Evidence for The Creator: Mitochondrial DNA

This article is about mitochondrial DNA, and the discovery some years back, of a 'marker', that was passed down to daughters, tracing actual descent. It leads to the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA), in genetic lines, and provides hard science for timelines, descent, and relationships.

From wiki:
In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

It is a problem for the theory of common descent, as it clearly shows the lines of descent in a particular genetic haplogroup.

For example, we can trace the descendancy in canids.. dogs, wolves, coyotes.. even though they have some differences morphologically, they show evidence of descent, and share a common mother.. the Most Recent Common Ancestor that they ALL descended from.

This marker does not cross over to other speculated ancestors. Humans, for example, share a common MRCA, which shows we all descended from the same mother, and did not evolve seperately, in different geological regions, as was once proposed. Neanderthals were human. Pygmies, Mongols, Eskimos, Europeans, Africans.. every race, region and body type of human beings all share the MRCA.. a marker showing descendancy and relationship with all other humans. Chimps, monkeys, apes, or any other speculated 'cousins', do not have this HUMAN MRCA marker, but their own, showing their lines of descent.

So, while the dingo, dog, wolf and coyote can be traced to a MRCA, humans, apes, and monkeys cannot. Each genetic haplogroup has its own MRCA, and they do not intersect or overlap. There is no evidence of descent.

From wiki:
Mitochondrial DNA is the small circular chromosome found inside mitochondria. These organelles found in cells have often been called the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria, and thus mitochondrial DNA, are passed almost exclusively from mother to offspring through the egg cell.
...
Mitochondrial DNA was discovered in the 1960s by Margit M. K. Nass and Sylvan Nass by electron microscopy as DNase-sensitive threads inside mitochondria, and by Ellen Haslbrunner, Hans Tuppy and Gottfried Schatz by biochemical assays on highly purified mitochondrial fractions.



Time to most recent common ancestor, aka 'mitochondrial clock'.

Source:
News this Week | Science

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
...
The most widely used mutation rate for noncoding human mtDNA relies on estimates of the date when humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, taken to be 5 million years ago. That date is based on counting the mtDNA and protein differences between all the great apes and timing their divergence using dates from fossils of one great ape's ancestor. In humans, this yields a rate of about one mutation every 300 to 600 generations, or one every 6000 to 12,000 years..

..aka, circular reasoning.. you presume the descendancy of apes and humans, THEN calculate a 'rate!'. It is convenient if the data fits within (and is based upon) the preconceived assumptions.

The researchers sequenced 610 base pairs of the mtDNA control region in 357 individuals from 134 different families, representing 327 generational events, or times that mothers passed on mtDNA to their offspring. Evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations (one every 12,000 years). So they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations, or one every 800 years. The data were published last year in Nature Genetics, and the rate has held up as the number of families has doubled..

So the ACTUAL, MEASURED rates, from real life data and evidence, is suspected, while the ASSUMPTIONS are clung to with dogmatic certainty. The measured, scientifically based rate is dismissed, in favor of the assumed and believed rate that fits the status quo dogma.


Mitochondrial DNA carries a genetic indicator of matrilineal descent, and can trace that descendancy all the way back, to a Most Recent Common Ancestor.. the mt-MRCA. It is ONLY passed on by FEMALES.. mother to daughter. The males get it from their mother, but it stops there. Only the DAUGHTER can pass it on.

For this reason, the mt-MRCA has been called 'mitochondrial eve,' ..not because the crafters of the phrase believe in the Genesis account of human origins, but as a cultural reference, to western civilization. Most people in western civilization catch the reference to a single 'Mother of all Humanity.' 

The significance of the discovery of the mt-MRCA is often ignored and overlooked:
1. All of humanity, alive and dead, that has testable dna samples, can be traced to this 'mitochondrial eve'. She is the only, single human ancestor we can identify, and all of us descended from her.
2. Neanderthal, Pygmies, Eskimos, Norwegians, Aborigines.. any and ALL human people groups, alive or dead (with traceable dna), are descended from this mitochondrial eve.
3. This 'marker', within the mtDNA, is also present in other organisms, and THEIR ancestral lineage can also be traced. Canids have clear lines of descent, from the original mt-MRCA, in their respective haplogroup/clade/phylogenetic type.
4. This mitochondrial 'marker' does NOT cross genetic boundaries, but is exclusive to the particular haplogroup. Apes and chimps do not have the human mt-MRCA, nor do humans have any indication of sharing common ancestry with ANY other species/clade/phylogenetic type. Humans are descended from humans. Apes from apes, canids from canids, equids from equids.

