Where does morality come from? An atheist perspective.

[mvenom101]

The thing to recognize here is that if a baby is drowning, it isn't logical to risk your own life to save it, and thus we don't have morality because it is logical or it aids ourselves.

What makes sense is that the protection and survival of others collectively strengthens ones own chance of survival.

For example, if i aided a stranger near death rather than omitting it, i am more likely to have the favor returned if i were ever in such a situation.

But you definitely dont need religion for it

[OrganicKing]

actually altruism showed to be VERY negative sometimes!

[IslamLite]

It depends on one’s understanding of the concept of God, which makes one interpret and understand existence in its entirety, physically and [spiritually] in a digestible form, if I may put it in this context. Now the question is, which one does Morality come under? Does spirituality exist? If does, what is it? It would be interesting to hear from atheist and religious perspectives…… Please give it a go!

[KevinLancasterify]

Cool and decisive explanation...... Do not look at it only from Christianity's point of view when you are talking about religious understanding of Morals and where they come from.... Islam agrees with your explanation and interpretation of morals.

[BuzzLOLOL]

.. Religion is immoral... the clergy lies for a living... Jesus horsewhipped the bankers and merchants to death in the temple for disagreeing with him... TWICE... at least he was hung for his crimes by the Romans... so NO morality to religion... more morality by pre-Christian Romans...

[Laughingblades]

Hmm interesting video. What do you think of selfishly motivated altruism? For instance, if someone wants to ensure that no one goes hungry and that elderly people are taken care of because they realize that we're all going to get old and we could all fall on hard times, so an altruistic society is better for the individual?



[SpacebuiId]

You sound very unintellegent?

[Tank94Mage]

If someone could make this clear to me it would be helpfull i am trying to understand atheist morality better.

Altruism to me doesn't answer the main question, which is WHY and HOW did animal groups make laws that are made for the better good? Is it only for means of survival? In this case wouldn't it be true that we should kill off the really old who do not benifit society? as well as killing the serverly disabled? Why not kill them in this case? But this is why i am asking please email me.

[einLesenderArbeiter]

ants live in greater clusters than we do.

[Shadofx]

I disagree..but think what you want..it all comes from GOD

[listen2meokidoki]

A person's virtues and vices are a condition of his/her circumstances. So,

if we take a wolf child, brought up by wolves, the child has a moral code but lacks the complexity civilisation has developed. Each religion or philosophy has its embellishments. But because God has little or no scientific knowledge of the Universe he created, the answers to all questions can & will fall upon human science to discover. Eg: Who has the patent rights on morality. Stupid questions included

[msizer]

Our sense of morality comes from evolved instinct and our ability to override those instincts using reason. The world is changing significanlty, and our sense of morality must change with it or it will become obselete. Our instincts developped in envrionments that did not include modern pressures such as global warming, artificial intelligence, abortion... If moral codes don't evolve, we die.

[bob5527]

Altruism is not morality. Good try though.

[hercules101]

sorry...animal insticts do not apply to humans...and besides...God created the animals with REPROGRAMED living attitudes...but we, since created in God's image, have the blessed gift of chosing...what we want...not through evolution....but whatever..i still pray for you..One day...Jesus Christ (that RESURRECTED from the dead, and there is proof of that) will come back in all of his Glory...and then YOU WILL BELIEVE...but i hope its not too late...God bless....PEACE. JOVA

[petardawnabial]

"Sorry", but animal instincts do apply to humans. Difference is they r suppresed by human's "higher thoughts". Since people r egoistic, they think bout themselves as higher beings and cut themselves from animals wich r unable to come up with such behavior; wich makes them beneath u in your eyes. When, and if, u consider yourself as altruist wich wants nothing in return for help, cuz that "makes u feel happy", u r doin so, to feel so egoistically happy. Prayers doesnt work.

[tillo2008]

humans are mammals.

Animals can make choices.

the bible you know is a bastardized version of the original.

Shouldn't you be out stoning whores or something? Or is that turning the other cheek?

