201 thoughts on “The Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply To Modern Human Beings”

1. I accept certain facets of evolutionary theory, but to be honest, most people barely even understand what it means anymore. It has become an ‘accordion’ word that can be stretched out or squeezed in to claim as much or as little as is necessary. It may surprise some people to know that almost all evolutionary scientists today reject many elements of Darwin’s original theory!
   What the scientism-adherents fail to take into account is that evolution as a development and adaptation process is no master, but is in fact itself limited and chained by greater forces, many of which we are seeing play out in ‘Modernity’. There is a spiritual constitution of man which has been blasted to smithereens and corrupted by the ‘Enlightenment’ and its sycophants today continue the degenerative process.
   This is what the Nazi theories on race (which were really only more developed American theories) missed, and Evola got. What you can supposedly prove with a microscope and a test tube regarding the developments of the different races on earth is a tiny fragment of a much greater picture which remains intangible, beyond the realm of mere physical existence. And it doesn’t matter how much that annoys Bill Nye.
   I wish you well in your spiritual quest for meaning, Roosh, and hope you reach the same conclusions I did eventually after so long.

2. Evolution is predicated on the notion of “survival of the fittest” right? So, couldn’t it be claimed that modern man no longer sees any “fitness” in producing offspring? If a man produced multiple children with multiple women in today’s world, his earnings would be taken, his reputation tarnished, and he likely wouldn’t be allowed to even see these children on a regular basis. Therefore, men are choosing not to have children in order to stay “fit.” Self preservation usurps the need for a biological reproduction.

   1. The most effective birth control for women is an undergraduate or post-graduate degree combined with several years in the paid workforce. She’s ensured her survival, but does she earn enough to support children? Just as important, she has some leisure time which would be history if she had them. Maybe she has one while SADMs (stay at home moms) and Section 8 moms have four or more. There are exceptions. An attorney I know has four, but she has a husband and a nanny. Those at the top and bottom of the wealth pyramid have more children than those in the middle.

3. Not all evolutionary behaviour is conscious but rather unconscious. We may well sleep with a woman without any conscious desire to reproduce but unconsciously we gravitate towards (are attracted to) partners whom have the necessary qualities (genes) to produce healthy and successful offspring.
   As is often voiced in the manosphere ‘Attraction is not a choice.’ That love buzz that arises in us and compels us to game that hottie is deeply wired in our hindbrains and based on our innate unconscious desire to survive and replicate. An interesting article and critique of evolutionary psychology but one I have to disagree with on many levels.

4. With all due respect Roosh, like the people from the original article pointed out, you don’t understand the evolution theory. The point you are somewhat making that is: men that supposedly should be evolutionary successes are not having children is simply completely unrelated to the Evolutionary theory. You are either evolutionary fit (you reproduced, thus the attributes that allowed you to reproduce pass to the next generation) or you are not (you might be a 6’4 red pilled high t alpha that bench presses 400 lbs, but if you have no successfully reproduced your are not evolutionary fit). I think if you are going to write about this topic you will need to do significant research because at this moment you don’t seem to grasp the theory of what it implies.

   1. that is true. i think that roosh’s mistake is partly that he assumes that all other people consider evolution to be the same thing he does and that they – in the past – made the same intellectual mistake of thinking that a subjective perception of strength automatically is the same as being fit.
      there is a lesson to be learned here: do not assume that your misconceptions are everybody’s misconceptions. and if you do not know if they are misconceptions at all, better find that out first.

   2. You understand evolution. It has no direction. No favourite. The author thinks they are the top man…but in terms of evolution, it doesn’t matter. He is not. Who is, is who reproduces. Quite the hamster.

      1. Not necessarily. Just because you reproduce is no guarantee.

   3. perhaps it would be better to develop game oriented towards convincing women to reproduce. After all, they have to reproduce to be fit, too.

   4. Yes, evolution has no favorites, it rewards those who make it and adapt, that’s why I just call it adaptation. The problem with evolution as it is presented today is that people assume we will become something else entirely, women will become independent, for example, they won’t, and guys are doing a disservice to themselves when they use evolution in this sense, the changing of core needs to become something else, because you assume women and men “evolved” into their roles, when they were designed for them, they can have different characteristics, grow calluses, but we still need to eat, drink, breathe, have companionship, rule over a woman, women need authoritative guys, ALWAYS will be, this doesn’t change, we don’t affect the way things work, they affect US.

5. Theory is just theory, nothing worth arguing over. Losing sight of this fact is the biggest problem.

   1. Evolution is a reality process that explains human behaviour. So it is worth arguing about.

      1. And it is not a theory? This is interesting. Evolution is “truth”?

         1. I’m presuming that you know that the word ‘theory’ has a different meaning in science than it does in normal conversation. You do know that don’t you? Just like ‘germ theory’ is more than just a theory. You do understand the distinction don’t you?

