Evolution: The Religion of Death - Why is it wrong to kill?

I'm trying to think of a polite way to say "you really need to go back to school and learn more about evolution", and that's the most polite way I can think of to phrase it.

There's a lot wrong with that first paragraph, so let's take it a little at a time.

First, we have observed many instances of beneficial mutations taking place. In fact, the eyes you're reading this with are the result of a beneficial mutation. Most mammals only carry two opsin genes, one to distinguish light from dark, and one to distinguish yellow from blue... so they don't have great color vision. However, Old World monkeys and apes (which humans are) have trichromatic vision because in our ancestry, our blue-yellow opsin gene was copied twice. Eventually, part of it mutated so that some of our cone structures pick up longer wavelengths of light. As a result, we can also distinguish between green and red, which gives us much better color vision and much better detail oriented vision than other mammals.

As having such vision conveys a distinct survival advantage, eventually the new allele became distributed throughout the genome of that first protosimian's descendants.

Start here. They cite a few positive mutations we've observed.

http://www.youtube.com/user/aronra?blend=1&ob=4#p/...

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

If you don't like any of those, move on to the Italian wall lizard, which was introduced into an environment where there was a shortage of food for the lizards to eat. Within thirty years, the lizards had evolved an entirely new part in their digestive system so they could digest the food in their new environment. You can read more about it here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/08041...

If evolving a new body part so your species won't starve to death doesn't represent a beneficial mutation in your species' genome, I don't know what would qualify.

Second, it is written nowhere in the Theory of Evolution that one species must die for another to evolve. It's true they often do because organisms evolve in response to their environment, and the newer, more adapted generations eventually unseat the older generation, but it is not a requirement of evolution, and there are quite a few examples of species which live over broad ranges of habitats where only part of the original population evolved into a new species, while the rest of the population just kept on being the old species.

Third, death is not how we get ahead. Death isn't programmed into evolution, except in those rare instances where, say, the male of the species automatically dies after mating or the offspring eat the mother upon birth. Otherwise, death is the result of a flaw in the evolutionary process. Evolution only favors organisms up to the time they reproduce and pass on their genes. Any genetic maladies an organism has that kills it after that can't be bred out of the process because it's not relevant to the breeding process. As a result, evolution hasn't created too many species with indefinite lifespans. That said, we do have several examples of organisms which are thousands of years old, and a couple of organisms out there that are literally fifty to a hundred thousand years old... so there are cases where a lifeform seems to have evolved out the shortcomings of natural limits on its lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-living_o...

So why is it wrong to kill? It's obviously not. We do it all the time, and tend not to blink an eyelash about it when it suits our purposes to do so. Who told you we were any different?

It doesn't concern us in the least if we kill a broccoli plant or a cabbage, or a stalk of corn, or a tree to build a house. It doesn't generally concern us to kill cows and chickens and lobsters or anything else we nosh on... and we're selective about which humans it concerns us to kill.

Ever seen a nation grieve their dead from a war? Ever seen them grieve over the dead from the OTHER side?

We generally have a prohibition against killing members of our species which are included in our tribal group because it's detrimental to our tribal group as a whole, but outside that, humans don't have too much trouble mustering up the cajones to kill large numbers of their fellow humans in grotesque and horrible ways, and we don't have many moral qualms with taking what we were after and getting on with our lives if we were lucky enough to win the fight.

As we're more complex creatures than most, we have the mental capacity to think on a larger scale, so we do try these days to remember that it benefits us all if we work things out amicably first and try to avoid fighting altogether (can't suffer casualties on your side in a war you don't wage), so our international prohibitions against it are largely self-interested... but as you may have noticed from that little tiff in Iraq, we're still very capable of taking the fight to a tribe that's pissing us off and not shedding too many tears over what they lose in the process.

"According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations which should benefit them"

Depends. "Natural selection" is the method by which offspring carry on traits. With every organism, there are traits which they share, and some they don't. If there is an unfavorable trait amongst an organism which causes their environment to kill them, there will be less and less of that trait which can be passed on to offsprings. I have blue eyes. My father has brown eyes. My mother has blue eyes. My grandfathers both had blue eyes. Because my family has a dominance of blue eyes within our genes, I ended up with blue eyes instead of a different eye color.

