moral question for evolutionists

[packsaddle]

read the following article first:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3520968.stm



after you have read the article, answer this:

what makes a human human?

what are the parameters?

if you cannot give us a means of distinguishing between humans and chimpanzees then this article is about nothing more than viruses caused by cannibalism.

it's no secret that evolutionists love to keep those distinguishing lines blurred because they know that those barriers are damaging to their beloved theory.

so, as an evolutionist, do you consider cannibalism morally wrong?

if so, why?

why is cannibalism morally wrong, when survival is the ultimate goal?

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-n&-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
: the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being

what is a human?

I ask you again: how does one distinguish between a human and a chimpanzee?

if you cannot, or will not, answer this fundamental question, then we can conclude that you support cannibalistic behavior.

 

[Jet Black]

The article is irrelevant, because we can catch virii from chickens, dogs, cats, pigs and a whole host of other animals.

A Human is the only extant member of the homonidae. Though there is call to include chimps as homo troglodytes, because they are genetically so close to us - closer if I recall than they are to any of the other great apes. I leave that up to the taxonomists though. Generally species division, though it is a grey area, is judged by whether two organisms can mate and have viable offspring. The species split can be either pre-mating (i.e. they cannot mate) gametic (the gametes cannot fuse) zygotic (the zygote does not form or develop to term) or post zygotic (the formed animal is sterile) It is a bit fuzzy, but no-one is afraid of this - this is just the convenience of taxonomy.

I have no moral objection to cannibalism. Why would I?

 

[JohnCJ]

read the following article first:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3520968.stm



after you have read the article, answer this:

what makes a human human?

what are the parameters?

if you cannot give us a means of distinguishing between humans and chimpanzees then this article is about nothing more than viruses caused by cannibalism.

it's no secret that evolutionists love to keep those distinguishing lines blurred because they know that those barriers are damaging to their beloved theory.

so, as an evolutionist, do you consider cannibalism morally wrong?

if so, why?

why is cannibalism morally wrong, when survival is the ultimate goal?

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-n&-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
: the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being

what is a human?

I ask you again: how does one distinguish between a human and a chimpanzee?

if you cannot, or will not, answer this fundamental question, then we can conclude that you support cannibalistic behavior.

http://www.genome.wustl.edu/projects/chimp/
The chimp and humans are 2 different species.

Chimps the other white meat.

Your question is not a moral question because chimps are not human.

 

[JGMEERT]

what makes a human human?

JM: Technically speaking, homo sapiens sapiens is a biological classification. We are also primates.

what are the parameters?

JM: Talk to a systemicist.

if you cannot give us a means of distinguishing between humans and chimpanzees then this article is about nothing more than viruses caused by cannibalism.

JM: It's already been done, so there's not much to your argument.

it's no secret that evolutionists love to keep those distinguishing lines blurred because they know that those barriers are damaging to their beloved theory.

JM: The differences between primates is small, but real. The lines are blurry only because we are closely related.

so, as an evolutionist, do you consider cannibalism morally wrong?

JM: One (evolutionist) has nothing to do with the other. As a human being I consider cannibalism morally wrong; however, we know historically that some humans ate others and considered the action morally correct. Morals change with society.

why is cannibalism morally wrong, when survival is the ultimate goal?

JM: Eating fellow members of the species diminishes their numbers. Evolution has no goal. HOwever, let's play your game. Eating each other removes members of the species and therefore is bad. Moral behavior arises from the need to assure the species survives. We protect our young (giving up our own lives if needed) to assure that the gene pool continues.

if you cannot, or will not, answer this fundamental question, then we can conclude that you support cannibalistic behavior.

JM: Faulty logic. Suppose I ask someone who is retarded to answer your fundamental question? They are unable to give an answer, but they may not support cannabilistic behavior.

 

[ForeRunner]

How is Cannibalism about evolution?

Quite a few cultures practice Cannibalism. The problem is that it can lead to a Mad Cow-like disease in humans, with is bad biologically speaking, not morally. If I was trapped on some Island and the only thing to eat was (already dead) human flesh, I am pretty sure I would do it. It is amazing what you can/will do when survival instincts kick in full force.

 

[Jet Black]

How is Cannibalism about evolution?

Quite a few cultures practice Cannibalism. The problem is that it can lead to a Mad Cow-like disease in humans, with is bad biologically speaking, not morally. If I was trapped on some Island and the only thing to eat was (already dead) human flesh, I am pretty sure I would do it. It is amazing what you can/will do when survival instincts kick in full force.

do you mean kuru?

 

[ForeRunner]

do you mean kuru?

Yep, that is one of them. Thanks, I couldn't rememebr it. They call it the laughing disease IIRC.

