Morals Come From Evolution

You said: "Remember that I am not doing you a service by debating against you, And that we all stand to benefit from a fair debate. I accept wise, Not scathing criticism" I am attacking your ideas, Not you. I am justified to do so. That is the point of a debate. You said: "If our morality really does originate from evolution, Then we will blindly follow this morality, " This is why I attack your ideas. I've already debunked this several times and you keep asserting it without addressing the refutations I gave. I already told you that evolution does not FORCE people to be moral. People do whatever they want and natural selection favors people who take the moral actions. I gave you real world examples like cannibals and inbreeding to show cases when evolution do this and instead of addressing these points that I just mentioned, You just reassert the point and say I'm cherry picking you. You say you want to have a mutually beneficial debate, Then why aren't you addressing my rebuttals? You're the one who keeps repeating the same points and forcing us into this vicious circle. You have a poor understanding of evolution. You keep saying that in my model, People have to have blind urges that are specially designed to make our decisions for us. That's not how mutation works. The traits we get our random and they either keep us alive or they don't. They're not absolutes that force our behavior. That's why I reject your critiques. Because you're not arguing for evolution. You're arguing for a strawman of evolution. You said: "The fact is, Our morality can never be brought in from evolution" That's a bold assertion. You have provided no evidence to support this claim thus far. You said: "it's like saying our political tastes were influenced by evolution" They do. Conservatism comes from tribal mentality and Liberalism comes from our fair play instincts. Both of these things have been demonstrated in science. Not just in humans either, In all animals and especially in group animals, Which humans are. You said: "Take Hitler. You say he acted counter to morality. Whose morality? Mine and yours? I agree. " Nope, He got killed by natural selection because our morals that came from evolution were superior to his. Thanks for bringing up Hitler again. You make my case stronger every time you do that. He's just a prime example of why humans have to act morally. At least my morality comes from something that exist. Where does yours come from? Subjectivity? An external source? To be those don't fit the human model. You said: " It's because given this time, All humans have uniformly evolved" This just further shows that you don't understand evolution. There is no "ideal" or "uniform" evolution. Evolution is Natural Selection and Gene Mutations. Gene mutations are random and Natural Selection is based on the environment and therefore is dynamic. So actually, Uniform humans wouldn't make sense in evolution. We're not uniform, So there's not problems there for me. You said: "with your (scientifically verified) claims that the human mind is a product of evolution, You cannot also debate that conscience is evolutionary. " Yes I can. Conscience is something in the mind. This is scientifically proven. Science can open up the brain and measure feelings of guilt and regret and they know what part of the brain it is in. Since evolution can grow brains, That means it can also grow the parts in the brains. All you've done is assert that it can't b so. Science doesn't assert it. They study it and write huge papers that you and I can peer review ourselves if we wanted. You said: "Your math is impeccable. Only that I ask that you copy the ENTIRE sentence, Not just some phrases. " What are you so worried about? I read your sentence, The people watching this debate read your sentence. I reject that I didn't post your ideas in full. What you're really saying is that you're mad because I didn't post your whole paragraph. Also the comma thing doesn't matter because I addressed the content after the comma with my rebuttals, That's the whole point. I post one sentence and refute the whole paragraph. I said that last time but I think you are just ignoring me. You said: "What morals do you refer to here? Are these the same morals that would trigger us to kill something in our way" No. They're the same morals that get you weeded out if you kill in way that violates a moral code. Like I've said multiple times in this debate. Natural selection does not stop you from killing, It punishes you for killing. There's a difference. You said: " Let us say you're ill, And you happen to encounter a mob. You know you must get to the hospital. Again, Assume a situation wherein you must pass through them. The refined mind, OUR MINDS, Will make us get out of the cars, Or make some arrangements so that we can pass safely. " Is that a big enough quote? I don't want to pierce your delicate skin with my poor pasting skills. To answer your question, Humans have a part of the brain that gives them empathy. The brain made evolution, Therefore evolution stopped the person from doing that. You keep falsely stating what "my model" does. What you mean is that the "straw man model" does that. So you said: "Gives me the perfect chance to sum up my argument. " and then immediate after that, You said: "Morality cannot be influenced by evolution. " Yeah, I'd say that does sum up your argument, This bold statement has been peppered nicely through your entire argument. It's definitely an appropriate summation. You said: "Evolution dictates that anything impeding our survival should be removed by us to ensure our survival is unaffected. " Evolution doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't have a mind. I keep telling you this. Evolution is the reason we don't do that. So you're actually quite backwards on this. You said: "I truly believe these morals are etched into our minds so much that we find ourselves instinctively helping someone in need to the best of our abilities" The key word in your statement is "instinctively" which means the person is using their instincts. Where do instincts come from? Oh yeah! Evolution. You said: "We could develop new moral codes for ourselves. " Yes, And if they're inferior to our current morals, Natural selection will weed you out. You said: "It's not like the morality gene has selectively awakened in only a few. It's just because morality is uniquely defined by us all, " That's because there is no gene solely dedicated to morality. Mutations are random. Some animals randomly mutated to work well together and those animals survived. So if you want to call that "the morality gene" then fine, But that just means that the gene you're talking about has been proven to exist. I complain about you just repeating the same lines, But honestly, You're making this debate super easy for me because I don't have to defend any rebuttals from you. :) Your floor.