# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/701 "2010-09-08T06:39:15Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> DNA just as strongly supports a common designer. > > What about those sections of DNA that are errors? A prominent example is chunks of retrovirus DNA that got inserted into one of our ancestor’s germ cells, and then gets copied to all its descendants. That chunk of DNA can’t do anything, it’s just a chunk of a virus wedged into our DNA, clearly and unambiguously. And guess what? Animals that share a common ancestor, share the same retrovirus DNA chunks, with possibly some new ones added since the latest common ancestor. We share many of those errors with chimps and the other great apes. This fact is incompatible with the idea of a common designer, unless that designer does so much wholesale copying from one species to another that he copies the mistakes as well. > > Francis Collins’ idea of theistic evolution includes common descent. What about yours? > > If Haeckel’s drawings were presented improperly, then shame on those textbook publishers. However, as with most creationist claims, I don’t think that the picture is what they make it out to be. Patrick Frank dug into a set of 15 prominent biology texts from the last 75 years and found this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Of the 15 books, only 5 show Haeckel’s drawings, two in whole, three in part. > > > > Of those 5, only one presents the biogenetic law uncritically, and that book is the 1937 H. C. Skinner, T. Smith, F. M. Wheat “Textbook in Educational Biology”. > > > > The other 4 of these 5, along with another 7 that actually mention Haeckel, either dismiss Haeckel’s laws as crude or incorrect, or else critique them in the sense that embryos resemble one another at early stages, but that adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities. > > > > Four textbooks didn’t mention Haeckel at all, or the biogenetic theory. > > > > The first three entries below, arranged by ascending publication date, are among Pepcis’ list, though the last two are later editions. > > > > Note that not one of the three support Pepcis’ accusation of fraud propagation. In every case, Haeckel’s law is critiqued, and Storer, et al. end with “Thus there is no precise recapitulation.” > > > > Notice also that even texts written in the 1920’s discussed the biogenetic law critically, noting the adaptationist pressures on embryos as causative of differentiation among them. That means even before the 1960 date shouted by Pepcis, the biogenetic law was under general critical review in biology. > > > > In all cases, even where Haeckel’s drawings appear, the representation of what they indicate is critically given and the biogenetic law is rejected as either wrong or a crude approximation. > > > > There is a clear distinction to be made, therefore, between the presentation of Haeckel’s drawings and the propagation of a myth, most especially deceitful myth, about them. > > > > There is no apparent evidence of a conspiracy to deceive or of a propagation of myth about Haeckel or his law among biologists. > > > > However, evidently the reverse is true among creationists, since the evidence doesn’t support their claim. Meaning either they didn’t research the evidence (as Pepcis clearly did not), or else they LIED about it. 1\> Junk DNA is not actually ‘junk’. You’ll need to do some more reading on that…space doesn’t permit. 2\> Collins view of evolution is true to common descent…absolutely. I don;t shar ethat view, but I still greatly admire his work. 3\> Haeckels drawings were represented in textbooks as true from the time of their publication in 1868 until 2000. That’s the facts. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/702 "2010-09-08T06:43:23Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > > [@Apollyon](#): > > > > …while the mere existence of DNA as a common building block doesn’t prove common descent, the research on molecular evolution … does strongly support common descent… > > You might want to re-read what I wrote, and what you appear to disagree with – specifically I was agreeing with you re. the simple existence of a common building block, the key point was regarding molecular evolution. > > Philosopher of science Karl Popper claimed in the 1970s that darwinism was not a testable scientific theory – his point being that in order for a theory to be good science it must make testable predictions, it must be inherently capable of being falsified, and Popper felt that Darwinian evolution did not make these predictions. Popper subsequently revised his criticism, but the point remains that testable predictions must be possible. > > A good example of this sort of testable experiment comes from three NZ researchers, and was reported in _Nature_ in 1982. Their argument ran something like this: > > The sequences of amino acids in proteins conveys evolutionary information, and using this information it is possible to construct a family tree which shows when different species split from ancestral lines. From the information of a single protein it is possible to construct only one family tree that involves the minimum number of mutations. This one tree doesn’t prove evolution either, it just provides a possible explanation of the observed protein differences. > > But then, the testable prediction: the minimal tree constructed for say _cytochrome c_ from two species should be the same minimal tree for a different protein but the same two species. > > When the researchers looked at 5 proteins and 11 species (and 34,459,425 possible trees), they found all the trees they did get to be very similar, with statistical analysis showing less than 1 chance in 100,000 that the results were co-incidence. > > (All based on information from chapter 10 of John Gribbin’s book _In Search of the Double Helix_ – an excellent and very readable science writer). > > Collins seems to think so – and he is not a proponent of ID, so I’m guessing he’s in the “all the rules set up at the beginning” camp rather than, for example, Behe’s irreducible complexity and the implication of a handyman god who has to tinker as he goes along. > > > [@](#): > > > > 3\> This isn’t about ‘knowing’ the creator. We’re far enough away frm the original header as it is! > > Perhaps not, although your arguments have been ranging all over the place, and when object morality enters the conversation we’re making quite a leap from a first cause creator. The entry of objective morality into the discussion came abut for two reasons. 