         2. I know the uses of it throughout Western Civilization, all the way back to the Ancient Greek “theoria”. As most worshippers of anything, I see you are attempting an “ad hominem” attack. Because my values are virtue-based, and yours are “science based”, I am dumb? How original. Next you are going to talk about “Facts” and “proof”. I’ll bet everything you’ve never read Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes, the father’s of Modern Science…

         3. Way to go missing the point. Since when is asking a legitimate question an ‘ad hominem’? And you think that referring to ‘facts’ and ‘proof’ are somehow to be sneered at? How very odd. Why don’t you tell me all about how Aristotle (who didn’t understand the empirical method) somehow disproved evolution……. or maybe try and claim Descartes mathematics as somehow having any bearing on evolution? Or maybe you just want to randomly reference some more famous historical figures who are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand….
            Never mind, you clearly have a pretty serious inferiority complex going on here.

         4. Irrelevant? Just historical figures? Sure, I’d be glad to give you a clue. Using Aristotelean logic Descartes and Bacon did wonders to alter teleology and epistemology. So, when using Modern Science to make metaphysical proclamations we never logically understand the grand scope of our claims. Rousseau and Nietzsche were two of the first names in Modern European thought to recognize the shortcomings of Modern Science as a metaphysical tool.

         5. Ever heard of the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy? Look it up, you might learn something. Randomly name dropping historical figures as an excuse to avoid actually discussing the real science is pretty feeble of you. And to finish with an appeal to the authority of Rousseau and Nietzsche concerning the ‘shortcomings’ of ‘Modern Science’ is just hilarious!

         6. Let’s look at the texts. Which one would you like to open and discuss first? Me, I think Bacon and Nietzsche kick off the dialogue in a sweeping fashion. From there we can go backwards to more specific sentences and comen’s regarding the fluidity of “nature”.

         7. And you continue to fail to make any argument at all while name dropping to try and give a veneer of substance to your meaningless paragraph.
            But do please continue. I’ll love to hear you actually express a real opinion on the subject. That would be a change…..

         8. Still name dropping while refusing to make any actual arguments……

6. Apex predators do not evolve outside of harsh environmental influences. Sharks have slowly changed over the vast millenia, but their basic design has not. In the ocean, they are apex predators. Outside of the relatively small number of Orcas, nothing eats them until after they die.
   Humans do not have fangs and claws but make no mistake that our brains are the most dangerous implement that nature has thus far evolved. We modify our environment, literally breed most of our prey to suit our requirements, and actively plan for results. We are the apex predator on land.
   Evolution can not occur in any significant manner among humans without something upsetting our natural order, and eventually something will. It’s a dangerous universe we live in after all.

7. Sometimes I give women the benefit of the doubt and then I am forced to take more red pills.
   On my FB today I saw a message from a girl I know reporting on the AshleyMadison hackers. She was applauding these vigilantes for bringing justice to these cheating women.
   This however is a girl that has cheated on every one of her boyfriends since ive know her. For example, she cheated on my close friend, and then sucked his dick a year later while in a relationship with another guy.
   Do women just not understand how irony works? I think I overestimate the average woman..

   1. Yup, irony is lost on the vast majority of women. For example the lack of any noteworthy female comedians……

      1. I noticed that female comedians (and artists) always fall back on sex jokes/imagery that exploit women. Their own gender. They constantly rely on sex jokes and, if they were men, they’d get roasted by the media.
         The whole female gender is confused and hypocritical.

         1. Well ?? Just women being themselves !

         2. Right. And they only get in the media because of the whole “equal rights” mirage. And the most successful female comedians and with the longest lasting careers have huge support by the lesbian community. Even Whoopi Goldberg, who’s actually more rational and fair minded and heterosexual, had support from the gay community before she leveraged her career based on talent.

   2. Women are not programmed for loyalty. They’re programmed to be fickle and side with whomever is the hot commodity of the week. Due to their inferior strength, and the risk of violence on a pregnancy, women evolved an irrational fear of violence. They fear violence more than men, even though men experience more violence. Instead, women evolved into master manipulators, as this was their primary way to gain access to resources.
      That’s really all you need to know about women.
      1. They’re manipulators
      2. They’re fickle
      In other words, never put your guard down with a woman.

      1. What gets me is the image in society they have of being the relationship people and nurturers. They’re totally the opposite.

         1. They are nurturers… for children. It’s one of the only things they can naturally do better than men. However, when it comes to normal human interaction they’re undoubtedly manipulators.They’re wired to manipulate men out of money/resources. It’s just as an evolved behavior as a spider building a web. It’s how they are. Resource acquisition is essentially what feminism is about.

         2. Part of nurturing sometimes requires manipulation I would think.

         4. Well, they’re designed to give birth. But I think that’s about it. In divorce women get the kids because of false social constructs. But when the men get the kids, the women usually take off. Children of divorce are used by their mothers to milk their dads of income. And used as pawns in psychological games. After the first couple of months, most women see their kids as burdens and simply use them as bargaining chips in the marriage. Of course they don’t flat out expose themselves as such, as you say, they master manipulators. And so used to lying and deception as a way of life that they don’t realize themselves what they’re doing.
            Consider the game they play of getting pregnant just to catch the guy of their choice. They’ll even get pregnant by someone else and claim it’s the other guys. What rational human being would even consider something so outrageous? But then this is a, such-and-such, Male Dominated Society, and social norms considered from a Male standpoint says something like that is insane. But women aren’t operating with the same game book that men, and our legal system, are.

