I was not supposed to answer your question, as you said yourself you are a 17 year old boy who is going on Lutheran high school. You never had a real reality check.

And maybe you wont ever have one. Most people live like that until they die. They never develop a real code of their own, but pick one the market they can find.

And believe me, most atheists just want to be left alone. They don`t want to enlighten you, nor convert you. They faced the same old stupidity and superstition a billion times before, most of them are just tired to talk about Fairy Tales and Imaginary Friends.

Edited 4/15/2014 02:36:48

Isn't that what you have done also? You picked atheism from the market and that's your "code". The truth is, you can't disprove Christianity. I choose to believe in Christianity; you choose to believe in atheism. It's a matter of faith. I will spread the Word of Christ because that's what I believe in and I care about others and want them to live happily after death like I will.

Edited 4/15/2014 02:45:40

Here is my question JSA.
If you meet an admitted atheist, do you try to convert them? If they reject your initial attempt, do you continue to try to convert?

This is evolutionary psychology, so far I haven't seen evopsych explain a single action or thought any human has ever had. Its a very new and confused field which addresses how the brain works, something we are still really really bad at understanding. You aren't going to get good answers to your questions.

I pray for all non-Christians. If I know someone is a strong athiest, and content with their opinion, i won't directly try to convert them. If they seem to not be satisfied with atheism, I will usually tell them about Jesus' love. If they aren't interested at all, I will back off and won't try to convert them unless they ask more about Jesus.

Christians are easy to pick on and often times ill equipped to face the blunt force of atheists and therefore make a mockery of themselves, because of their ignorance.

The irony is that most atheists regurgitate the same "propaganda" they condemn Christians of spouting, from the other side of the table. They are likewise ill equipped to attack our faith, because they themselves rely on faith based decision making.

A scientist and intellectual would know that the most logical course of action would be to set out to prove or disprove a theory by collecting evidence through observation, tests, etc. Naturally, this is a long and difficult process that will likely take centuries, if not millenia to resolve.

Also, Christians aren't necessarily supposed to convert people. Our job is to spread the Word, not shove it down people's throats.

I should add though, that a wise man would know that he cannot know anything for certain. When your entire life is based on faith, rejecting the possibility of things that cannot be seen seems illogical to me.

Edited 4/15/2014 03:47:59

you are observing all these contradictions to the statement, that we would be the highly refined result of a millennia-long process of selecting the fit for survival which should let you expect that this descent should show and could be proven in our behaviour...You are adding to my initial three thoughts.

That's the thing I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but rather adding my own perception based on my experience and readings. I recognize the contradiction that evolution purposes, but also our misinterpretation.

you do in effect at least agree that I was looking at evolutionary stupidity or at dead-ends as you call it when looking on abortionists and that we are currently looking on the downfall of Western Culture.

I think Darwin jumped the gun by claiming we all originate from the same species, but much of what he wrote about in Origin of Species is true, i.e. survival of the fittest. Fittest is an open-ended definition of whatever makes you most able to adapt to any particular type of environment. Sometimes the weak, dumb schlub has a better chance of surviving. Being smart tends to get you killed. So does being strong.

You could even draw my conclusion from your observations that there is no such result of a selection process which leads to this that there is no selection process resulting in any noticeable progress, but, of course, you would not.

I think one of the key factors of self-awareness is the ability to choose one's own path. This and the fact that everyone is indirectly at competition with everyone else. Beautiful girls may be dumb, but have sex appeal, whereas less attractive girls may be healthier or more social. There are so many factors at play, that narrowing it down to a few noticeable traits would be cutting out the bigger picture.

Then again, do you think that the development of higher cognitive functions and self-awareness is some sort of dead-end?

Not really. I think the ones who choose a selfish, nonproductive lifestyle are welcome to continue along their path, so long as they cause no harm to those around them. Hopefully their lifestyle will die out with them. For the rest of us who like to keep our brains turned on for the important stuff, we'll find a way.

Will the future belong to humans that are less self-aware and clever and more like slaves to their desire to reproduce and would not kill their offspring?

Herd mentality is a clever method of survival, which isn't exactly what you were getting at, but a good comparison to bring up. When two clans were at war with each other the clan that won claimed absolute victory and the clan that lost was either exterminated or absorbed. This way safety was more or less assured. Of course there's always new splits occurring within society and so the vicious cycle continues.

Anyways, smart people reproduce as well. In a society where raising children is less expensive and the society takes some of the burden of raising children off the parents (via affordable schools, daycare and extracurricular activities) affluent parents are more likely to have more children, than in societies where raising children is expensive. So a large factor in determining family size seems to be related to money (resources), understandably.

Children don't start adding to a family's wealth in Western Society until they're 16 (earliest) and often times use that wealth on themselves rather than share it with the rest of the family. This is a trend you're starting to see more in the East as well, but traditionally families were much closer and supported one another more, for reasons of safety and stability. Well, that can be related to a number of factors, most notably the increase individual liberties and wealth.