The discovery of the matrilineal ancestry 'indicator', in the mtDNA has been a scientific boon. It has refuted many assumptions and beliefs, that are abundant in the theory of universal common ancestry, and are a problem for those who believe this theory.

I predict as more information is discovered, especially in genetics, the theory of common ancestry will join the flat earth, the 4 humours, and spontaneous generation, in the dustbin of debunked scientific theories. It has become a Religious Belief, complete with fanatical True Believers, who defend it with jihadist zeal, but they are unable to debate the science behind their beliefs.

Evidence for The Creator: Universal Morality

IF.. there is a Creator/God, one might expect a Standard.. an innate moral sense.. that transcends time, race, religious beliefs, culture, and region. At least 'Goddidit!', is a plausible explanation for the morality we observe in the human animal.

IF.. there is no God, and morality is only a human construct, we would not expect to see a common thread of absolute morality in the human experience. Morality would be arbitrary and local, mandated by the powerful, with only whimsy or expediency to drive them.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

The 'need', for human Law is a reflection, imo, of the REALITY of a universal moral code. We recognize, collectively, a moral consciousness, define it as 'conscience', and label those who violate it as criminals or sociopaths.

Because human beings do NOT always observe this inner code, we use the force of a collective enforcement agency to compel compliance, or suffer punishment. We believe everyone knows  better, and knows that antisocial behavior is a violation of conscience, and thus can enforce law as being 'self evident.'  Most 'Law' is merely morality, codified. Some are logistical, for expediency (e.g., traffic laws), but the Important Ones relate to Conscience.

Most of the core laws are directly related to what the Enlightenment philosophers called 'Natural Law'.. a universal, God given set of rights that no one can infringe upon, without violation.

Life, Liberty, Property.

These are the  3 basic rights, from the Enlightenment. This covers laws of theft, murder, assault, fraud, extortion, and many others. These are the universal, core Standards, that we see in every era, region and culture of human society.

The Declaration of Independence reflected those Enlightenment values, with this simple declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..

So, the purpose of Government, from the American perspective, is to secure the basic rights of the citizens.. to enact LAWS, that preserve, inviolate, our Natural Rights.

All of this is based on the ASSUMPTION of a God Ordered universe. A Creator Who created all men equal, and ENDOWED them with unalienable rights. Make the assumption of a godless universe, and there is no equality, nor inalienable rights. All is based on relativity, expediency, and the whims of those in power.

It would be a massive delusion, to believe in Natural Law, and Absolute morality, (and many other things), in a godless universe.

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." ~James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice

Evidence for The Creator: State Indoctrination

As a rule of thumb, if the government wants you to know it, it probably isn't true. ~Craig Murray

Why, in a nation dedicated to NON ESTABLISHMENT  of religion, would the institutions of govt dedicate themselves to exclusive Indoctrination of a religious/philosophical belief?

For decades, the courts and legislatures have worked tirelessly to ban any suggestion of a Creator,  and promote EXCLUSIVELY,  the belief in atheistic naturalism. State run schools,  aka, Indoctrination centers, ban any mention of a Creator,  except as fodder for ridicule and mocking.  Only atheistic naturalism,  and their core beliefs, are taught and presented as 'settled science!', until the hapless indoctrinees nod like bobbleheads, and bow in humble obeisance to the decrees of the High Priests of Atheism.

Evidence of a Creator: Angst

This is the first in a series of articles that examine the evidence *for* a Creator.  This is not a religious analysis, appealing to texts or religious beliefs or dogma.   This is an examination of reason and scientific evidence of the facts, that imply or suggest a model of creation.

If there is not a Creator, then ALL believers in that are deluded. They are either blind fools, who deny and ignore Reality, or they are willful deceivers, knowingly promoting a lie for some agenda.

