(03-09-2009 01:20 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 09:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Just give me proof of the evolutionists' claims. If you can't provide it, then stop saying you can.

It is my understanding that evolutionists claim that traits are passed on from one generation to the next, and over many generations heritable traits can spread throughout a population.

Maybe, but statistically speaking, those traits should get diluted in a population, since they start w/ only one individual who has to breed (and have its descendents breed) w/ non-trait carriers.

Of course the argument is that a trait provides an advantage that leads to greater fecundity. However, this is where you run into challenges w/ irreducible complexity, and traits that lead to disadvantages.

And you haven't even addressed the first challenge is having a genetic mutation that doesn't cause harm. This is non-trivial when you start investigating genomes and realize how various codes are overlapped. You make a change in one trait, you're liable to affect one or more other traits. This is why the details matter, and the simple-minded 9th grade biology description is such a detriment to science.

You also have questions regarding gene expression, and varying paths for "advantages". These are legitimate areas of study that could provide some interesting answers...but they haven't yet so a good scientist won't invoke them until they do.

They also fit well into the ID umbrella, something a good scientist doesn't dismiss based on a simple-minded 3-word mantra.

Quote:I thought the examples of controled breeding, and different E. Coli populations adequately showed this to happen. This is not the Theory of Evolution, but examples that life does evolve. My point is that we have evidence that life does evolve,

Which is why the distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution is so critical. You can't assume the latter based on the former...well not and call it science. That's more of a religious approach.

(03-09-2009 01:21 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 01:04 PM)GGniner Wrote:  My point was just that, IF Man descended from other species, then there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes man from other animals. There is no such thing as Human Decency if Animals and Humans have the same Moral compass..

Why do you assume that a moral compass could not evolve as well?

what they said, but I'd also point out that, "the dignity of the human being" does not exist outside of a distinctly Judeo-Christian theist viewpoint. There is no source of authority or 'hand book' if you will.

Maybe popular atheists will want to claim that "higher primates" do, in fact, warrant the same consideration that human beings to in the various totem poles of biological existence. If so I look fwd to the amusing arguments to remain logically consistent and watching how those arguments are received. "Veganism here we come....Hey don't step on those ants!!!!" Or the opposite, "Hey whats so bad about Cannibalism after all!"

I would say that Human dignity, coming from the Lord and giver of life, can not exist in a world that came from a cellular explosion(randomly). Human dignity does not exist if animal primates possess the same moral compass that we do. It is only the Judeo-Christian doctrine that we, and we alone, are "created in the image of God," that accounts for human dignity.

I think Richard Dawkins basically admits this to Ben Stein when he said that maybe human life came from Aliens, the secularist are basically stuck on this one, they either must say that dignity can be abandoned altogether, or they can borrow from the Christian belief of imago dei and continue to live out their Irrational worldview

(03-09-2009 01:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 01:21 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 01:04 PM)GGniner Wrote:  My point was just that, IF Man descended from other species, then there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes man from other animals. There is no such thing as Human Decency if Animals and Humans have the same Moral compass..

Why do you assume that a moral compass could not evolve as well?

Because by definition, it would need to provide some advantage making its host more successful.

And that's an active area in "evolutionary psychology", as well as among philosophers and even mathematicians...who try to provide evidence that ethics make sense based on natural selection.

However, to date the success of such endeavors is grossly lacking. That's why you read about new books on the subject every few years, the old efforts don't cut it. The current push is to invoke game theory on why ethics provide a species an advantage. However, one area it struggles with is why an individual should care about the greater good. That's a tough position to reach using genes that are passed on to/through individuals... if that individual makes an altruistic sacrifice for others, the genes die.

Why is it a tough position? They're just cost/balance dynamics. I share as many genes with a parent or a sibling as I will with my progeny. If I make an altruistic sacrifice for my sister, my genes will not die. Every two children she has will equal a child I had, in terms of my genes passing on.

(03-09-2009 01:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Maybe, but statistically speaking, those traits should get diluted in a population, since they start w/ only one individual who has to breed (and have its descendents breed) w/ non-trait carriers.

...
Which is why the distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution is so critical. You can't assume the latter based on the former...well not and call it science. That's more of a religious approach.

Yes, specific traits will get diluted in a population which is the point. If populations are seperated then traits would no longer be diluted amongst all groups; and distinctions can be made. Of course, the longer the separation the greater the chance for differences; but where does one call each a new or different species still must be determined.

