Even as we were discussing evolution and its evidence, paleontologists were publishing the discovery of an early turtle ancestor which you could definitely call a (formerly-)missing link. It's got the widened, flattened ribs which would eventually evolve into the familiar turtle-shell we know today.

And I'm unable to decide whether the image Wiki's chosen for it is cute or terrifying.

hS

I'm not really... back? *coughs uncomfortably* I'm compiling my list of books to study, but I don't know what to read on evolution. I've got Origin of Species, Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth so far. I'd like a wide range of authors, from the moderate to the zealot and everywhere in between. Suggestions would be heartily welcome.

I've read through your responses to my original post, and they've been quite interesting and insightful.

Thanks in advance for the recommendations, and I hope to be "formally" back as soon as possible.

If you'll forgive taking words from another source, then this quote seems relevant:

"And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.” - Lord Vetinari, Unseen Academicals by Terry Pratchett

The world we're born into is full of pain and hardship, but just because it starts that way doesn't mean it has to end that way. We make art, we learn, and we care for other beings - not because we have to, but because in some way it makes the world better and, hopefully, makes us better. You don't need to believe in a god or superior being to see when something is wrong, and likewise it's not necessary to see doing good as some deity's will.

I do not see that act of killing another human being as inherently wrong. I do not see things in black or white, I am a moral relativist.

Take for example this hypothetical, A kills B for monetary gain. Is this wrong? I would say as a general rule as yes. But now lets change it up a bit. A kills B, but but was about to kill C. Is this wrong? I do not think so. Or taking it further. A kills B, but B is an enemy combatant during a war. Is that wrong? No.

For me the reason I see murder, which I will chose to define as the unjustified killing of another, as wrong is because of its overall effect on society. I very much subscribe to Thomas Hobbes' State of Nature theory, "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man"

Or put another way, I believe humans really are just animals. But animals with the capacity for something greater. But I think we do need civilization to keep our baser instincts in check. Just look at what happens during times of great chaos: looting, killing, other acts of violence. In those times when civilization fails, I think we see what humans really are. So I think that murder, as I defined it above, is wrong because it harms civilization as a whole, and brings humanity closer to their natural state.

Of course, evolution and my personal religion are not inconsistent, but I do not need someone in a fancy hat to tell me the unjustified killing of another is wrong. It is because it harms society and civilization as a whole.

Consider the following logical chain:
Postulate 1: I, from a selfish point of view, do not want to be murdered.
Postulate 2: Other people, from their own selfish points of view, do not want to be murdered, either.
Postulate 3: People consider fair agreements ethical.
Postulate 4: Equivalent exchange is fair.
Therefore: proposing an agreement roughly equivalent to "I won't murder you if you won't murder me" is equivalent exchange, which is fair, which is ethical.

And there you have it, morality based on some observations and a selfish agreement that serves the interests of both parties without any God (or, as I like to call it when philosophical questions are involved, System-External Problem-Solving Factor) nor any connection to evolution. This is, admittedly, a very poor version — it's not very thought-through or explained, and partially cannibalised from what Epicurus said in his Principal Doctrines — but I think it serves to illustrate my point.

PS: Apropos Epicurus, you might want to take a look at this, which is also, coincidentally, another reason why I tend to find religions not very philosophically rigorous.

PPS: If you need God to say that 'murder is wrong', it's tantamount to admitting that without God you'd be a murdering savage — you admit that you need Big Brother to be ethical.

I actually find this very interesting to think about. For a bit of context, I am a spiritual person, and my spirituality involves a great awe and wonder at all of existence. I personally find it more wondrous if it happened on its own rather than at the hand of some creator, because just think of everything that had to go right! It's amazing! It makes me so grateful to be alive and healthy, because I know there are thousands, maybe millions of ways it can all go wrong. The revelations of science are therefore a spiritual matter for me.

That's not to say science is my religion, though. My religion is Unitarian Universalism, and what makes me a UU is basically how I behave and relate in society. I try to follow the seven principles, the first of which is that every person has inherent worth and dignity (and should be treated as such). That right there makes murder wrong.

But why? Where does morality come from, if there is no supreme authority such as God (which I think is really what Alleb means here)?

Well, I think it comes from us, together. We humans are unique in that we can choose, consciously, how to behave. We are uniquely capable of introspection, self-reflection, and recognizing that what we might want to do is not always what is best to do. Somehow, when a bunch of human beings get together, all of that comes together in recognition of the fact that letting people kill people whenever they feel like it is not what is best. If nothing else, if we let the killer murder that person, what's to stop them from killing me? And further, we have empathy (once our brains finish cooking at about the age of 25-30, anyway). We recognize the suffering that a person's death causes their friends and family, and we understand that should someone kill our friend or family, we would suffer, too. We don't want to suffer because it feels bad, and we don't want others to suffer because we recognize that they would feel bad, too.