But... if the Objective Reality is that there IS a Creator/God, then it is the unbelievers in this reality who are either deluded fools, or deliberate deceivers.

There IS.. an Objective Reality, about the nature of the universe. It is either designed and Created by an Intelligent Designer, or it is a random accident of godless chance.

Believing in one or the other has no bearing on the ultimate reality. If one believes there is a Creator/God, and there isn't, they are a deluded fool. If one believes there is NOT a Creator/God, and there is, then he is the deluded fool. There is only ONE, Ultimate, Objective Reality. Discovering this Truth has been the goal of many humans for thousands of years.

IF.. knowledge is knowable,
THEN.. some might know this truth, while others are ignorant or deceived.

That condition can only be determined if the Ultimate Truth is revealed. Until then, we give opinions and arguments for those opinions. But neither the arguments nor the opinions have any influence on Objective Reality.

Truth is true, whether we know it, believe it, or not.

Neither believing in something nor denying it has any effect on Objective, Absolute Truth.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Human angst

There is no naturalistic explanation for this. It does not aid in our survival, or improve the species in any way. It is common throughout the human experience, traversing time, race, religion, and culture. It is a gnawing 'something' in man that hints and implies a spiritual connection.

“There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator." ~Blaise Pascal c. 1670

There are 2 possibilities, concerning angst, as there are with everything in this world:

1. Goddidit
2. Nuthindidit

Is it a Real Thing, embedded by God, or it is a human delusion?  A construct for manipulation?

If Angst, as experienced and defined by philosophers and most humans over the millennia, is REAL, then it has to have a source. Either it was placed there by a Power with ability to do so, or it happened naturally.

I see this angst as the motivation for the pursuit of 'more'. There is a dissatisfaction with life.. our existence.. that we mask with 'more'.

1. Stuff
2. Sex
3. Recognition
4. Validation
5. Money
6. Power
7. Influence
8. Significance

The recurring theme among human gurus, psychologists, shamen, priests, self help conferences, and religious theories is 'enjoy life & have fun!', and we have to constantly remind ourselves to do that, and not be nagged by the inner desire for more. Yet no matter how we try.. or how we reassure our psyches of the wise and balanced path we have chosen, an undercurrent of desire.. a hole in our souls.. belies our bluff of contentment.

We are not satisfied with meeting our basic needs, but want more.

We come into the world laden with the weight of an infinite necessity.
– Albert Camus

Canidae: Created or Evolved?

Since the evolution debate is going to the dogs, and, since many people are dogmatic about it, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..  ;)

What does man's best friend have to say about creation vs common ancestry?

The observable, repeatable, historical, and scientific evidence within canidae offers compelling evidence for a Creator, and the model of ID  (Intelligent Design), and conflicts with the belief and model of Common Ancestry (CA).  These same arguments and observations are there with felidae, equidae, and other haplotypes with genetic evidence of descent.  Micro evolution variability is clearly evident, within the canid haplogroup, but the leap to Macro evolution, or the belief in common ancestry,  is unwarranted, and is an extrapolation unjustified by the facts.


I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about canids, & their genetic base.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/990.full

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin! Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown.
2. Most of the variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old.
3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years to produce an evolutionary trait such as seen in canidae. selection acts upon existing variability
4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, and conflicts with the time frame in the CA model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population. This would be expected in the ID model. 
5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various haplogroups.

The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae. The time frame is incompatible with the CA model, but fits perfectly in the ID model.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:



From the link:
"Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green."

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestral line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. All this does is PROVE descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years.

Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplotype. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree.

