[TheWastelander]

(06-04-2015 03:00 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 01:40 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Your article was thoughtful, but I always thought survival of the fittest was best applied to simple organisms or animals without much cognitive ability and who still live in a state of nature.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" brings up the notion of an animalistic hunter gatherer using his brains, wit, speed and strength to make it in the world. But all it only matters if he reproduces. Just surviving means nothing evolutionarily, you could kill a thousand lions with your bear hands, fell trees with a stone axe and build a village like a boss, if you don't have kids, you may as well have never been born from an evolutionary perspective.

Yes, I know.

Quote:

As long as some humans have 7 kids, some only have 1, and some have 0, humans are still reproducing at different rates and some traits are passed on more frequently, while others less frequently or not at all. Whether the cause of not reproducing is being killed by a wild animal or just spending your life on the computer, the impact is the same. We are not beyond evolution, we are not beyond selection, it is just a whole different set of factors now that go into who reproduces and who does not.

Right, and I thought I alluded to that when I wrote "humans were smart enough to become masters of the wild for whom the base concerns of safety, eating, and fucking are no longer the only ones."

However, I'd argue that it's not a whole set of different factors. Just there's a whole set of additional factors unique to the modern environment we've created for ourselves.

[flyfreshandyoung]

I too share similar skepticism towards evolution for one big reason:

-The ridiculous odds that something could evolve an appendage, like a pair of wings for example. If one is to argue an arm transformed into a wing or vice versa over a great span of time, how did this organism survive for so long? It has a mutated appendage that is less than worthless. It would make the organism not fit and not survive. Furthermore, given that mutations are random, this worthless appendage would require another mutation and another mutation and so on, just think of the odds of that. And for a pair of wings, the odds get absolutely insane.

If we grant that millions of years is enough time for this process to occur, for transitioning species to not only survive but survive long enough that another incremental mutation occurs--

The fossil record should be a holocaust of retarded and deformed creatures, and when considering that most mutations are bad, there should bemagnitudes more deformed fossils than regular fossils.

[Blobert]

(06-04-2015 04:05 PM)flyfreshandyoung Wrote:  

I too share similar skepticism towards evolution for one big reason:

-The ridiculous odds that something could evolve an appendage, like a pair of wings for example. If one is to argue an arm transformed into a wing or vice versa over a great span of time, how did this organism survive for so long? It has a mutated appendage that is less than worthless. It would make the organism not fit and not survive. Furthermore, given that mutations are random, this worthless appendage would require another mutation and another mutation and so on, just think of the odds of that. And for a pair of wings, the odds get absolutely insane.

If we grant that millions of years is enough time for this process to occur, for transitioning species to not only survive but survive long enough that another incremental mutation occurs--

The fossil record should be a holocaust of retarded and deformed creatures, and when considering that most mutations are bad, there should bemagnitudes more deformed fossils than regular fossils.

I share that skepticism to an extent, however I don't think it's relevant when talking about modern day humans.

Evolution in our context simply derives from common sense:
-Children inherit genes from their parents, and the inherited genes affect both their physical and mental makeup
-Different kinds of people have different amounts of children

Which leads to some traits getting rarer and others getting more common. Do you find something disagreeable in this?

[RandomGuy1]

Roosh, you wrote:

Quote:

There must be something else motivating and driving human beings that can’t be explained by current science [...]

Quote:

I must state that it’s not a comfortable position for me to neither believe in god or human evolution, for I have no working model for my own existence.

And now, that you will move on from Darwinism I strongly recommend you to pursue the path of Taoism. You will find many answers, I promise.

[Saweeep]

(06-04-2015 04:05 PM)flyfreshandyoung Wrote:  

I too share similar skepticism towards evolution for one big reason:

-The ridiculous odds that something could evolve an appendage, like a pair of wings for example. If one is to argue an arm transformed into a wing or vice versa over a great span of time, how did this organism survive for so long? It has a mutated appendage that is less than worthless. It would make the organism not fit and not survive. Furthermore, given that mutations are random, this worthless appendage would require another mutation and another mutation and so on, just think of the odds of that. And for a pair of wings, the odds get absolutely insane.