 

[Jet Black]

yeap, that's the one. It was a bit of a problem for the Fore tribe in New Guinea if I recall. Apparently it was traditional to eat one's relatives after death.

 

[ForeRunner]

Aztecs used to eat the hearts of vanquished warriors. They believed they absorbed the warriors power, adding it to their own.

 

[notto]

(could not resist)

 

[Jet Black]

hmm... do I make comments about eating "bushmeat" or not?

 

[Jet Black]

Aztecs used to eat the hearts of vanquished warriors. They believed they absorbed the warriors power, adding it to their own.

surely a vanquished warrior was not the best sort of warrior to eat? wouldn't being vanquished mean that they are not actually as good as the people who weren't vanquished?

 

[ForeRunner]

surely a vanquished warrior was not the best sort of warrior to eat? wouldn't being vanquished mean that they are not actually as good as the people who weren't vanquished?

Well, I guess it is like this. Say your football(I am talking to a Brit after all ) team beats another team. It was a hard fought game but in the end you were victorous. Wouldn't it be great if you could intergrate their team into your own and then for the next game use the best players from both teams. That would make you even better.

Besides, it is hard to eat someone's heart when they are alive and you are dead

 

[Jet Black]

hehe, I see, but I was just being a bit daft. I am not sure that I would want to absorb the inferior skills of the opponents. Still it would make for a decent meal after all that spear throwing and opponent slaying.

 

[ForeRunner]

Nutritious AND Delicious. A meal on the go.

 

[ForeRunner]

I bow to Jet Blacks superior wit and repartee

 

[Split Rock]

read the following article first:

what makes a human human?

what are the parameters?

if you cannot give us a means of distinguishing between humans and chimpanzees then this article is about nothing more than viruses caused by cannibalism.

Humans and chimps are considered separate species because of morphological differences, and because we cannot or do not interbreed.

it's no secret that evolutionists love to keep those distinguishing lines blurred because they know that those barriers are damaging to their beloved theory.

I have a PhD in Biology and this is certainly a secret to me. What barriers do you think are erected by Evolutionary Theory? According to evolution, we are closely related to chimps (like it or not). In addition, evolution would predict that we do not always find clear barriers between "species" or between populations that are different in some ways but are closely related. Look up "Ring Species" to find examples of this. It is Creationism that assumes barriers (separate creation of "kinds"), not evolution.

so, as an evolutionist, do you consider cannibalism morally wrong?

if so, why?

why is cannibalism morally wrong, when survival is the ultimate goal?

I am not sure what an "evolutionist" is in this context. I accept evolutionary theory because it is the best scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth. Evolution tells us nothing at all about ethics or morals. It does not tell us how we should live our lives, etc. We as a society decide such things, which are in part based on philosophy and religion. I myself am repulsed by cannibalism, but this is likely because I was raised to find such behavior wrong. Cannibalism is also a good way to catch nasty prion diseases which rot away at your nervous system. (yuck!)

Let me give you an example of what evolution can tell us and what it can't tell us. Evolution tells us that chimpanzees are closely related to us.. our "cousins" in a sense. It does not tell us whether it is OK to hunt them, or use them in medical experiments, etc. because of this relationship. We have to decide what the ethics of harming or using a species that is so closely related to us are... science cannot answer this question for us.

 

[Bushido216]

read the following article first:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3520968.stm



after you have read the article, answer this:

what makes a human human?

what are the parameters?

if you cannot give us a means of distinguishing between humans and chimpanzees then this article is about nothing more than viruses caused by cannibalism.

it's no secret that evolutionists love to keep those distinguishing lines blurred because they know that those barriers are damaging to their beloved theory.

so, as an evolutionist, do you consider cannibalism morally wrong?

if so, why?

why is cannibalism morally wrong, when survival is the ultimate goal?

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-n&-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
: the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being

what is a human?

I ask you again: how does one distinguish between a human and a chimpanzee?

if you cannot, or will not, answer this fundamental question, then we can conclude that you support cannibalistic behavior.

You're a complete and total nitwit. A species is a reproductively isolated group. Can you mate with a chimp? No. Erego, the line is drawn.

 

[Adam Kadamon]

despite the ridiculousness of the OP I will try to answer.

cannabalism could be described as a 'survival tatic' in nature. Male rabbits eat their own babies so the female will want to mate and make more. Certain snakes, frogs, and spiders are cannabalistic as well.

It is more a matter of necessity. There is no necessity for human cannabalism (excluding extreme conditions). And of course, natural does NOT equal moral.

Your image of evolution is not only wrong, but very screwed up and I do not understand your urge to paint is as a bloody, feral fight to the top.

 

[Phred]

Got Human?