Religion DOES NOT change to suit the socially comfortable medium or it is simply not the word of a god and is indeed fallible. Religion only changes when YOUR GOD decrees it to be so. Since no god has come along and changed it - you, sir, are blaspheming without even realizing it. Know your shit, kid.

[er876897]

@hercules101 So deluded... "Proof?" This i gotta hear? lolololol

[hercules101]

@er876897 you make no sense...since you've already judged what i have to say, and you question or own question...weird. you want proof that abraham lincoln really existed? go to his tomb, he's there...yup, and elvis presley, yup hi's remains are there too. Check out Jesus Christ's Tomb...guess what? HI'S body is not there either....why? because he RESURRECTED. and the best part, that he WILL return soon. hope you repent before its to late, then the otherone you will see for eternity.

[er876897]

@hercules101 So where is the proof that he was resurrected? Just because his body is missing does not prove your silly fairy tale. How can you be sure that his body is NOT somewhere else decaying just like every other dead body. It's all faith. You have no proof, and if you do, then lets hear it.

You religidiots are all obsessed with Armageddon. I really think you'd get some sick satisfaction from the world ending and billions of people dying, just so you can be right. Disgusting.

[hercules101]

@er876897 by proof do you mean, me arriving to your house with Jesus Christ next to me? and him performing a miracle so you may believe? than your doubt is no different than st Thomas' was when he said "unless i place my finger inthe holes in his hands and my hand in his side wound I WILL NOT BELIEVE" . sorry, there is no way i can phisically prove you that he resurrected, because he ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, do you no know? you should study the life of Christ first...

[hercules101]

copy and past these two videos on your youtube browser widow, i don't know how to past the video on this txt box

Virgin Mary appears to +500,000 people in Egypt!!

The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima October 13, 1917

[hercules101]

@hercules101 ...but what i CAN phisically prove is a great miracle that the Virgin mary (Mother of Jesus, who also ascended to heaven with her glorious body) told was going to happen AND IT DID!! on Oct 13th, 1917, and the miracle of Zeitun Egyp, WATCH AND LEARN, and stop doubting, I would LOVE to meet you in Heaven. so stop doubting and Believe in the Gospel

[billtomlinson442]

If anyone would like to see the more formal philosophical reasons why it is possible to be moral and an atheist, check out my book "the moral atheist" at amazon.

[OMEGATHENIETZCHIAN]

"On the origin of virtue" covers all of this very well. You do a great job but one thing "altruism" isn't total. Altruism by definition means that your doing it selflessly, altruistic behaviour actually arises out of something called "gene selfishness" we can die because our family (which continues our genes) survives.

[alfamale05]

oh man that was pathetic

[majorvoltage]

You seem to be alluding to the concept of group selection which isn't really accurate. Natural selection does not work on the scale of groups or even individuals, it works on genes which are the basic unit of replication.

Altruism arises mainly from two sources; Kin selection and the natural equivalent of iterated non-zero sum games. The former produces altruism towards family members and the later a tit-for-tat strategy of reciprocal altruism.

[majorvoltage]

You should read "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. He explains the same concepts in his video "nice guys finish first". It's here on youtube.

[BlasphemyBaby]

"The voice is annoying" - Ouch.

[majorvoltage]

Ignore him. You have a beautiful voice :-)

[anzuki]

yap you do lovely voice

[drufle]

i think the voice is hot...not that anyone cares...

[mooglebee]

i think the general idea is right, but your ultimate conclusion, that morality is for the benefit of the group is probably wrong.

group selection is very much a disputed topic. Many dont accept it at all.

dawkins showed how selectoin acts on the gene.

there is a good case for interpreting the effects of selection on the individual, but not so much the group.

it's the same basic idea though. a cooperating group is beneficial for the individuals in the group, but not the group itself.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Ah. Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

[FB0102]

You need to watch out for the 'is-ought problem' (wiki it). You cannot jump from saying what 'is' to justify what 'should be'. Its impossible to justify we SHOULD be moral by just saying naturally we tend to act morally. Where does the SHOULD or the DUTY to act morally come from?? If you were trying to justify we SHOULD be moral by the reasons you said, the argument is wrong.