If we grant that millions of years is enough time for this process to occur, for transitioning species to not only survive but survive long enough that another incremental mutation occurs--

The fossil record should be a holocaust of retarded and deformed creatures, and when considering that most mutations are bad, there should bemagnitudes more deformed fossils than regular fossils.

This is just the god of the gaps argument.

[Caveman]

Ok I see some of the posters in this thread have a fairly solid understanding of the theory of evolution, but are "criticizing" the article in a very indirect way.

I however won't sugar coat it so much.

Roosh I consider this article you wrote a major blunder.

So far I've enjoyed reading your texts, and have gotten a lot of value and great insights from it, but like most people I'm silent when everything is great, and here I am to complain when something is out of whack.

I was gonna write rebuttals to some of your ideas in your text, but then I saw the article recommended by Zelcorpion, the author does a great job at pointing at all the crap he sees in your article, and I agree with all of it.

Basically both your article and the book you're citing are taking an extremely simplistic and superficial look at the theory of evolution, and trying to naively apply it to specific situations and draw naive conclusions from there. For example why are you still childless when you're so "fit" to reproduce?

If you had understood how evolution works, you would know that you are NOT fit to reproduce (simply because you don't do it), while the alcoholic man with 40 children in a previous post above IS fit to reproduce (simply because he can in the environment we live in, and most importantly because he DOES it).

You need to differentiate between what you and society think a "fit" man is, and what evolutionary "fit" is.

I can write a very long text refuting just about everything in your article, but I see no point in it when the author above did it quite well already.

The real questions in my mind actually are: Why did you do it? Why did you attempt to attack the theory of evolution? I've got a few possible explanations playing in my mind:

Explanation #1: You genuinely misunderstood it. This is not very likely, considering you've read "The Selfish Gene" which provides an excellent explanation of all major aspects of evolution, and this includes the altruism you dabbled with in your text, and it shows how it helps not only groups but also individuals survive better (hint: altruism towards non-relatives is always coupled with an expectation of reciprocity).

Explanation #2: You don't really believe what you wrote, but have some agenda with this new stance of yours against evolution. This seems more likely to me, especially considering how systematic and thoughtful you've been on all subjects you've written in the past. There are no words to describe how shallow all the arguments in your article are, there's simply no way to embellish a turd to be something pretty, the theory of evolution has so many solid arguments accumulated to back it up (including how it applies to modern humans), I see any attack on it is doomed from the start.

Explanation #3: Maybe this is some kind of a prank, similar as your being imprisoned joke...

I don't know what is happening and what you're trying to do, I've been very happy with the forum and your writings so far, but now you want to start a new ideology (neo-masculinity), if this new stance of yours against evolution is your attempt to attract the religious crowd, I'm afraid it will be at the expense of alienating scientifically minded men who are ALREADY in your camp...

[Seadog]

(06-04-2015 04:05 PM)flyfreshandyoung Wrote:  

I too share similar skepticism towards evolution for one big reason:

-The ridiculous odds that something could evolve an appendage, like a pair of wings for example. If one is to argue an arm transformed into a wing or vice versa over a great span of time, how did this organism survive for so long? It has a mutated appendage that is less than worthless. It would make the organism not fit and not survive. Furthermore, given that mutations are random, this worthless appendage would require another mutation and another mutation and so on, just think of the odds of that. And for a pair of wings, the odds get absolutely insane.

You're thinking of evolution in the wrong way, it's not all of a sudden a third eye pops up or full set of wings, any major change generally tend to be big screwups, but are also exceedingly rare. Elongated scales or furrier arms could have acted as a primitive form of feather. You don't need to escape by flying, just jump or glide an extra foot so your friend who couldn't ride on air just that little bit further gets eaten.

It's more a gradual push in a certain direction. If food sources became higher because all the low stuff got eaten, animal heights would get incrementally higher in response, then the even high trees would survive better and an upward arms race would begin as the highest trees get selected.

That said I don't think arguing the basic tenants of evolution were the point of the article.

It really needs to be divided into two, survivability, and reproductive success. Generally, the latter is tied to the former via cues people find attractive. But I read about a fish (cuttle fish if I'm not mistaken) who makes itself look like a female, so he can hang out with all the females then reproduce with them. With such a strategy(reproductive trickery?), survivability beyond a basic thresh hold isn't needed.