(03-09-2009 01:36 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  There's no organ for morality. Nothing in our DNA that establishes a moral standard. The mere fact that there is no universal code of morality rules out the possibility it could be a product of biological evolution.

We don't all look the same either. Does that mean our appearance isn't based on DNA? that appearances aren't the product of evolution?

The organ for morality, and all behavior, is the brain, which originates through stereotyped developmental programming encoded in our DNA, is maintained through any of a number of mechanisms encoded in our DNA, and is constantly being tweaked through activity-dependent modifications. There's no 'universal code of morality' because subtle differences in our DNA and enumerable differences in our experiences provide variance in how we all think. Each of our moral standards is thus not solely established by our DNA, but our DNA does play a huge role in its development.

(03-07-2009 09:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-07-2009 09:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Evolution is a theory. Just like gravity.

Not trying to throw digs at you but evolution is theory and gravity is fact.

Quote:Intelligent Design and Creationism, having NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS, and no basis other than "holy books", have no place in the education system. Be that college. Be that high school. Be that anything that proclaims to actually educate the people.

Agreed. Religion is based on faith and having faith in something doesn't make it factual. The only way to prove the existence of a supreme being is for him to come here and show his face or for us to die and go to his home field. The only people I'm aware of that are in a rush to die are Muslims.

Gravity is a theory. All of science is theory. As our knowledge improves, we continue to tweak and improve theory. This is different from religion, where the facts are set forth from a mystical book allegedly written by God. All evidence to the contrary of the book must be ignored.

And to say that only Muslims are in a hurry to die as a falsehood. There is a such thing as the American Taliban. Go watch Jesus Camp. Islam does not hold monopoly over religion-based brainwashing.

(03-09-2009 12:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Actually, they have this thing, some folks call it "math," anyway, it lets you figure out things like probabilities.

Garbage in - garbage out. If your initial assumptions are wrong, it doesn't matter how much math you do to it, your conclusion would still be junk.

Still waiting on this proof you claim to have. That you can't provide one, pretty much means QED for me.

Quote:And feel free to answer the question some time.

I pointed you to just one of dozens of journals that provides a wealth of data which supports the scientific understanding of the issue. The fact that you choose to ignore it really isn't my problem or concern, but does speak volumes about your scientific integrity, or lack thereof.

Quote:And here's a tip, red herring fallacies don't work well w/ real scientists.

Absolutely correct - which is why ID has virtually no standing within the community of real scientists.

Since you seem to be keen on learning about math and logic, we'll start with an easy one with relevance to this thread:

All real scientists know the difference between a proof and a hypothesis.
DrTorch doesn't know the difference between a proof and a hypothesis.
Therefore, DrTorch is not a real scientist.

(03-07-2009 10:23 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

What is the most comical about this 'Evolution Thingy', is that if I were to state that Barrack Obama is a direct descendant of an Ape, the outrage would be absolutely enormous because he is Half Black.

Yet, I am supposed to sit back and accept that 'I' am a direct descendant of that Ape .... it is just freggin ridicules at its most 'Best'.

I am a Christian and I believe in both the 'Big Bang & Evolution' - -

I believe God said "LET THERE BE THE UNIVERSE" and he snapped his fingers and "BANG !!!!!!", there was the Universe exploding out into the Heavens and guess what ... every scientist worth a grain of salt will tell you the Universe is STILL growing and expanding ..... so Big Bang.

'Logical Evolution' is so Common Sense that it makes no Common Sense to try to pin it on Humans Evolving from Sea Slime Slugs that landed here on some Asteroid 50 Trillion Years Ago - - these Sea Slugs just one day decided they wanted Legs, Eyes, Hair, a ***** and something to put the ***** in, and decided to Swing From Trees for a while ..... that is so Egregiously Foolish that it reeks.

ALL Species "Evolve" - - we have to Adapt to the changing world around us and that is Simple Called Evolution and Charles Darwin does not have the Scientific Monopoly on that Idea .... now think about it and it becomes pretty Common Sense doesn't it.

And I have to take up for Robert here - - we are "Warning Bar Buddies" straight out of the Spin Room - -

And this happened the same day I gave great Kudos and Accolades to how all the MOD's here are the best - - I still think that, but I guess that particular post got missed all together .....

.

(03-08-2009 09:29 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

What scares me more than anything else about this idea, is that we seem to Rely on people (Scientist) who are wrong 99% More than they are Right ...

And for some reason, we take their word as Golden.

Einstein was wrong more than he was right - - Edison took mind boggling years to get the simple Light Bulb right (In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp) ... and on and on.

