A theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions

(I didn't answer chronically. ) You asked the question if god exists. Do answer with my opinion, I first need to have a definition of the god we talk about. I can already state that I am an atheist, I don't believe in an almighty person that is god. For this, I don't see enough proofs to believe it and almightyness is in contradiction to the laws of physics. However, one could also speak about an other sort of god, therefore I ask for the definition, also to debate your added station. I think you can combine this question with your theory. Also, I can't answer to your adding of the station objective standard/god, as it's depending on the definition of god. I have to agree, evolution isn't proved. Some aspects of it, as the existence of genetics, are proved, other aspects, as the possibility that one species can become two different species, aren't proved. For my theory, we need following assumptions to be facts: R59;Species can't interbreed R59;Some Species die R59;The existence of genetics R59;Species have existential needs R59;Some Individuals reproduce more or less than others These assumptions are conditional for the existence of external and internal selection, and these assumptions are facts. [If Species A and Species B can interbreed on long therm (not only make sterile hybrids) then the Species is Species AB. ] You say, if some reproduce less or if someone disturbs the unity of its species, it's part of an evolutionary trend and it is justified. That's a very good point. If something is an evolutionary trend, it is caused by our genetics. If someone isn't able to understand and accept this theory because of his genetics, than I, able to understand and accept this theory, try to handle this. In the case of a value affecting each one individually, like the spread of the own genetics, I am not in the duty to affect him to accept these values, as it doesn't affect me and him as one unity. However, if someone doesn't respect the value preservation and expansion of humanity, it affects me and I have to try to change this situation, to handle it. One could say it like this, I have to handle the genetic potential of humanity and try to promote this potential as much as possible. You ask, if cats become superior to humans, are humans not "justified" anymore ? Well, this depends on which species one is part of. If one is a cat, the existence of humans isn't justified necessarily and one isn't in the duty to take into account the existence of humans. Only in the case that humans are an important part of a food chain of which cats are dependent, the existence of humanity is indirectly a necessity for cats. Vice versa, we as humans have no direct duty to preserve cats, again only if they are an important part of ou food chains, then we have the indirect duty to preserve them, but based on the value preservation and expansion of humanity. Why is the unity of humanity a moral necessity ? Both of me described selections include, besides perhaps god, everything that decides what lives, how it lives and what dies. In the external selection we are simply a unity because of the fact, that we as humanity, as one species, take our places in the food chains, not as bigger or littler unit. Sure, food chains are local, therefore some ethnicities are in other food chains than other ethnicities, however, we have the same existential needs and it doesn't affect the food chains which ethnicity now consumes the food sources. Also, genetically, we are a unity trough the fact, that we can reproduce with another, not with individuals of another species and not exclusively with individuals of our ethnicity. These facts remain. Other criterias to define a moral unity, variate. A culture can divide up or mix with another, same as a religion can split up in different persuasions (perhaps wrong word, I use Google Translator). You can't do much with these criterias. It surely as an influence on the surviving and the genetic level, but they aren't deciding. You asked how the values Genetic Progress of the own species and Spread of the own genetics are justified. Well, it's the same as the other two values resulting from external selection, just in a smaller scale. The unity of all life forms is replaced by the species and the species is replaced by the bloodline. If we agree that the value preservation and expansion of humanity is justified by this theory (if this is the case), spread of the own genetics is justified, too, as it is justified the same way in a smaller scale. Also, the genetic progress of all life form is the unchangeable goal of the external selection, same as genetic progress of the own species is the unchangeable goal of the internal selection. If you don't agree on this values, I have to ask you to show me where you see a gap in my theory. I'm looking forward to read your arguments and your theorie.