[flyfreshandyoung]

@CrashBangWallop

Never heard of it lol but glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. Though I'm not necessarily arguing for the supernatural (I don't really have a dog in this fight) I find the mental leap required to accept long term evolution every bit as faith based as the religious argument.

[scorpion]

Evolution is such an obviously nonsensical idea that, absent total cultural propaganda, it truly does take an impressive intellect to talk oneself into believing it.

I doubt very much that most people here would believe in evolution if they had never heard of it before and were presented the evidence with a blank slate. At this point most people simply default into believing in evolution (and by believing I should more accurately say, "not questioning") because of peer pressure ("What, you don't believe in evolution? Wow...and I thought you were intelligent").

There is a certain intellectual blindness that always accompanies hubris. I would caution those who are utterly convinced they know facts about what supposedly happened billions of years ago to keep that in mind.

[Truth Teller]

(06-04-2015 10:46 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Humans, after the development of language, have obviously taken things several orders of magnitude further. Many evolutionary thinkers believe that there now exists a second unit of replication (in addition to genes) which Dawkins has called "memes". Units of cultural replication made possible by human intelligence and , especially, language. But they are still beholden to genes. They are on "on a leash" in EO Wilson's words. Maybe a long leash, maybe a short leash, but never completely free. And they can and are reeled in every now and then.

Anyway, Dawkins explained these things in the 1970's, much better than I can, and I would strongly suggest that anyone truly interested in evolution read his first, and by far best, book - The Selfish Gene. I know he has a reputation now as a dick who is obsessed with atheism. Even as an atheist myself, I think he would have done better sticking to biology. Religious debate is just impossible and a non-stop circus. But "The Selfish Gene" doesn't deal with atheism, and is the best book by far you need to read if you want to understand what the modern view of evolution is, and why you need to look at it from the genes eye view and not at the level of whole organisms. Even if you don't agree with it, you'll have a better view of what you're disagreeing with.

The "genes eye view" does seem pretty harsh from our point of view, but in reality it is neither harsh nor agreeable. It just is. That's another thing about evolution. Because of the way the theory is set up, it pretty much can't be wrong. Because all the inputs are baked into genes. Add genes to sexual reproduction and the fact that outcomes are uneven and you have the evolutionary process.

PS: There seems to be a recent move to "move on" from the gene centered view of evolution to a sort of "atom centered" view. Some physicist from MIT, who is also an orthodox Jew and has been self-promoting recently, seems to believe that the view of what is live or not is wrong. He seems to take the almost New Age view that everything is "alive" and that the unit of replication is on the atomic level, rather than the gene. So a chuck of concrete is "alive", as is a lion. I think it sounds like a lot of pop quantum-mechanical mumbo jumbo, but will have to look into what he is saying in more detail before commenting further.

The meme is an unscientific joke of an idea. It's never been detected, there's absolutely no evidence of it, and the only scientific journal even vaguely discussing it shut down years ago. I think Dawkins was incredibly far off the mark with his "meme" idea, and it's possible that human culture and ideas follow more of a Lamarckian evolutionary trajectory than that of a Darwinian one. The two evolutionary biologists of note who believe(d) it were Wilson and Dawkins. I'm not even sure that they believe it anymore.

With regard to your MIT Physicist, his name is Dr. Gerald Schroeder. The idea you're referring to is actually called hylozoism, where the entire universe is alive. Alternatively, you're talking about panpsychism, where all matter is conscious. Both are actually fairly old philosophical views. They're not that New Age, actually. Hylozoism dates back to before Kant, and panpsychism (if memory serves) goes back to the Greeks.

The Selfish Gene is now almost 40 years old. There are far better, far more current books on the evolutionary paradigm. I suggest most of Stephen Jay Gould's popular books instead. Alternatively, you can read Francisco Ayala's books.

With regard to evolution, I approach this more as a theological/philosophical question. I'm not a biologist, but I've read some of the literature. Even if we've evolved the moral sense, it doesn't mean that there's no absolute morality. We could still be beholden to an absolute morality (as I think we are, and as I would bet most of us think we are, at least implicitly) and have evolved our moral sense. I am fairly convinced that the modern evolutionary synthesis has at least some of the answers in biology. It certainly doesn't have all of them. Personally, however, I am convinced that there's something beyond simple mutation and natural selection. The theory is clearly incomplete, but we don't know where it's incomplete. This is why scientific paradigm shifts are rare and difficult.

