The Instigator
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
F100
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Morals Come From Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,149 times Debate No: 120893
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

WrickItRalph

Pro

My claim is that all morals can be explained by evolution. My evidence will consist of arguments related to how evolution works and how this relates to morality. I will not specifically be arguing against any worldviews, But I will attempt to refute any worldview that is posed as an alternative to, Or counterproof of my point.

Your Floor.
F100

Con

The definition of "morals" requires some more clarity. In my debate arguments, I define morality as "the voice of consciousness which may not extend so far as to prevent us from doing something that is morally wrong, But still is an integral part of our being in general. "

Morality, In its broad sense, Requires evolution, Although not the fixed evolution I am debating against. With each generation of more specialized species, One's definition of morals ought to change. At one point, Morality would mean colluding with others to build up a system that works in favor of all. However, The narrow evolution, (evolution theory et al. ) cannot be used to justify morality.

Take competition. The idea that species have to progress based on the concept of one species being dominant, Or somehow superior to another is the basis of evolution. However, Our idea of morality cannot allow this - our conscience will not permit us to take a gun and shoot a horse, Or a crippled man, Just because we happen to be superior. Consider my example, Dark as it may seem - the debate can be summarized by this example. Evolution would justify such a killing, Since it constitutes the survival of a healthy individual over one that is in poor health, Or the triumph of the human species over an underdeveloped animal. This is blasphemous if we consider our definition of morality against the evolutionary morality. Our morality will not allow us to take another being's life for no valid reason. This brings out the conflict between conforming to scientific logic and purely technical morals, And believing in the higher, Intrinsic voice of morality.

The fact is, More than the debate over whether we should be allowed to kill a horse just for the sake of "progress", This debate will revolve around the definition of the term morality - the debate between evolutionary morals, Which justify such killings as absolutely necessary for evolutionary development, And human morals, Which are borne from our minds, And our conscience. I would refrain from going as far as claiming these morals were "created" by humans - no, This is instinct, Something we find ourselves attached to, Perhaps obliviously.

I rest my case - in the conflict between morals, The morals of our heart ought to be invoked far more than those prescribed by nature.
Debate Round No. 1
WrickItRalph

Pro

So I'll start by defining Morality:

"A set of social standards that are followed for the sake of society"

so lets talk about evolution for a seconds.

Evolution, When it's divided into it's main parts, Consists of gene mutation and natural selections. There are other metrics used for evolution, But they're all describing the same effect, So the metric doesn't necessarily matter as long as it's accurate. I'm not here to prove a common ancestry or that evolution made all species to date. I'm only here to talk about the part of evolution that we can prove. Gene mutations are a fact. Even evolution deniers agree with this. Natural Selection is also a fact. Some people disagree on how natural selection works on a detailed level. But everybody agrees that it happened. The basic picture is that organisms develop random mutations. These mutations affect how well an organism does in nature. Organisms with hampering mutations tend to die without reproducing a whole lot, While organisms with strong mutations tend to reproduce a lot more. This causes a shift in the distribution of certain mutations and said mutations become slowly adopted through the species through reproduction. That's it. This factually prove process is what I am claiming caused morality.

So how did Natural Selection give us morals? This is where it gets fun. It is well known that evolution has formed a lot of organisms into community species. Organism that have these tendencies will take actions that are not only beneficial to them, But the group as well. This is the axiom of morality. Group behaviors. It does not take much imagination to realize why group behaviors were heavily favored in natural selection. Anybody who has ever studied chess in great length knows that outnumbering your opponent makes you stronger. So now we have group behaviors that look pretty close to morality, But what's to say this leads to anything other than survival of the fittest? This comes down to how natural selection works. Some people think of natural selection as a static arbiter that rewards the strongest organisms, But it's actually not so simple. The state of natural selection is contingent upon nature itself. Every selected organism lived because it conquered nature in some way. Their evolutions allowed them to ignore certain dangers. This created a domino effect. As group species became stronger. The pressure of nature became fewer. Organisms were less and less required to rely on brutality to solve problems. Technology formed and the human organism reached a point where killing in cold blood was no longer necessary. This is what caused our modern day morality. My opponent is right to say that morality evolves. This is further proof of my claim. A moral value is one that we derive from these survival behaviors. Incest, For example, Poisons the gene pool and causes the species who participate in it to die off. This means that anybody who violates this moral will die, And the people left over will hold this moral. This is why we see an almost universal agreement upon moral values. It's not that morals are objective per se. It's more like the subjective denial of a moral results in your death. This can be applied to other morals as well. Cannibalism leads to death on two fronts. The first that eating your own species shrinks the species, The second is that eating your own species gives you a disease and kills you. As humans have gained more intelligence. We've learned to apply these morals to other situations that evolution did not intend. So what we end up with are a set of intrinsic morals that are part of evolution and some subjective morals that are based on our evolutionary instincts. This is why some of our morals don't seem to line up. It's not that morals are intrinsically right or wrong. Some morals are beneficial or harmful and humans use this as a jump off point to create their own man made morals. As long as the fit the harm/benefit model, They fall into the moral subject.

My last point is that moral behaviors have been found in other animals. This shows that morality came from nature in some way or another, So this is evidence that we cannot appeal to any type of external source for morality. In order to deny my claim with intellectual honesty, One would have to either propose external explanation that also applies to animals, Or they would have to propose that morality is completely subjective and created by the human mind apart from evolution. Since the human mind was created by evolution, I don't see how the second claim could be proven.

No onto your critiques.