1. Objective morality speaks to an agent beyond mankind. 2. Evolution alone cannot explain objective morality, benevolent behaviour etc. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/703 "2010-09-08T06:46:05Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let’s clarify something here. > > > > Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: > > > > a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, > > > > or is it > > > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? > > It may be a bit of both, specifically “a” with regards to my family / gene-line / tribe, and “b” with regards to everyone else. > > Humans in pre-state societies show precious little aversion to the murder of anyone outside of their immediate clan – despite the silliness of the _Noble Savage_ sentimentalism. Studies of the Yanomamo people for example suggest that 1 in 3 adult males died from inter-village warfare, and more importantly – for the naturalist explanations – men who participated in killings had more wives and children than those who did not. That is a pretty strong form of natural selection in favour of bopping the neighbours on the head. The alternatives I outlined have been presented here by different posters, so thanks for your take on it. Here’s a question. If ‘hard wiring’ is involved, and this is not a survival instinct, what place does evolution have in explaining this or being a mechanism for it? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/704 "2010-09-08T06:47:58Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1. Objective morality speaks to an agent beyond mankind. No it doesn’t. You’ve been shown in painful detail dozens of times. Why aren’t you admitting when you’re wrong? Do you think that by pretending to debate that you’ll win through attrition? > [@](#): > > 1. Evolution alone cannot explain objective morality, benevolent behaviour etc. Sure it can. Just like it can explain your lust. Or your complete inability to understand simple answers to your questions. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/705 "2010-09-08T06:52:33Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> The universe exists. Nothing that exists has EVER come into existence without cause. As said again and again, virtual particles. Quantum mechanics is full of causeless events. If you don’t like to admit that, tough. > [@aigonz](#): > > Eiither the universe has always existed, or it had a first cause. That first cause is either an intelligence beyond the universe, or it is a natural event that deifies all current eplanation and observation. And where did this supposed intelligence come from? as has been pointed out again and again, saying “goddidit” only pushes the question a step back. > [@aigonz](#): > > The entry of objective morality into the discussion came abut for two reasons. > > 1. Objective morality speaks to an agent beyond mankind. > 2. Evolution alone cannot explain objective morality, benevolent behaviour etc. Evolution explains benevolence just fine regardless of how many times you say it doesn’t. And there’s no truly objective morality for it to explain. And again, if there WAS some kind of objective morality, we have no way of knowing it and no reason to care about it. if “objective morality” contradicts my own I’ll follow my own. And, again, God or gods are simply besides the point when it comes to morality. Your imaginary friend didn’t create your hypothetical “objective morality”; if he did, it wouldn’t be objective morality, it would be his morality. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/706 "2010-09-08T06:52:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1. In a tooth and claw society, how did the species survive until this aversion evolved? > > What the fuck is a “tooth and claw society?” > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Why is this aversion no longer hardwired into all animals? > > What is this “no longer” shit. It IS wired into many animals. If you’d bothered to check any of the links you’d been provided with, you’d know that. 1\> Do some reading. A tooth and claw society is one based on the evolutionary premise that actions are motivated by survival. 2\> Wired into ‘many’ animals. What you are suggesting is that some animals do not have this aversion. So how did they survive? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/707 "2010-09-08T06:54:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let’s clarify something here. > > > > Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: > > > > a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, > > > > or is it > > > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? > > It is a. It has nothing to do with a subconscious deisre for survival, anymore than the sex drive really has anything to do with wanting to reproduce. The fact that the empathic response results in more stable communities and more successful reproductive efforts is an incidental result of the emotional responses. None of it has a damn thing to do with the subconscious. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It just so happens that populations with those genes had a better chance of survival than those who did not. The notion that unconscious desires can affect genetics is ridiculous. When you people can agree on what the answer is, we may move forward. Three posters, three answers. Geez. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/708 "2010-09-08T06:56:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> Wired into ‘many’ animals. What you are suggesting is that some animals do not have this aversion. So how did they survive? They typically don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/709 "2010-09-08T07:02:03Z")
