Evolution: Religion of Death - Why is it wrong to kill (Clarification)?

The reason is: Because we are social mammals. Killing is obviously bad for group survival. I am not reading the rest of your text, as I saw you were bemoaning not having an answer; I have given you one.

It is wrong to kill because you have one less person to help you, others won't trust you and might not help you either, someone may seek revenge, you may feel guilty later, you risk your life trying to kill the person because they would fight back.

If you're asking about eugenics then there just is no good reason. You destroy the labor force, genetic diversity goes down, and the economy would suffer more ways as well.

Just claiming a specific group of people is inferior doesn't make it true and therefore genocide is unjustified. Obviously Hitler had no idea what evolution was.

Evolution has nothing to do with the cause or the purpose of the universe

And it fits the definition of science exactly.

I don't know why you make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. I just see evolution.

Mutations are a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome. It has nothing to do with benefiting.

Fallacy of the continuum. In a population the next generation is indistinguishably more adapted to the environment so you could say it is an almost negligible difference between each generation. But after MANY years the population will eventually be distinguishably more adapted to the environment. Those small changes throughout generations do add up.

It may be impossible to make a dividing line between where the original species ended and when it has evolved but that doesn't mean there is no distinction.

Death isn't the way to get ahead. Living in a community is actually much more beneficial for us.

This stuff sounds like it was taken from a Creationist website so I don't see how you can claim you demonstrated a substantial amount of knowledge on evolution.

If a mutation is beneficial, like the mutation of continuing to be able to digest milk after puberty, it will spread among the population, which is why the milk-digesting mutation started around the Caucasus Mountains and spread as far as the Masai in Africa. Then those who have that mutation will have more and better sources of nutrition, so they won't die out at as high a rate as others, so the percentage of the population that has it will increase. The people who died in this example died of starvation or malnutrition, not by being murdered. So that argument does not support murder. Other gene-pools of the same species, whether separated be distance, social class, religion or nationality, would not have to die off for a mutation to spread in one limited group. That's why we and the other great apes both survived, even though we changed in different ways.

Hitler may have wanted to improve the human race, but he sure went about it wrong. Breeders have been improving dogs and cattle for a long time. But they don't do it by deciding Great Danes are "superior" to poodles and killing off all the poodles, or that Guernseys are better than Holsteins and killing all the Holsteins. Hitler did not understand genetics/evolution either, so don't feel bad.

The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is how long it takes. If you accept the idea that the universe is only about 6000 years old, there would not be enough time for all the evolution that has happened. But since the universe is now considered to be 13 1/2 to 14 billion years old, there has been plenty of time.

Ok well if you've actually read up on Evolution, you will also be aware of "The Selfish Gene"

The Selfish Gene means that during the prehistoric time of human history, all of humanity had to untie together for our own survival, and it wouldn't of benefited us to kill each other off. It appears that we have held onto this selfish gene of the centuries and so human beings have somewhat of a human nature to stay united as we are all the same specie.

Killing other human beings, just because you think certain nationalities or cultures or ethnics are inferior, isn't going to help humanity on a global scale. If we were to justify killing other human beings, there wouldn't be anything left to kill and humanity would be no more.

Yes there have been many species that have died from extinction, unfortunately they were not strong enough to cope with the ever changing environment of our planet. There are animals that have been killed off by other animals who need to kill to survive, yes. However these creatures are at a very different evolutionary state than we are currently at. It is possible that these creatures minds and physical appearances may gradually evolve over time . Evolution is a gradual and yet ongoing process.

Ultimately we need each other for a society and community to function, we need stability as well.

I can sit here and write saying that in my opinion that it is not ethical to kill of your own kind, but all that would be is an opinion. As it happens I do find it unethical, because it would not be honourable after what our species has been true right from our very early stages of evolution. We can accomplish so much more if we work to gather as a unity and community of humans on a massive global scale.

Evolutionary standards will happen, when they naturally happen, there is nothing remarkable about screwing around with the laws of nature and natural selection. One of the most remarkable processes of nature, is the life that comes out of it, and I cherish that life because I find it breathtakingly beautiful and the matter that I only get it once makes it that much more cherish-able for me.

I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, if you haven't already done so.