Your definition of morals appears to hinge upon a person's conscience. I reject this line of thinking, Because people's consciences often do not align with moral values.

You said: "One's definition of morals ought to change. "

This is covered in my current statement. People created definitions based off tendencies they got from evolution. So while you're correct to make this claim, It only supports my position.

You said: "Take competition. The idea that species have to progress based on the concept of one species being dominant, "

Competition is explained by evolution and exists within our moral framework today. It is moral when it benefits and immoral when it harms. This easily fits within my model and is not a problem. As for the dominance part. The dominance is only on other non human species. Each moral system is only meant for that species. So the domination point is not part of morality at all.

You said: "our conscience will not permit us to take a gun and shoot a horse"

That's because we're a social species and horses have been domesticated into our social framework. That's why you'll shoot a bear but not a horse. Horses work with and depend upon us. Bears are not within our social framework and attack us, So we kill them in order to benefit the species. This fits nicely into my model.

You said: "Or a crippled man, Just because we happen to be superior. "

But we don't kill crippled people? Why is that? Because they're part of our social group. This just further proves my point. Nothing in evolution makes us kill crippled people. This is somewhat of a red herring. You're taking survival of the fittest and applying it to things that don't happen in natural selection and distracting from the fact that it's a human behavior. The important question isn't if a cripple person gets shot, The question is "does society condone it? " The answer is no, They don't. This goes back to what I said about bad mutations not reproducing. A person who did this probably would not reproduce more than a person who doesn't.

You said: "The fact is, More than the debate over whether we should be allowed to kill a horse just for the sake of "progress", "

This is another red herring. Can you prove that killing a horse is progress? If it's for meat to save your life, Then how is it immoral. Society doesn't shoot horses for fun. People do it and one person's actions is not morality. The thing that makes my model true isn't just the fact that it explains morality. It also explains people who don't act morally. No other system can do this. If morals were external and intrinsic. Then NOBODY would ever shoot a horse for fun. But since that's not the case, It shows that morality is prescribed randomly. (aka gene mutations) and shaped by natural selection.

I'm almost out of writing room, So sorry if I missed anything. I had to cover a lot of points to make sure I"m being thorough.

Your floor.
F100

Con

After reading my opponent's arguments, It has become evident that the definition of morality is ambiguous, Far too much to be debated. Yet for the sake of fair debate, I consider it important that I respond to his/her argument.

I would like to reiterate my definition of morality, Especially with regards to how you claim morality was a product of evolution, I would like to demonstrate my alternate belief otherwise.

In short, I believe morality can only be defined according to one's ideologies. Why do rules exist? Rules exist because, In our human lives, We seek justifications. Yet can one think the people drafting these rules were perfect beings? In order to justify our existence, In order to protect our ideology, We craft rules. Take the American Constitution - would it be thoroughly fair to have someone who authored a sacred rulebook to have owned slaves himself. Yet we still have Thomas Jefferson, Who while abolishing slavery through his signature on the bottom of the Declaration, And through his own draft owned several slaves. I may be wrong in assuming he "abolished" slavery, But it is true that he owned slaves, And that he sought freedom for all in his document.

Rather than a diversion, I wish to point out that the purpose behind creating our codes, Our laws, Our rules and our disciplines is to enshrine our beliefs. We lead transient existences, And to protect that which we consider right, We make laws. I may be countered here by the argument that many people contribute to the rule-making exercise, Both at the time of creating these, As well as in the future, Through amendments. Yet the only way one could respond is by asserting that the basis of it all remains, Regardless of how you look at it.

In fact, Morality is much like this - our morals seek to justify what we hold true. Adolf Hitler and the lateral Nazi Party that assumed power in Germany did have a morality. They did consider it rightful that the pure-blooded Aryan dominate all lands, And that the inferior Jew was to perish. Their "morals" told them that it was only correct that these Jews be exterminated. Again, It is not like the entirety of Germany suddenly had their moralities changed due to a change in the power axis - several resisted, And most were taken in by the tide of fear. In the end, We had a serious difference - a morality sparked by radical thought had swept over half of Europe.

In your argument, It seems as though in everything we do, Our morals will justify the evolutionary ideals of natural selection, And gene pooling. If that were the case, What, Pray tell, Prevented Nuclear Armageddon? If we humans really blindly follow the morality of our genes, Whatsoever it is that threatens our existence is bad, And worthy to be exterminated by us. Yet this does not happen. Whatever may come in our paths needs to be wiped out.

In reality, My statement that one's definition of morals ought to change does nothing to support your view. It basically reaffirms that morality is not some sort of uniform code that all humans have inherited. It all depends on our upbringing, Our experiences. To think that morality is ingrained in evolutionary ideals is, Simply put, Preposterous. I must also point out how you have merely cherry-picked lines to twist my arguments in your favor - "The idea that species have to progress based on the concept of one species being dominant. . . . " is an example. This statement was not contradictory to my basis, Yet it was inferred on a different tone, Based on something else.

You have claimed it is wrong to think that our inability to kill a horse supports my point. Well, Let me shoot the question right back at you. If morals are really obtained from evolution, If our progress over these years have really created our morals, Then it would take only some time for us, As highly intelligent creatures, To decide that anything causing discomfort ought to be killed, Or wiped off. Of course, I didn't mean that we kill a horse munching grass in a farm. Let me reframe this - an unleashed dog is barking at you ferociously. The "moral" human you have created through your arguments sees it as a threat to its existence, Owing to its ability to seriously maim us. Now tell me, If our morality really were based on natural selection and survival of the fittest, Why can't we kill it. The answer is clearly not because it was "domesticated" - an evolutionary mind should show no sympathy. Otherwise, The theory of natural selection would have failed at several junctures. In reality, The only empathy such humans would show would be toward others who could allow it to survive further.