That is why it is called "Science" and not called "Absoluteness".

Mathematics is a Dream Mechanism for Calculating Theory, but in the end, without the ability to Reach in and Touch the Real Thing as the Changes are 'Actually Being Made', you are simply 'Calculating and Quantifying Theory'.

Just remember - - these are the Same Guys that 'Can't Cure the Common Cold' .......

.

First ... simply ascribing the creation of the universe to God does nothing to explain things. Who created God? Who created the thing that created God? Categorizing unknowns as "God" is naive and weak minded. Morever, science offers plausible explanations through the Big Bang, and the multiverse theory.

Second ... saying that Sea Slug --> Ape --> Human is so incredibly wrong you by default lose the argument. I'm going to get Richard Dawkins here for a second: Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We sit atop the mountain of nature. There are two ways to get to the top: the gentle but very very long slope of evolution, or the sheer cliff of creationism. Evolution is a long drawn out and slow process taking hundreds of millions of years. If you want to see micro examples of evolution ... look no further than AIDS adapting to ethnicity, or regional immunity to the plague, or symbiosis between Koala and gut bacteria, or isolation driven evolution (Darwin's finches, etc), or superbugs, or the flu. Notice most of these examples are on the bacterial level, further supporting the ground-up-gradual-slope of evolution.

Third ... always remember that the goal of science is to advance. When it's wrong it corrects, moves on, and presses further. Better, faster, stronger, constant improvement. Being wrong in science means progress. This is in STARK contrast to religion, where the be-all-end-all is stated in holy books that are allegedly the word of God. Any evidence contradicting these books are to simply be ignored. Do I really need to start taking examples of the Bible? The God of the Old Testament is arguably the worst character ever created in all of fiction.

To take a phrase and spin it around .... the probability of all life originating on Earth being created by God is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

I know this is about free speach........ somewhere the fuc_k in here.

(03-09-2009 01:54 PM)GGniner Wrote:  I think Richard Dawkins basically admits this to Ben Stein when he said that maybe human life came from Aliens, the secularist are basically stuck on this one, they either must say that dignity can be abandoned altogether, or they can borrow from the Christian belief of imago dei and continue to live out their Irrational worldview

I have almost always looked at God and Angels as Alien Beings in the sense of how they are Totally Different in Entirety from We Humans.

Probably more of the "Basic Religious Believers", never really takes a look at the Biblical Descriptions of God's "Angels" ... most keep the Sunday School thought that all Angels are either these Beautiful Beings or they are Little Cupid Looking Cherubs and that is just not true.

There are Beautiful Angels, but there are some Ugly Nasty Looking puppies up there too ... their Design is Beautiful to God, but they are meant to be Fierce and Extremely Frightening to a Human.

I mean you have a Righteous and Godly man like Daniel, who "Faints Dead Away at the sight of an Angel", not just one Occurrence but Two Times he fainted, and has to be raised from his instant death tells me that a guy who sits and scribes what is the Revelation of the Old Testament, is no coward toward the Things of God, yet Faints Dead Away and has to be Raised Back Up at the Sight of an Angel ??? .... ummmm - - so this tells me that this Angel (Gabriel) is one Fierce Alien Looking "Creature" (note the term Creature) since Angels are not Human.

Sure, the entire Idea of Heaven, Angels, and God is absolutely Alien to us and even the Bible tells that Gods Heaven will "Come Down to Meet the Earth and WILL FLOAT ABOVE Jerusalem" - - now that description in simple words, can easily be painted as a 'Space Craft' if one wants to go there.

We call Canadians and Mexicans "Aliens", so looking upon Magical and Mystical Heavenly beings as Aliens is purely Logical in every sense of the definition.

.

(03-09-2009 02:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  We don't all look the same either. Does that mean our appearance isn't based on DNA? that appearances aren't the product of evolution?

Appearance and morality are not the same thing. You're talking physical traits versus a particular world view.

Quote:The organ for morality, and all behavior, is the brain, which originates through stereotyped developmental programming encoded in our DNA, is maintained through any of a number of mechanisms encoded in our DNA, and is constantly being tweaked through activity-dependent modifications.

What you're talking about is the brain and it's ability to reason. Reason and morality are not the same. Morality is not a product of biological evolution. DNA gives us the ability reason as a function of the brain. DNA has never been shown to have, encoded within it, morality.

Quote:There's no 'universal code of morality' because subtle differences in our DNA and enumerable differences in our experiences provide variance in how we all think.