[Truth Teller]

(06-04-2015 05:28 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Evolution is such an obviously nonsensical idea that, absent total cultural propaganda, it truly does take an impressive intellect to talk oneself into believing it.

I doubt very much that most people here would believe in evolution if they had never heard of it before and were presented the evidence with a blank slate. At this point most people simply default into believing in evolution (and by believing I should more accurately say, "not questioning") because of peer pressure ("What, you don't believe in evolution? Wow...and I thought you were intelligent").

There is a certain intellectual blindness that always accompanies hubris. I would caution those who are utterly convinced they know facts about what supposedly happened billions of years ago to keep that in mind.

I strongly disagree. I think that evolution is heavily supported by the evidence available. On a philosophical/theological note, I find a god who is able to design and act through a self-sustaining process to be far more awe-inspiring than a god who has to magic everything up.

It also goes rather well with my Thomistic view of nature and the world. But I'm just a Catholic, so what would I know?

[scorpion]

(06-04-2015 05:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I strongly disagree. I think that evolution is heavily supported by the evidence available. On a philosophical/theological note, I find a god who is able to design and act through a self-sustaining process to be far more awe-inspiring than a god who has to magic everything up.

It also goes rather well with my Thomistic view of nature and the world. But I'm just a Catholic, so what would I know?

The problem with evolution is really the problem with atheism: the beginning. It isn't that much of a stretch to believe that, given enough time, a monkey could evolve into a human. I can understand how people can believe that. However, what's completely nonsensical is that a lifeless rock could first evolve into a living organism. The entire theory (unless you subscribe to a God-directed form of evolution, which you apparently do Truth Teller, which is at least a defensible position - but most evolutionists deny God entirely) thus breaks down from the very beginning. It's like believing that a car drove around the entire world without having any gas in the tank. There is simply no way for evolution to have occurred because there is no conceivable way for the first (and most necessary) step to have taken place - which is the evolution of a non-living piece of matter into a living organism at some point following the Big Bang. Nonsense about some kind of "primordial soup" is just that - nonsense - and certainly requires as much if not more faith to believe than any religion.

[flyfreshandyoung]

@seadog

I believe you misunderstand.

Pointing out that species can vary in size and shape due to environmental factors (micro evolution/Darwin's finches) =/= new species forming (macro evolution)

And you're right, I did not say new appendages just pop up out of nowhere. But your example does just fine highlighting the absurdity of the macro evolution argument, and that it ignores extreme mathematical and statistical odds.

[Blobert]

(06-04-2015 05:55 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 05:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I strongly disagree. I think that evolution is heavily supported by the evidence available. On a philosophical/theological note, I find a god who is able to design and act through a self-sustaining process to be far more awe-inspiring than a god who has to magic everything up.

It also goes rather well with my Thomistic view of nature and the world. But I'm just a Catholic, so what would I know?

The problem with evolution is really the problem with atheism: the beginning. It isn't that much of a stretch to believe that, given enough time, a monkey could evolve into a human. I can understand how people can believe that. However, what's completely nonsensical is that a lifeless rock could first evolve into a living organism. The entire theory (unless you subscribe to a God-directed form of evolution, which you apparently do Truth Teller, which is at least a defensible position - but most evolutionists deny God entirely) thus breaks down from the very beginning. It's like believing that a car drove around the entire world without having any gas in the tank. There is simply no way for evolution to have occurred because there is no conceivable way for the first (and most necessary) step to have taken place - which is the evolution of a non-living piece of matter into a living organism at some point following the Big Bang. Nonsense about some kind of "primordial soup" is just that - nonsense - and certainly requires as much if not more faith to believe than any religion.

There is no obvious proof about the origin of life, one way or another. But that's not really relevant to evolution, is it? Evolution is simply the fact that tall people tend to have tall kids, black people tend to have black kids, dumb people tend to have dumb kids, and so forth (though there's always exceptions and usually regression to the mean).

If someone dogmatically believes in a primordial soup as our genesis, that is indeed an ideological stance not based on plausible evidence. But to treat it as a possibility, something to test and try to verify, is reasonable until we discover something that gives us a likelier theory.
Most scientists won't take offense to you asserting that we have no solid knowledge on the origin of life.