You have stated that morality came from nature. I agree to this. Yet what is this statement, Apart from merely a distraction from the important question at hand? For that matter, You can claim victory by saying our minds were tuned from evolution, Hence all our thoughts, Including morality are evolutionary. This is blasphemous.
Debate Round No. 2
WrickItRalph

Pro

You said:
"It has become evident that the definition of morality is ambiguous, "

Nonsense. You're trying to poison the well. My topic, My definition, Period. It doesn't matter how many definitions there are. I explained what I meant by it in the argument and the description was succinct.

You said:
" I believe morality can only be defined according to one's ideologies"

You can only claim this if all morality is subjective, Is that your claim? Otherwise, I reject your methodology. If that is what you believe, Then you're mistaken. Cannibalism and incest are irrefutable proof that there at least some objective morals. The very act of participating in them destroy every organism in the group that participates.

You said:
"In fact, Morality is much like this - our morals seek to justify what we hold true. Adolf Hitler and the lateral Nazi Party that assumed power in Germany did have a morality. "

for the millionth time, I already explained to you that evolution does not make everybody moral. It destroys those who don't act morally. Hitler is a perfect example. He acted counter to morality and convinced a bunch of people to do it and what happened? They got taken down by the groups who held a higher number of moral beliefs than they did. You seem to have this narrative that morality has to come from the way the person acts. That's not true. Morality is just a code to be followed. In this case, The code kills you with survival pressures if your morals are inferior. So the reason that making rape, Murder, And theft illegal in countries is popular is because all the countries that didn't get taken of by people who did.

You said:
"In your argument, It seems as though in everything we do, Our morals will justify the evolutionary ideals of natural selection"

false. Evolution does not have "ideals" please do not assign agency to my argument. Natural Selection is a broad term for any survival pressure imposed on an organism by nature. That's it. There's no mind behind it. Furthermore, I am not using anything to justify evolution as you falsely claim, But rather the opposite. Evolution is justifying my morality. It's embarrassing for you to get this wrong because it's literally in the title of my topic. Evolution is a prove fact so there is nothing logically wrong with me using it that way.

You said:
"If we humans really blindly follow the morality of our genes, Whatsoever it is that threatens our existence is bad, "

You seem to spend more time saying what my position is than I do. How about instead of telling me what I believe, You provide some kind of counterproof or dare I say, An argument of your own. I did not say that humans blindly follow. Once again you're forcing me to repeat myself because you're making no effort to understand the argument. My argument is that people do what people do, That part doesn't matter at all. The important part is that the people who don't adhere to morals get weeded out by natural selection. Any argument you make about humans being immoral is not germane to this argument. You have to prove that natural selection isn't the arbiter of morals and the evidence is against you if you look to science. So you need to provide a logical counterproof here and now. Otherwise, You're just making noise.

You said:
" It basically reaffirms that morality is not some sort of uniform code that all humans have inherited"
I never said it was inherited, It's Natural Selection. The only reason humans use morality better now is because we evolved in other ways and that made us smart enough to figure out things that Natural Selection was already telling us. No inheritance in this family.

You said:
"To think that morality is ingrained in evolutionary ideals is, Simply put, Preposterous"

Evolution doesn't have a mind.

You said: " must also point out how you have merely cherry-picked lines to twist my arguments in your favor - "

False, Are you going to say I'm cherry picking now? I'll address this directly because all debaters should know this. Lets' do a math problem. If you have 8, 000 words and I have to quote your 8, 000 words and then rebut them with my remaining words, How many words do I have left to rebut? The answer is zero. Any good debater knows that one cannot rebut every single sentence. I pull out the key sentence and then I rebut the whole paragraph that it was pulled from. Furthermore, Debaters are not suppose to go down every rabbit hole. Furthermore. When the opponent makes an argument that does not contribute to the topic, Those arguments are not to be addressed because they distract from the real topic. Kind of like right now. Wouldn't you agree that rebutting this would not help our debate? If so, Then you've retracted your statement. If you're going to accuse me of bad conduct. At least be correct when you do it.

You said:
"you have claimed it is wrong to think that our inability to kill a horse supports my point"

I don't know why you're "shooting this question back at me" I answered it robustly the first time. Let me reiterate. Horses were domesticated such that some humans include them within their moral framework. I told you last time you answered this question that this explanation is sufficient because we kill things like bears without a second thought because bears have not been domesticated into our moral framework.

You said:
" an unleashed dog is barking at you ferociously. The "moral" human you have created through your arguments sees it as a threat to its existence, Owing to its ability to seriously maim us. Now tell me, If our morality really were based on natural selection and survival of the fittest"

There's just so much wrong with this. First of all, I never argued for survival of the fittest. That's a sound bite you pulled from outdated evolution. Nobody goes by that anymore. Second, I never said you couldn't kill a dog in that situation simply because it's domesticated. If a human were in that situation being just as dangerous, I could justify killing the human as well if it was necessary for survival, So I'm not being inconsistent.

You said:
"an evolutionary mind should show no sympathy. "

Once again, People's "mindsets" are not morality and evolution is not a mind.

