As Hume said "you can't get an ought from an is". Evolution takes us so far and then it has to bow out while other non physical aspects of life take over.
I'm sorry, were you just not paying attention to the evidence I provided that behaviours have a strong genetic component?
No I honestly don't know what you mean. You keep saying morality can be explained by the material process like genetics, biology and evolution. This does not explain morality because its incapable of doing so. But you keep repeating the same claim.
The fact that you don't understand how 1. morality comes from behaviours that are advantageous to a social species and 2. that behaviours are an inheritable trait does not mean that you are right.
Its not because there are no influences from evolution. Its because these only go so far. They can perhaps show how humans coperated for survival in certain situations but they cannot say we "ought to coperate". One is descriptive and the other prescriptive. You can't use descrtive terms to explain prescriptive morality.
Again, behaviours have a strong genetic component and can be selected for and against through natural selection.
Can you admit this gap in the explanation of material sciences.
Not a gap, dude.
Your lack of understanding regarding genetics is not a flaw in genetics.
Maybe thats the problem, you dismiss alternative opinions out of hand because you don't care.
I don't dismiss them because I don't care.
I dismiss them because you can provide no evidence for your position and you ignore the evidence for my position.
To make any fair and factual determination you have to care about alternative opinions. Otherwise you have not investigated all possible alternatives.
I do care. Present an alternative and I will examine it.
And I have done that with yours. The fact that I have discarded your claims due to a lack of evidence for them and lots of evidence against them does not mean I haven't looked and considered your claims.
One of those arguements you dimiss that I am using is Hume's idea that "you can't get an ought from an is". Science and evolution describe 'what might be morality' but they cannot prescribe 'what should be morality'.
Again, behaviours have a strong genetic component and can be selected for and against through natural selection.
Evolution can explain certain behaviour was beneficial for survival as moral but they are overstating things. People can choose not to follow such ideas and they have in the past. In fact we often live in conflict with each other because people choose not to cooperate. This shows they can choose either way morally and are not programmed to behave that way.
That's because one of those behaviours is "Protect your group from outsiders because they might threaten your group."
Honestly, this isn't difficult.
I understand about abnormalities. That is different. I am asking you should people be held accountable if there is no brain damage or mental illness. Even then we still acknowledge a wrong was done and the perpetrator is made to get therapy or be hospitalised in an institution to be assessed before being allow free in society.
I am asking you a simple question as per human liveds experience/ Should we be held accountable for our actions if they are wrong either socially or legally.
You didn't actually listen to that, did you?
Because it raises the very question you just asked me.
No they weren't.
You said, "For example an individual or group and even a culture can choose a particular lifestyle to improve their health and wellbeing. They have changed from one siet to another in an instant or a generation. Or a culture chooses a belief that improves their wellbeing and health."
What specific lifestyle are they starting at and what specific lifestyle are they changing to? And what is a siet? What specific belief improves their health and wellbeing? How specifically does their health and wellbeing improve?
Any change in belief, dietry behavior, staring an exercise regime to get healthier. A Christ or Christains converting from behaving badly to gopod behaviour within weeks or months.
I'm sure the same thing would happen to people who converted to other religions as well.
Entire populations of people changing diets. Look at the 70,a and 80,s before fast food really took hold. From around the 90's we have had an obesity crisis with children and young people which is causing diabetes and heart disease. Thats within a generation. THis is a social influence and not genetics.
And I covered that in the very post you are replying to when I said, "So we had to go for the best foods. We had to go for the ones richest in sugars and fats because those allowed us to store in our bodies the most nutrition. That's why we craze sweet and fatty foods as much as we do, because we EVOLVED to have the genes that made us more predisposed to that kind of behaviour."
I could go on as there are as many specific examples as there are the different individuals and groups within the same populations who have varying degrees of behaviour from bad to good. There is too much variation between individuals, within families, and groups for it to be purely genetic or evolution.
Did I say it was purely genetic? No. Stop using strawman arguments.
I said it had a very strong genetic component.