Evidence for creation:

1. The ancestral canid (erroneously called wolf, in this study) contained all the variability for canidae we see today.  There is no evidence of traits being 'created' from hypothetical mutation processes.
2. The ancestral canid appears abruptly, full of variety, with no evidence of descent from any other phylogenetic structure.  The ID model would expect this, while the CA model can only speculate about hypothetical 'ancestors!' of canidae, with no evidence.  A belief is proffered with only assertion and assumption.
3. Canidae mtDNA shows descendancy, clearly following the branching out of the canid line, to the current tips of the branches.  Lower levels of diversity are observed, as the tips of the phylogenetic tree is reached.  This observation is compatible with the ID model,  but conflicts with the CA model of constant injecting of new traits.
4. Dating methods are contrived, circularly, to fit the assumptions of CA. There are no credible or sourced facts for the assumptions and assertions of the massive dates asserted in most studies.  Terms like, 'assumed', 'putative', 'from evolutionary theory', and other circular dating methods are used to bluff an appearance of 'settled science!', for the dates projected, but in fact have no empirical basis.

The next time you pat your dog on the head, join with him in marveling at the complexity, wonder, and diversity of this unique creation, and the Creator who has crafted such a specimen.  Tell him about the awesome wonder of this unique creature, while he wags and agrees with joyful concurrence.  He won't recoil from you in disgust, or call you names, or bite you for suggesting that he owes his existence to The Creator,  not a promordial, godless ooze.  Some people believe  dogs are smarter and nicer than people..  ..maybe they are right!  :D

Morality, Instinct, and Law

The interrelationship between these 3 parts of human motivation are not always delineated. They are often blurred together, so they all seem the same, and the nuances of each element are missed. I propose a deeper look into each element, parsing them as different, for better understanding of ourselves and the peculiarities of the human animal.

First, definitions:

Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*

Merriam's: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Morality is a 'self evident' standard that humans in every region, time, and culture have appealed to. It is equivalent to 'natural law', from reformation and Enlightenment philosophers. It is something internal, embedded, and universal in humanity.

Instinct is an animal quality, where certain responses are programmed internally, apart from a learned response. Migration of birds. Self preservation. Maternal care. It differs from morality in that is involuntary, not a rational choice.

From Merriam's: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Law is a codefied rule, enforced by a human agenct.

Merriam's: *a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority*

Law can be a moral imperative, or even an instinct. Or, it can be something arbitrary, contrary to a moral sense or instinct. Power to enforce a law is the determining factor. Morals can be observed with or without the force of law. Law can be immoral, or counter instinctive.

The relationships between these human elements are fascinating, and are rooted in a fundamental belief about the universe.

The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force. A person's worldview shapes the way they see law, instinct, and morality.

Morality', as defined here, is different from instinct and law. It is an inner, 'felt sense' of right and wrong that transcends instinct or law. Its only philosophical basis is from a Creator, or some kind of embedding Agent. It is a Standard of behavior EXPECTED from this Creator or Agent, and is not a human construct or animal instinct.

In a godless universe, no morality like this is possible. It is a delusion or manipulation, to control people. There is only animal instinct, or declared Law, in a godless universe, with no absolutes to appeal to.

IF... there is a God, or Something, that embedded a moral 'sense' in humanity,
THEN that is the philosophical basis for morality.

IF... there is no God, or no moral 'sense' embedded,
THEN any moral 'sense' is a delusion. It is not there.

Those are the logical conclusions of each premise.

The basis for morality, as defined in this article, can ONLY come from an 'Embedder'. It is different from instinct or arbitrary Law.

Here is the logical progression. We will assume both premises, and follow the implications and conclusions, as they relate to morality.

IF... there is a Creator/moral Embedder..
AND IF... this Creator/moral embedder embedded moral standards in humans..
THEN... that is the source of embedded moral standards.. a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality.

BUT..

IF.. there is no Creator/moral Embedder..
THEN... morality is a human construct. ..a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality is a delusion or manipulation of man.

For example..

IF.. a Creator embedded, 'thou shalt not steal', into the inner conscience of man..
THEN.. any 'sense' of property rights are an inherent moral value, embedded by God.

But in a godless universe, 'thou shalt not steal!', is a human construct. It is not even an instinct, as every animal species rewards stealing as a virtue. It can be (and is) codefied into Law, to deter theft by a human enforcer, but at its root, it is only a human construct, to control weak minded dupes. It is an imposed platitude, to control people. There is no overriding moral imperative to sting one's conscience, if they steal something.

'Conscience!' is also a human construct, in a godless universe. With no moral values embedded, but only human manipulation, any appeals to 'conscience!' are manipulations from human controllers.