[bktennis2006]

You refer to the naturalistic fallacy. While you are not wrong to bring this up, invoking it brings in a whole range of deeper philosophical issues, particularly the more meta-ethical ones.

[Rainforestacid]

You guys are all a bunch of idiots voicing your own opinions which don't mean a fucking thing to anyone else. HA!

[BlasphemyBaby]

Mm-hm. We appreciate your time. Thank you for stopping by. Have a complimentary sandwich on your way out.

[KapaMan00]

I just popped in for the heck of it. That was very nicely and diplomatically put BB. :)

I tip my hat in respect.

[adean2]

@Rainforestacid The same can be said for your opinion.

[aceserve]

prairie dogs give warning of danger to their group mates as well.

[KapaMan00]

What atheists don't want to admit is historical fact. That moral structures of every culture that developed basically came from religious perspectives & script. Old Testament hebrew, buddhism, hinduism, Greek mythology, & even paganism. Social moral structure that developed as the human race populated this Earth.

[BlasphemyBaby]

yes, religious perspectives were involved in passing down morals, but it wasn't always that way. Way back in the caveman days, before the advent of language, there was no way to pass these religious stories down.. but they still didn't go around killing each other just for the fun of it.. they still lived in hunter-gatherer groups and the Neanderthals buried their dead. You see the same in animals, and it's not because they are "more connected with God."

[BlasphemyBaby]

That's not the point, anyway. The point is: you don't need a god to be a moral person. Even if religion is used to pass down morality, the dogma had to first be CREATED. So where did the moral dogma come from? Common sense and social contract. The creators of each religion used the morals they already believed in to create their religion's. Even if you think Christian morals are divinely inspired, that doesn't explain where Buddhists, Hindus, etc got theirs.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Morals shape religion, not the other way around.

The idea that "if it's not there to begin with, they wouldn't have survived" is flawed. While mating and family relationships have always existed, larger social groups have not. However, it might have happened that two mating pairs would have decided to band together, and thus had a better survival rate. Then, the offspring more disposed/adapted to working in a group would have kept the group, and thus had a better survival rate.

[BlasphemyBaby]

And yes, I have my theories, and they really are more of hypotheses. Because I'm not a scientist. I'm not even a science major at my university (yes, I'm a student). But these theories are based on the evidence I have seen in my science and sociology classes. Really, you guys are my guinea pigs in testing these theories, and, so far (until you come up with arguments I can't refute), they're holding water.

[KapaMan00]

That's very cool you're a student, & one who's interested in expanding your knowledge on science and sociology. I'm a musician and artist. I love the sciences, & sociology is a fun study. I think I would feel like a guinea pig as far as your atheist perspective goes. But not science. Science isn't an atheistic pursuit. It's a human pursuit. Religion has always been part of human sociology. Constants since we developed verbal & written communication.

[BlasphemyBaby]

You're right in that science isn't an atheist pursuit, and that is a common misconception among Youtube atheists. However, after seeing how poorly-read certain creationists are, it's easy to see why atheists cling to it so much. The fact is that there is no scientific proof of a god, and that's why atheists cling to science like it's our own.

[KapaMan00]

My observation is more like this. Conservative creationist & atheists pushing evolution to replace God & creation are the opposite but equal extreme societal branches that are just battling each other. True science is open minded and should never close the door one theory or the other.

[KapaMan00]

You're right, the fact is there is no scientific proof of God. Because science doesn't know how to begin. I find it sad that "if it's not testable than it isn't science or doesn't exist". There's far too much yet to discover to make that statement.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Evolution is not extreme. It's been tested and submitted to peer review HUNDREDS of times, and always comes out solid. Creationists have yet to withstand peer review even once. It's not that evolutionists are close-minded toward them; it's that their arguments don't stand up to the facts. That is where the whole "ID in schools" debate stems from.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Yes, there are some of us who want to eradicate religion: my take on that depends on my mood at the time. Otherwise, most of us are fine with you having your god as long as you don't force it on us. In that, the extremists are alike. It's true that science can not test the supernatural. Yet, as a skeptic, I need some sort of proof of a deity, much less your deity, before I'm willing to believe. Faith is how the church makes you suspend reason... it's not a virtue.

