moral question for evolutionists

[PhantomLlama]

I heard an interesting theory recently about why cannibalism is seen as immoral.

Early on in man's history, cannibalism was commonplace because food was scarce and leaving a hundred pounds of prime meat to rot would have been stupid. Later on, with the advent of agriculture, not having to eat one's dead family and being able to bury them whole became a status symbol. As more people gained this ability, eating relatives turned into a social taboo and eventually became outright immoral.

 

[Data]

To the guys who say we can't breed with chimps, there is a possibility we actually may be able to.

I don't think anyone's tried yet, for obvious reasons.

 

[draper]

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?

I was never good at science but I'd assume it's something genetical.

The ability to use a computer is also a good indicator

what are the parameters?

DNA, genes, I suppose?

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.

Well, I can't give you specific evidence, but someone well versed in genetic make ups probably could.

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.

Not necessarily.

I've just never taken to studying the genetics make-up of chimp and humans

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

Yes.

if so, why?

Because it is murder.

I **suppose** that if the person was already dead, and you had **no** means of food or survival then cannibalism would be acceptable, though personally I'd much rather starve.

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

I suppose because there are other methods if getting food.

Though I disagree with murder, be it for the purposes of food or otherwise, if the person is already dead and there is NO other means for survival then I guess it'd be permissible for someone to eat it.

what is a human?

A type of mammal??

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

DNA, genetics? It's not a field I'm well versed in.

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

Wrong.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Bushido said "Can you mate with a chimp"

Don't give him any ideas. Chimps are very strong animals, if he is inspired to attempt it, he could get seriously injured.

 

[vajradhara]

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

Namaste packsaddle,

i've not moral issue with cannibalism. i'm concerned, however, by Prion diseases.. in particular, CJD.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is a rare, degenerative, invariably fatal brain disorder. It affects about one person in every one million people per year worldwide; in the United States there are about 200 cases per year. CJD usually appears in later life and runs a rapid course. Typically, onset of symptoms occurs about age 60, and about 90 percent of patients die within 1 year. In the early stages of disease, patients may have failing memory, behavioral changes, lack of coordination and visual disturbances. As the illness progresses, mental deterioration becomes pronounced and involuntary movements, blindness, weakness of extremities, and coma may occur.

There are three major categories of CJD:


<LI>In sporadic CJD, the disease appears even though the person has no known risk factors for the disease. This is by far the most common type of CJD and accounts for at least 85 percent of cases.
<LI>In hereditary CJD, the person has a family history of the disease and/or tests positive for a genetic mutation associated with CJD. About 5 to 10 percent of cases of CJD in the United States are hereditary.
<LI>In acquired CJD, the disease is transmitted by exposure to brain or nervous system tissue, usually through certain medical procedures. There is no evidence that CJD is contagious through casual contact with a CJD patient. Since CJD was first described in 1920, fewer than 1 percent of cases have been acquired CJD. CJD belongs to a family of human and animal diseases known as the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). Spongiform refers to the characteristic appearance of infected brains, which become filled with holes until they resemble sponges under a microscope. CJD is the most common of the known human TSEs. Other human TSEs include kuru, fatal familial insomnia (FFI), and Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease (GSS). Kuru was identified in people of an isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea and has now almost disappeared. FFI and GSS are extremely rare hereditary diseases, found in just a few families around the world. Other TSEs are found in specific kinds of animals. These include bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which is found in cows and is often referred to as “mad cow” disease; scrapie, which affects sheep and goats; mink encephalopathy; and feline encephalopathy. Similar diseases have occurred in elk, deer, and exotic zoo animals.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/pubs/creutzfeldt-jakob_disease_fact_sheet.htm

now.. of course, we have the nvCJD which is the "new variant" of this disease which seems to come from cows with BSE... good thing i'm vegetarian, eh?

 

[packsaddle]

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.

I disagree.

evolution does not tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us.....genetic studies tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us, as are mice.

see the difference?

we both work with the same evidence.

the difference is that your interpretations of that evidence differ from the interpretations of others.

when two scientists who attend the same university, the same classes, and peruse the same evidence yet come to opposing conclusions, then the evidence is still open to all competing theories.

but the point here is that evolution (bacteria to bears variety) does not tell us anything but a story right now, because it nothing more than one interpretation of said evidence.

 

[Phred]

when two scientists who attend the same university, the same classes, and peruse the same evidence yet come to opposing conclusions, then the evidence is still open to all competing theories.

but the point here is that evolution (bacteria to bears variety) does not tell us anything but a story right now, because it nothing more than one interpretation of said evidence.

But it's the only interpretation that includes ALL the evidence. And while the Theory of Evolution is open to debate, evolution itself is a fact. Life evolves, how it evolves, the mechanism, is what's discussed.

Also, "competing theories"... name one. Name one supported by the evidence and the scientific community. Name one that hasn't been repeated falsified. Name one that doesn't rely upon the untestable. Name one that isn't based first in mythology. Name one...

