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

[Sonsowey]

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

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-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/evolution/selection/acceleration/accel_story_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.

 

[Benoit]

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.

 

[Saweeep]

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.

 

[Roosh]

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.

 

[Saweeep]

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.

 

[turkishcandy]

As far as adapting goes, my girlfriend is allergic to latex and birth control pills fuck up her metabolism, making her moody and gain weight. This leaves us no other birth control method than pulling out. Maybe latex allergy will be a deadly one in the future. Maybe we will gain immunity to birth control pills over time. I mean, I doubt that women 1000 years ago would show allergic reaction if you exposed them to latex. Even vasectomy can undo itself in rare cases. The efficiency of morning after pills vary from 95 to 65%. There are many signs that suggest that we are already adapting to birth control.

 

[Sonsowey]

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.

Yes but of course, not every individual organism in a population reproduces, and of course many species go extinct entirely. Not that humanity has a problem reproducing, our population is growing at a drastic rate, but not every little subgroup of humanity is growing at that rate.

Having different genes and expressing different phenotypes, some individuals end up being more or less evolutionarily fit in a given environment.

At RVF we have a certain morality that includes not getting women pregnant. It is sometimes framed as self-interest, ie. "Who wants a kid? It will just make your life lame." That idea in itself is maladaptive reproductively.

People have put in tons of time and effort to attract the most fertile women. Every physical characteristic we call "attractive" or "hot" is just a proxy for fertility. Many people don't want to use condoms with these girls, feeling the pleasure that has evolved to make us want sex. Blasting inside a girl feels great, especially when you are used to pulling out. All this seems to be designed to get us to blast inside of girls and have kids.

Yet we at RVF have such willpower that despite fucking dozens or hundreds of hot girls in the prime of their fertility, not using condoms, and being in a perfect position to reproduce with exactly the kind of girl you would want, we have this incredible self control to pull out. And it seems like almost everyone here is successful at this, or if anything has had one or two kids by accident.

It is amazing to me that no one here has twenty or thirty kids. We've certainly all had the chance. We could each have more kids than Charlemagne or Genghis Khan. Yet we don't.

There are people out there with less moral compunctions about having kids, or less forethought to even care about preventing it, who do have sex with lots of different girls and have lots of kids. Whatever it is in our heads that makes us decide against this is not helping us reproduce or spread our genes.

And so the kind of guy who spends years of his life perfecting his game to get tons of hot girls only to responsibly pull out and perhaps ends up with one kid as a rare mistake his nowhere near as fit as the reckless guy who blasts off inside whoever he feels like and ends up with god knows how many kids.

This guy is beating each and every one of us, I suspect:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/40-children-20-women-feckless-5436761

"A shameless dad today boasted that he has fathered 40 children by 20 women, and insisted: “God says go forth and multiply.”

Jobless Mike Holpin, 56, said he had his first sexual experience aged nine and when he eventually became a dad he used one of his babies to “pick up birds”.

The recovering alcoholic confessed he would not recognise all of his children – aged between three and 37 – but he is adamant he still wants more.

He said: “Oh god yes, of course I do. I’m only 56. I’d never stop, I’d never stop."

The man is an alcoholic whose children mostly ended up on welfare, and so in the modern environment, he's doing great. The welfare state provides for his offspring and so he is free to go and have another 40 if he likes. In an environment without a welfare state of course you could see how this same strategy could backfire, and how women might be less likely to want to sleep with this kind of person. Yet we have amongst our population of 7 billion plenty of different sexual and reproductive strategies. Some will work better now, some better tomorrow.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

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.

All that means is that those things are socially constructed.

The muscle "bonus" doesn't exist everywhere.
Same with preferences for fat distribution. (ass vs tits, svelte/lithe vs curvy)

That might be a lot for gamesmen to take, because so many of us believe that we are in control of what we like and don't like, and have elaborate justifications for such.

WIA

 

[WestIndianArchie]

Great article, much to chew on.

 

[Sonsowey]

^And certainly you see some men actually are into fat women, or are at least more than content with getting them pregnant.

If someone can have kids and those kids can live and have kids of their own, that's all that matters. If they weigh 300 pounds, smell like onions, breathe through their mouths and walk around in stained clothing all day, it does not matter. It doesn't matter if they don't have sculpted abs or svelte waistlines. It just matters that they reproduce, and fatties have no problem doing that.

Some people prefer what we think of as the traditional ideal physique, and so they can look for people like that too. Of course these people exist yet it does seem that those who strive for near-perfection from themselves and seek out near-perfection in others in terms of physical beauty are currently reproducing less than the fatties out there. That doesn't mean they won't continue to exist. And the environment in the future could possibly change in any number of directions that favor or disfavor certain phenotypes.

