It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists. We call it god of the gaps. Everything we don't know, you say is god. And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.
But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.
I find it amazing how much you like to argue against scientific researchers who actually have good reasons for believing what they do, yet you are such a tool arguing all your bad evidence.
ethologist Marc Bekoff. "there's just no doubt that the scientific evidence for animal morality is accumulating as more and more animals are studied."
Bekoff is a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-founder (with primatologist Jane Goodall) of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
I bet you'll call them tree huggers or liberal propogandists.
"It has only been observed in certain species, because it really hasn't been studied extensively
So why did religion say the animals didn't have souls or know right from wrong without researching it first? Because they didn't know science. So if they are/were wrong about this, imagine what else they are wrong about and/or completely made up? GOD!
Bekoff has observed acts of altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness among wolves and coyotes
"There is a consequence of being labeled a cheater. Others stop bonding with the "immoral" pack member, and eventually it wanders away from the group, usually resulting in an early death because it no longer receives the benefits of pack living. Bekoff believes the rules governing pack behavior offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed early human societies to function and flourish.
evidence of seemingly moral sentiments in many other species too, including whales, ravens, bats, elephants, chimpanzees and even rodents.
rats have shown that they will not eat if they know that doing so will inflict pain on other rats. When the hungry rats were given access to food, but could see that taking it caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock, the rats stopped eating rather than inflict pain on the group.
All the research coming out these days on other primates and mammals shows that more than 90 to 95 percent of their behavior is pro-social or positive. It's actually rare to see aggression or violence."
scientists are only just beginning to investigate the neural mechanisms that control moral decision-making in humans. Last year, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that applying a powerful magnet to a part of the brain called the right temporo-parietal junction in human study participants temporarily skewed their ability to make moral judgments.
Bekoff suspects that the same brain mechanisms that control moral behavior in humans also control such behavior in other mammals. "It's a new area and what's exciting is that there are so many unanswered questions," he said. "But we need to be consistent in our discussion of behavioral as well as physiological similarities between humans and other animals. As we develop techniques to do imaging in the brains of non-humans, we need to apply the same rules to neuroscience as we do to anatomy."
That is, if the structures in human brains that control moral and emotional behavior are also present in animals, then scientists ought to concede that these structures probably play similar roles for them, just as analogous body parts — eyes, for example — imply that we both see.