[Quintus Curtius]

(06-04-2015 05:03 PM)Caveman Wrote:  

Ok I see some of the posters in this thread have a fairly solid understanding of the theory of evolution, but are "criticizing" the article in a very indirect way.

I however won't sugar coat it so much.

Roosh I consider this article you wrote a major blunder.

I don't know what is happening and what you're trying to do, I've been very happy with the forum and your writings so far, but now you want to start a new ideology (neo-masculinity), if this new stance of yours against evolution is your attempt to attract the religious crowd, I'm afraid it will be at the expense of alienating scientifically minded men who are ALREADY in your camp...

Caveman:

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You are not the only man here who is the product of a scientific education, and yet you seem all too eager to reject the boisterous debate that can often produce true creative breakthroughs.

Think with your heart, not with your head. Your head deceives you. The artist does not ask for permission from others before producing his creative works.

Your criticisms are carping and unfair. No one--neither you, me, nor anyone else--should ever be made to feel ashamed or apologetic by sincerely trying to generate positive discourse.

Sincerity in the investigation of worthy ideas should always be celebrated.

That is what creative people do. That is what thinkers do. They grasp a proposition, wrestle with the idea, internalize it, and try to extract whatever essential oils they can from it, so that they can add to their reservoir of knowledge.

This is how the creative process works: this is process that marks the upward path of knowledge. Instead of criticizing it, you should be roundly applauding it.

Francis Bacon, in his Novum Organum (1620), one of the great texts in the philosophy of science, tells us that for man to advance in learning, he must free himself from the grip of three "idols" (i.e., prejudices). They are:

1. The Idols of the Tribe. These are the errors and prejudices common to all men in general. We inherit many of them from our environment, and imbibe them from our surroundings.

2. The Idols of the Cave. These are the errors and prejudices adhering to an individual man. He brings these to the table himself, as products of his upbringing and experiences.

3. The Idols of the Market-Place. These are the errors and prejudices that arise from the interaction and communication of men with each other. Language and communication can often create as much confusion as it resolves.

Clear away these cobwebs of error. Clear away these musty, moldering ways of thinking, that only hold you back, and prevent you from firing new synapses of your brain!

Are you brave enough for this?

Only by the free spirit of inquiry, using all tools at our disposal--scientific induction, deduction, religion, and intuition--can we hope to push out the boundaries of our knowledge.

What we need is not a timid retreat into safe zones of thought--as you advocate--but a brave penetration into matters until now accepted as dogma.

What have you to lose? Nothing. And what have you to gain? Everything.

Yes. I said: everything.

.

[Roosh]

Quote:

That's right. And in every sex act my aim was to have an orgasm, which is linked to sharing DNA. We aren't consciously driven to have sex with thoughts like "I must reproduce, and therefore must have sex." It's more like "orgasms feel good, so I will pursue them."

There is no link to reproduction and you having an orgasm in a condom, or if you're me, pulling out and blasting on her body parts. You can use evolution to describe why the orgasm and sex feels good, but not to describe your current behavior which is so fearful of reproduction, that you are doing all you can to prevent it.

I made this same mistake for many years, but it was an illusion. Sport fucking has nothing to do with reproduction or evolution.

[Roosh]

Quote:

You, or anyone else here, deciding not to have kids is not a failure of evolution. It is the result of an advanced human brain that exists precisely due to smart motherfuckers surviving and reproducing generation after generation.

So you believe that humans have transcended the rules of evolution, and can live outside of the paradigm that constrains plants, animals, and bacteria?

[TheWastelander]

(06-04-2015 08:03 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

You, or anyone else here, deciding not to have kids is not a failure of evolution. It is the result of an advanced human brain that exists precisely due to smart motherfuckers surviving and reproducing generation after generation.

So you believe that humans have transcended the rules of evolution, and can live outside of the paradigm that constrains plants, animals, and bacteria?

Most of us have. Plants, animals and bacteria live in a state of nature where their physical aspects, hardiness, and luck determines whether they live on to reproduce or not. We create our own environments and we're the apex predator in the world. Unlike them we're also clever enough to come up with all sorts of tools and ways to survive things they simply can't.

I think to a certain extent those living in the first world have transcended "survival of the fittest" as it's classically known and thought of. In the future we very well could determine our own evolution through genetic engineering (which opens up a whole new can of worms).

