Evolution cannot account for morality

[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?

Because Abiogenesis and Cosmic Formation aren't evolution. Your hang-up on this is the only thing that's odd.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think I am starting to understand now. Humans created morality therefore it is a consequence of intelligence rather than evolution right?

Nope 

[Jehanne]

Let's take the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary scientist Martin Nowak has identified five rules to explain why humans are the champions of cooperation...

I think that "cooperation" is a somewhat loaded term. The Romans, for instance, were willing to "cooperate" with conquered peoples (and, in doing so, pioneered federalism), so long as the latter did so on Rome's terms; otherwise, the legions would come and destroy you for your lack of "cooperation".

[chiknsld]

In post #11 on this thread, Astreja asserts that evolution can account for morality.

None of us are authorities; does it really matter what any of us think? 

Of course it matters what we think. Why even have a conversation if you have no respect for the opinions of the people you are conversing with? Even if I disagree with people, I always take their opinion into consideration because it's always possible that I am wrong.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Of course it matters what we think. Why even have a conversation if you have no respect for the opinions of the people you are conversing with? Even if I disagree with people, I always take their opinion into consideration because It's always possible that I am wrong.

1. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter really

2. You can converse with someone with zero respect for their opinion for various reasons

[chiknsld]

Of course it matters what we think. Why even have a conversation if you have no respect for the opinions of the people you are conversing with? Even if I disagree with people, I always take their opinion into consideration because It's always possible that I am wrong.

1. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter really

2. You can converse with someone with zero respect for their opinion for various reasons

Yes, Helios that is what I responded to. Echoing what Jehanne said is not exactly an acknowledgement of what I said. 

No. 2 was rhetorical. 

Again, it does not matter if you disagree with someone as long as you acknowledge that you may be wrong and you are exchanging opinions that have at least some sort of value, otherwise it is pointless to have such conversation.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter really

2. You can converse with someone with zero respect for their opinion for various reasons

Yes, Helios that is what I responded to. Echoing what Jehanne said is not exactly an acknowledgement of what I said. 

No. 2 was rhetorical. 

Again, it does not matter if you disagree with someone as long as you acknowledge that you may be wrong and you are exchanging opinions that have at least some sort of value, otherwise it is pointless to have such conversation.

1. I'm not echoing anything I'm simply pointing out  Jehanne is right as the opinions of a group of random non experts in a forum mean little to the current state of academic discourse. It's unlikely anybody here will be figuring out any novel revelations about life the universe and everything. 

2. Then make it more obviously rhetorical

3. Nope you can believe your opponent's positions are utter garbage but still converse with them for the LOLs or attempt to show them that their opinions are utter garbage so hopefully they adopt some better ones.

[chiknsld]

Yes, Helios that is what I responded to. Echoing what Jehanne said is not exactly an acknowledgement of what I said. 

No. 2 was rhetorical. 

Again, it does not matter if you disagree with someone as long as you acknowledge that you may be wrong and you are exchanging opinions that have at least some sort of value, otherwise it is pointless to have such conversation.

1. I'm not echoing anything I'm simply pointing out  Jehanne is right as the opinions of a group of random non experts in a forum mean little to the current state of academic discourse. It's unlikely anybody here will be figuring out any novel revelations about life the universe and everything. 

2. Then make it more obviously rhetorical

3. Nope you can believe your opponent's positions are utter garbage but still converse with them for the LOLs or attempt to show them that their opinions are utter garbage so hopefully they adopt some better ones.

Appeal to authority much? So the only people that can prove anything in life are at Harvard I suppose? Did you know that people in academia were at one time just a regular person? They might have even scoured the internet -mind-blowing eh?

I mean, there is not really an opinion that is utter garbage lol. Even someone who espouses the most deplorable opinions are still possibly worth listening to. And I am not talking about some sort of social deviant that is trying to waste your time. I'm talking about someone who has a legitimate reasoning for their opinion and is having a conversation with you. It may be possible that you are wrong even if you disagree and this at the very least makes it worth listening to what they have to say. At a certain point, just as long as both sides are reasonable, some sort of common ground should be possible or at least there should be an appreciation for the conversation itself and for the willingness of both sides to reciprocate an honest, fair, and approachable assessment of each other's ideas.

This may of course be too much to ask of the social deviant though. The persons who have hidden agendas, malicious intentions, etc. Someone with a hidden agenda is not interested in proper discourse.

[Angrboda]

This may of course be too much to ask of the social deviant though. The persons who have hidden agendas, malicious intentions, etc. Someone with a hidden agenda is not interested in proper discourse.

What's this about, laddy?

[chiknsld]

This may of course be too much to ask of the social deviant though. The persons who have hidden agendas, malicious intentions, etc. Someone with a hidden agenda is not interested in proper discourse.

What's this about, laddy?

The "hidden agenda" part?