I don't know how much sense I'm making, but it's really a difficult question. I think ultimately I feel the same way about morality that I do about other aspects of existence, though: it is a far, far greater thing if we do it because we recognize the good in it for ourselves, rather than only doing it because some god tells us we have to or else.

~Neshomeh

One is a process, and one morality. Survival of the fittest is "the animal best-suited to its environment is most likely to survive to pass on its genes," not "only the strong *should* survive."

There are social darwinists, but they are generally terrible, eugenics-y people who also tend to misunderstand natural selection. Note also artificial selection, which covers things like dog breeding, and sexual selection, which is based in what the other partner finds attractive. (Humans do a lot of the last, as I would argue that this also covers personality.)

I went through this, and it hurt, a lot. Questioning everything, wondering why anything means anything to you anymore, etc. I'm sorry for your stress and heartache, and I hope you come out of this okay.

Here's my answer: what you feel, and what you see in others, is what matters. How we got here as humans, how long we've been here, who came from where, none of those answers should make you feel less loved. Or less loving. The existence and/or nature of God does not change the physical world and its science, and knowing the marvels of living things that were born and died milennia before any human does not change how grateful I am for the experience of being born, living, loving, and dying.

Think very seriously about this - if you will never, ever be seen, by anyone, God or man or beast, would you kill someone you loved? Of course not. Murder is wrong because to harm others is wrong. Whether you believe that God wrote that into your conscience or not, it doesn't change the fact that it is written on your conscious.

Whatever answer you come out with, that's what is important. The fact that you or I came to be here through a series of tics in the genetic code does not change the experiences we have today.

1/ If 2+2 = 4, then why is murder wrong? If gravity pulls down, then why is murder wrong? If America owns Alaska, then why is murder wrong? Evolutionary science, like virtually everything in the entire world, has no bearing on morality.

2/ If you were implying 'because surely murder is an evolutionary tactic to ensure your genetic supremacy' (or words to that effect, I doubt you'd be that blunt about it), then the equivalent question is: if the germ theory of disease is correct, then why is medicine okay?

The answer is: because science isn't about making sure natural laws 'fulfil their potential' or somesuch. It's about figuring out how the world works, not what we should do about it.

The universe doesn't care if we do our level best to prevent the evolution-by-murder of humanity. Why would it? It's a universe! But we care. As all the various discussions of empathy tried to explain - people care about people. And we're willing to fight against gravity (with aeroplanes), natural resource limits (with agriculture), microbes (with medicine), and evolution (with legal systems) to protect and uplift each other.

And I for one think that's wonderful.

hS

PS: If you're still reading! I highly recommend you actually study the matter, instead of simply looking up 'the proper defences'. In this and any other discussion of verifiable (or falsifiable) facts: find out what the facts are! Find out what the evidence is! Then decide for yourself whether you agree with it, based on any collection of evidence that you choose.

You may conclude that there's strong evidence for evolutionary science. You may conclude that it's only weak. You may conclude that it agrees with the Bible, or contradicts it (and should be thrown out), or contradicts it (and the Bible must be wrong). You may conclude that the whole thing is a conspiracy - or a practical joke by God - or a well-supported field of science. I don't know what you'll conclude, but I really hope you find your own conclusions, rather than just taking someone else's.

In this as in anything: read what supporters say. Read what opponents say. See what adds up and what doesn't. And draw your own conclusions.

(Wikipedia has an article called 'Introduction to evolution'. It's apparently written to be non-technical, and does have an 'Evidence for evolution' section. If you want to actually look into the topic, rather than just compiling a list of counterarguments, that's probably a good place to start.)

hS

PPS: Why is my postscript longer than my script? hS

It's still considered wrong to kill people. After all, if everyone was killing everyone else, then obviously the human race wouldn't last very long. Morality is partly about survival.

And to be perfectly honest? I'm not a Christian, I'm not religious.

I have a hard time accepting evolution myself.

There are people out there that believe that the "seven days" thing isn't literal; that hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions of years were put into God's creation of the earth.

And honestly, that makes sense. If you were an eternal, omnipotent artist (which I believe God is, at His most basic level), would you want to rush your work? Or would you spend time perfecting the world you so desire to create?

Even if God is omnipotent, He probably wanted to make that extra bit sure that His world was, to Him, perfect. He had forever; He took advantage of His eternal nature to ensure that the world was created right.

Now, I personally believe that once God brought humans into the picture, He decided to take a step back and let us decide our course. He'd let us, as His audience, decide what we think of His work of art.