 

[Bad Hussar]

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

In contemporary evolutionary thought it is not the organism (lion, tree, human etc) that is "selfish", it is each individual gene (certain length of DNA). It is an important, actually critical, distinction. Evolution doesn't work if you look at it at the level of individuals because almost no reproduction in the world results in simply a clone of the original. Another way of putting it is that organisms, including humans, function as temporary storage and filing containers for genes.

As humans we obviously observe whole organisms either succeed or fail and tend to view evolutionary success or failure this way, but the real action is happening at the level of individual genes - the "units of replication". This is where most of the misunderstanding comes in. It is quite consistent with the selfish gene theory that a group of selfish genes build an organism that can display altruism (i.e. seem to be unselfish) This is more and more likely the higher you go up in the evolutionary chain. With social apes you can expect a fair degree of altruism.

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.

 

[dies irae]

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.

All that means is that those things are socially constructed.

The muscle "bonus" doesn't exist everywhere.
Same with preferences for fat distribution. (ass vs tits, svelte/lithe vs curvy)

That might be a lot for gamesmen to take, because so many of us believe that we are in control of what we like and don't like, and have elaborate justifications for such.

WIA

Those are observable among animals too. Are the animals also subject to the social construct?

 

[Quintus Curtius]

He who inhabits the Country of the Mind takes ideas as his stock-in-trade. The inhabitant of this Country likes to read new works, to mull them over, to wrestle with their implications, and to gnaw on them in the same way that an eager puppy scrapes its growing teeth on a steakbone.

And, after a period of digestion, he is ready to test the efficacy of his knowledge in the sandy arena of mental combat. He bravely submits his findings to pubic review.

The active and inquisitive intellect does not overly concern itself with whether something is true or false, because it values ideas for their own sake, and draws creative inspiration from the stimulus that new ideas provide. It also knows that "truth" and "falsity" are relative concepts, and can shift position with startling speed. What was once true, may not be true tomorrow; and what was once false, can appear self-evident in another setting.

Scientific paradigms are like flowers, and young girls: they last while they last. And when they expire, they are replaced by other paradigms that are better suited to the times. Certainty in science is a dangerous thing, as it is in religion.

It has been said that hell hath no fury like an angry theologian; but the same could be said for a piqued scientist whose sacred cow has been gored.

So let us enjoy the process of argumentation and discussion, and not retreat into our dogmatic igloos. I have enjoyed watching a creative mind wrestle with new ideas, and wander new savannahs of the Country of the Mind.

And this is what really matters here. We have been privy to the thought of an active intellect. Who among us can find fault with this?

 

[Lucky]

I thought it was a thought-provoking article, and did nothing to change my belief in evolution.

The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA. And for the MGTOW losers or herbivores or whoever, those guys are jerking off. The overwhelming drive to have an orgasm seems to be a product of evolution.

The rebuttle shared by Zelcorpion has a good explanation for the lack of "struggle"

The struggle for life is speaking poetically. Have you ever seen a lion on the savanna? They sleep at least 20 hours a day, hanging out in the shade. The women do most of the hunting and the male lions do the protecting. Generally they sit on their asses the vast majority of their life. Where’s the “struggle” there? And life on the African plains is about as ugly as life gets. As a lion you need to literally kill your dinner with your bare paws and/or jaws. Yet the majority of your life is spent in leisure, grooming, and sitting out the heat in the shade or screwing. The same can be said for higher primates. Most of the time they are eating, shitting, grooming, banging, or sleeping. They are not “struggling for life” every minute of every day. And even if they were, what would that look like?

I think we have in our minds an image of "nature, red in tooth and claw" survival in nature, but in reality animals are lazy. They expend the least amount of energy necessary, and occasionally there are bursts of action for food or survival.

Anyway, I suspect evolution is operating in the West on some level. Contraceptives will produce some unforeseen consequences.

 

[Blobert]

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.

No.

The individual organism has evolved as a result of gene replication. It has no god-given purpose that we could clearly discern. Every one of our ancestors has been succesful in replicating their genes; maybe you'll find a different, maybe even something better to pursue. But it's clear that all of tomorrow's children will again have parents who did procreate.


Whether you personally reproduce or not, you still have some part as a member of our society, in influencing who does get to make and keep their babies.

 

[Roosh]

Whether you personally reproduce or not, you still have some part as a member of our society, in influencing who does get to make and keep their babies.

How many more people are going to defend E.O. Wilson's brand of group evolution, which is [em]not[/em] modern evolutionary consensus and has little evidence to back it? The theory that we are like ants has little backing. You may want to catch up on what the popular flavors of evolution is saying these days before constructing a straw man.

