Do you think its possible that evolution can apply to non-life as well. If evolution only applies to life (mutations only apply to life) do you think that is strange? Why would evolution under the guise of another process maybe -not apply to non-life as well? What makes you think that matter turns into life and only then does evolution begin? The universe is there in the beginning, matter is there in the beginning, so why cannot evolution be there in the beginning?

The main driver for evolution is change.  Inasmuch as inanimate things can change, then something similar to biological evolution could occur.

For example, take technology:  100 years ago, music was available on 78 RPM records but those faded away as better methods of recording and distributing music were created.  However, that kind of "evolution" doesn't happen within the musical medium itself - Records don't reproduce themselves.

At the point where matter becomes capable of self-replication, IMO it's crossing the boundary of non-life to life and then becomes subject to evolutionary pressures in its environment.

Ah, I think I understand. Evolution is merely a process that we attribute to life and there is no indication that evolution could ever apply to anything else.