[JacksonRev]

I don't understand the evolution hate. It's the most beautiful idea I've ever come across.

It's fractals upon fractals.

[Blobert]

(06-04-2015 07:41 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 05:03 PM)Caveman Wrote:  

Ok I see some of the posters in this thread have a fairly solid understanding of the theory of evolution, but are "criticizing" the article in a very indirect way.

I however won't sugar coat it so much.

Roosh I consider this article you wrote a major blunder.

I don't know what is happening and what you're trying to do, I've been very happy with the forum and your writings so far, but now you want to start a new ideology (neo-masculinity), if this new stance of yours against evolution is your attempt to attract the religious crowd, I'm afraid it will be at the expense of alienating scientifically minded men who are ALREADY in your camp...

Caveman:

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You are not the only man here who is the product of a scientific education, and yet you seem all too eager to reject the boisterous debate that can often produce true creative breakthroughs.

Think with your heart, not with your head. Your head deceives you. The artist does not ask for permission from others before producing his creative works.

Your criticisms are carping and unfair. No one--neither you, me, nor anyone else--should ever be made to feel ashamed or apologetic by sincerely trying to generate positive discourse.

Sincerity in the investigation of worthy ideas should always be celebrated.

That is what creative people do. That is what thinkers do. They grasp a proposition, wrestle with the idea, internalize it, and try to extract whatever essential oils they can from it, so that they can add to their reservoir of knowledge.

This is how the creative process works: this is process that marks the upward path of knowledge. Instead of criticizing it, you should be roundly applauding it.

Francis Bacon, in his Novum Organum (1620), one of the great texts in the philosophy of science, tells us that for man to advance in learning, he must free himself from the grip of three "idols" (i.e., prejudices). They are:

1. The Idols of the Tribe. These are the errors and prejudices common to all men in general. We inherit many of them from our environment, and imbibe them from our surroundings.

2. The Idols of the Cave. These are the errors and prejudices adhering to an individual man. He brings these to the table himself, as products of his upbringing and experiences.

3. The Idols of the Market-Place. These are the errors and prejudices that arise from the interaction and communication of men with each other. Language and communication can often create as much confusion as it resolves.

Clear away these cobwebs of error. Clear away these musty, moldering ways of thinking, that only hold you back, and prevent you from firing new synapses of your brain!

Are you brave enough for this?

Only by the free spirit of inquiry, using all tools at our disposal--scientific induction, deduction, religion, and intuition--can we hope to push out the boundaries of our knowledge.

What we need is not a timid retreat into safe zones of thought--as you advocate--but a brave penetration into matters until now accepted as dogma.

What have you to lose? Nothing. And what have you to gain? Everything.

Yes. I said: everything.

.

Sure, you've got to try and let your mind wander in new directions. But not every idea stumbled upon necessarily has any value, and then you've just got to call a spade a spade.

[Alfa]

Isn't this whole thing a bit of a straw man? Doesn't survival of the fittest mean the organism happened to have an advantage for survival during that place and that time. For example, the moths that were charcoal color without bright patches during the industrial revolution weren't eaten while those who didn't blend in with the soot on trees did.

I think the word 'fittest' triggers the image of zero sum competition but it's much more conditional and random than that.

In the context of what roosh wrote, it seems like the betas are the ones who will pass on the genes. That's what I don't understand. If women thought it would be advantageous to have alphas in the future to carry on something as important as her genes, then why have kids with mr beta bux. Maybe in the future cuckoldry will be the aspiration of young women everywhere.

Seems like alpha behavior is a bit like violence, it's in decline due to systemic deterrence like outsourcing of our justice to third party sources (government and police). But the urge is still there much like it is for women to mate with alphas. But our progression as a society still depends on value add betas not superfluous alphas.

Also I always wondered why roosh never reviewed better angels by pinker. He explains the sides of human nature in depth. Gates said it's the best book he's ever read. The book roosh reviewed seemed to be cherry picked and a bit less rigorous than many others he could have chosen. I guess whatever fits the new contrarian narrative he's pushing. Just seems a bit backwards to me.

[SamuelBRoberts]

"It's more a gradual push in a certain direction. If food sources became higher because all the low stuff got eaten, animal heights would get incrementally higher in response, then the even high trees would survive better and an upward arms race would begin as the highest trees get selected."