 

[Roosh]

The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.

Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?

I think I know the answer: zero.

You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.

 

[Bad Hussar]

He who inhabits the Country of the Mind takes ideas as his stock-in-trade. The inhabitant of this Country likes to read new works, to mull them over, to wrestle with their implications, and to gnaw on them in the same way that an eager puppy scrapes its growing teeth on a steakbone.

And, after a period of digestion, he is ready to test the efficacy of his knowledge in the sandy arena of mental combat. He bravely submits his findings to pubic review.

The active and inquisitive intellect does not overly concern itself with whether something is true or false, because it values ideas for their own sake, and draws creative inspiration from the stimulus that new ideas provide. It also knows that "truth" and "falsity" are relative concepts, and can shift position with startling speed. What was once true, may not be true tomorrow; and what was once false, can appear self-evident in another setting.

Scientific paradigms are like flowers, and young girls: they last while they last. And when they expire, they are replaced by other paradigms that are better suited to the times. Certainty in science is a dangerous thing, as it is in religion.

It has been said that hell hath no fury like an angry theologian; but the same could be said for a piqued scientist whose sacred cow has been gored.

So let us enjoy the process of argumentation and discussion, and not retreat into our dogmatic igloos. I have enjoyed watching a creative mind wrestle with new ideas, and wander new savannahs of the Country of the Mind.

And this is what really matters here. We have been privy to the thought of an active intellect. Who among us can find fault with this?

Absolutely. Almost any scientific truth will be at least partially disproved, or at least altered, in the fullness of time. But it's not really fair to say that the old theory was wrong. It just doesn't work in certain specific circumstances. It's like people who claim that Einstein proved that Newtonian physics doesn't work in certain circumstances (or account for certain phenomena) therefore Newton was "wrong". It's a misleading way to interpret things.

As for the gene centered view. Perhaps some day a bio-physicist will come up with a good theory showing why we should consider some particle on the atomic level to be the real replicator, rather than the gene. But I don't think the gene centered view has been sufficiently exhausted. In my view it's only when this is exhausted that you will know where the cracks in the theory are. Bio-physicists now are approaching things from the opposite direction (top down or even from the future back to the present) so can't know where the cracks are. It would be more productive to sequence as many genes as possible from the full taxonomy of living things and analyse the relationships.

 

[MMX2010]

The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.

Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?

I think I know the answer: zero.

You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.

I like your assertion, Roosh, but AnonymousBosch and I had a discussion that teased out the Millennial females non-desire to work. She prefers instead to be broken, rather than acquire happiness through her own hard work and struggle.

So are we (the men) the evolutionary accident that needs to be weeded out of the gene pool? Or is it the women?

My initial post to Bosch is here.

And Bosch's excellent reply is here.


If you can stomach Demi Lovato, she has an excellent song that illustrates this Millennial avoidant phenomenon, named Heart Attack.

Lyrics: Never put my love out on the line
Never said yes to the right guy
Never had trouble getting what I want
But when it comes to you, I'm never good enough
When I don't care, I can play 'em like a Ken doll
Won't wash my hair, then make 'em bounce like a basketball

But you make me wanna act like a girl
Paint my nails and wear high heels, yes you
Make me so nervous, that I just can't hold your hand

You make me glow,
But I cover up, won't let it show,
So I'm puttin' my defenses up
'Cause I don't wanna fall in love
If I ever did that, I think I'd have a heart attack
I think I'd have a heart attack
I think I'd have a heart attack

 

[Blobert]

Whether you personally reproduce or not, you still have some part as a member of our society, in influencing who does get to make and keep their babies.

How many more people are going to defend E.O. Wilson's brand of group evolution, which is [em]not[/em] modern evolutionary consensus and has little evidence to back it? The theory that we are like ants has little backing. You may want to catch up on what the popular flavors of evolution is saying these days before constructing a straw man.

It's a simple statement, a truism pretty much (or would you argue your writings and lifestyle leave the reproductive choices of all your relatives, readers, partners, etc. completely unaffected?).

To take that as a sign of me prescribing to a specific theory of group evolution, now that is an actual strawman.

The fact that this forum exists signals that men are very interested in sharing their DNA.

Out of the total number of sex acts you have done in your life, how many had a purpose of sharing your DNA (i.e. reproduction)?

I think I know the answer: zero.

You are an evolutionary accident, and your desire to not take advantage of reproduction means you must be weeded out of the gene pool. And if you look around, you are, by far, not alone.

Replace "must" with "will" in that sentence. It's an important difference.