The one aspect of evolution, specifically, that does not hold true for modern humans, especially those living in the West, is that fit humans are reproducing up to the limit of the food supply, as stated by Darwin. In fact, the more resources a person has, the less likely they will reproduce at all, which you can witness at any time in a drive through the poor and rich parts of your city. Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain why this occurs, why the “strongest” and most “fit” are having the least amount of offspring or deliberately choosing not to have any offspring at all, even though natural selection specifically states that only the strongest can pass on their genes while the weak and infirm will not.The usual evolutionist explanation is to redefine fitness to mean whoever reproduces, and has grandkids.
Most animals, plants, and bacteria do reproduce up to the limit of the food supply, or at least try to maximally have as many offspring as possible, but human beings have developed a consciousness that enables them to purposefully not reproduce even if they are able, and even develop a phobia to reproduction, and this has been in effect for at least 100 years in all major Western nations that currently suffer a death rate greater than the reproductive rate.
We must therefore conclude, with logic and rationale, that evolution is so flawed at explaining modern human reproductive behavior (and not merely casual sex where reproduction was never the intent), that evolution is not an observable or correct principle for human beings living in Westernized nations. We must discard evolutionary theory as applying to all humans through the mechanism of natural selection and begin a search for a new explanation that explains our current biological behavior.
example of fitness:
OWN network is pulling the plug on a prospective reality series about the father of 34 children by 17 women.I guess this reality show was too hard a reality for the Oprah viewers. But in Darwinian "survival of the fittest" terms, he is the fittest.
The network says in a statement Friday: “Production has ended and the series will not air.”
It went on to say that the original idea was to follow Atlanta music producer Jay Williams “as he worked to put his life and fractured relationships in order,” the network says, “and to hold him accountable every step of the way.”
Williams had appeared on the OWN reality show “Iyanla: Fix My Life” with life coach Iyanla VanZant before his own spinoff series was announced a few months ago.
Say you encounter an article that says the following: “Men who go off to war have more children than men who don’t.” Evolution would describe this by saying that women want to reproduce with men who are most fit and strong and better able to defend the tribe. But let’s flip it and say “Men who don’t go off to war have more children than men who do.” Evolution can describe this too! It can say, “A superior reproductive strategy is to stay with the fertile women and reproduce with them during the time the alpha males are away.” Even the simplest of minds can find an explanation once it already knows the final result it’s aiming for.That's right, many evolutionary stories are just conventient myth-making, with any scientific backing. You could say the same about parts of psychology, economics, and other soft subjects.
If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory. In other words, the theory is like playdough that can fit in any situation, and this is even done in the red pill portion of the manopshere to take any behavior a man or woman does and somehow justify it in terms of evolution, even if it’s based on people acting on the willful mission to not reproduce. 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.
Nevertheless, people like Williams are spreading their genes to the next generation, and smart successful people like Roosh are not. The future inheritors of the Earth with have the heritable characteristics of those who spread their genes.
There are religious creationist who do not accept human evolution, and there are leftist-atheists who detest the concept. I think that a lot of people do not want to accept that cultural forces are transforming the human race.
We have created a culture that considers a black music producer on reality TV the fittest man.
Justice A. Scalia says:
“Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented,” Scalia said, adding that “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.”This upsets leftist-atheist-evolutionists.
This is not rejecting evolution. To me, accepting evolution means accepting that humans evolved from hon-human ancestors, and are still evolving. The use of alphabets and numbers only goes back about 5000 years.
Post a Comment