If you remove the 'Higher Power' source of Morality, it becomes nothing more than situation ethics, or no morality at all. People do what they want to do, & who can say they are wrong? Unless many band together with some kind of agreement, (and what basis is there for that?), all you have is the changing winds of relativism, tossing everyone to & fro until they shipwreck on the rocks of anarchy.

Why are sociopaths considered an aberration in humanity? Most of them were raised with moral values, but chose to 'switch off' that part of their psyche, or some other psychobabble theory. Why would there be any morality in humans, if it is not there inherently?

A male lion will kill cubs, if he can, with no consequence. Theft is a common virtue, in the animal kingdom. How are these human moral platitudes different, from the rest of the animal world, if they are just instinctive? Why should we submit to moralizing platitudes from manipulators, and follow their constructs?


'Thou shalt not steal'

Let's examine this moral imperative.

Moral value? Yes
Animal instinct? No
Human Law? Yes

This is a good example of a moral belief, that has been codefied into Law, in almost every human society. In every animal setting, theft is a virtue.. it enhances survival, and better thieves have better chances of survival.

But in humanity, this has been declared a 'sin!', or a criminal act. Religions, throughout the human experience condemn theft, and all human societies that have any law respect the basic right of property.

The Enlightenment philosophers waxed long and eloquently on the essentials of 'Natural Law', and summarized it thusly:

Right to Life
Right to Liberty
Right to Property

The BASIS for this 'moral', is that it is a God given right, to your property, and any who take what is another's is guilty of a crime.

Bastiat confirmed the basic right of property, which is the foundation for the 'moral value'.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Morality, such as described by philosophers, can only exist in a God made universe. They are meaningless platitudes in a godless one.

If we are in a God made universe (Who has embedded moral values in man), then morality is a Real Thing, and we ought to follow our moral inclinations, as given by the Creator.

BUT... if we are in a godless universe, then all such moralizing are human constructs, to manipulate and control. Morality is NOT Real, but is a delusion, indoctrinated into people for some human agenda. We are fools and dupes, to submit to such manipulation.

Theft is a good example of the difference between a moral precept, a law, and instinct.

The Sociopath

Dictionary definition:
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I probably should define and analyze 'conscience', first, since it is foundational to defining a Sociopath. But, since we have been using the concept of 'conscience', as a moral 'sense' that is universal and self evident, it should be unnecessary.

The very existence of the term, 'sociopath' implies a normal human standard.. a 'sense' of right and wrong that the Sociopath lacks. How can anyone condemn a sociopath, if all moral values are arbitrary or relative? He just exhibits his values, and not yours.

So the 'science' of psychiatry, the justice system, the media, and all human institutions accept and reflect a belief in a 'normal' human standard, or sense of conscience, that the sociopath does not have.

Whether a biological aberration, or a learned condition, sociopathy is a negative condition, in the human collective. That judgement is made by appealing to a self evident standard of acceptable and normal human moral values, as reflected in the conscience.

Conscience

What is it? Is it a Real Thing, or a human construct, imposed upon a pliable herd? Conscience is closely related to morality. It is the 'thing' within humans that reflects the inner, felt morality. It provides the 'sting' when it is violated. It could be correlated to pain, the negative feedback our body gives when we do something injurious to ourselves. In the same way, conscience provides negative feedback when we injure it by violating it's sensitivity.

As usual, I'll give a dictionary definition:

Conscience: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
All of the terms used in these definitions are steeped in moralizing undertones. 'Sense', 'moral goodness', 'do right', etc, ALL reflect the underlying assumption of common knowledge of these things. 'Good' carries a moral judgement, as well as 'bad'. Nobody is confused, or thinks that murder, theft, lying, etc are 'good!', and bravery, honesty, and altruistic acts are 'bad!'

So there is a common base of communication, even crossing language, culture, race, and time. You can ask anyone, in any culture, era, or region, to list 'good & bad!' things, and they will very nearly correlate. There may be a few specifics, or arbitrary cultural mores that vary, but the core elements of morality are consistent and constant, throughout the human experience.