Well, I think the reason you have not received an actual answer is because many people find a person promoting murder as a little chilling and unsettling, surly you can understand that. Nothing shocks me anymore, I've heard all the religious extremist opinions, all the scripture quotes and so called individuals who seem to think that their opinion is so wonderfully original. My bet is, the majority of Atheist you read your question the last time, read the words "why is it wrong to kill" and they just didn't want to listen anymore. I mean it is a bit of a twisted thing to say, they probably half expected you to promote cannibalism to be honest. But as I say, nothing shocks me, and I would of be ready to respond even if you were to ask why cannibalism is wrong.

I hope my answer was of some help.

You still ****** it up. I skimmed over it due to the many mistakes, but I'll tell you one way in which you were wrong.

"'Mutations created something new.' No they haven't, never has 1 mutation been seen to increase information. Cows with extra legs are mutations, it already had the information for a leg (not an increase in information), and it can't run any faster (that's not beneficial). If it grows a wing, then that would be interesting, tell me that."

A cow with an extra leg is an example of a mutation creating something new. Yes, all cows have the information for a leg. But a normal cow does not have the information for an extra leg. That requires a mutation. Also, a mutation does not have to be beneficial. In fact, it is almost _never_ beneficial. That's why evolution is such a long process.

maximum of blunders in one question. Breathtaking. Macro evolution (a word which you creationists invented and at the instant are asking the evolutionists to describe, haha) has been stated in e.g. fruit flies. Google it. "you will in no way see a fish provide start to a non-fish)" blablabla, this has been refuted and defined maximum of situations that i start to think of which you in simple terms dont care. " "Mutations created something new." No they have not, in no way has a million mutation been considered to develop information. " you're the two mendacity or you at the instant are not properly cautioned. Google nylon ingesting bacteria. "Cows with better legs are mutations, it already had the information for a leg (not a upward push in information)" not the entire certainty. sure, it had the "information" for a scarcity, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it better the information of what share legs it could have. entire bogus this occasion, why did you convey it? "and it could not run any quicker (that is not effective)." So, not effective? First section you're precise in. The mutation wouldnt be effective and as a result it wouldnt proceed to exist in comming generations. very good, you discovered, that not each mutation is helpful (actual, maximum arent). "If it grows a wing, then which would be thrilling." Oh, killing spree, precise back! If suddenly cows without wings could initiate giving start to cows with wings, it could additionally be an unrefutable disprove of evolution. "which would be version interior of a species, you will get all varieties of canines and cats yet that canines won't substitute right into a bear and that cat won't substitute right into a tiger." Whos says it could? "this could be the place a upward push in genetic complexity/information could be required which has not been stated." See above. And in destiny, as you at present comprehend greater advantageous, end employing that unfavorable argument. And while you're particularly fascinated in the respond of your question, please study richard dawkins the selfish gene and after that richard dawkins the terrific coach in the international. the venture is in simple terms to complicated to place in writing it out in one common sentence.

Society largely requires the feeling of safety within it to function properly. Morality and social behavior are inextricably linked. In order for a society to work, and to ensure our survival, we work together, and don't do things that hurt or otherwise piss each other off unless it's necessary, or we're in some way defective. Threatening the survival of the rest of the herd threatens your own survival. The system works to keep its constituents alive and maintaining a good quality of life.

Everything about not killing makes sense.

According to the theory of evolution, nature decides who dies and who does not. Thus, for us to step in and kill, based upon what we "perceive" as right and wrong, side-steps the natural selection of nature, thus disrupting the natural course of evolution.

However, most evolutionist won't know that. I probably educated many of them.

However, we also know (at least those who are not afraid to admit there is a creator), that evolution, based upon the theory, is not plausible. Evolution depends upon mutations to evolve. Yet, there is no known "good" mutation. And,There is not a shred of evidence that supports species moving from one species to another. The fossil evidence suggest that each species simply "showed up" complete as they are today.

That gets us back to the original question again.... "whats wrong with killing?" The true answer is that God is the author and finisher of life. It is His place to decides when a person is born and when He is to die. We as humans do not have the right to take another persons life, outside of capital punishment in some cases, and of course for self protection.

"According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations (changes) which should benefit them but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish otherwise it's newly advanced information get's blended back in with the population."

This is a deliberately dishonest presentation of evolution so you are a freakin liar, so why should anyone take you seriously?

Death is wrong because God said its wrong and wrote his laws upon our hearts.

Only God has the right to give and take life. If we murder we over step our bounds of authority and

put ourselves in Gods place.