[KapaMan00]

Large social groups are the basis & succsess of species continuation. Birds/fowl are an examples of ancient creatures. "They spread the Seed". I watch 100's of them fly in formation. That's nothing new. Take it to the more ancient inscect & the groups are expontential in numbers. Bees are a great modern/ancient, example of "social structure imprinted". As species split up the #s get smaller.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Oy. I'll concede that social groups have been around for a long time, but it's not a concrete rule, and true altruism is more apparent in more intelligent creatures than in the less intelligent. Yes, a bee has a hive mentality, but in that group, everyone is everyone else's sister. True altruism is sacrificing yourself so that someone else in your group (someone not related to you) lives.

[KapaMan00]

Christianity is the effect of Jesus' documented life. Those books & the Hebrew writings before are divinely inspired in my opinion. Bhuddism, Hinduism, Egyptian & other religions that developed simultainiously not only explain but confirm human's connection to spirit.

[KapaMan00]

All major religions have good and different insights and are based on a moral structure to begin with. You don't have to believe in God to have morals, right. But atheism hasn't re-invented morals. Still the same ones they've always been and any good honest person subscribes to the same basic morals.

[BlasphemyBaby]

YES! That's exactly what I'm getting at. The only difference between my morals and yours is that I don't put a deity into the equation. I'm not more or less moral than you, and that's exactly my point.

[BlasphemyBaby]

They were developed around the same time because man invented language and people began wondering early on where the rain came from and why bad things happen. They only knew what they were familiar with, and that was humanity, and animals, and death. Gods were the logical leap in those times. This is not true today.

[KapaMan00]

I think man was wondering those things before the language was developed. The life/death cylce & death supplying life is about all they had to contemplate back then. Man's self awareness of his connection to Earth, spirit & God is an ancient one. And still very true today. Unless you decide you don't want to observe it.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Yes, of course he was wondering those things. It's human nature to wonder. But before language, he couldn't have communicated those wonderings to his fellows. Each individual would have to come to his own conclusions, so each individual would believe in different gods or whatever.

[BlasphemyBaby]

And I take offense to you implying that I "decide I don't want to observe it." You think it's that easy to shake off Christian brainwashing? I didn't decide anything other than that I wanted to find out the truth, and it took me years. And for the record, I'm still spiritual... I believe in the power of truth and the beauty of nature. I simply no longer believe in fairy tales that make no sense.

[KapaMan00]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend. I should've phrased it as "unless one doesn't want to observe it". I agree that alot of extreme Christians have the wrong idea. And so do atheists. I'm a spiritual person also who sees what you see in nature. I also see it and the truths expressed in the Bible.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Ah, gee. Now I feel guilty for using my harsh language. Sorry. I also agree that extremists are called "extreme" for a reason, even when I fit into those groups. Personally, I'd like to believe in a god. As soon as I see enough evidence, I'll gladly convert. However, I've yet to see anything concrete, so I simply can't believe.

[KapaMan00]

Who says cavmen didn't have language? Verbal communication came before written language. Cave paintings prove that. They "created" paintings of their lives & connection with nature to leave leave a record. Some earliest "known" written language is the Egytians who used pictures along with script. An obvious logical development. They were deep into the spirit. The reason the pyramids were built.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Mainly, pre-homo sapiens didn't have the brain capacity for genuine language, and that's fact, not hypothesis. Not anything more complicated than grunting and vague hand gestures. Modern man is the first to develop true language, and that means there was still a time when modern man did not have language. In science, there was no Garden of Eden in which man could speak from the start and woman came from a rib.

[KapaMan00]

It was homo sapiens that lived in caves and did paintings and made tools, Not pre-H.S. Cro-Magnon or whoever did them. With those skills already and the need to survive as a group, they had to have some kind of language beyond grunting. No Garden of Eden in science yet, but science does have an Eve. Poor Adam got left out, lol.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Blatantly wrong. Many of the early hominids were known to use tools... Australopithecus garhi and homo habilis are both species of early hominid known to use tools. More, chimpanzees today can be seen using primitive tools for certain tasks. There is no definitive line that separates us from our biological ancestors.