You said:

"You have stated that morality came from nature. I agree to this. Yet what is this statement, Apart from merely a distraction from the important question at hand? For that matter, You can claim victory by saying our minds were tuned from evolution, Hence all our thoughts, Including morality are evolutionary. This is blasphemous. "

And what question is that? Sounds like begging the question mixed with a red herring to me i. E. "Yeah this is true, But pay attention to this REALLY REAL question over here. Oh but I'm not going to tell you what it is. "

Blasphemy huh? So are you saying that I'm denying god? Well yeah, I deny all fairy tales that my parents told me when I was young. If I can't believe that superman can do anything in real life, I'm surely not betting my money on Omni-man.

Your floor
F100

Con

If anything, I'd like to start by urging that you keep in mind some basic manners and some politeness. I am offended by your tone of voice. 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 hope you realize that before you start attacking me like that in the coming rounds.

I wish to make this clear - what I have said are solely for my side of the debate. Please don't cherry pick some lines which turn the debate in your favor. I'm sure we all would appreciate that.

You have misinterpreted my lines in most cases, And I'll quote one of these.
"If we humans really blindly follow the morality of our genes, Whatsoever it is that threatens our existence is bad, "
Contrary to your limited definition of this line, I wish to show that you are wrong. If our morality really does originate from evolution, Then we will blindly follow this morality, And it may inspire us to take out anything that, In the short term, Seems to threaten us. THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS. What happens, Instead, Is we have no such intentions. Please don't argue that this itself is an evolutionary trait, Because if that were the case, Other species would blindly attack other species, And we'd have an inter-species war. So, Let me repeat this, In capital letters so that you don't misinterpret it again.
OUR MORALS WILL NOT HAVE COME FROM EVOLUTION, FOR IF THAT WERE THE CASE, OUR "MORALITY" WOULD ENABLE US TO UNTHINKINGLY KILL THOSE SPECIES THAT THREATEN US. All around us are examples of this - of the fact that morality is instead defined by ourselves, And that evolution as such has nothing to do with it. I beg of you, PLEASE STOP USING THESE LINES AND POLLUTING THEM BY SAYING THEY SUPPORT YOU.

You have said that evolution does not make everybody moral. So, If I am to understand correctly, You believe in a kind of "selective" evolution? Am I to believe that someone who is supportive of the idea that morals come from evolution, Gets evolution wrong in the first place? The fact is, Our morality can never be brought in from evolution - it's like saying our political tastes were influenced by evolution. This of course is wrong - political tastes vary depending on who we associate ourselves with and who we idealize. Evolution simply can't have played a role.

Take Hitler. You say he acted counter to morality. Whose morality? Mine and yours? I agree. But it won't be wrong to say that Hitler too had a morality, A morality completely influenced by radical thought. If he were a morally insulated person, He wouldn't have taken steps to eradicate animal cruelty in Germany. If he didn't have a sort of moral stance, He would never have cared for the remaining Germans. Yet his "morality" - I take that back, For the word is like a taboo now in this debate - his "ideology" was completely different. We associate a general morality to acts like helping elders, Or staying healthy, Yet these are only general morals. There are different views of this, You see. Different morals. Something purely natural, Something so scientifically sound as evolution cannot act as something that affects only a few. It's why every human has 2 hands, Not 3. Perhaps in the future, Some variations may make it so, And in the BEGINNING, Only a few may possess 3 hands, But eventually, All humans will have 3 hands. Look at the present - we've been around long enough so much that there is no drastic evolutionary trait, Like a tail in any of us. It's because given this time, All humans have uniformly evolved. Which means that morals too "should have" been the same, Had they been derived from evolution. YET THEY ARE NOT. THIS IS MY POINT.

Your obsession with so-called red herrings is also frightfully troublesome for the course of this debate. I asked a serious question there - with your (scientifically verified) claims that the human mind is a product of evolution, You cannot also debate that conscience is evolutionary. I have spent the past 5 minutes making it clear - morality is not derived from evolution.

Your math is impeccable. Only that I ask that you copy the ENTIRE sentence, Not just some phrases. To all those who may view this debate after this argument, Take a look at the lines my opponent has quoted - more often than not, They will end with commas, Not full stops. In fact, Some important lines have been severed so much that it seems my opponent took control of my mind and typed for me. And kindly don't talk to me about what a "good debater" must know, As if I am an irresponsible one. If anything, I am a credible debater. I'm sure we need more of those types these days.

Now to the main argument that you have posed. You have said, And I quote, "The important part is that the people who don't adhere to morals get weeded out by natural selection. "
What morals do you refer to here? Are these the same morals that would trigger us to kill something in our way? 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. The mind obtained from evolution, YOUR MIND, Will drive right through the mob. After all, The mob was in your way. It could have killed you.
So are you saying that I, My family and 90% of the world that would have taken the peaceful option would have been wiped out by natural selection for not giving into the "evolutionary morality" you speak of? I'll leave this for those reading to wonder. Also, I am extremely curious as to how natural selection will occur like that.

I must also respond to this -
" It's Natural Selection. The only reason humans use morality better now is because we evolved in other ways and that made us smart enough to figure out things that Natural Selection was already telling us. No inheritance in this family. "
This statement, After all I've said, Gives me the perfect chance to sum up my argument.

Morality cannot be influenced by evolution. Evolution is non-considerate of "conscience". Evolution dictates that anything impeding our survival should be removed by us to ensure our survival is unaffected. Natural Selection, No doubt, Is simply this - nature favors the organism that can survive better and adapt better. Morals are different - we identify a set of morals with which we conform. This morality is what prevents us from killing the mob in the above example. Again, Getting back to how there exists a general morality - 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. If we give this question a great amount of thought, We could develop new moral codes for ourselves. Evolution, Also, Affects all, Especially given that humans have been around for such a long evolutionary time. 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, And not by evolution.