 

[packsaddle]

But it's the only interpretation that includes ALL the evidence. And while the Theory of Evolution is open to debate, evolution itself is a fact. Life evolves, how it evolves, the mechanism, is what's discussed.

Also, "competing theories"... name one. Name one supported by the evidence and the scientific community. Name one that hasn't been repeated falsified. Name one that doesn't rely upon the untestable. Name one that isn't based first in mythology. Name one...

no one is disputing variation within a population.

we can observe this every day.

it's the extrapolation that one creature turned into another creature that has never been validated, or observed......with over 150 + years of trying.

and yes, there is a very good competing theory, but I'm saving that for another thread.

 

[PhantomLlama]

evolution does not tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us.....genetic studies tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us, as are mice.

I would disagree. Genetics tells us that we have similar DNA, it is evolution that makes the relation claim.

 

[Data]

evolution does not tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us.....genetic studies tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us, as are mice.

Evolution told us we were closely related before DNA was ever discovered. Genetic studies are just proof.

 

[funyun]

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

Depends. If u murdered the person, then yes, unless u were literally starving to death, but there r other routes one should explore before resorting to killing soemone in order to live. If there's no other way, then I don't condone it, but I don;t condemn it either. There is no morality when it comes to survival.

Personally, I find the act of cannibalism gross, but I never understood why ppl saw it as morally wrong, especially if u did it to survive (unless, as stated above, u took the Hannibal Lector approach and killed ppl then ate them simply for fun).

 

[Philosoft]

it's the extrapolation that one creature turned into another creature that has never been validated, or observed......with over 150 + years of trying.

and yes, there is a very good competing theory, but I'm saving that for another thread.

Make sure your "competing theory" includes the following:

1) The functional unit of "creature."
2) The mechanism that prevents a particular "creature" from turning into another via the mechanism that provides variation within populations, to which you have already stipulated.

And to bolster your criticism of evolution, you might include answers to the following:

3) Given (1), should we expect to be able to see creature-to-creature transformation within 150 years? Why or why not?
4) Why are the organisms already regarded as taxonomically transitional not actually transitional?

 

[Gracchus]

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

(Emphasis added)


Matthew 26:26

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 22:22

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Ritual cannibalism, right?

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

I suspect the sinfulness, in packsaddle's eyes, depends on who is doing the eating, and probably who is being eaten.

 

[notto]

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.

I guess one way to tell the difference is that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while other apes (including chimpanzees) have 24.

Of course there are some similarities between the chromosomes with one of the human chromosomes looking afwfully close to being a fused pair from the apes. Hmmm. . .

 

[monkenstick]

no one is disputing variation within a population.

we can observe this every day.

it's the extrapolation that one creature turned into another creature that has never been validated, or observed......with over 150 + years of trying.

and yes, there is a very good competing theory, but I'm saving that for another thread.

the use of genetics to establish human chimp phylogeny uses exactly the same principles as paternity testing, and because no creationist has ever shown any reasonable objection to assuming that heredity crosses species barriers, it remains the best explanation

the fact that we've observed speciations, means that in a sense we have seen one species turning into two

 

[Bushido216]

Bushido said "Can you mate with a chimp"

Don't give him any ideas. Chimps are very strong animals, if he is inspired to attempt it, he could get seriously injured.

All in the name of science and defeating evolution, eh?

 

[revolutio]

Cannibalism isn't wrong. It is the murder people assume is coupled with it that is immoral.

 

[Bushido216]

Or like those guys in Germany? Yuck!

 

[Split Rock]

I disagree.

evolution does not tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us.....genetic studies tell us that chimpanzees are closely related to us, as are mice.

see the difference?.

Incorrect. Genetic studies tell us that chimpanzee DNA is more similar to ours than to mice DNA. The fact that chimpanzee DNA is more similar to ours than to mouse DNA agrees with comparative anatomy, embryology, etc. Evolution tells us why.. because we are more closely related to chimps by common decent than to mice.

we both work with the same evidence.

the difference is that your interpretations of that evidence differ from the interpretations of others.

when two scientists who attend the same university, the same classes, and peruse the same evidence yet come to opposing conclusions, then the evidence is still open to all competing theories.

Which scientists are these? The vast majority of scientists have no doubts about evolution.. only arguments over the details and mechanisms. There is no competing theory in science.

but the point here is that evolution (bacteria to bears variety) does not tell us anything but a story right now, because it nothing more than one interpretation of said evidence.

It is the one interpretation of said evidence that explains what we see and fits in with geology, paleontology, genetics, etc. This is Evolution's strength.

 

[Nathan David]

what makes a human human?

what are the parameters?

Having two human parents.

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

if so, why?

I consider murder morally wrong, so murdering humans to eat them is an extension of that.

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

Survival is not my ultimate goal. But even if it were, condoning cannabilism would make me less likely to survive, as someone might kill and eat me.

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

The number of chromosones is one tell-tale. But if you don't have access to a biology lab, other clues would be the different skeletal structures, particularly the length and shape of the legs and arms, shape of the hips, the shape of the skull, and the difference in hand structure. Not to mention chimps have a lot of hair where humans do not.