"(never been observed)"

Eye color. Hair color. Skin color. Ever wondered why a white father and a white mother never produces a black baby?

"but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish (this is just the gist of it, I won't go into complex details)."

Just the organisms which have the unfavorable traits. It's not a forced thing. Organisms with the non-favored trait die more than those with more favorable ones.

"So basically, death is how we get ahead."

Pretty much, yeah. With humanity, however, we preserve every single human; regardless of their... intellect, physical ability, or appearance. Our industrialization and isolation from nature is generally the cause of that.

"Why is it wrong to kill? Why is it not a good thing? Why not promote it?"

Wrong is subjective. Good is subjective. Personally, if it is impossible to find the cure to a genetic disease or sickness, I would rather root out the genes of that sickness so nobody has to suffer from it.

"This primarily pertains to evolutionists but if you have a specific religion or something then your insights on this are welcome."

"Evolutionists" makes me feel negative; especially because it's not a lifestyle nor a detail which pertains to specific people. A vast majority of people accept evolution.

Evolution is not a religion of any kind, and does not in any way even resemble a religion.

--According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations which should benefit them (never been observed) --

False. Evolution has no goals or destination. It is not linear. There is no hierarchy. There is no law or rule that mutations must somehow benefit the species, and many mutations (see: genetic defects) do not benefit a species. Human beings, for example, are afflicted with around 4000 various genetic mutations that do not benefit us as a species.

And it HAS been observed.

-- but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish (this is just the gist of it, I won't go into complex details).--

False. Two species, even from the same branch of evolution, can coexist. There is no rule or law of nature that says a new species must replace the old. You can't go into complex details because I doubt you have any. If you do, perhaps you should present them, with sources. I would love to see where you get your (false) information.

Most humans eat meat. We do kill, frequently. We are not supposed to kill each other because we are thinking, feeling, empathic, social creatures. Killing our own kind is counter-productive. And yet, with the right kind of justification, we do kill each other - frequently. Wars, prejudice, self-defense, capital punishment...

Evolution isn't a religion; it's science. It's about living things, all of which DO eventually die, but isn't primarily about death itself.

It's wrong to kill because that's depriving someone of life that they have the right to finish killing.

You don't understand evolution AT ALL. Mutations DO happen. Most have no effect on the resulting living thing; many have negative consequences; a very few ARE beneficial. This HAS been observed. This is how drug-resistent microbes came to be.

Uh, no, the rest of the population does NOT have to die. (You do NOT understand evolution -- the problem isn't that you're leaving details out, but that you have not the first clue as to what evolution SAYS. There are innumerable books, documentaries, websites, even lectures on YouTube that explain it clearly. Find some and learn something.)

Everything dies. Some critters reproduce before they die; they therefore leave off-spring; things that die without having reproduced do NOT leave off-spring.

Humans consider it wrong to kill because we are HUMAN, and have the capacity to empathize, and have a value for life.

The best answer to why humans evolved to have morality can be found in the book: Darwin's Dangerous Idea -- the last section specifically addresses morality; the rest explains evolution (though it would probably go over your head -- maybe Climbing Mount Improbable would be better).

At the very least, to get the beginnings of an understanding of evolution, go to Understanding Evolution on UC Berkeley's web site.

"According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations which should benefit them (never been observed)"

Look up Flavobacterium Species K172.

"but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish (this is just the gist of it, I won't go into complex details). So basically, death is how we get ahead."

WRONG, the other members of the population die out naturally, usually of age as the beneficial mutation spreads through the population generation by generation, or they die of starvation, or other consequence of failing to adapt, NOT by being murdered. If both populations are equally suited to the environment, then the species diverges into two population that continue to thrive.

Murder is wrong because it lessens the ability of the population as a whole to survive, also, you may be killed in retaliation.

You obviously have no understanding of evolution, and so I would advise that before you embarrass yourself further, you read a book about it by a legitimate biologist.

Or take a class, or just ask someone who's more knowledgeable than you, but don't just listen to mis-characterizations by other people who also don't know what they're talking about (which is pretty much every creationist out there).