An Indian might have, 'eaten by tiger' as bad, while a pacific islander might use shark. But the basics, murder, theft, assault, fraud, lying; are universally held in disdain by the human collective. I know of no culture or society where these things are esteemed as virtues.

On the 'good' side, bravery, hard work, altruistic acts, kindness, honesty, helping in time of need, and personal responsibility are universally esteemed and held as virtuous, among human beings.

I haven't had many quotes in this article, but i will rectify that immediately. 

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ~Martin Luther King Jr

Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. ~Carl Gustav Jung

The only tyrant I accept in this world is the 'still small voice' within me. And even though I have to face the prospect of being a minority of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless minority. ~Mahatma Gandhi

The torture of a bad conscience is the hell of a living soul. ~John Calvin

It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience. ~Martin Luther

A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory. ~Mark Twain

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question, “Is it right?”... The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of convenience, but where he stands in moments of challenge, moments of great crisis and controversy. ~Martin Luther King Jr.

Nobody can turn you into a slave unless you allow them. Nobody can make you afraid of anything, unless you allow them. Nobody can tell you to do something wrong, unless you allow them. God never created you to be a slave, man did. God never created division or set up any borders between brothers, man did. God never told you hurt or kill another, man did. So why is man your god, and not the Creator? ~Suzy Kassem

There is no witness so dreadful, no accuser so terrible as the conscience that dwells in the heart of every man. ~Polybius

How pitiful is an intelligence used only to make excuses to quieten the conscience. ~Ignazio Silone

Natural Law

This is perhaps the Central Theme of the Enlightenment. Man is endowed with Rights, inherently, not granted by human power.

it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Life, Liberty, and Property. These are the Basic Rights of Man, summarized by the Enlightenment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.. ~Thomas Jefferson

Natural law is the basis for almost all human rights declarations, since the 18th century. From wiki:

..natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948..)of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the European Union.

It is the basis for almost all perceptions of human rights, in contemporary culture. It is not always credited with the ASSUMPTION of human rights, but it is always there.

Again from wiki:
Natural law (Latin: ius natural, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to natural law are also found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.

Natural law is an extrapolation of universal morality:

IF... God or some Creative Power has imbued morality into mankind, as evidenced by the universal acceptance of conscience, THEN.. it follows that this same endowment would include rights, as well as obligations. If murder is 'wrong', then each person has a 'right' to life. If property is a 'right', then theft is 'wrong!'. Morality and natural law are 2 sides of the same coin.

But both morality and natural law are contingent on an Embuing Power. A godless universe has no such power, but only human law and animal instinct. Morality and natural law are human constructs, for manipulation, in a godless universe.

There is nothing inherently 'wrong!' about murder, or theft, or exploiting anyone.. there are only human laws for those things, passed to manipulate people.

Theft, murder, and exploitation are virtues, in the natural world, and enhance survival.

Instinct and Anthropomorphism 

Projecting human emotion, reason, and decision making onto animals is called Anthropomorphism.

Studies that attempt to 'prove!' uniquely human attributes in animals are roundly criticised for anthropomorphic projection.

Chimps have been studied extensively, trying to prove anthropomorphic qualities, when there are other, more reasonable explanations, than 'human like!' projection.

The attempt, here, is to blur the distinction between morality and instinct. But instinct is not morality. There are no 'good and bad!' judgments in instinctive behavior.

Animals might SEEM to exhibit human qualities, but that is merely projection.. anthropomorphic projection. YouTube videos, showing animals exhibiting human behaviour, are just tricks, trained by conditioned response. Talking animals, oozing human emotion are Disney films, not biological reality.

There is no 'justice', or 'morality', in any animal society. There is jungle law. Might makes right. There are thousands of studies of animal societies, and any 'human like!' behavior is projected. There is no moralizing taking place, or abstract reasoning.

But in the Brave New World of Progessive mandates, real science must take a back seat to religious belief, and fantasy as reality. Here, animals talk and are just like people. You pick your own identity, regardless of your born biology.

'Morality', if it is real in humans, is not the same as animal instinct, no matter how hard we try to project it upon them. Only humans have this abstract sense of morality. 

A False Dilemma in Atheism

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to grasp the obvious.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.