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

[Truth Teller]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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=s...atural selection declining birthrates&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-good-at-book-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]

"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.

 

[Samseau]

Great article Roosh.

I had no idea there were some many evolutionary dogmatists in this community. Just like you detected that the red pillers and MGTOWs were becoming retarded, you've once again spotted the more irrational part of the manosphere and called them out on it. I don't know how you have such a knack for this stuff.

For example, look at Caveman above: just a rambling bunch of nonsense with zero reasons to support any of his objections. Ad hominems, and quoting some other blogger whose entire post consists of huge quotations of your text followed by one-sentence rebuttals. I really pity these guys to have invested so much of their ego in a flimsy scientific theory. These guys really think they have the truth figured out but are unable to defend their "truth" without having a meltdown.

That said, I do believe group selection, or cultural evolution, explains human behavior much better than any individual selection theory. I always have since college, but even still I do not believe it tells the complete story, not by a longshot. Regardless, let us examine the merits of cultural evolution, also known as group selection.

First example: why is multiculturalism a failure?

Because as too many differences are introduced into an original gene pool of a group, humans instinctively realize they are not supporting the original gene clusters that created them and thus withdraw from the community. The book "Bowling Alone" is a good description of this phenomena.

Answering more questions: why do people sacrifice themselves for the group or fail to reproduce?

Because they are part of a homogenous group that created them. For example, if you're living in a country where everyone is a 12th or 16th cousin, then it follows that even if you do not reproduce as long as your neighbors have kids then another version of you will be created again since the gene clusters that made you are still in circulation. But if you introduce people of different races or communities that are separated by 100,000 generations of cousins, people no longer feel any desire to support one another and instead become hostile or alienated to one another.

Hence, diversity + proximity = war.

Furthermore, group selection/cultural evolution is consistent with why some religions succeed and others fail: certain religions favor the success of the group better than others. All of the Abrahamic religions are good examples of this. The Jews strictly favor the Jews, the Christians originally were supposed to only favor other Christians ("Do not cast pearls before swine") but today Christians are dissolving because they neglected their own family/group ("Honor thy mother and father"), and Muslims favor Muslims (Jizya tax for anyone except other Muslims).

Another example: Why do women select for alpha males and then have beta males raise them (or the state)?

Because this increases the fitness of the group.

One more example: Why is it if you swap babies at a hospital most parents won't even know?

Answer: This is only true if the babies belong to the same group. For example, if you swap a black baby with an asian baby, the parents will immediately know the baby isn't theirs. But if you swap two asian babies, since they belong to the same group the parents cannot tell the difference and do not care.

Ants are a simplified version of what humans are but ants also evolve along group selection lines.

Regardless, I commend you for calling out these dogmatists who are actually willing to believe in individual gene selection because frankly, the idea is contradicted by so much evidence you'd have to be a zealot to keep believing in it.

 

[SydneyD]

I agree that the theory of evolution no longer applies to humans in the sense that human beings do not live solely to reproduce. My reasoning is as follows:

"If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?"
- Schopenhauer, On the Sufferings of the World.

In my opinion, humans and animals do not have an irresistable urge to reproduce and create offspring. We have, however, the irresistable urge to FUCK.

For animals fucking can be said to be synonymous to reproduction. This is because any sex act undertaken by an animal will almost always lead to pregnancy (because of non-existent contraception of course).

For example, it's not like a starving bitch in the wild consciously and willingly desires to give birth to a litter of six pups which will considerably harm her own chances of survival. Unfortunately, during a certain time of the year, the bitch will be in heat and her urge to fuck will be irresistable. Consequently the bitch will fuck a male but alas - fucking for animals is synonymous to reproduction, so she will birth a litter of pups she is hardly capable of taking care of.

It's interesting to note that most male animals do not assist the female in the raising of the young. They just 'pump & dump' leaving the female to deal with the young, indifferent as to whether the offspring actually survives. If animals solely live just to further the species don't you think the male as well would be genetically compelled to assist the female in raising the young to increase the chances of survival? This suggest that animals when in heat feel the urge to fuck not to procreate but, as earlier stated, fucking for animals = reproduction.

Fucking was synonymous to reproduction for humans as well until a particular point in our mental development when we realised that an orgasm doesn't necessarily have to mean pregnancy (Development of Contraception). Thus humans could now pursue orgasms without harming their chances of survival or increasing their obligations by fathering children.

Darwin's theory assumed that fucking is synonymous to reproduction. This is not the case for humans, but the theory remains a satisfactory one for animals as well as other aspects of human biology.

 

[magicone]

Overall, the number of humans on Earth is continuing to grow at a fast exponential pace:

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#pastfuture

 

[Blobert]

I agree that the theory of evolution no longer applies to humans in the sense that human beings do not live solely to reproduce. My reasoning is as follows:

"If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?"
- Schopenhauer, On the Sufferings of the World.

In my opinion, humans and animals do not have an irresistable urge to reproduce and create offspring. We have, however, the irresistable urge to FUCK.

For animals fucking can be said to be synonymous to reproduction. This is because any sex act undertaken by an animal will almost always lead to pregnancy (because of non-existent contraception of course).

For example, it's not like a starving bitch in the wild consciously and willingly desires to give birth to a litter of six pups which will considerably harm her own chances of survival. Unfortunately, during a certain time of the year, the bitch will be in heat and her urge to fuck will be irresistable. Consequently the bitch will fuck a male but alas - fucking for animals is synonymous to reproduction, so she will birth a litter of pups she is hardly capable of taking care of.

It's interesting to note that most male animals do not assist the female in the raising of the young. They just 'pump & dump' leaving the female to deal with the young, indifferent as to whether the offspring actually survives. If animals solely live just to further the species don't you think the male as well would be genetically compelled to assist the female in raising the young to increase the chances of survival? This suggest that animals when in heat feel the urge to fuck not to procreate but, as earlier stated, fucking for animals = reproduction.

Fucking was synonymous to reproduction for humans as well until a particular point in our mental development when we realised that an orgasm doesn't necessarily have to mean pregnancy (Development of Contraception). Thus humans could now pursue orgasms without harming their chances of survival or increasing their obligations by fathering children.

Darwin's theory assumed that fucking is synonymous to reproduction. This is not the case for humans, but the theory remains a satisfactory one for animals as well as other aspects of human biology.

Living "not solely for reproduction" has been an awesome reproductive strategy. There's what, 7 billion of us now? How many would there be if all our ancestors had been focusing solely on fucking as much as possible?

 

[Lucky]

Sport fucking has nothing to do with reproduction or evolution.

It's here that we disagree. The urge to "sport fuck" which to me means fucking as many hot girls as I can is inextricably linked to reproduction and evolution.

Beyond the First World people are producing scores of children, which is likely a factor in why they are shitty countries. But that's another topic altogether. So I do think evolution is taking a strange path in the West.

Edit: The type of language being used in this thread is fascinating to me. Words like "dogmatists," "skeptical," and "investing egos in a false idea" and so on. First I noted that this is the language atheists use on the religious, but then realized it's used by those who think other people believe too deeply in any particular idea. Even if it happens to be true.