Evolution isn't a religion...

According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations which should benefit them (not necassarily, creatures with mutations not benificial in a given set of circumstances will die) (never been observed)(Actually yes it has, on several occasions. One notable study was a 20+ year experiment with E.Coli, in which some of the E.Coli gained the ability to draw sustinence from something they couln't normally) but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish (this is just the gist of it, I won't go into complex details) (the rest is outcompeted - this is a slow process. For example in humans people often prefer taller men/women and, as a result of this the human race gets taller. Shorter people are not an inferior race, nor should they be killed.). So basically, death is how we get ahead (not by us silly boy, but through competition).

Why is it wrong to kill? Why is it not a good thing? Why not promote it? (because a set of evolutionary morals says no - and killing does NOT benefit the close knot societies that primates enjoy).

Go back to school f**ktard...

such a lot of errors in a unmarried query. Breathtaking. Macro evolution (a phrase that you simply creationists invented and at the moment are asking the evolutionists to give an explanation for, haha) has been discovered in e.g. fruit flies. Google it. "You will certainly not see a fish deliver start to a non-fish)" blablabla, this has been refuted and defined so usually that i begin to suppose that you simply dont care. " "Mutations created anything new." No they have not, certainly not has one million mutation been visible to broaden understanding. " You are both mendacity or you're no longer good educated. Google nylon consuming micro organism. "Cows with further legs are mutations, it already had the understanding for a leg (no longer an broaden in understanding)" Not the complete fact. Yes, it had the "understanding" for an absence, nevertheless it accelerated the understanding of what number of legs it'll have. Total bogus this illustration, why did you deliver it? "and it can not run any quicker (that is no longer moneymaking)." So, no longer moneymaking? First facet you're proper in. The mutation wouldnt be moneymaking and accordingly it wouldnt continue to exist in comming generations. Very well, you found out, that no longer each mutation is moneymaking (truthfully, so much arent). "If it grows a wing, then that might be exciting." Oh, killing spree, proper once more! If all of the sudden cows with out wings might begin giving start to cows with wings, it might also be an unrefutable disprove of evolution. "That might be version inside a species, you'll get all varieties of puppies and cats however that puppy won't change into a undergo and that cat won't change into a tiger." Whos says it might? "This might be wherein an broaden in genetic complexity/understanding might be required which has no longer been discovered." See above. And in long term, as you presently realize bigger, quit utilising that deficient argument. And if you're relatively interested within the reply of your query, please learn richard dawkins the egocentric gene and after that richard dawkins the finest exhibit in the world. The subject is simply to problematic to jot down it out in a single functional sentence.

No. Species evolve when individuals with favorable characters within a population reproduce more than the others. Evolution is not about killing, it is about reproductive advantage. All organisms ultimately die, in one way or another. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals.

Why is it wrong to kill? For me it's not always wrong. I don't imagine myself doing it, but I think I would do it if there is a really good reason.

I think it is wrong almost always, though, because you are depriving someone of the possibility of experiencing a full development.

You are confusing two completely different aspects killing and death.

1. We kill all the time. Every time we eat something has died to provide the food. Products like wood and paper result from killing trees. We cannot exist without killing other organisms. Whenever you walk you will be killing countless minute organisms.

2. It is morally wrong for humans to kill other humans. Morality is the most basic set of rules that allows a group of humans to live and work together. Without a basic set of appropriate moral rules (and most moral rules are pretty much universal) society tends to disintegrate. Not killing another person is one of the most fundamental rules of morality. Without it, people in the group could not trust that they would be safe, so could no trust others.

Wrong. Parent populations need not die off in order for new populations to flourish. It sometimes happen, but often does not. Which is why Darwin saw finches adapted to the Galapagos Islands, but significantly different from the parent populations on the mainland.

As to social species, like primates, the ethic of reciprocity confers adaptive benefits upon certain populations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_The...

According to the ethic of reciprocity (think "golden rule") you don't kill because you don't want to be killed by others. Simple, right. Even Jesus admits the golden rule is the summation of all the law and the writing of the prophets, but statements of this ethic were thousands of years old when he re-iterated it.