[BlasphemyBaby]

As far as cave paintings go, you're right. In fact, modern man developed about 100,000 years ago... yet the oldest known cave painting is only 35,000 years old. That means there were some 75,000 years in which this skill did not exist. It didn't just pop up with the advent of modern man... it had to DEVELOP. Language was the same. It didn't just pop up in a completed form.

[KapaMan00]

Ya I know earlier man used tools. I just wasn't taking the conversation back that far. They used simple tools for surivial. Like chimps who run a stick in a ant hole for food and probably have been doing that for a million years. I think there is a line that seperates us biological ancestors.

[KapaMan00]

It's when we became able to create for reasons other than simple survival. The need to express and the fulfillment in doing so. And the imagination to create something new. That's how I read "Created in God's image". He created and saw it was good. And so do we. I consider it a simple and beautiful truth.

[BlasphemyBaby]

See, I don't draw the line between "for survival" and "not for survival" because I don't see it as that simple. I see a progression where you see a passing of a threshold. They're both legitimate, I think, depending on how you define it.

[BlasphemyBaby]

I think this is where our disagreement comes from. You believe humans are special (that we have souls and were "created in Gods image") whereas I do not believe humans are special (that we are animals evolved in a direction that allows abstract thought). It's also pretty obvious that we are not going to change the other's mind. Shall we simply agree to disagree on this matter? : )

[KapaMan00]

I think we would both agree that this living planet and all the life it produces is really what is special. We're just part of the mix. But yea, we can agree to disagree on the level of what our role is and who we are. :)

[KapaMan00]

I agree with progression & thresholds. They mix in areas other than human development. How or what is was with humans and when it happened we'll never be able to say for sure. But people will sure speculate about it, lol.

[Rainforestacid]

derrr, ever taken anthropology, idiot?

[KapaMan00]

May I interject? The basic flaw in this video is the idea that social structures in animals developed over generations. Wrong. It's a basic imprint for any male/female species. If it's not there to begin with they wouldn't have survived for us to study today. Same with humans at it's base level. But we are capable to take it well beyond the survival/social level because we possess independent thought & ideas within a single species.

[Largo64]

Very well thought out and presented. Excellent video!

[KapaMan00]

Excellent!!! Booo hooo.

[KapaMan00]

We do share the basic instinct to surive and social programming as animals, but beyond that it's a lame arguement. We have emotional/spiritual content they do not. Understanding of good and bad, ego, vanity, greed. Animals don't need morals, but we do. And where do morals come from. RELIGIOUS TEXT. Biblical, buddhist, hindu ect ect. And you ask why? Simple, because we're not just physical creatures, but spiritual (Created in God's image, remember?).....

[BlasphemyBaby]

Sorry, but if my argument is weak, then so is yours. Morality existed before religious texts came about, so it's not solely based on religious texts. If it was, no Christian would work on Sundays. However, because morality is subjective, rather than absolute as indicated in texts, people can look at that law nowadays and say "wait, that isn't right." This has been worked over again and again by people smarter than I.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Human brains are more developed than any other species on the planet; our cognition allows us to DERIVE spiritual meaning from things. This isn't bad... I find spirituality in nature, even though I don't believe in a higher power. That feeling is a combination of chemical signals in our nervous system. This isn't a bad thing... it's just the way it is.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Besides, you can't tell me that animals don't have emotions... anyone who's ever owned a dog or cat will disagree. Dogs and cats can be happy or sad; and they understand right and wrong with training (which is basically what we do to our kids, too). See, Humans are merely animals; we are no more special than a horse or a hangaroo. The only reason humans think they are special is because we are humans. It's the 'us-them' competition thing that has had species competing for years.

[KapaMan00]

Animals do have basic emotions. And you put the point to a head. We've trained/encouraged them in that sense (through centuries). And even before that God gave them higher basic senses then we have for survival. Dogs can smell cancer and we're just beginning to realize that. We're not merely animals. We're created in "God's image", and so slowly unlocking his knowledge.

