[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat, but not completely, correct. There is extensive work in evolutionary theory (e.g., game-theoretic evolution) about behavioral patterns. However, behavioral evolution is not directly related to speciation based on mutations predicted by the "orthodox" Darwinian theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with you. I was hoping to make it clear with the statement: "There may be an evolution of behavioural patterns but lets not confuse that with the theory of evolution". I think we must assume that the evolutionary debate has to do with the Darwinian theory and does not concerns itself with such things as game-theoretic, exo-evolution or evolution of culture, memes, psychological eveolution, etc.. All those topics are interesting in their own right, in fact even more interesting to me, but that is not what creationists object to.

Just to clarify. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Midge, not sure where we draw the line on darwinian evolution but I suspect there is a large component of natural selection behind why we are moral creatures.

However the initial seed of cooperative behavior came about, it seems likely that those who chose a cooperative mate would have been more successful at reproduction. Once cooperation becomes a factor in sexual selection you get runaway evolution like with the peacocks tail leading to all these feelings about right and wrong which cause displays of extreme cooperative (moral) behavior and maybe even religon.

This could all happen even if cooperation wasn't advantageous but given we have reason to believe it is a significant advantage it makes this all the more likey.

chez