This "gradual push" argument is something I've never really understood, because of the time scales involved for it to propagate through a population. Let's take the example of a giraffe, since that's the one you used. Let's say a giraffe mutates a neck that's 5cm longer than the one before it. Let's say this mutation occurs in oh, one out of a thousand giraffes, and that there's 80,000 giraffes. (This is how many giraffes there are in the world right now, according to some website.)
So in a given generation you'll have 80 giraffes with this mutation. Under basic Darwinist theories, the longer-necked giraffes will, over time, outbreed the shorter ones. But how long will this take?
Well, sure, a longer neck helps you get more food. But how much of an advantage to survival is the ability to get more food? A longer neck won't save you from being eaten by a lion, shot by a hunter, killed by a disease, struck by lightning in a thunderstorm, pushed over by African giraffe-tippers, etc... It only helps you in the rare case that you wouldn't be able to survive long enough to reproduce without a 5cm longer neck.

In what circumstances are those 80 giraffes going to be able to outbreed the remaining 79,920 enough to take over the population? Remember, a longer neck incurs disadvantages too (Needs more muscles/calories per day to hold it up, can't run as fast, harder to breathe, etc.)

This isn't even getting into the fact that if you only got the mutation for "a longer neck" on its own, all it's going to do is make your head snap off under its own weight. The muscle structures needed for a 10cm long neck and a 5 meter long neck are completely different, and require some serious modifications to the rest of the body, (stronger heart and lungs, more efficient digestion system to get the extra energy needed, probably some serious rewiring of the nerves to deal with the fact that the brain is now a car-length away from the rest of the body, and two or three hundred other things that I can't even imagine.)

And all of this stuff is supposed to happen randomly? All of it in concert? When lacking even one of them will cause your new long-neck giraffe's chances of survival to zero when he dies horribly?

I don't buy it. There's something else going on here, and we don't know what it is yet.

"Explanation #1: You genuinely misunderstood it. This is not very likely, considering you've read "The Selfish Gene" which provides an excellent explanation of all major aspects of evolution, and this includes the altruism you dabbled with in your text, and it shows how it helps not only groups but also individuals survive better (hint: altruism towards non-relatives is always coupled with an expectation of reciprocity).

Explanation #2: You don't really believe what you wrote, but have some agenda with this new stance of yours against evolution. This seems more likely to me, especially considering how systematic and thoughtful you've been on all subjects you've written in the past. There are no words to describe how shallow all the arguments in your article are, there's simply no way to embellish a turd to be something pretty, the theory of evolution has so many solid arguments accumulated to back it up (including how it applies to modern humans), I see any attack on it is doomed from the start.

Explanation #3: Maybe this is some kind of a prank, similar as your being imprisoned joke..."

This is very silly and you should be embarrassed for writing it. If you think there are flaws in the essay then say them. Don't just say "A bunch of smart people think evolution is right," and "I bet this is a prank of yours."

By the way, some quotes from the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, which is hardly a bastion of fundamentalist thought...
https://books.google.com/books?id=sdloAg...es&f=false

"Does natural selection explain [the phenomenon of declining birthrates in modern Europe]? Surely not, or at least not as natural selection is usually conceived."
"It should be obvious that there are plenty of changes to human populations that are not explained by natural selection..."

[EuroSlumming]

You appear to make a large extrapolation from your lifestyle of sportfucking and desire not to reproduce to the men on the forum and then society at large.

In general most men on this forum are in their 20's to 30's and from what I've read it appears that at some point a high percentage of them want to have children.
So there really isn't any desire not to reproduce they just want it at a time of their choosing rather than with some random girl that they don't want any kind of long term relationship with - seems quite sensible to me.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Alright - so after having read Roosh's article and also the one by TheMantheMyth's rebuttal:
http://themanthemyth.com/roosh-aint-no-g...k-learnin/

Here is my take:

+ Roosh focuses mainly on some aspects of evolution that should explain human behavior, but don't - mostly the selfish gene theory
+ TheMyth makes some good points too, but covers different aspects and also different definitions of evolution

Personally I think that evolution does take place, even with humans it has not stopped - wherever you have humans reproducing along certain physical criteria more, you have some kind of evolution. In many instances it also depends on whose progeny survives for thousands of years.