Here's to a fairer, More disciplined Round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
WrickItRalph

Pro

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.
F100

Con

I seriously get that severe tone again. I wonder why you make this so intense, But it is evident that there is no point in pointing that out to you.

"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 think there is a need to understand this statement. Evolution does not force people to be moral. Very true - so I may assume that you believe in checks and balances. Let me try and break down your proof instead of focusing on the numerous instances of deviations from polite speech. You have told us that natural selection has given birth to morals as we know them now, Especially focusing on the community-based development that species require - the entire community is integral in maintaining the survival of the species. Due to this, We have evolved morals. This was your take on morality.
Why I believe this is untrue is because natural selection hasn't influenced species that evolved considerably, Even when compared to us humans. This can't be possible if evolution was at play, Correct? After all, You said that in order to disprove you, I had to cite examples in a different species. Latrodectus, Or in other words, The "Black Widow". Infamous for the sexual cannibalism shown by the females after mating, This "moral" does enhance chances of survival of offspring. I'll admit that. But shouldn't all, At least species that have evolved considerably, Such as the Arachnids, Support the community? Is this not an example of a moral that goes against the idea of joint survival? If we are to consider this species, Which I assure you has undergone an evolutionary period comparable to that we humans have undergone, Does it not contradict your stance? Shouldn't they NOT kill?

My version of morals is different. I propose, And I truly believe that morals arise from our versions of world view. We define our moral stature based on our beliefs. It is the very same beliefs that prevents Hindus from digging into beef products, While others may not find anything wrong in eating these. Of course, The morals at play here are - you guessed it - humane, Conscience-oriented morals, Not evolutionary morals, For neither would be seriously affected for eating beef. I believe that morals change from person to person, That we can never quote one moral set as the true, Supreme, Evolutionarily chosen one - that is not possible, It is not true.
My opponent has told you all that Hitler was killed because our morality, Obtained from evolution, Was superior to his narrow morality. If that were the case, Why do murders still occur? If murderers' "moral codes" allow them to kill, Shouldn't natural selection have automatically weeded them out? Yet, Since time immemorial, We have feared them. Of course, They may have different purposes, But they have moral standings, Far different from ours. After all, Hitler was a murderer too. . . .

I would like to analyze this check-and-balance system that will keep "evolutionary morals" at bay if they are too extreme (this is considering that morals ARE in fact products of evolution). No doubt, We have developed far enough so as to be able to self-analyze and meditate on our decisions. Why then do we find ourselves so different? The instance of murderers/kidnappers/pedophiles is a case in point. If these people had an inkling of how severe their crimes were, I am sure we wouldn't find such high rates of crime. Morality itself may serve as a check, When we are, Say, About to do something that goes against it. Do these people have morals at all? Yes, They do, Only that these justify their activities. Has natural selection vanquished such people? Not in our long evolutionary history, Probably never.

My opponent has told you that there are no "uniform humans" - yet we all have a basic structure. Of course, I never meant that all humans have striking resemblances. But I am not wrong in saying that it is impossible to find a person with 3 hands. Variations don't go that far. Let us take the excessive body hair, A characteristic in primitive humans. Gradually, A few genetic variations arose, And gradually this phenomenon shrunk in the population. Now, It is odd to find such people, And in any case, This may be due to some weaker strands promoting excess hair growth. Evolution has acted uniformly (in this case, I mean, It has acted upon all sections of population, Which is why there are no ape-humans today, But there may have been back when we started evolving).

The flaw that I'd like to point out is in the case of evolutionary morals, There is no flexibility. Sure, Hitler MAY have died because natural selection chose the "evolutionary moral" over his own. Yet did this same "Natural Selection" force Hitler to take the arrogant step of invading the Soviet Union, While ignoring the imminent winter, Which led to the downfall of the Nazis? I highly (logically, Too) doubt it. Richard J. Evans, Who authored the Third Reich At War in 2008, Pointed out that the fall of Hitler approached not because the Nazis were weak in any respects, But because he forcibly decided not to retreat from the Soviet Union. If Natural Selection did that, That is a glorious first in history. Had Hitler been prudential, And had he reserved troops from the Soviet Operation to fight the incoming British, French and American troops, Historians concur that Hitler could have, In theory, Ruled over Germany for at least 10 more years, By which time he could already have integrated half of Europe. This debate, However is not on the Third Reich's fall. This was an attempt to show that natural selection does not really vanquish people with lesser morals. What led to Hitler's fall was not morals, But wisdom, Or more precisely the lack of it.

To conclude, I have offered proof by contradiction of my opponent's theory at several junctures in this argument. I don't expect him to debate on a mature, Disciplined tone, Yet I am willing to stand by my argument, At least, Until I am convinced I am wrong. I ask my opponent to answer my questions. If morals were borne off the need to stick with one's community and protect one's community, Why then does the female Black Widow devour the male after mating? You may argue that this is for the offspring but that just confirms my argument, That animals blindly act on the basis of their evolutionary morals. If Natural Selection weeds out people with lesser morals than the supreme morals established by evolution, Why then haven't murderers/criminals committing crimes known in nearly generations like plunder, Kidnap, Rape etc. Been vanquished? To think they have no morals at all is wrong - they are not zombies, Or humans with lesser traces of evolution. I have also clarified by statement of "uniform evolution".