[KapaMan00]

Does any other species DERIVE spiritual meaning?

[KapaMan00]

My points aren't weak. They're based on historical evidence. Human desire to create written language was motivated by our connection to our spirit, first! Way before Christianity. Asian religious concept, Biblical text ect. Even the ancient Greeks whose philosophy is one of the basis for our modern society, couldn't deny a spiritual connection. So much so they had to invent mythological Gods. Until they found the Bible, and were among the first to translate it.

[BlasphemyBaby]

What about animals that haven't been trained for centuries, but can still be trained? The non-domesticated ones, like chimps, dolphins, elephants, horses, and seals? All these animals are intelligent enough to be trained, which means they can understand a sense of right and wrong when their environment imposes it on them. This ability to display these tendencies becomes more notable as the animal's brain capacity relative to its size increases.

[BlasphemyBaby]

And, no,it's not just in captivity that the animals display this behavior. Look up Jane Goodall's work on chimps. Chimps build these complex social structures with rules of behavior. When one steps out of line, it is understood that there are consequences.

[BlasphemyBaby]

I do not *think* that other species derive spiritual meaning, but it's impossible to tell. How can we know? Other animals don't have language, so they can't tell us.

[BlasphemyBaby]

As for language... well, the development of language actually came about as a way to bond when social grooming failed. Language evolved as a sort of verbal grooming. See, the genus homo lived in groups so huge that they were unable to groom everyone effectiviely while making sure everyone had enough food... like most primates could.

[BlasphemyBaby]

So, instead, they found a different way to forge connections with others of their groups: by verbal grooming that eventually developed into language.There's a species of babboons that exhibits this sort of social grooming as well, if you want to look it up.

[BlasphemyBaby]

I'll say it again: our higher cognition allows us to get more supposed "meaning" out of these things. We have gigantic frontal lobes. So yes, it stems from the animals, but a divine being doesn't give us the rest... our highly-developed frontal lobes give us the rest.

[KapaMan00]

Part 1. Training them starts by feeding them. We provide their food so it takes away their need to find it themselves (in most cases). Horses have been man's "beast of burden" for centuries. Beautiful, intellengent and naturally free animal. So self sufficent that we can't just give them food and they do what we want. We have to break their free spirit first. Teaching a horse to high step doesn't increase it's brain capacity, we just manipulate the intelligence it already posesses.

[KapaMan00]

Part2. The sense of right and wrong you're talking about is instinctual and basic to most every living creature on Earth. That's survival and self preservation. What we posses that they don't is the natural understanding and practice of good and evil. Love and compassion & understanding verses hatred, ego, greed & misunderstanding. Combine that with our ability to "create" and we as humans are not just "merely" animals.

[HeartOfOmega]

their sight is so desperately underplayed & I do not believe scientists have all the data for this one in. For all we know they may possess the ability to see in ultraviolet, infrared, and the black and white spectrums, on top of the naked eye spectrum and seeing at far greater distances than the human eye. They also possess the ability to sense the supernatural.

[HeartOfOmega]

I am convinced that God created everything in the universe. And KapaMan00, I agree with you about humans possessing the ability to know what good and evil are. there is another thing that separates us from the animals: animals posses a more superior sensory ability. They can hear sounds from great distances, they can smell something from great distances and not only that, but they can smell scents that are beyond the human ability.

[HeartOfOmega]

BlasphemyBaby, they do not need a Bible because they know who their God and Heavenly Father is. Animals are simply more in tune with their Creator. I believe that Adam and Eve had all of these abilities in The Garden of Eden, but to a much greater degree than the animals. That was one of the trade offs to eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and ever since that moment these abilities that Adam had eventually diminished.

[HeartOfOmega]

Its still happening today, too, and if you don't believe me, thats fine, but just think about it: was there any other period of time when we were giving prescription eyeglasses out to toddlers, or how about the increasing amount of children diagnosed with A.D.D./A.D.H.D., etc. one problem with evlutionism is that it postulates that an organism starts out simple or primitive and gets better. This diametrically opposed to reality -- the fact is that everything is breaking down, not improving.