Again, you have no scientific basis to link morality and DNA. Thinking and morality are not the same. Morality brings with it a standard. Something that says x action is moral/immoral because it violates a certain standard. That standard is not what DNA makes it to be.

Quote:Each of our moral standards is thus not solely established by our DNA, but our DNA does play a huge role in its development.

Saying DNA plays a role in the development of or moral standards is like saying the oxygen a auto worker took in played a huge role how my car runs.

The fact that I use my brain and it's ability to reason, which are outputs of what my DNA is, doesn't in turn link it to the establishment of morality. If that's what you're arguing then there can never be any such thing as morality. There is only personal preference. In which case nothing is ever right, and nothing is ever wrong.

Bottom line you have absolutely nothing to base saying morality evolved biologically. If it did, everyone would have a standard. Barring some kind of defect, everyone has a face, hands, legs etc. The vast majority of the people in this world have the same functioning body that, according to evolution, has evolved over billions of years. Yet the moral standards by which the human race lives are vastly different in every single culture. You can attribute that to any number of things, DNA you can't.

(03-09-2009 02:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-07-2009 10:23 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

What is the most comical about this 'Evolution Thingy', is that if I were to state that Barrack Obama is a direct descendant of an Ape, the outrage would be absolutely enormous because he is Half Black.

Yet, I am supposed to sit back and accept that 'I' am a direct descendant of that Ape .... it is just freggin ridicules at its most 'Best'.

I am a Christian and I believe in both the 'Big Bang & Evolution' - -

I believe God said "LET THERE BE THE UNIVERSE" and he snapped his fingers and "BANG !!!!!!", there was the Universe exploding out into the Heavens and guess what ... every scientist worth a grain of salt will tell you the Universe is STILL growing and expanding ..... so Big Bang.

'Logical Evolution' is so Common Sense that it makes no Common Sense to try to pin it on Humans Evolving from Sea Slime Slugs that landed here on some Asteroid 50 Trillion Years Ago - - these Sea Slugs just one day decided they wanted Legs, Eyes, Hair, a ***** and something to put the ***** in, and decided to Swing From Trees for a while ..... that is so Egregiously Foolish that it reeks.

ALL Species "Evolve" - - we have to Adapt to the changing world around us and that is Simple Called Evolution and Charles Darwin does not have the Scientific Monopoly on that Idea .... now think about it and it becomes pretty Common Sense doesn't it.

And I have to take up for Robert here - - we are "Warning Bar Buddies" straight out of the Spin Room - -

And this happened the same day I gave great Kudos and Accolades to how all the MOD's here are the best - - I still think that, but I guess that particular post got missed all together .....

.

(03-08-2009 09:29 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

What scares me more than anything else about this idea, is that we seem to Rely on people (Scientist) who are wrong 99% More than they are Right ...

And for some reason, we take their word as Golden.

Einstein was wrong more than he was right - - Edison took mind boggling years to get the simple Light Bulb right (In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp) ... and on and on.

That is why it is called "Science" and not called "Absoluteness".

Mathematics is a Dream Mechanism for Calculating Theory, but in the end, without the ability to Reach in and Touch the Real Thing as the Changes are 'Actually Being Made', you are simply 'Calculating and Quantifying Theory'.

Just remember - - these are the Same Guys that 'Can't Cure the Common Cold' .......

.

First ... simply ascribing the creation of the universe to God does nothing to explain things. Who created God? Who created the thing that created God? Categorizing unknowns as "God" is naive and weak minded. Morever, science offers plausible explanations through the Big Bang, and the multiverse theory.

Second ... saying that Sea Slug --> Ape --> Human is so incredibly wrong you by default lose the argument. I'm going to get Richard Dawkins here for a second: Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We sit atop the mountain of nature. There are two ways to get to the top: the gentle but very very long slope of evolution, or the sheer cliff of creationism. Evolution is a long drawn out and slow process taking hundreds of millions of years. If you want to see micro examples of evolution ... look no further than AIDS adapting to ethnicity, or regional immunity to the plague, or symbiosis between Koala and gut bacteria, or isolation driven evolution (Darwin's finches, etc), or superbugs, or the flu. Notice most of these examples are on the bacterial level, further supporting the ground-up-gradual-slope of evolution.

Third ... always remember that the goal of science is to advance. When it's wrong it corrects, moves on, and presses further. Better, faster, stronger, constant improvement. Being wrong in science means progress. This is in STARK contrast to religion, where the be-all-end-all is stated in holy books that are allegedly the word of God. Any evidence contradicting these books are to simply be ignored. Do I really need to start taking examples of the Bible? The God of the Old Testament is arguably the worst character ever created in all of fiction.