Ah its self evident. Please explain to me in physical objective terms what say kindness is without referring to the subjective descriptions of how it looks to you in society. After that explain why we should follow this without once again referring to subjective ideas of why.
Acting in a way that provides an advantage to others at a cost to yourself.
For example, depriving yourself of food or money so that the food/money may aid another.
You are conflation the evolution of physical body parts with moral values. What about cultural evolution or religious belief. Surely these change the direct of evolution as to whether groups benefit and live.
We have a suicide and mental illness epidemic so this along, whats in the mind is causing our species to die. That cannot be conducive to survival. The replacement rate for humans is going down not due to biological evolution but because of social and cultural factors. We are destroying the environment due to social and cultural factors. Are these not choices.
This has nothing to do with anything.
You said, "our conscious decisions can make a difference to evolution."
Evolution is directed in a large part by selective pressures from the natural world. We do not choose to evolve, because again, INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EVOLVE, POPULATIONS DO.
Population genetics is outdated now. Its been proven wrong. There may be a small influence but the main driver of evolution is development and non genetic influences like nich construction, developmental plasticity and bias and inheritence beyond genes..
Show mere the idea that populations evolve over many generations has been prove wrong.
Show me a valid scientific paper written by someone with relevant qualifications in a relevant journal.
Hum ok then you will have to explain this if you know so much about evolution.
Developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity. Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
Constructive development refers to the ability of an organism to shape its own developmental trajectory by constantly responding to, and altering, internal and external states [34,71,102–105]. As a consequence, the developing organism cannot be reduced to separable components, one of which (e.g. the genome) exerts exclusive control over the other (e.g. the phenotype). Rather, causation also flows back from ‘higher’ (i.e. more complex) levels of organismal organization to the genes (e.g. tissue-specific regulation of gene expression) (figure 1).
‘Reciprocal causation’ captures the idea that developing organisms are not solely products, but are also causes, of evolution [90,110,111]. Developmental bias and niche construction are, in turn, recognized as evolutionary processes that can initiate and impose direction on selection.
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.
Like other exploratory behaviour within the organism, learning allows organisms to generate and refine novel behavioural variants that are coherent and adaptive [73,118].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
A significant amount of explanatory weight is shifted from external conditions to the internal properties of evolving populations. In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation in many individuals of a population at once and long before natural selection may become effective.
Instead of chance variation in DNA composition, evolving developmental interactions account for the specificities of phenotypic construction. This interpretation is also based on a fundamentally different account of the role of genes in development and evolution. In the EES, genes are not causally privileged as programs or blueprints that control and dictate phenotypic outcomes, but are rather parts of the systemic dynamics of interactions that mobilize self-organizing processes in the evolution of development and entire life cycles. This represents a shift from a programmed to a constructive role of developmental processes in evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/
As the above says the evolution of change is not caused solely by natural selection, genetic drift and random mutations in populations. Random mutations and NS can often be bypassed. There are a number of ways including multiple lines of selection including selection by the organism itself through niche construction rather than having to be adapted to enviroments.
You have no idea what you are saying.
You claim that the idea that "populations evolve over many generations" has been proven wrong, yet you then cite a paper which claims "A significant amount of explanatory weight is shifted from external conditions to the internal properties of evolving populations."
See the word choice there?
Evolving POPULATIONS.
It does not saying "evolving INDIVIDUALS," does it?
As well as self organising development which biases mutations to particular adaptive changes, plasticity which changes phenotypes through tissue and cells without genes and non genetic factors like epigenetics, nesting environments, and culture.
The simple mappen of genotype to phenotype is well outdated let alone the overly simple mapping of the geneotype onto the less physical aspects like morality and culture.
Basically this makes the organism itself play a more central role in evolution, being able to influence it and direct it according to self organising developmental processes or through intelligent changes to the environment that are adpative. Rather than the organism being a passive entity that is acted upon by environments and changed through genes alone. From a programmed view to a constructive one.
Then why don't you evolve a pair of wings for me then?
I will cut this one off here as I think this is something to be discussed on its own.
You need to gain an actual understanding of what evolution is before we can have a proper discussion about it.
