Post: #1

Surprised this wasn't made yet. Let's discuss Roosh's "Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply..." here.

New cannon? Old commonsense with updated context?

Lots of comments on Roosh's site and Rollo's of the meta "evolution already accounts for those points" variety.

I enjoyed the read. The takeaway for me is that one's default beliefs, core principles, etc., are a lens and context for analysis, not a physical reality. Not gonna pontificate beyond that for now.

What do you guys think?

Post: #2

I see many human behaviors that make little sense in the light of evolution, such as

• homosexuality
• transexuality (why would a man want to become a woman and vice versa)
• some practices of avoiding sexual release
  

Also, we aren't the first culture to experience some of these. For instance, towards Romes' end, Juvenal also describes some odd behaviors that seem counter to what we'd expect from evolution, like a many who refuses to defile himself sexually, so he requires that his slave sleep with his wife and presents the offspring as his own, even though, they aren't.

As a contrast, religions - like Christianity - tend to attribute this counter behavior to man's rejection of God (Romans 1 comes to mind). As man rejects God, he begins to behave in ways that are contradictory to the way God made things, and at a certain threshold, God gives man into this counter behavior (implying that God no longer cares about this person destroying themself).

All of this is fascinating because we see cultures rise to great power, like the Greeks, Romans, Chinese (have been a world power before now), and yet we see declines. The United States was once a great culture (defeated the Soviet Union), yet Russia and China now seem to be taking its place and over the next hundred years, we could see Western societies decline.

What I don't understand, and I can see why Roosh wrote what he wrote, is why this happens. We have history in front of us and most of us have learned it, so why do we keep making the same mistake? At some point, shouldn't we learn and stop this? Also, if we are here to reproduce and that is the highest level of our being, why do we engage in behaviors that don't lead to this? And not only that, but then encourage others to do the same (at least, if we decide not to reproduce, we should know the importance of others doing so).

It was a good read and I've had some of those same questions that don't make sense. Like many religions, people who subscribe to evolution love to rationalize it away, even when their rationalizations make little sense (or are predicated on the assumption that evolution is true, thus leading to tautological problems).

Post: #3

The comments on my article are defending group evolution, which is not the standard definition of evolution and pretty much a marginal flavor of evolution.

Before my article, there was no shortage of people saying the only purpose to life was to "survive and reproduce", but now they have gone in hiding and the argument I'm seeing is "Wait 1,000 years for evolution to show its true form." Maybe the Second Coming will arrive sooner.

Post: #4

(06-03-2015 06:03 PM)Roosh Wrote:  The comments on my article are defending group evolution, which is not the standard definition of evolution and pretty much a marginal flavor of evolution.

Your piece had me really visualizing the entire human "group" as a single organism, moving from deity to Darwinity to anti-reproductive modern society. It's like a tree becoming diseased on one limb: if the limb is allowed to rot and fall off, the rest of the tree can grow more efficiently. But the tree analogy (reproduce != rot) falls apart if evolution does not apply.

The freedom to consider other innately human "puppet masters" is a great philosophical exercise, and can help us to live life as one's own master.

Post: #5

I can't find the study now, but birth rate goes down as resource use goes up, where human females consume more resources than elephant females and have lower fertility rates. This follows from D'Arcy Thompson's studies on growth and form, where there are certain universal physical constraints regardless of species variables.

Plus, evolution is substrate neutral, it's just how information manages to reproduce itself. Whether it's the genes of mitochondria and other single celled organisms coming together to form communities based on trading DNA that then enclosed all of them and became multicellular organisms, to certain multicellular organisms forming communities that trade memes and become enclosed in even larger super-organisms.

The super-organisms can still get cancer, which is also substrate neutral and a natural result of evolution.

Evolution is just what can survive and reproduce does, and what can't doesn't.

It doesn't mean anything is supposed to survive.

Post: #6

Let me see if I can illustrate this better.

People like narratives. They like stories. Because liking and understand stories is incredibly useful. You can learn from other people, and more importantly, as Alan Jackson says, "Who's cheatin who? Who being true? And who don't even care even more?"

Which is why we have religion and Marvel.

This is very important from an evolutionary aspect, even though the thought process is diametrically opposed to evolution.

