Your so called science does lay down rules about how evolution works and survial of the fittest, it also says propagation of the species is needed. Weakest are not to be allow. You know this you just don't like what it means.
I like what it means. Nature is brutal. Thing is, we have compassion, we have emotion, we have intelligence. Therefore, we can overcome instinct. In case you haven't noticed, animals kill other animals of the same species all the time. We call that "murder" and it's our largest crime. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Your so called science does lay down rules about how evolution works and survial of the fittest, it also says propagation of the species is needed. Weakest are not to be allow. You know this you just don't like what it means.
You have a seriously distorted understanding of natural selection.

While TV likes scenes of gory predation, that is far and away the exception. Most animals are not predators, most specialize in order to avoid direct competition, and all organisms have dozens if not hundreds of symbiotic and semi-symbiotic relationships with other organisms.

You remind me of the businessman who thinks his objective is to destroy his competition--a self-destructive approach--when the most successful businesses actually avoid competition whenever possible (hence we need anti-trust laws).

A sideline to this is that, ironically, natural selection's tendency to push animals toward greater and greater specialization is probably the main reason most species become extinct after a million or so years--by then they have become entirely specialized and hence unable to meet environmental challenges.

Well yes we do have all that but not from evolution, that is the whole point, you won't get that from evolution it comes from The Creator.

Well yes we do have all that but not from evolution, that is the whole point, you won't get that from evolution it comes from The Creator.
You're making suppositions not rooted in fact. That is your opinion. A taboo against murder is certainly beneficial for the survival of the species, and could certainly have evolved with no supernatural influence.

You're making suppositions not rooted in fact. That is your opinion. A taboo against murder is certainly beneficial for the survival of the species, and could certainly have evolved with no supernatural influence.
There are, however, human behaviors that are more difficult to explain in terms of natural selection--keep in mind that natural selection is entirely about preserving genes into the next generation. It does not see beyond that and is therefore entirely short-term oriented (otherwise extinctions would be far less common).

As you say, the evolution of a social ban against murder would be a natural. Societies--at least the smaller groups during which mankind has lived over most of its existence--also have a certain natural selection working on them. Those cultures that ban in-group murder are more likely to persist than those that do not. (I think it is a mistake to say we have an "instinct" against murder. The most I would say is that we have an inherited ability to incorporate as children the moral rules of our culture--we interpret this as our conscience).

Anyway, to return to behaviors that are difficult to explain in terms of natural selection, there was recently a beached whale found in the Mekong Delta. It got quite a bit of local publicity. The whale couldn't be saved (although efforts were made to do so). However, when it died, the local Buddhist officials were prevailed upon (against their own less superstitious judgment--Buddhists are tolerant and will generally go along with popular wishes of this sort) to perform certain rituals to ease the whale's spirit into its rebirth.

Then, of course, the locals carved the beast and had a feast. The point is they needed something like this before doing so.

Now human imagination can produce "just so" stories to "explain" almost anything, but I have to wonder if the respect for sentient life we see here can be explained in terms of natural selection. We see similar behavior in almost all cultures (the, to me, irrational behavior of so many "greens" in America regarding things like deer culls, is not any different).

There is a range of human behavior--from art appreciation to humor to altruism to the impulse to dance--that, while culturally moderated, seem to be natural to us but where natural selection has to be stretched unreasonably to explain.

I am not suggesting a creator. Janrich makes the mistake of excluding the always present "third possibility," that of the unknown. Because we do not know something does not mean "God did it."

God has been telling that to humanety thrue out history.