Thank you, And I yield the floor to you.
Debate Round No. 4
WrickItRalph

Pro

You said:
"I believe this is untrue is because natural selection hasn't influenced species that evolved considerably"

This sentence is a contradiction. You said that you believe that natural selection (evolution) hasn't influenced that evolved considerably (from evolution). Oh dear.

You said:
" You said that in order to disprove you, I had to cite examples in a different species. "

I'm pretty sure that I didn't say this. I said you had to disprove Natural Selection and Mutation. Furthermore, I specifically pointed out that each species will have it's own morals due to differences of the effects of natural selection.

You said:
"The "Black Widow". Infamous for the sexual cannibalism shown by the females after mating, This "moral" does enhance chances of survival of offspring. "

I said cannibalism weeded humans out from evolution because of a disease it gave them. This doesn't happen with black widows, So evolution doesn't weed them out for it. You can say it's immoral if you want. But that's spider morality so it doesn't matter plus the male does it willingly so it's not violating his autonomy.

You said:
"But shouldn't all, At least species that have evolved considerably, "

They have. They just looks primitive to you because you're a human and you think that intelligence and being big, Etc makes you superior. A bear would probably think you were inferior because it's faster and stronger than you, And the bear would be wrong and so are you. Furthermore. You're assuming that Evolution is necessarily pushing us towards a goal of improvement, It's not. It's random Gene Mutations and dynamic Natural Selection. It doesn't push us towards anything. If we get a survival trait, It's by accident and if it helps us, It's because it fought survival pressures. The same goes for bad and neutral mutations.

You said;
" I propose, And I truly believe that morals arise from our versions of world view"

So you think morals are subjective? That's nice, But the evidence is against you on that one because morality is objective when it's studied, So good luck proving that one.

You said:
"It is the very same beliefs that prevents Hindus from digging into beef products, While others may not find anything wrong in eating these"

Nope, It was natural selection. The beliefs of their culture were a survival pressure and to not follow the no cow policy was counterproductive to one's survival, So the ones who didn't eat the cows bred more because nobody wanted to mate with the cow eaters. Still evolution.

You said:
"My opponent has told you all that Hitler was killed because our morality, Obtained from evolution, Was superior to his narrow morality. If that were the case, Why do murders still occur? "

Yes. Keep bringing this up and making my point stronger. Murders still occur because gene mutations are random. Murderers being around just proves my point because in natural selection, If a species was thriving and had a disposition to produce a murder gene, Evolution would never be able to stop all them, Only the majority. Even someone with the worst genes can breed a little bit, Assuming they didn't die in their childhood.

You said:
" natural selection have automatically weeded them out? "

It did, That's why there are significantly less murders than non murderers.

You said:
" After all, Hitler was a murderer too. . . . "

Yeah, And we see what natural selection did to him. Thanks for the evidence.

You said:
"I would like to analyze this check-and-balance system"

It's not a check and balance system. Natural Selection is a broad term for any factor in nature that could effect your ability to reproduce, That's it. It doesn't "check" the extremity of our actions. The action either gets you killed or it doesn't based on the current survival pressures.

You said:
"Why then do we find ourselves so different"

Because of random mutation. Jeez, Could you at least try to think of the answer yourself before you ask silly questions?

You said:
"But I am not wrong in saying that it is impossible to find a person with 3 hands"

You do realize that people are born with extra limbs right? They're not around because of NATURAL SELECTION.

You said:
"Let us take the excessive body hair, A characteristic in primitive humans. Gradually, A few genetic variations arose, And gradually this phenomenon shrunk in the population. Now, It is odd to find such people"

I guess you haven't seen many people with their shirts off. The answer, Of course, Is natural selection. The world was cold and fur was good. Survival pressures changed when the world got hot. Hair wasn't good anymore. You ever wear a fur coat on a summer afternoon? I'm guessing no.

You said:
"Evolution has acted uniformly (in this case"

Well of course it did in THIS CASE. The ice age going away was a pandemic event. If it had happened on a remote island, There'd still be hairy people in the ace age areas. But all of those areas are different now. Furthermore, There are many cases of species spreading certain genes uniformly when the trait is dominant and necessary. One example is a species of butterfly that gained a certain type of poison immunity from ONE BUG and spread it to the whole species. This was because the mutation was so important for their survival that the others went extinct.

On the hitler in Russia thing, Hitler's inferior morals caused him to invade Russia and natural selection punished him. Still fits my model.

Well at least this time, You tried to rebut me. You did it using the same points I already rebutted as your justification, So they're just as fallacious. But you tried. Bless your heart.

Since this is my last statement. I'd like to thank my opponent for debating. Hopefully you take this as a lesson that you shouldn't repeat the same claims that have already been countered.

Your floor.
F100

Con

"I said cannibalism weeded humans out from evolution because of a disease it gave them. This doesn't happen with black widows, So evolution doesn't weed them out for it. You can say it's immoral if you want. But that's spider morality so it doesn't matter plus the male does it willingly so it's not violating his autonomy. "
You really don't understand what I am talking about, Do you? The term cannibalism is not in reference to your argument, That unfortunately had the same word in it. You have cleverly avoided the example of the Black Widow, Since it clearly opposed your topic with sound proof. I wouldn't call that good debating, I just call it cowardice. But I'll continue elaborating -
My opponent has, In his arguments, Told us that natural selection led to morals. He has said that our community-spirit, And the need to preserve the entire community for survival of our species led to our morals. This is why, According to him/her, We help others in times of need, Or don't voluntarily hurt others. I have provided sound evidence against this, As is seen in the Black Widow spider. If its morals allow it to kill her partner, Doesn't that mean these morals have no "community feeling" in them? Isn't this ample contradiction to his statement? But of course, He does not deal with this.