There is no progress in evolution. Things don't get better. Things don't get worse. The things that survived the past are here today. It doesn't mean those things will still be here in the future. The environment changes, from natural physical processes and other organisms. And these other organisms are making new information constantly, by trying to copy themselves, albeit imperfectly.

Societies and individuals can crash just like computer programs do with faulty code.

Honestly, I think life looks like this:

R = A / N - E

Where R = Reproduction, A = Available resources for reproduction, N = Necessary resources for reproduction, and E = Environmental influences opposed to reproduction (other organisms, lava, feminist indoctrination, etc).

For Reproduction to happen, R must be greater than 1.

Side note: No one will know how society works and where it is going. Same as a single neuron or single stomach cell doesn't know where you're going. You're the combination of the relationships of your cells. Certain groups know more about what's going on than other, like your brain versus your stomach cells. But nothing works in a vacuum. Your brain still needs feedback.

Well, the society super-organism is even bigger. So it has all the functions of your body, plus more. Consumption, modification, and disposal of resources. And while some people and groups can see more of these connections than others, none of us will truly know where we're going, or even if we're on the right path.

It's bigger than all of us. All we'll only know is that we got it right while we're still here. If we get it wrong, we won't be here. And none of us will know.

*Edited equation for clarity

Post: #7

I am a bit late to this show but I believe our purpose is still to survive and reproduce but it is necessary to look at individual societies to see this in effect.

Looking at the Western World we see declining birthrates. My humble assertion is that throughout most history women were the primary selectors of reproduction, however within the last 30 years this has drastically switched.

My assertion is that in reality men are now choosing who to reproduce with and by doing so we are ensuring survivability of the species by refusing to reproduce with the modern woman. There is a dearth of women who wish to procreate but men refuse due to the womens' appearance or the legal pressures put on us by our Western society.

Thus, indirectly, survival of the fittest is inplay by ensuring the reduction of genes that favor being overweight or for what manifests as feminism.

It should be no suprise to readers here that Russia actually has had a slight uptick in its reproduction rate for the exact opposite of these reasons.

Post: #8

It's interesting how Roosh points out that man has an innate sense of altruism, an innate desire for communication (fellowship), and an innate predilection for honesty. These certainly do not seem like the sort of traits that man would innately possess if he were a Darwinian savage, the product of million of years of brutal, winner-takes-all competition for survival. Rather, these traits speak to an inner nature of man that, paradoxically, seems greater than what man himself is capable of, especially if man is nothing more than just another animal trying to survive. These traits, which represent the best of humanity, indeed seem positively inhuman if man is nothing more than a product of evolution. Of course, there is another explanation for how and why man possesses such inborn traits: man was created in the image of God, and these traits are simply a reflection of the creator himself.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - Genesis 1: 26-27

Post: #9

There are other species that also cooperate with each other, such as, of the top of my head, ants.

I'm not sure why altruism, fellowship, and a predilection for honesty contradicts evolution at all.

I could also imagine the opposite scenario where religions originate from the need for intra-species cooperation.

Post: #10

I think that Roosh has been brewing his tea too strong.

Post: #11

(06-03-2015 07:56 PM)kleyau Wrote:  Honestly, I think life looks like this:

R = A / N - E

Where R = Reproduction, A = Available resources for reproduction, N = Necessary resources for reproduction, and E = Environmental influences opposed to reproduction (other organisms, lava, feminist indoctrination, etc).

It would be a lot catchier if it was:

R = A / P - E

P = Prerequisite

Post: #12

Reading Roosh's article had a stimulating effect, which I think was his intent. Whether you agree with his premises or not, it provokes healthy debate. And in a way, this itself is part of evolution. Ideas "evolve" out of the reconciliation of extremities.

The never-ending debate between faith and reason, and between science and religion, leaves us more perplexed than ever. Explanations generate more questions than they answer. Behind every apparent certainty lies an inscrutable unknown.

If we see science and religion as opposite poles, then perhaps we can begin to see the wisdom in Herbert Spencer’s assertion in his Autobiography that “Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic principles.” That is, Aristotle’s conception of the “golden mean” seems to be the best determiner of truth. So, for example, courage can be seen as the median between the extremes of rashness and cowardice.

