Roosh's "Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply..." Discussion

[ted93704]

Of course evolution has been occuring...Roosh and the vast majority of you dont understand evolution. First, one of the biggest things is that people with poor eyesite are able to procreate thanks to technology. We are becoming a weaker species in certain aspects as a result. Also, people are becoming less violent. There are 3 races in this world...read a book people!

 

[Bad Hussar]

I'm very confused why people say "evolution explains the origins of life"

Life may have been created by God, brought by aliens, or spontaneously arisen as a complex series of chemical reactions. None of those origins for life have to do with whether, or how, life evolves once it exists.

Current evolutionary models don't explain the origin of life, But they do explain, extremely well, how complexity arises from simplicity, and also, to take a slightly different angle, how randomness gives rise to order. Think about how big a deal that is. So evolutionary theory carries you as far back as extremely simple replicators. I don't really care for religious debate, but to me Darwinism provides a much more elegant "creation myth" than any religion.

All this grumbling over this or that little hiccup is just dwarfed by the immense explanatory power of Darwinism. So the theory accounts for the development of multitudes of complex lifeforms from extremely basic forms over billions of years, but people want to grumble about the little that is not yet demonstrated. Maybe the fact that it seems so simple is what upsets people. But a lot of great ideas are simple.

About the only field of study that can give you a bigger thrill is Physics. But that is substantially harder to understand than biological evolution.

 

[iknowexactly]

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,

I disagree that the communication, kindness and honesty you mention are anti-survival traits in most situations and times.

Because my Mom said "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

Tasks that create/maintain power centers/empires ( bridges, roads, drones, vaccines) take very, very extensive honest communication and cooperation, including revealing bad news to one's detriment.

Who do you personally want to associate with?

Honest, kind communicators or devious, greedy assholes? Remember, a good greedy asshole will act honest and kind until he gets the opportunity for a maximal payoff betrayal.

I am literally in the process of selecting a mate and I am screening like crazy for these three qualities. Evolution at work.

Bringing Bronze age cosmology and pre-evolution Creation ideas in as explanation seems irrelevant and unnecessary. Such texts are great poetry, and contain nuggets of practical wisdom, but are utterly outdated in explaining things scientifically.

 

[iknowexactly]

All this grumbling ... is just dwarfed by the immense explanatory power of Darwinism.

+1 rep great phrase and point.

 

[iknowexactly]

I'm very confused why people say "evolution explains the origins of life"

Life may have been created by God, brought by aliens, or spontaneously arisen as a complex series of chemical reactions. None of those origins for life have to do with whether, or how, life evolves once it exists.

I don't get this distinction. Any chemical reaction that would tend to repeat, and thus after a long fucking time give rise to reproduction and survival activity, would seem to be part of evolution.

I never even took high school chemistry, so I might be off here lol.

God created life is an atrocious explanation, it leads to the more difficult question of how God was created; an even more unlikely phenomenon since God is more presumably more complex and powerful than amoebas and trilobytes.

 

[Sonsowey]

^Simply put, evolution is the process by which life changes. It is not the origin of life. That subject is called "abiogenesis", how life came from something that was not alive.