"They have. They just looks primitive to you because you're a human and you think that intelligence and being big, Etc makes you superior. "
It seems my opponent cannot understand long sentences. It is most frustrating, But this sentence that he has chosen for us all was part of a paragraph that sought to contradict his claim that morals were borne of natural selection, And community, Everything I've spoken about above, And contradicted in my previous argument.

"Nope, It was natural selection. The beliefs of their culture were a survival pressure and to not follow the no cow policy was counterproductive to one's survival"
My Hindu friend recently converted to Christianity, And he now eats beef too. What a shame, Natural selection doesn't take into account religious conversions. But oh well, Your argument is wrong anyway. Even so, As a follower of Hinduism, I can tell you that the choice to eat beef is purely upto ourselves. No evolution involved.

"Keep bringing this up and making my point stronger. "
Sure. I mean, If you are trying to make me afraid of what I've spoken, Tough luck. I know now that I made the correct statements, For you have not solidly responded to my main argument about black widow spiders.

My opponent has spoken of a "murder" gene, For which I am sure the Royal Academy in Sweden would be most excited to give him a Nobel Prize. If there really existed murder genes, Then we'd have some sort of virus plaguing a few people, Who will want to kill before even breeding. Remember, There is no murder gene that switches on or off. What explains the tendency to commit murder is morals. Face it.

"It did, That's why there are significantly less murders than non murderers. "
So even though "natural selection" killed Hitler before 20 years in power, Murders have not been eradicated by this same selection even after 1, 000 years in existence. I am surprised why Natural selection hated Hitler so much. So yet again, Your point is wrong.

"It's not a check and balance system. "
This coming from the person who told you that humans can control their "moral intent" as years of evolution have accumulated wisdom in us, Is typically startling.

"Because of random mutation. Jeez, Could you at least try to think of the answer yourself before you ask silly questions? "
There we go again, His obsession with mutations. Morals have not come from evolution. I HAVE PROVEN THIS BY CONTRADICTING YOUR STATEMENT, WITH SOLID EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO. There are no mutations in one's morals.

"Hopefully you take this as a lesson that you shouldn't repeat the same claims that have already been countered. "
We have only to see until the votes come in, As to who should take a lesson from this debate. As for you, My friend, I am sure your arrogance will bring your downfall, So try to keep that in control.

Allow me to sum up my arguments.
1. I am against the above topic. I strongly believe evolution had nothing to do with morals.
2. My proofs came as contradictions to my opponent's claims. He has not satisfactorily responded to them, As you can see for yourselves. The evidence I have provided are listed -
1. My opponent has said that morals came from natural selection, From the evolutionary inbuilt mechanism of supporting one's community, To ensure survival of the species. I have given evidence against this, In the form of the Black Widow spiders. The females eat the males after mating. My evidence contradicts his statement, As it shows that the female's morals were not built so as to ensure the survival of the male. Also, It's not like the female will die if it does not eat the male. To add, My opponent has not responded to this, Which should mean that he has conceded. Even so, Do consider my evidence, For it rightly proves that he is wrong to assume morals came from evolution.

2. My opponent has also said that natural selection will weed out those with lower morals, Lower referring to the morals that deviate the general, Righteous set. To this, I have put forth a piece of evidence we all are familiar with - murderers. Surely, Their moral capacities allow them to kill others. By natural selection, And since it's been 1000s of years of evolution, They should have been weeded out. But of course, That is not the case. Murderers still live on. After all, If Hitler's morals led him to invade Russia arrogantly, Why didn't that arrogance attack him when he invaded France? After all, He could have also invaded Spain, But he was cautious. My opponent has proposed some kind of "murder" gene, Which definitely is impossible. If there really were a murder gene, It'd be some kind of virus attacking all murderers. They would probably kill others with these genes, And without them. In the end, This gene would perish with those who possess it, For it would be impossible to breed with that bloodthirsty gene.

3. My theory of morals is that morals are defined by us, Subjectively. My opponent had challenged me to provide evidence, And I now do so. Take religion. We all follow different religions. Evolution has nothing to do with the religion we choose, For we can even change our religion from birth. This happens all the time. Further, People following a religion trust the believes practiced in the religion. Take Hinduism, Where its beliefs teach that it is sinful to eat cow meat, While a Christian would have no problem in doing so. The Hindu does not eat, Not because there is a "beef" gene in his body that will kill him the moment he eats beef. Its because his morals, Bred from his childhood, Will not allow him to eat beef. Simply put, Our actions are influenced by morals, Which reflect our beliefs, And our thoughts. Our morals are products of our being, Not of evolution.

Thank you very much. This has been an interesting topic to debate on. I wish the best of luck to my opponent, And may the better orator win.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"That comment you quoted wasn't an appeal, It was a description"
You clearly stated in previous comments that rape is wrong because it is against moral code of humans. By "humans", You either mean a majority, Which is an appeal to majority, Or you mean any humans, Which includes rapists, Which means that by that standard rape isn't wrong.

"In never said that every rapist was punish. That's a straw man. I said that the rapist group as a whole gets punished. "
Rapist group as a whole doesn't get punished. Majority of rapists do not get punished. So that's already refuted.

"I outright admitted that atheism used to be inferior. I ignored nothing. "
And still is inferior.