I think there’s a Russian saying, “If three people tell you you’re drunk, lie down.” I’m not sure why I thought of that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/710 "2010-09-08T07:02:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Look I’ll make it easier for you. > > > > Are you suggesting that we instinctively and unconsciously know not to kill our brother because it will deplete our gene pool in some remote manner? Is that part of the trigger? > > No. We don’t have “knowledge” of anything. We are instinctively _repulsed_ by the idea because we are biologically hardwired to feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us (i.e. the empathic response). There isn’t any “knwledge” involved. It’s an innate emotional reaction, and we had it before we were even humans. You can still see it in other animals. It isn’t magic, and it isn’t objective. You should be familiar with this response yourself, unless you have had your empathic response damaged in some way. OK, so let’s go with hard wiring. So we are hard wired to “feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us”. 1\> As you subscribe to common descent, I assume you would posit that this empathetic response ‘evolved’ from the very earliest life form. If so, how did the earliest life form capable of killing survive while this response evolved? Are you suggesting this response developed in the earliest stages of evolution? 2\> How did we develop an empathy for strangers? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/711 "2010-09-08T07:03:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> Wired into ‘many’ animals. What you are suggesting is that some animals do not have this aversion. So how did they survive? > > They typically don’t. But ‘some’ do? Which ones didn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/712 "2010-09-08T07:11:37Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > They typically don’t. > > But ‘some’ do? Which ones didn’t? The ones that got themselves expended, like those exploding ants. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/713 "2010-09-08T07:15:36Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > OK, so let’s go with hard wiring. > > So we are hard wired to “feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us”. > > 1\> As you subscribe to common descent, I assume you would posit that this empathetic response ‘evolved’ from the very earliest life form. If so, how did the earliest life form capable of killing survive while this response evolved? Are you suggesting this response developed in the earliest stages of evolution? Your grasp of evolution is terrible. Why would this be in the earliest form of life? Is every trait present on Earth now present in the earliest form of life? Did the first replicating cells have the ability to fly, grow fur, echo locate and see into the ultraviolet? You’re so messed up on the details, it’s no wonder you rebel against the idea. > [@](#): > > 2\> How did we develop an empathy for strangers? I already explained this to you and you didn’t understand it. But lets try again. You look at Jessica Alba and you get excited and want to fuck her. This is your body’s way to get you to breed. But your mind doesn’t think about that, all you know is you’re being compelled to chat her up. You see a pic of Jessica Alba in the shower from Machete. You still want to fuck her. So you beat one off. Good for you. Why did you evolve the ability to masturbate to photos? Early man had no photos! The answer, as if you’re still reading this, is you didn’t. You developed a set of responses to find young, fit women exciting. When you see a photo of a young, fit woman _the same fucking switches go off._ So lets go on. While your ancestors were evolving in small tribal bands they got wired to protect children. Because the people who protected their children got are more likely to pass on their genes. However, when you are in a burning building and across a smoke filled room you see a crying toddler, _the same fucking switches go off_. I don’t really care that you have no intention of actually listening or developing knowledge, but you shouldn’t promulgate ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/714 "2010-09-08T07:19:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > But ‘some’ do? Which ones didn’t? > > The ones that got themselves expended, like those exploding ants. These exploding ants are irrelevant to the subject. This is about an empathtic response, not a biological or physical one. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/715 "2010-09-08T07:26:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > OK, so let’s go with hard wiring. > > > > So we are hard wired to “feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us”. > > > > 1\> As you subscribe to common descent, I assume you would posit that this empathetic response ‘evolved’ from the very earliest life form. If so, how did the earliest life form capable of killing survive while this response evolved? Are you suggesting this response developed in the earliest stages of evolution? > > Your grasp of evolution is terrible. Why would this be in the earliest form of life? Is every trait present on Earth now present in the earliest form of life? Did the first replicating cells have the ability to fly, grow fur, echo locate and see into the ultraviolet? > > You’re so messed up on the details, it’s no wonder you rebel against the idea. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> How did we develop an empathy for strangers? > > I already explained this to you and you didn’t understand it. But lets try again. > > You look at Jessica Alba and you get excited and want to fuck her. This is your body’s way to get you to breed. But your mind doesn’t think about that, all you know is you’re being compelled to chat her up. > > You see a pic of Jessica Alba in the shower from Machete. You still want to fuck her. So you beat one off. Good for you. > > Why did you evolve the ability to masturbate to photos? Early man had no photos! > > The answer, as if you’re still reading this, is you didn’t. You developed a set of responses to find young, fit women exciting. When you see a photo of a young, fit woman _the same fucking switches go off._ > > So lets go on. While your ancestors were evolving in small tribal bands they got wired to protect children. Because the people who protected their children got are more likely to pass on their genes. > > However, when you are in a burning building and across a smoke filled room you see a crying toddler, _the same fucking switches go off_. > > I don’t really care that you have no intention of actually listening or developing knowledge, but you shouldn’t promulgate ignorance. You either can’t or don’t read what I write. 