Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

Moving PostsTo my dismay I hear the rushing sound of moving goal posts as I am told by Pro in Round 2 that proving Evolutionary Atheist recognize and adhere to moral platforms does not fulfill the purpose of this debate. Let the reader please note all of the work put into the comments to avoid these semantics... Still, I will indulge.Rebuttal 1: Personification of EvolutionPro establishes assumed viewpoints of evolution if it were a human. We've failed to distinguish the views of evolution personified and a human being who recognizes evolution as explanation for origin. The significant difference which has been overlooked is empathy and altruism.Argument 1: The Evolution of MoralityI'll indulge and present morality as logical to the evolutionist as it has come to my attention this is what the debate is actually about.Morality plays a quintessential role wherever groups exist. In fact it isn't just Evo Atheists that need morality, as Michael Shermer, Ph.D. observes we can see moral sentiments like the following in many species:"attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group."[1]I'll give two interesting examples:1) A more heart warming and viral example of reciprocal altruism and gratitude at work is this cat saving his group member from a dog, reciprocal altruism is a common sight where one individual sacrifices of itself to better another individual. According to Pro, this cat, not believing in a 'moral platform' should leave the child alone until the dog is finished and eat his corpse, this is clearly just not how group animals work, morality is a very critical part of group life... video: 2) Vampire bats also demonstrate a sense of reciprocity and altruism. They share blood by regurgitation, but do not share randomly. They are most likely to share with other bats who have shared with them in the past or who are in dire need of feeding.[2]Surely, animals do not believe in a God nonetheless any specific God like the Judeo Christian one. This presents the question, why do they believe?Argument 2: How Morality Benefitss the Individual & GroupPro makes the mistake of assuming that morality does not serve evolutionary intentions and that it has no place in evolution. I say that evolution selected the trait of morality specifically for it's usefulness to a group species. A group must have morality to function effectively, if the group does not have morality then members would steal from eachother, kill eachother, rape eachother or simply not share and therefore not thrive - thus the group would dissolve very quickly as its members would observe it as dangerous and damaging to them self. It's clear why a group needs morality to remain beneficial, let's discuss the logical reasons to group? What can the group do for you? Protection from dangerous humans or animals, assistance in difficult or specialty tasks that the self may not be capable of as a individual such as caring for your health when sick, performing surgery, building complex structures, hunting (not everyone is good at these things). There is also food insurance (food stamps) or sharing of a groups cumulative reserve. Trade, using one's individual talents to gain other necessary resources such as shelter, food, health care, protection etc. Mathematically the more people you bring together the greater the feats you can accomplish like massive shelters, agricultural advances and security or protection from things that the individual could not protect itself from.Conclusion:Morality is essential for a group to thrive, cooperate and reach maximum efficiency and effectiveness. A group is necessary for an individual to obtain resources either he does not specialize in or cannot obtain without assistance. For humans, grouping up is the logical thing to do, ergo adherence to a moral platform is the logical thing to do, with or without religion.I would clarify on the type of morality perhaps more resembling consequentialism, not entirely though - simplified, we would not do things that will cause harm to the group. [3]: It is wrong to kill innocent people It is wrong to steal It is wrong to tell lies It is right to keep promises These concepts serve evolution & Logic's goal of holding groups together and maximizing their effectiveness and reliability. Ultimately, societal consensus would determine what exact moral obligations should be fulfilled. As we see in each country laws are present whether they're a religious state or not.Citations:1) Shermer, Michael (2004). The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Times Books. p. 16. ISBN0-8050-7520-8.2) http://www.life.umd.edu...3) http://plato.stanford.edu...