"Darwin/evolution say absolutely nothing about morality. "

Of course it does, indirectly. In all sorts of areas. People with disease are a curse upon the genetic enhancement of a species -- i.e. health care is a Darwinian immorality. Monogomous relationships limit the ability of the strongest, healthies of the species to reproduce the strongest, healthiest offspring by coupling people together than are not Darwinian optimal subject.

The implications of Darwin on morality are VAST, if you

if you are actually honest.

Clever move that bringing of the 'evolution' word. When one looks it up it means 'change' . Who in their right mind would argue against that? A good way of making an argument about nihilistic morality etc. seem reasonable.

being honest, reading krellin makes me doubt that evolution works at all

Principals your last flippant remark betrays a lack of understanding that the evolutionary hypothesis is linked to progress or a positive outcome. Where the heck did you get that from?

your question betrays a lack of understanding that I was joking

Sorry must have missed your smiley face. Pleased then that we agree. Moving on.......

fulhamish -- I'm not saying Darwinian change = evolution, but in most people's minds they are essentially the same.

Bottom line, Darwin discuss adaptation of species in order to overcome environmental hardships and beat competition for limited resources.

That has a vast impact on the idea of how humans live.

Paticularly if you are some demented bleeding heart, "the-world-is-being-destroyed-by-man" libtard, then our wanton breeding, our insistence on keeping people alive who provide no added value to the species, etc should be considered offensive to anyone from a Darwinain perspective.

Show me where I'm wrong, strictly from a biological point of view.

/\ strike @fullamish -- and directed to anyone who disagrees....principians, for example, with his oh-so-not-clever retort.

Wait, when did krellin learn how to type?

krellin, it's a matter of precedence.

1.the world is being destroyed by man
2. insistence on keeping people alive.

from an evolutive point of view, 2 has precedence over 1, and that's why som species get extinct even when all their members are extremely efficient exploiting their environment.

Social Darwinism and eugenics have long since been abandoned as an ancient cruelty. Scientific Darwinism, while leading the foundation for human understanding of evolution, has since been regarded as not entirely accurate. You overemphasize that man and his implications.

If I don't talk about self-driving cars will krellin not talk about science? I don't want to get appeal to credentials but it's tempting.

principians -- sigh...they are inextricably linked, dumbass. If stupid liberals think that the world is being destroyed, the 1. determines whether or not 2. even matters, asshat. Therefore...libtards should be less interested in keeping useless people alive with such wasteful things as healthcare, which drain resources -- not just medical resources, but food, energy, etc, which all of you tyhink is destroying the earth.

so one-- let the old and the fat and the sick die as they should, and stop artidficially extending their lives with resource-wasteful medicines, medicl care etc.

Second, breed a stronger, healthier, more effiecent human being that doesn't comsume so many resources to begin with -- is more tolerant of temperature variations, has a more efficient metabolism, requires less food, etc ....and you further reduce the stress on the planet.

etc etc etc...

as for TrPrado -- "ancient cruelty"....lol That's exactly what this discussion is about -- whether Darwin has an impact on morality. yes. Of course it does. And all of the believers in Darwin flat-out dismiss the implications of Darwinism on morality. therefore....you don't REALLY believe in Darwinism. OR...you are too self-absorbed to accept it.

and THAT is why "Idiocracy" isn't just a funny movie...it's a fucking fortune-teller masterpiece of future America...

"If stupid liberals think that the world is being destroyed, the 1. determines whether or not 2."
I's just not that way things work, but I thought you was able to be a bit more clever if you really wanted, so I won't repeat myself

"Monogomous relationships limit the ability of the strongest, healthies of the species to reproduce the strongest, healthiest offspring by coupling people together than are not Darwinian optimal subject."

Wrong. Darwinian theory, as espoused by Dawkins in the selfish gene, allows for alturistic behaviour, as a social strategy for better propagating genes (specifically the ones relating to alturism) Thus a strategy where society as a whole is healthier - because people are not fighting over each other or killing for their neighbour's food - is entirely feasible under Darwin.

Neither system is judged moral or immoral; merely described as evolutionary successful strategies or not.

The fact that we see monagamous relationship in monkeys where the female goes off and has sex hidden away (in a bush or a river) is merely an example of cheating as a strategy for gene replication.

There are no examples in biology of what Krellin portrays as the 'ideal' espoused by Darwinian evolution - thus they can be assumed to be evolutionary dead-ends, or unsuccessful strategies.

Same for health care. The healthiest society is the one which supports the most diverse set of genes. Which can thus survive the widest set of unknown circumstances. And therefore a social dareinist could argue for supporting people with disabilities and redistribution of wealth to support the poorest.

You missed the second half of my statement where I made mention of his science :)

*therefore a social darwinist, even.

"Same for health care. The healthiest society is the one which supports the most diverse set of genes. Which can thus survive the widest set of unknown circumstances. And therefore a social darwinist could argue for supporting people with disabilities and redistribution of wealth to support the poorest. "

Would the same social Darwinist, in a future where altering genes to remove genetic disabilities is a simple procedure, insist instead that the child is born with the disabilities in order to preserve diversity?

I'd also be cautious of the evolutionary dead ends argument. Our planet is not exactly enriched by vast numbers of intelligent species, and the one we have almost died out on a number of occasions.

@krellin,
to be fair I'm noticing a possible cause of missunderstanding:

You seem to argue that morally 1 determines 2 (and you *could* be RIGHT there).

But when I say that 2 has precedence over 1, i'm not refereing to morality at all. What I'm saying is just that from an evoltive point of view, the first thing that naturally happens is 1. I mean, 1 comes before ANYTHING else

^sorry, mixed the number, I meant 2 "insistence on keeping people alive" comes before anything else (otherwise the species could not have great chances to evolve at all)

Save the world: Sterilize a Liberal.

Yeah, krellin seems pretty liberal by some definition of that word. He's volunteering for sterilization, and I will not complain if someone goes willingly.

Yes....sterilize me. I have no interest in having any more kids, and then I can go lay more empty seed with more women without fear of financial consequences.

Have at it Libtards!

The whole Dawkins is enlightened stuff flies right out of the window where he says words to the effect of 'we must master our evolutionary impulses'. Credit where it is due here he geta to the heart of the matter as did Darwin when he talked of the lesser races. Those who embrace rhe theory honestly do oftwn provide, albeit too infrequently, insights as to its logical conclusionns

Sorry for typos on phone

If you were a lady which of the two Ds would you like to share a lift with? Full circle back to the OPs thread title, but perhaps in a way he would not appreciate!

@fulhamish:
"Is adultery wrong? Yes, absolutely (and I pick that last word with care)."

I asked what your definition was, not whether you believe it's wrong (you've already made that clear).

"The whole Dawkins is enlightened stuff flies right out of the window"

You're right, it does. When Dawkins starts pontificating about evopsych and our 'evolutionary impulses', he's pretty much talking out his ass. So why are you taking it as gospel to the precise extent that lets you smear people who you don't like? Convenience, and nothing more.

@krellin:
"People with disease are a curse upon the genetic enhancement of a species"

Yeah, tell me more about how a guy who got E. coli from some undercooked restaurant beef is a curse on humanity's genetic enhancement. That's *totally* how biology works.

The rest of your reasoning about evolution and social morality is of similarly miserable quality.

@ Letho you forgot this one:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla,

Straight from the horse's mouth!