Aren't we today most fit for survival at least according to our potential?

If intelligence is defined as the ability to absorb and regurgitate information, we've certainly gotten better at it, but when it comes to critical thinking, not necessarily.

Also, we've always had great potential as a species, but evolution doesn't claim we're improving, only changing. Since our environment changes, so does the variety in the gene pool.

The problem with your reasoning and analysis is the problem most deeply religious people tend to have when trying to disprove evolution and prove their moral and omnipotent god is the truth. EVIDENCE. I suspect that is because religion forces the idea that you need to blindly believe in something (but i could be wrong of course).

Evolution has thousands upon thousands pieces of evidence to prove it's claim (these are objective, testable evidence, not subjective "I feel god" evidence), religion has nothing but vague "god of the gaps" arguments. Just because we haven't figured out something yet, doesn't mean god did it, or that we never will. EVIDENCE. You don't disprove evolution by philosophical and logical debates. EVIDENCE.

It's difficult to shred you're arguments because there are none. You are talking about a subject you have only superficial knowledge and trying to place weight where there is none. You are trying to oversimplify very complex social and physiological processes, so that you can trick someone into thinking you have evidence.

We learned from Evolution theorists that men tend to have several relationships and spread their offspring and that women want their men attached in order to have them defend them and their offspring.

Maybe YOU have learned that and learned it WRONG. It's far more complicated and there are way more factors involved than that.

Oh and the "dominating ideology in the Western World/First World to encourage abortion" is only in your head.

Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to ban religions. If it makes you feel good and makes you better human being, than by all means believe in what you will. Just don't try to stunt scientific theory that works on vague arguments without evidence because it doesn't fit with your personal belief.

Edited 4/15/2014 09:30:31

Julkorn has succeeded, he has made me very skeptical of evolution. If evolution is real, how could it produce such a complete fucking idiot as julkorn? Something as stupid as Julkorn can only be a product of sloppy Divine Creation.

Should I go on about this upcoming rule of PC? How does Evolution explain Political Correctness and its power, siphoning in all people, making them into obedient followers?

this is one of my favourite things that i have ever read. thank you julkorn, i love you and your 15th century mindset.

Now, why is it that men feel pain when a relationship ends? What is the evolutionary explanation for his pain?

Using evolution to try to explain interactions in a human society is like explaining cooking with quantum physics.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Darwin dit not say: "Survival of the fittest". That was Herbert Spencer.

Darwin did say:"It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change."

Edited 4/15/2014 18:23:37

I will make an actual point that nobody raised yet.

Evolution is dependent on variety. Variety of different species in an ecosystem, but also diversity within species. Even if a feature or behaviour of an individual is maladaptive, it doesn't mean it should be evolved out of existence. The environment can change, then the survival of the species might depend on that previously maladaptive behaviour. That's why we have fucking morons like Julkorn, they might come in handy as a human shield or a toboggan or something.

btw

And yes, there is no specific source that it is mostly men forcing their women to abort which I know of, but just some notion of mine. But I will have a look, if I can find one, because I am quite sure that I am right on that one.

Abortion and contraception, ie, a woman having control over her own reproductive system, is an important part of women's sexual liberation. Fascistic chauvinists, like you, try to stop those things, not force women into them. [spits in julkorn's face]

Should I go on about this upcoming rule of PC? How does Evolution explain Political Correctness and its power, siphoning in all people, making them into obedient followers?


this is one of my favourite things that i have ever read. thank you julkorn, i love you and your 15th century mindset.

Funny thing is X that Julkorn badly misses the irony in his own comment :)

(Replace PC with theocracy and Evolution with history)

Edited 4/15/2014 11:50:51

Look out the window. The beauty of spring. If I would say the concept of beauty or aesthetics is a proof of god, the answer would be that it's an evolutionary adaptation. So if it does fit you call upon Evolution. If it does not fit, you call the messenger a moron, evolutionary complexity being far above his comprehension.
That makes me think. If a scientist stumbles upon a bad message, chance is, he would nuke it. How many heroes are out there? The game is rigged. The reign of Evolution is just like a leftist system. In a leftist system guys pointing out reality are killed all day long.
Know what? When guys are singing their mantra "EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, WE GOT IT", I got my doubts.

There was just a guy making headlines in German tabloid BILD. He killed his girlfriend over a pregnancy, because she didn't want to abort. Outrage was not the killing, but that he got a relatively light sentence due to his cultural background. Killing their pregnant girlfriends or trying to kick the baby out of their bellys in order to force a do-it-yourself-abortion is no outrage anymore.

To me it is very plausible: A woman got a relationship to her child inside her womb. A man does not see the child nor feel it. A man only sees the problems, the responsibilities, the financial changes and therefore he is afraid. I heard that leftist dogma that X is so feverishly reciting, too. I doubt it. The socially accepted option of an abortion is another tool to damage women and to force them into something they would rather not choose themselves. I am quite sure that this is the truth, no matter of leftist spiteful hatred.

