I agree that evolution has added much to what we identify as love, hate and the others I've laid out since the time Cro Magnon man was walking around, so in my mind there's no doubt that time and the evolutionary process can and does advance emotional concepts (if other species truly are provided with the same or similiar level of emotive function that human beings have been graced with). However, there's such an unscalable mountain of difference between us and the next nearest species in this that it begs the touch of divinity in our case. While love and hate, trust and doubt may be in some instances at an extremely basic level prevalent in certain creatures, the degree to which they define those creatures is nil compared to us.
The chemical reaction that flows through the brain, nervous system and through the rest of the body during love/hate is at a primal level one of instinct. However, the further expression of it and the imaginative reactions that come from it can't fully be explained, measured or described by science. The basic reaction may be measured by x amount of adrenaline or other chemical racing through the human body, but the action and subsequent reaction simply cannot be judged due to the complexity of the human mind.
This is the area I feel that, once again, may be left to the touch of divinity on homo sapiens. The combination of intellect, imagination and feeling is so far advanced over any species so far studied by mankind that our pinnacle of existance has to be looked at very closely, as well as what has been the cause of it. In short, I think the degree to which we can love, hate, trust and doubt as well as have faith is what determines what we owe to some "outside" force beyond mere evolution.
This is a pretty rough defense of my last post, as well as an incomplete one, but it does touch on some of the topics you've brought up. I don't have any definitive anwers, unfortunately. As philosophers and scientists throughout the ages have found out, this is one topic that probably never will. I simply keep traveling back to the source of things, so the argument will quickly become one closely resembling the "chicken or the egg" scenario. Which came first?
I'll try and puth for a more cohesive post tomorrow. It's late now and I'm beat.
Regards,