Neither science nor religion can answer all questions. The atheist rashly believes that science contains all the answers that matter. But we find just as many absurdities in science as we do in religion. Do we really even know what matter is? As we divide and subdivide the atom, we get a nearly infinite plethora of particles, strings, waves, and vibrations, all existing (we think!) in an uneasy cacaphony.

Space, time, and motion all seem to be (so we are told) relative to everything else, a fact that leaves us feeling more helpless and bewildered than ever. Grand theories that purport to explain everything are replaced every few decades by ever more grand theories. We are left to scratch our heads.

The theologian hardly fares better. He constructs intricate cobwebs of metaphysics to convince himself and others of the eternal truths that, with the passage of a few centuries, appear to be neither eternal nor true. Perhaps the problem lies in the limitations of thinking itself, in the very process of cognition. If we choose to think one way, we are steered towards “rational” explanations; if we choose to think another way, we are steered towards “spiritual” explanations.

Viewed in this way, it is not difficult to reconcile religion and science. Both of them are different ways of approaching the Unknowable. Our very act of thinking helps determine the outcome of the thought.

What is evolution? Spencer defined it as “an integration of matter and a concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity…” That is, systems move from a state of chaos to something that looks more ordered and “coherent.” But things do not “evolve” upwardly forever. At some point, what was once evolution begins to disintegrate back into disorder and simplicity. Empires collapse; societies disintegrate; and genius reduces itself to absurdity. Disorder evolves from order, and then the process begins again.

Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence is a reality. All things will repeat themselves, as prophesied in Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue when he says (IV.31):

A second Typhys will then arise, and a second Argo to carry
Chosen heroes; a second war will be fought, and great Achilles be sent again to Troy.

With regard to biology, Nature cares more about groups of organisms than about individual organisms. It is the perpetuation of the species that matters for Nature; she cares little for the virtue of the individual, only the fecundity of the race. In fact, intelligence and fertility seem to be inversely related: as intelligence grows, so is lessened the desire to breed.

On average, scientists and philosophers are not known for their procreative abilities. The more highly developed a group or an individual is, the less fertile the group or individual seems to be. It is as if all of the energy normally devoted to procreation is channeled into the refinements of civilization.

Organisms adapt themselves to their environments by the processes of natural selection; those traits that help ensure the survival of the species are passed on, and those that contribute little or nothing are marginalized. The individual organism has little or no say in this grand process. The process is random, uncontrolled, and imperceptible.

Is there a role for the individual in this seemingly impersonal process? Apparently not. At least this has been the rule historically; but it appears that humans are approaching some sort of tipping point where they will finally be able to “influence” the process of evolution. Nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and robotics are poised to change the very definition of what it means to be human. We are creating our replacements. They are right before our eyes.

And this is precisely the point. Once we begin to control the natural process of evolution–by using these new technologies–we have taken an evolutionary detour from which there will be no return. We will have taken, perhaps, the first steps towards the development of a new species: homo mechanicus.

We are evolving ourselves right into oblivion.

.

Post: #13

Evolution is not some force that guides anyone towards any particular path. Evolution is the outcome of changes to the overall frequency of certain genetic traits in a population due to mutations and selection.

Most mutations, the big majority, are harmful. Our species has dealt with millions of worthless, dead end mutations before we come up with one like lactose tolerance that is actually useful.

We are no longer fighting off lions and hyenas to survive. Yet we see that some people reproduce more than others, some reproduce not at all, some reproduce very little. Those reproducing a lot will pass on their genes and traits, those not reproducing won't.

The fact that Roosh or any of us hasn't had a kid does not mean evolution doesn't apply. It means that the traits you have which lead you to not have a kid are not traits that are going to be passed down. Like a slow person might have not passed down his genes 100,000 years ago because a wild animal they didn't see coming ate them, a person who dutifully pulls out won't reproduce and won't pass on their genes, and evolutionarily may as well have been eaten by a lion.

Someone not reproducing, or doing something that doesn't help their chances to reproduce, doesn't mean evolution is no longer happening. Evolution is aggregate change in frequencies of certain genes. The human race is not staying static, if some groups reproduce more than others, the gene pool of humanity is changing on the whole, evolving in one direction or another.