To take a phrase and spin it around .... the probability of all life originating on Earth being created by God is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

I totally understand your points, but I see beyond the Hurricane and know that if I were that Direct Spawn of the Sea Slime Slug who became an Ape, I would have an Actual and Provable bloodline set of Traits that could not be tossed around as Probables or Possibilities, that are totally and 100% Traceable back to the Sea Slug or the Ape ... in which case, I am Either Always Human or Either, I am always a Mongrel made from parts of everything from Dirt to Dolphins and if you can't distinguish me from a Dolphin, there is really something wrong with your Theory.

I came to learn that God also had to Learn about Humans - - after all, He created us out of His own imagination and we are like nothing He had created before .... He even gave us Free Will and He had to truly reach out on that one - - I mean we have screwed it all up from almost day one and He has not Destroyed us yet.

So, if you take into account that there was Dissension in Heaven where Satan and a 3rd of the Angels went to war against God, then God had too allow for Odd Behaviors from his First Creation, the Angels, but went so far beyond that scope with Humans, that even God had to learn us as much as we had to learn Him ... if you read the Bible front to back (King James), you can not come away not seeing that God watched and learned how we acted and built upon that; like any good Father would do and then in return, He taught us better ways from His greater logic and knowledge.

But we usually blame God for OUR Weaknesses and OUR Immorality rather than face the fact that We Humans are just Mean and Weak. God gives us the rope and we usually always hang our selves big time.

God already had Angels, so with Humans, he wanted this "Free Will Thing" to be as pure as it could be if it were to be Real and Honest.

And my Ideas on how all this came to be and who is the cause of it is just as plausible and accurate as any one else's ideas.

Science has never offered me more than the Bible on how we came to be .... it is always going to be a Belief System based on Faith no matter if you are a Super Devote Christian or a Zero Tolerance Unbelieving Scientist .... if you don't have Faith in your Idea, then it is False .... (common sense)

.

(03-09-2009 02:14 PM)Fanatical Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 01:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Maybe, but statistically speaking, those traits should get diluted in a population, since they start w/ only one individual who has to breed (and have its descendents breed) w/ non-trait carriers.

...
Which is why the distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution is so critical. You can't assume the latter based on the former...well not and call it science. That's more of a religious approach.

Yes, specific traits will get diluted in a population which is the point. If populations are seperated then traits would no longer be diluted amongst all groups; and distinctions can be made. Of course, the longer the separation the greater the chance for differences; but where does one call each a new or different species still must be determined.

Yes, that's another challenge to the situation.

(03-09-2009 02:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  First ... simply ascribing the creation of the universe to God does nothing to explain things. Who created God? Who created the thing that created God? Categorizing unknowns as "God" is naive and weak minded. Morever, science offers plausible explanations through the Big Bang, and the multiverse theory.

GTS, stick to computers. You aren't good at this philosophy thing.

First, "Morever, science offers plausible explanations through the Big Bang, and the multiverse theory" You are mixing up all sorts of concepts. Evolution and cosmology are not the same thing.

Second, no one is necessarily categorizing unknowns as "God". This is a "God of the gaps" fallacy. Quite the opposite. Pretending that some mathematical construct, that has no empirical evidence, is more profound than "God" is absurd. That is simply semantics. They are equivalent. Thus, the best you have to offer is an approach that you bash.

Quote:Second ... saying that Sea Slug --> Ape --> Human is so incredibly wrong you by default lose the argument. I'm going to get Richard Dawkins here for a second: Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We sit atop the mountain of nature.

And I'm going to show that Dawkinsis a dumb***. First, this is a value judgement. So where does Dawkins get his absolute values from? What source that transcends the very universe allows him to claim humans are the pinnacle of anything?

And if it's just opinion, then big whoop.

Quote:If you want to see micro examples of evolution ... look no further than AIDS adapting to ethnicity, or regional immunity to the plague, or symbiosis between Koala and gut bacteria, or isolation driven evolution (Darwin's finches, etc), or superbugs, or the flu. Notice most of these examples are on the bacterial level, further supporting the ground-up-gradual-slope of evolution.

ONLY if you ASSUME evolution to be true to begin with. Not exactly the most rigorous argument.