"That's only cause religion has a head start. Athiests are the fastest growing group. "
The reason why it is better is not as important as the fact that it is better.
Atheists are not the fastest growing group.
In fact, The only reason some people assume so is because of Chinese. Some Chinese religions are labeled as atheistic or folk religions. But this is an incorrect label. So no, The atheists are not the fastest growing group.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"I see that you avoided the part where I pointed out that you're a pedophile. "
I said that I am a pedophile. You repeated that I am a pedophile. What should I exactly address there?

"Hard to preach about how good Christian morality or any morality is when you lick little kids you nasty kid licker. "
I never preached about Christian morality. I was born muslim. I am currently an atheist. So you are pretty good at imagining things. Let's see what is the next thing you will imagine.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
That comment you quoted wasn't an appeal, It was a description. Refuted

You implied that

In never said that every rapist was punish. That's a straw man. I said that the rapist group as a whole gets punished.

Those weren't from my conclusions. Learn to read.

lol, W/e you say bro

Fine, My opinion was used to describe the model. You're so clever (not)

You literally did say that.

I outright admitted that atheism used to be inferior. I ignored nothing.

That's only cause religion has a head start. Athiests are the fastest growing group. Yall crhistians better watch your behinds!

I'm done explaining things to you. I've already been too generous as it is. I have no desire to talk to child molesters.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"I never appealed to the majority. "
Wrong. You appealed to the majority here:
"So the humans with this mutations were able to breed more"

"Evolution doesn't force people to do anything. "
I never said it does, So that would be a straw man.

"Survival Pressures punish them for certain behaviors based on the current state of affairs in the world. "
Already refuted. Most of the rapists are not punished. So rape is not wrong according to your model.

"You're talking about moral absolutes. "
I am talking about logical conclusion from your point:
"It's wrong because it violates moral codes imposed by humans. "
You are obviously unable to follow your own arguments.

"There is no opinions in my model either. "
Wrong. Here is your opinion:
"It's wrong because it violates moral codes imposed by humans. "
And already easily refuted.

"Not even close. You don't evolve a moral. "
And where did I claim that I evolve a moral? Another straw man fallacy.

"It doesn't matter what the rapist thinks about the benefit. The benefit is applied on a group scale and it is not beneficial to the group. "
Same as atheism. Atheism is by amount of breeding not beneficial to the group. Again, Defeating yourself.

"Atheism is not an evolutionary trait. "
It could be, But I never claimed it was. So, That would be another straw man. I claimed that atheism is not as beneficial to the group as is religion, Which is easily proven, As I already proved and you willingly ignored.

"In today's current survival pressures, Atheism is superior. "
Except that it is not. Atheists are still outnumbered and out bred by the religious people. In fact, There is a whole series of characteristics which favor religious people.

"But that doesn't matter because Natural Selection has nothing to do with religion on a scholarly level. "
Religion benefits society more than atheism benefits it.

And I am out of letters. Also, You still haven't explained why is rape wrong. So maybe get back to tha
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
"If you appeal to majority again"

I never appealed to the majority. You just don't understand my argument. Evolution doesn't force people to do anything. Survival Pressures punish them for certain behaviors based on the current state of affairs in the world. Humans developed instincts from it. Then laws are objectively extrapolated from those instincts. There's not ad populum argument in this model.

"Almost everything is wrong and almost everything is right. "

You're talking about moral absolutes. There's not such thing. Morality has to be judged in a particular way. There is no opinions in my model either.

"Rapist thinks that it is moral to rape because he/she randomly mutated to have these morals and they were beneficia"

Not even close. You don't evolve a moral. You evolve an instinct and extrapolate a moral from it objectively. It doesn't matter what the rapist thinks about the benefit. The benefit is applied on a group scale and it is not beneficial to the group.

"That is an argument against atheism as well because atheists don't reproduce as much as religious people"

Atheism is not an evolutionary trait. To the contrary actually. Religion comes from evolution and the type 1 error. Atheists are people who make type 2 errors and evolution isn't as kind to them. But that doesn't matter because Natural Selection has nothing to do with religion on a scholarly level. Humans impose artificial selection and we can use that to get rid of Christianity because while, Christians have a strong type 1 response, This trait is not as useful as it was before. In today's current survival pressures, Atheism is superior.

I see that you avoided the part where I pointed out that you're a pedophile. Hard to preach about how good Christian morality or any morality is when you lick little kids you nasty kid licker.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"It's wrong because it violates moral codes imposed by humans. "
Ok, This doesn't make any sense. Every human has his own moral codes, And every human violates someone else's moral code. By this logic, Almost everything is wrong and almost everything is right.
Also, This then creates a question: Why is it wrong to violate a moral code imposed by some human.

If you appeal to majority again, Then again the argument: atheism is minority, Therefore, Atheism is wrong.

"Those codes exist because we randomly mutated to have them and they were beneficial"
This can be easily applied to rapists. Rapist thinks that it is moral to rape because he/she randomly mutated to have these morals and they were beneficial (rape gives them pleasure). So rape is not wrong by your model.

Also, If you claim: But rapists won't reproduce as much, So they are not beneficial to their reproduction as non-rapist people are beneficial with theirs, Then as I have refuted that before, That is an argument against atheism as well because atheists don't reproduce as much as religious people.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
But you're a pedophile, So that's not what you're really asking me is it?
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
It's wrong because it violates moral codes imposed by humans. Those codes exist because we randomly mutated to have them and they were beneficial, So the humans with this mutations were able to breed more.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"also, To the never gone thing. That is supported in my model"
Then please explain why is rape wrong. Or is rape not wrong according to your model?
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
also, To the never gone thing. That is supported in my model. We still have rapists don't we?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.