[BlasphemyBaby]

See, animals don't need the Bible... but NEITHER DO HUMANS. Do you think people would have been just killing each other for fun before the Ten Commandments were given? Our morality stems from common sense. If we know someone killed someone else, we recognize that that person could kill again (could kill me and you!) so we disenable him.

[BlasphemyBaby]

There are many things we think is moral but the Bible doesn't, and vice versa. Again, I turn to the "keeping the Sabbath holy"... there was a man in the Bible that gathered wood on the Sabbath, and they stoned him to death. We recognize that as wrong, even though it's in the Bible.

[BlasphemyBaby]

As for the eyeglasses and A.D.H.D... that's because humans have warped Natural Selection. Someone with poor vision or a mental disorder is no longer more likely to be eaten by predators, so the people with those mutations don't get selected out. Because of human altruism, we enable these mutations to stay in the genome. Without that Natural Selection, species don't get better and more complicated... they may change, but not necessarily for the better.

[BlasphemyBaby]

Again, I'm just trying to give you an atheist perspective here, showing you that there are scientific explanations out there. I'm not really smart enough to even start deconverting you.

[HeartOfOmega]

I understand what you are trying to do, and I know that that there are scientific explanations out there. In order for a type of science to be science, it needs to be proveable, of which evolutionism lacks. Sure you have your theories, but some of these theories are actually hypothesis, for the sheer fact that there are no known instruments by which we my test those hypothesis

[Baug1]

Evolution can be tested. In fact every time there is a new discovery it has the potential to discredit evolution, but every time for the last 150 yrs the new discoveries have been in line with evolution.

[balderdash707]

Nothing in science is provable.

Nothing.

Gravity - theory.

Electromagnetism - theory.

Quantum Mechanics - theory.

These are all just ideas that have yet to be DISproven, having so far accurately described all observed natural phenomena. Newtonian physics has been DISproven. It's still useful because it closely predicts much of the world, but we use it knowing that we can't take it to extremes, or it will start to be way off.

[balderdash707]

However, evolution is a little different in that it is harder to disprove. It involves random chance, so when we see things that appear to conflict with the ideas of evolution (panda bears), we just attribute them to the chance part. However evolution just makes sense. The idea that the most fit members of a species will be the ones who reproduce is obvious, and we have seen many genetic mutations in both people and animals.

[balderdash707]

I'll grant you that we are yet to see another species branch of from one that was already here, but for all we know it has happened in the deep see where we couldn't see it (for both a lack of observers and a lack of light). It is a little hard to imagine that happening, and if you thought the earth was just a few thousand years old I can see why you would think that it has never happened, but we think (not know, think) that the earth is billions of years old, and a lot can happen in that time.

[balderdash707]

Baug1 is right, it has been tested, and so far nothing has flatly contradicted evolution. One more thing I'd like to point out is the gaps in the fossil record. Very, very few humans (if any) will leave behind fossils for scientists to look at a million years from now. The people buried at Pompeii had molds around them, but it took very little to destroy many of those. The process by which they are created happens very, very rarely, and the fact that the fossil record is so full astounds me.

[HeartOfOmega]

poor vision is not always a mutation. mostly poor vision develops because of old age and sometimes from lack of proper nutrition. Predators dont usually go after humans. Not all mental disorders are mutations. A.D.D./ A.D.H.D. is mostly a neurochemical imbalance and only in small part a question of genetics if any at all.

[KapaMan00]

Omega, I agree with you. Animals possess much higher senses and abilities than we do. Much more in tune with nature/enviornment and likely the spritual planes that we can't as a species, physical percieve because our senses are limited. The actual level of different animals senses are things science can only speculate on.

[KapaMan00]

I like your idea on the Adam and Eve story. For sure a trade off. I could see alot of atheists as well as theists shuddering at the idea. It connects the dots together between ancient religous script and modern evloutionary speculation...about ancient man.

[Brianj1234]

Excellent video!

[Katalyzt]

Perfectly done!

Katalyzt

[KingLoser66]

Nicely done.