Quote:Third ... always remember that the goal of science is to advance. When it's wrong it corrects, moves on, and presses further. Better, faster, stronger, constant improvement. Being wrong in science means progress. This is in STARK contrast to religion, where the be-all-end-all is stated in holy books that are allegedly the word of God. Any evidence contradicting these books are to simply be ignored. Do I really need to start taking examples of the Bible?

Gen 1:26
Prov 25:2
Maybe if you studied the Bible and didn't bash it so much, you wouldn't make these claims.

Quote: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the worst character ever created in all of fiction.

1. I have no idea what you mean here.
2. You have just made a value judgement...so what absolute standard to you base this judgement on, and why should "Any evidence contradicting this is to simply be ignored"?

Quote:To take a phrase and spin it around .... the probability of all life originating on Earth being created by God is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

Care to back that up in some fashion? With no empirical evidence to support your claim, this is an awfully religious sounding argument.

(03-09-2009 02:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I know this is about free speach........ somewhere the fuc_k in here.

It was. Creationists-IDers are all about "teaching both sides", except when it hurts their feelings.

More hypocrisy from their side - go figure.

(03-09-2009 10:59 AM)GGniner Wrote:  So you beleive, among other things, there is no such thing as Human Dignity?

Sure humans are different. We can do more that eat, copulate, and avoid getting eaten.

That doesn't change the genetics.

(03-09-2009 03:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 02:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  We don't all look the same either. Does that mean our appearance isn't based on DNA? that appearances aren't the product of evolution?

Appearance and morality are not the same thing. You're talking physical traits versus a particular world view.

Quote:The organ for morality, and all behavior, is the brain, which originates through stereotyped developmental programming encoded in our DNA, is maintained through any of a number of mechanisms encoded in our DNA, and is constantly being tweaked through activity-dependent modifications.

What you're talking about is the brain and it's ability to reason. Reason and morality are not the same. Morality is not a product of biological evolution. DNA gives us the ability reason as a function of the brain. DNA has never been shown to have, encoded within it, morality.

Quote:There's no 'universal code of morality' because subtle differences in our DNA and enumerable differences in our experiences provide variance in how we all think.

Again, you have no scientific basis to link morality and DNA. Thinking and morality are not the same. Morality brings with it a standard. Something that says x action is moral/immoral because it violates a certain standard. That standard is not what DNA makes it to be.

Quote:Each of our moral standards is thus not solely established by our DNA, but our DNA does play a huge role in its development.

Saying DNA plays a role in the development of or moral standards is like saying the oxygen a auto worker took in played a huge role how my car runs.

The fact that I use my brain and it's ability to reason, which are outputs of what my DNA is, doesn't in turn link it to the establishment of morality. If that's what you're arguing then there can never be any such thing as morality. There is only personal preference. In which case nothing is ever right, and nothing is ever wrong.

Bottom line you have absolutely nothing to base saying morality evolved biologically. If it did, everyone would have a standard. Barring some kind of defect, everyone has a face, hands, legs etc. The vast majority of the people in this world have the same functioning body that, according to evolution, has evolved over billions of years. Yet the moral standards by which the human race lives are vastly different in every single culture. You can attribute that to any number of things, DNA you can't.

Morality is more accurately ascribed to memes, which behave in their own evolutionary sense. Morality does not come from religion, and Dawkins has covered this also in great detail. It's worth nothing that most fundamental and basic morality is shared by all of those in society, and can best be ascribed to things like Social Contract Theory.

(03-10-2009 11:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Morality is more accurately ascribed to memes, which behave in their own evolutionary sense. Morality does not come from religion, and Dawkins has covered this also in great detail.

I've not brought religion into any part of this discussion GTS. I'm saying DNA cannot account for morality.

Quote:It's worth nothing that most fundamental and basic morality is shared by all of those in society, and can best be ascribed to things like Social Contract Theory.

First I'd disagree that all those in society share a basic morality, but that's immaterial to the current discussion. And Social Contract Theory, at least what I've studied, has never brought DNA into the discussion. As such, if I grant you the Social contract theory, it just bolsters the case that morals are not a product of biological evolution.

minimum rationality was explained a long time ago:

Quote:Romans 2:14-15

14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

(03-10-2009 05:19 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 10:59 AM)GGniner Wrote:  So you beleive, among other things, there is no such thing as Human Dignity?

Sure humans are different. We can do more that eat, copulate, and avoid getting eaten.

That doesn't change the genetics.

if we are decedents of other species, there is absolutely nothing to separate us from them and they are entitled to the same rights as all of us. Human dignity does not exist if animal primates possess the same moral compass that we do.