Post: #14

Quote:What’s convenient for evolutionists is that none of their assertions can be proven, meaning that evolution is not more than one step above astrology in terms of describing or predicting human behavior. It’s gibberish.

I've been expecting this ever since Roosh mentioned it in another post on here...and since MikeCF posted his article about the methodology used in evolutionary psych.

The truth is that, despite everything I believe in, there is this sort of hero worship of modern science which is wholly undeserving. Something like 80% of all psych research is not falsifiable. fMRI research is frequently irrelevant. Today, prestige is mandated, academic jobs are very competitive, and simultaneously the highly skilled individuals who would otherwise work there leave for industry (in no small part because of the terrible PC climate at universities, even in STEM). We should not at all be surprised that theorizing is becoming increasingly obtuse.

In a very strong way, I applaud Roosh for popping this bubble. Sometimes the most powerful lies are the ones which are the most incredible.

What a wild ride.

Post: #15

Many tenets of game are in line with the theory of evolution's survival of the fittest, and these tenets absolutely apply to modern human beings:

-Women prefer masculine and strong (in terms of status and muscular strength) men.
-Men prefer thin women.
-Preselection.

These are the first things coming to my mind. I'm sure there are many more.

Additionally, Schopenhauer's work was published before the work of Darwin, and Darwin's findings were substantially in line with Schopenhauer's observations. That means, you don't have to look at millions of years to see evolution at work. Schopenhauer diagnosed it with his two eyes within the span of a human lifetime.

Post: #16

Interesting topic. Have to read Roosh's article and a rebuttal of it here:

http://themanthemyth.com/roosh-aint-no-g...k-learnin/

From my research back in the day personally I think that there is definitely some kind of development going on with species. But the problem is that it does not seem random at all. I listened once to a talk by a mathematician and he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the changes and jumps in evolution could not possibly be created in a random fashion. The probabilities in useful genetic changes would be so low that you would get 99,9999999% useless negative mutations with the odd-ball chance that something worthwhile happens.





So essentially our own mathematicians agree that in order to have a semblance of evolution some kind of intelligent force has to shape those changes.

Of course I am no creationist here and the concept of "Intelligent Design" was co-opted by them too.

Personally I think that life is for the benefit and experience of souls and we have divine imperatives to learn about life, about love and about many other things here. From a spiritual perspective altruism makes sense - even animals when fed and cared for exhibit such things. We are more than instinct driven animals in a brutal fight of survival of the fittest.

On the other hand I don't really understand why evo-psych guys get upset by it that much. Whether you call it evolution or not does not matter - behaviorism explains it all very well and the terms and concepts someone like Rollo uses are valid regardless whether you think it is based on Darwinian evolution or it is just based on what men around the world have observed. Behaviorism unites us, while evolution in time will become better researched if we can keep our civilization going for another million years at a similar technological level.

Post: #17

(06-04-2015 02:44 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  ...
So essentially our own mathematicians agree that in order to have a semblance of evolution some kind of intelligent force has to shape those changes.
...

All arguments aside, the paper the video references ( http://evoinfo.org/papers/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf ) is to mathematics what pseudoscience is to science.

Perhaps there is some mathematics in there somewhere but I do not see it.

This is particularly frightening because up to now mathematics has been spared from these sorts of pseudointellectual trends.

Post: #18

It wasn't an earth shattering article by any means. It was ok. It certainly pointed out some flaws in trying to rationalize pathological behaviors as being consistent with evolution.

In general, as Roosh veers away from writing about game and gender dynamics, I enjoy his writing less. This is true of most experts who veer too far off from their areas of expertise and start writing about other issues without spending significant amounts of time trying to build some expertise in those other issues.

I hope Roosh either sticks to what he's an expert at or invests a lot more time into understanding these other areas before he writes about them. But maybe that's just the natural evolution of things. Roosh was not an expert on game when he started blogging so everyone has to start somewhere. Eventually people get tired of the old thing they mastered and try to master a new thing.

Post: #19

Quote:It's interesting how Roosh points out that man has an innate sense of altruism, an innate desire for communication (fellowship), and an innate predilection for honesty. These certainly do not seem like the sort of traits that man would innately possess if he were a Darwinian savage, the product of million of years of brutal, winner-takes-all competition for survival. Rather, these traits speak to an inner nature of man that, paradoxically, seems greater than what man himself is capable of, especially if man is nothing more than just another animal trying to survive.