1. You ask “Why would this be in the earliest form of life?” But I didn’t say it was. What I asked was “how did the earliest life form capable of killing survive while this response evolved?” 2. You dissertation on procreation, although humorous, is irrelevant. The desire to procreate can easily be explained by an impulse re survival. The empathtic repsoonse cannot. 3. Likewise your child illustration also misses the point. The question is about why we would have an empathetic distaste to murder a neighbouring tribesman with whom we compete for food. Can I suggest you take a little time to actually read the repsonses and formulate a sensble answer before hitting ‘submit’. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/716 "2010-09-08T07:27:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > The ones that got themselves expended, like those exploding ants. > > These exploding ants are irrelevant to the subject. This is about an empathtic response, not a biological or physical one. All mental responses are biological. The brain, a biological organ, creates consciousness. There is no evidence for the existence of a soul. None at all. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/717 "2010-09-08T07:35:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let’s clarify something here. > > > > Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: > > > > a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, > > > > or is it > > > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? > > It is a. It has nothing to do with a subconscious deisre for survival, anymore than the sex drive really has anything to do with wanting to reproduce. The fact that the empathic response results in more stable communities and more successful reproductive efforts is an incidental result of the emotional responses. None of it has a damn thing to do with the subconscious. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It just so happens that populations with those genes had a better chance of survival than those who did not. The notion that unconscious desires can affect genetics is ridiculous. I would suggest that on this last point you are odds with many involved in evolutionary psychology. This quote is from an article by Raymond Tallis for the National Humanities Centre. The full article is at [http://onthehuman.org/2009/09/does-evolution-explain-our-behaviour/:](http://onthehuman.org/2009/09/does-evolution-explain-our-behaviour/:) “Evolutionary psychology assumes that human behaviour is being shaped, indeed determined, by processes of natural selection: those modes of behaviour that favour the replication of the genome will preferentially survive. We behave as we do because we are designed to optimise the chances of our surviving long enough to replicate our genetic material. Men who sleep with a lot of women, traders who aim to maximise their returns on their investments – or at least attempt to – are simply responding to the fundamental biological imperative to make the world safe for their genes.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/718 "2010-09-08T07:40:49Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > You either can’t or don’t read what I write. I read most of it. It’s usually the same bullshit where you ignore evidence and state grandly that none has been offered. > [@](#): > > 1. You ask “Why would this be in the earliest form of life?” But I didn’t say it was. What I asked was “how did the earliest life form capable of killing survive while this response evolved?” Not all animals have similar emotions. > [@](#): > > 1. You dissertation on procreation, although humorous, is irrelevant. > The desire to procreate can easily be explained by an impulse re survival. > The empathtic repsoonse cannot. Yes it can. Because the desire to help others made primitive tribal bands more successful. Imagine if you will: Tribe A: Is the asshole libertarian tribe. Everyone is out for themselves. At the first sign of weakness they gang up and kill members of their own. They don’t cooperate or assist each other. Tribe B: The Jesus-Like communist tribe. They assist each other, because they have an evolved trait that makes helping others feel good. Which of the tribes is going to do better? Which is going to be more successful and sire more children? > [@](#): > > 1. Likewise your child illustration also misses the point. > The question is about why we would have an empathetic distaste to murder a neighbouring tribesman with whom we compete for food. People we are competing with are enemies. And I think you may have noticed that humans regularly kill their enemies. For instance you would never burn a child to death (I assume). But if you were a fighter pilot you would drop a bomb that would probably cause a child to burn to death. But you’d rationalize it as a necessity of war. The people we live with, that we aren’t actually fighting are the ones we have empathy to. But you live in a big city, so your mind isn’t seeing the people around you as threats, so your natural empathy comes to the fore. > [@](#): > > Can I suggest you take a little time to actually read the repsonses and formulate a sensble answer before hitting ‘submit’. Dude, I’m doing six kinds of thinking you’ve never even heard of. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/719 "2010-09-08T08:17:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > These exploding ants are irrelevant to the subject. This is about an empathtic response, not a biological or physical one. > > All mental responses are biological. The brain, a biological organ, creates consciousness. > > There is no evidence for the existence of a soul. None at all. Who said there was? Are we discussing the soul now? The question was to name an animal into whom aversion to murder was not hardwired, and explain how it survived. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/720 "2010-09-08T08:23:19Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:718, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Not all animals have similar emotions. So? You just move the question. “How did the ancestors of the beings with this repsonse survive while this response evolved?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=37)