So women only get abortions because they are forced to by men. Interesting. I guess you learn something new every day.

You are taking my statement as an absurd extreme. You know it. I know it.

Point is, small girls would think of their future children. They would not think of killing their future children.

And this is actually meant a statement as extreme as you could take it.

Therefore I presume, abortion will be a decision that very likely comes with an impact from outside, be it partial or be it decisive or in-between. Of course, little girls grow and might become someone else than they used to be. Right. I will not rule that out. Not only men are evil, mind you.

why is it that men feel pain when a relationship ends?

Because in short, is love. Humans are sociable. When a human becomes attached to another, whether friendly or deeper. A person will eventually come to rely on that person, care about their well being as much as their own and begin to care for both of their needs, in large or minute ways. After time, the feeling of "love" arises. Now when one person in the relationship is suddenly severed from the other half of the relationship, a feeling of loss develops. This is the "Pain" described, its sadness and emptiness, after all one person put their trust in another, and in naive human thought, believed it would last forever. However it didn't and thus he was not prepared for the loss.
Now I am religious individual, I believe in god, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. However, unlike some of my other christian counterparts, I understand that not all of the stories in the bible are true, they are merely representations on morality. Now I believe that God did not "create" humanity. I believe that God seeded the universe we live in with life, and that through time, and yes evolution, life spread, grew, and developed. Now if life on earth started long after the creation of the universe, how is there life? Now that is the true question, some argue the seeds of life were here and conditions were ripe to jump start, while some argue we were, "seeded" by comets, asteroids, or something "else". Now I believe, life on earth was simply formed from the pieces already here. Humanity is something else altogether. Whether you want to hear it or not, Humanity was "influenced" by something, whether by god himself or visitors from somewhere else, there is a definite non human influence on society, as there was supposedly no contact between the ancients of the world, yet their cultures developed with the same legends and similar architectural styles.

That's off topic, however, humans feel sad at the loss of a partner simply because of love. We feel love when we get attached, and wen we lose it, we lose the love.

The point is; what is love? I believe it is the security of a sexual partner (having a reliable source of reproduction is something for the fittest to do).

At least you got the necessary "It's not related to basic Evolution" because it is not, psychologic evolution would be totaly different, invented by humans, for humans, nothing like biology...
I just wanted to give a sum up of how Evolution works, on its purely scientist part. I don't intend to go into details, but just to explain the idea.

The main thing, is that mutations happen randomly, everytime, in any living existence's Dna. It's not due to any nature god, it's just that we're all exposed to many mutagenic agents in our everyday life, as the Uv from the Sun for example. Most of the times, those slights changes are quickly corrected, and nothing happens. But, in very rare cases, those mutations stay. And an addition of several mutations, transmitted throught hundred of years and generations could lead to a new feature.
This is totally random, and it's how life improves, by groping. This is called genetic drift, and leads to creation or disappearance of new abilities, functions, looks....


In addition to that, there is what is called natural selection. It's the fact that features increasing the chances to stay alive for an individual are getting more and more developed. With our current human society, it's a bit distorted. Because at least in a big part of the world, men with the biggest musculature for example, aren't really more likely to survive than others like it used to be in the beginning of humanity. And death factors are less and less related to genetical ancestry.

However, you would easily agree that trisomics aren't very numerous in society, and it's quite realted to their genetical problem.(I didn't try to find out if they can have children or not, that's not the matter and just an example, it could be another genetic affliction)They're less likely to survive and won't for sure be dominent in humanity in the future, it's just logical.

But a more interesting example even nowadays, could be the SCD : Sickle Cell anemia ( Not sure if it's the right name). it's a genetic disease that changes the 3d form of red cells and leads to many blood-related complications. But the people suffering from SCD is way more resisting to malaria. And that's why SCD is probably the most spread genetic disease currently, particularly in Africa where malaria is very active. Humans with the SCD are most likely to survive in those areas, due to of malaria's threat.

Looking at what some of you wrote, I felt necessary to sum up that. You seem to indentify "nature" as a god, and scientists as his prayers. It's nothing like that, human figured out those ideas to explain what was happening, but nothing is fixed and human behavior can change most of what we interpreted in life's evolution.

Edit: Thx Richard, I changed.

Edited 4/18/2014 15:01:26

To add to Marc's point, evolution is a very slow process. Human society and technology are changing much more quickly and thus many traits that might have been very useful 3000 years ago (not long ago in evolutionary terms) are no longer and might even be detrimental.

Also, what with the rapid rise in genetic technologies that have already occurred and are likely to come to pass in the near future, evolution in the Darwinian sense may have already ceased to be the driving factor in determining the change of the human genetic content. This is a debatable point, but what isn't is that evolution is far too slow a process to be able to capture a relatively recent trend that like declining birth rates or increasing abortion rates.