However there are a few points which make the science of evolution much less settled than it seems:

+ I mentioned the mathematical calculations which have questioned the randomness of evolution
+ There is a relatively new field called morphogenetic fields brought forward by the brilliant scientist Rupert Sheldrake:

If you are not familiar with this topic, I recommend you take a look at it. Essentially the theory states the following:



http://www.sheldrake.org/

+ every living lifeform has a morphogenetic field that is not visible within our vision spectrum
+ that biomagnetic field is prevalent within every cell of that creature and contains the structure of the lifeform and future look of it
+ that field can be interacted upon and even disturbed (tests done on it with animal embryos)
+ that field not only contains genetic information that is not included in the chemical DNA, but it also interacts with other fields of the lifeform on the same planet
+ they call this morphic resonance as it was observed on studies with mice - he explains it in detail
+ there is even data which backs up morphic resonance with humans as a group

I think that the science is not settled at all as far as our knowledge of human and animal behavior is concerned. We are a technologically speaking young species, who dies of ridiculous diseases like cancer and who claims that drinking rat poison in low doses is good for your teeth.

There is still way more to discover before we can claim with any decent certainty how humans tick both in terms of our psychological as well as biological makeup.

By the way - Dr. Sheldrake knew fully well that publishing that theory would make him a scientific pariah, so he waited 10 years after which he made enough money and was sufficiently well-off to venture into new areas of research. He still felt that it is necessary to push the boundaries of science forward despite the love of the scientific community to adhere to old rules and thinking patterns. In our times political and business agendas are the greatest hindrance to the scientific advancement of our species.

So discussing a few questionable points should not make one a creationist, who claims that Earth was created by a bearded man on a Monday 3986 B.C. at 4 pm.

[Blobert]

(06-05-2015 12:52 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

"It's more a gradual push in a certain direction. If food sources became higher because all the low stuff got eaten, animal heights would get incrementally higher in response, then the even high trees would survive better and an upward arms race would begin as the highest trees get selected."

This "gradual push" argument is something I've never really understood, because of the time scales involved for it to propagate through a population. Let's take the example of a giraffe, since that's the one you used. Let's say a giraffe mutates a neck that's 5cm longer than the one before it. Let's say this mutation occurs in oh, one out of a thousand giraffes, and that there's 80,000 giraffes. (This is how many giraffes there are in the world right now, according to some website.)
So in a given generation you'll have 80 giraffes with this mutation. Under basic Darwinist theories, the longer-necked giraffes will, over time, outbreed the shorter ones. But how long will this take?
Well, sure, a longer neck helps you get more food. But how much of an advantage to survival is the ability to get more food? A longer neck won't save you from being eaten by a lion, shot by a hunter, killed by a disease, struck by lightning in a thunderstorm, pushed over by African giraffe-tippers, etc... It only helps you in the rare case that you wouldn't be able to survive long enough to reproduce without a 5cm longer neck.

In what circumstances are those 80 giraffes going to be able to outbreed the remaining 79,920 enough to take over the population? Remember, a longer neck incurs disadvantages too (Needs more muscles/calories per day to hold it up, can't run as fast, harder to breathe, etc.)

This isn't even getting into the fact that if you only got the mutation for "a longer neck" on its own, all it's going to do is make your head snap off under its own weight. The muscle structures needed for a 10cm long neck and a 5 meter long neck are completely different, and require some serious modifications to the rest of the body, (stronger heart and lungs, more efficient digestion system to get the extra energy needed, probably some serious rewiring of the nerves to deal with the fact that the brain is now a car-length away from the rest of the body, and two or three hundred other things that I can't even imagine.)

And all of this stuff is supposed to happen randomly? All of it in concert? When lacking even one of them will cause your new long-neck giraffe's chances of survival to zero when he dies horribly?

I don't buy it. There's something else going on here, and we don't know what it is yet.

5cm? Humans have well 50cm of height variety between our shortest and tallest. I imagine giraffes must have much more. And there's a new generation of giraffes every 5 years or so. In a few centuries or millenia, there's a lot of room to weed out the smaller giraffes if they are at a disadvantage in survival.


If traits are heritable, and those traits affect ones reproductive success... Well,it's not a very hard conclusion to draw.