[b_sharp]

"I'll guess that you agree that morality or immorality if you will can be both advantageous or disadvantageous. That would seem self evident. So the why must be directed at should morality have been selected out. I can offer you any number of examples along the line of the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak in opposition to natural selection.

Go for it.

"You assert that morality was selected for. Presumably you have some proof other than sociobiologic hypotheses or evolutionary psychobabble?

Comparitive studies of the social structure of other social animals, primarily apes. Dawkin's concept of the 'Selfish Gene' goes a long way towards explaining why we observe altruistic behavior in other animals and humans.

"Certainly. Winnowing of the gene pool by immoral acts of man. Expanding the gene pool by moral acts of man providing and caring for those who would be naturally selected out. Unintelligent design and intelligent design.

Those that do not protect their family can be sure their particular gene set will not survive for long. Those that protect their family have a much better chance of passing on their genes. In most cases this protection will encompass the entire social group. Kin selection is a complex and involved theory that explains among other things: altruistic actions, sibling bonds, sexual promiscuity, and variant degrees of estrus signaling in different ape species.

(At least somebody does ;))

As far as backing up my assertions goes, if I suggest readings to you will you read them?

For starters, try here

[PatrickHenry]

Out for the evening, placemarker.