These traits are no more pronounced today than they were in early recorded history. Improvements to nutrition, medicine, and resource allocation have increased IQ and levels of measurable intelligence in populations over time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect), but the "inner compass" of man and his capacity for both altruism and evil has proven to be a relatively static component of human development.

I believe all humans share the same moral capacity and are made in God's image, but that local culture and environmental circumstances can influence physical and cognitive development in peripheral ways over the long-term. The challenge for me is in reconciling "blank slate" creationism with scientifically verifiable concepts like HBD.

Post: #20

I'm looking forward to the future writings of Roosh if he continues this path.

My journey has been opposite in that from my mid teens until mid 20s rather than chasing girls I was wracking my brains over philosophy and theology. My interests have only turned to other endeavors such as physical self improvement, business and "game" now that I'm for the most part comfortable in my worldview. I was worried about the possibility of being wrong, basing my whole life on a lie and maybe living the consequences. Questions like "Is my reasoning valid?", "Is his reasoning valid?", "Is everyones reasoning valid?", "How would a person with invalid reasoning ever reason to the point of realizing their reasoning is invalid?".

In the end I concluded there must exist absolute truths that transcend time, space and matter - some of which are universally known and some of which are not. It's from these truths that everything in existence is and was defined since before time itself. We hate this idea because it means we can not define truth as best suits ourselves, hence the modern effort to kill any form of absolute truth and with it accountability.

I disregard abiogenesis and evolution as an origin on reasoned philosophical grounds. Ironically, it was the nature of logic, reason, knowledge and truth that drove me away from the materialist evolutionists to which the terms are usually associated. They try to paint anyone who disagrees with their ideology as some sort of idiotic illogical faith hippy with a sky daddy that watches you masturbate.

The caliber of men in this forum means we can discuss this kind of thing without regressing to ad hominems, which is almost impossible to find anywhere else.

Post: #21

Human brain sizes are shrinking, one way in which humanity seems to be evolving:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-...-shrinking

Having a big brain is expensive, and in our less stressful modern living environment, apparently evolutionarily wasteful. Therefore, people with smaller brains, which generally correlates to lower intelligence, are able to reproduce more than those with larger brains without any fitness tradeoffs right now.

We have all witnessed "idiocracy" developing in our society. Some fat idiot with six kids in tow while people with what we consider desirable traits put off having kids, or have only a small number of kids. If some people fail to reproduce while others reproduce, that causes our gene pool to change, that is evolution in action.

In fact, as opposed to evolution stopping, in the last 10,000 years the rate of evolution in human populations has drastically increased.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolu..._2007.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full

To quote this author:

"Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years... Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species."

Before humans left Africa, our environment was less varied than it is today. As people changed their culture from living as groups of a few dozen individuals to living in towns and cities, the factors that contributed to surviving and reproducing changed dramatically, so the types of traits passed down changed as well.

Post: #22

(06-04-2015 12:05 AM)dies irae Wrote:  Additionally, Schopenhauer's work was published before the work of Darwin, and Darwin's findings were substantially in line with Schopenhauer's observations. That means, you don't have to look at millions of years to see evolution at work. Schopenhauer diagnosed it with his two eyes within the span of a human lifetime.

Schopenhauer and Darwin observed the same end results.

Repeatedly ending up with the same result, with completely different reasons, is better validation of the result than the reasons.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #23

I think people are confusing evolution with following a determined path (or even a path they assume to be positive). Evolution does not say that humans must continually evolve to be taller, smarter, etc etc etc.

One also has to look at a species as a whole on a macro level. Otherwise you descend into whataboutism on a micro level.

Post: #24

Everyone seems to have a personal definition of evolution, but the modern take is clear that the individual organism has evolved for the reason of gene replication. I don't buy the excuse that just because of birth control that means we haven't "adapted" to it yet.

Post: #25

Like history, it is often easier to see the bigger picture with the benefit of time.

Reducing things to evolutionary milliseconds makes it nigh on impossible to assess anything critically.