      2. yep, the character for traitor in chinese is literally just the character for female repeated three times.

   3. Considering the link I am about to post, what is found there should likely be taken with a grain of salt, but from a woman’s own mouth:
      http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/06/where-feminism-went-wrong-oh-i-dont-know-maybe-with-that-whole-men-suck-and-lets-tell-young-women-a-giant-pack-of-lies-strategy-just-a-thought/
      and other articles articulate just as honestly what women are really like.

   4. Women have this dynamic in their heads to attack and criticise anyone accused of cheating. But it’s only to distract people and cover for the fact that they themselves are cheaters. Any women I’ve known (And I’m 55 years old) who were loud and self-righteous about women who cheat, were doing the most whoring around. It’s a given. If you work in an office or are around women and one is always criticizing “home breakers,” escort girls, etc, then she’s a good one to start scoping out for an easy fuck.

      1. Agreed.

   5. Lots of women seem to love having a faux sense of morality. I’ve seen girls on my Facebook feed posting quotes which I can’t remember word for word but were about how women need to start being serious in life instead of just looking good for boys and partying, then later they post selfies of themselves covered in makeup about to go out clubbing and looking for boys.

   6. The hackers in Ashley Maddison didnt even address female infidelity. In their randsom message they put the blame squarely on “scumbag men”.

      1. They are just trying to morally justify their hack. If a large Christian dating site fell to them, they would be making fun of god botherers.

8. Survival of the Fittest always applies. Over the past half century or so Liberals have artificially eliminated the Struggle for Life in western civilization with the modern welfare state just as they have killed off the institution of marriage with legal abortion and free contraception as well as destruction of the western moral code at the same time they have killed off the proverbial wolves and bears who would naturally cull the weaker beings who are now the establishment’s political base of support of feminist women along with delta and epsilon males. Unfortunately for them well socialism works only as long as there is free money available for the government to blow away well that is running out. The liberal power system also relies on there being no strong enemies outside to threaten them well those days are numbered as we look over to see China and Russia flexing their muscles and the growth of the new Islam in the middle east and around those areas. As things fall apart we are going to find out the hard way how survival of the fittest applies just as Ancient Rome found out as their emperors ran out of money to spend on bread and games while the barbarians came charging in.

9. The interesting question here is whether dorky beta nerds are more fit than red pillers.
   Kinda like how black widows eat the male after sex for extra calories. Is that the future of man? To become a bunch of naked mole rats?

   1. Only if you want to play the game by their rules. Simple answer is to play by your own rules without compromise. Fuck their whining……

      1. The way I see it when law flies out the window conservatives will eat all the skinny fat leftists who live off of everyone else.
         It’ll be like te walking dead except the leftists are the Zombies.

   2. Technically the beta nerds who can make a lot of money are the “fittest” but destruction of real evolution and reproduction has been the goal of the cultural Marxist hence the “bad boy” will be getting laid instead.

10. The evolutionary thoery is the religion of the rich, to justify killing and murdering the less fortunate. If I was rich and had lots of power people automatically accuse that person of working for the devil. It is a neat thoery and it fits, so the rich turned around and looked in the Kabbala and stole evolution from the jewish mystic book. It justifies being rich and heartless and excludes divine intervention on behalf of the poor. I look at it in a completely strategic standpoint, if it is survival of the fiittest then traditional morals are for suckers. But the common man is not In a position to maximize that the way say a king is. And the gap of power stays the same with the powerful being able to claim superiority, instead of if God exist a looming punishment just waiting to fall. Evolution is a weapon on the lower class, it deifys the powerful becuase they are the most fit. Whereas religion puts us all on a eqaul field. That is why evolution is pushed on kids nowadays becuase it is hopeless you are powerless and less fit so you should listen to us and takes out any wild card situations such as God and divine intervention. Leaving the believer hopeless and worshiping the fittest and richest of society. Make no mistake they already are saying there is another level to evovle to. I wonder how we will get there, the artificial mixing of genes, lots of money, leaving you out of the loop McDonald’s worker. So you will be left behind, they will claim God like powers and demand we worship them. That is the goal of this whole thing nothing new the Romans did the same thing, and its all still atributed to a G, genes, God. So you can believe the powerfuls religion just know the deck is stacked with you middle low class fool permanently stuck as the chattel ! The neaderthal or the ape, look up what they really believe, why when Australia got colonized did they slaughter the aboriginees they where monkeys, not fit. That is The goal

    1. thus demonstrating the point of this article more than any argument.

11. The theory of evolution is pop science. Religion is all one needs to study to know the nature of man and the nature of the universe. “Survival of fittest”? That only applies to animals that have no will to bend their destiny.

12. Roosh, you read a book by a guy that doesn’t understand the Theory of Evolution. Just because some people don’t want to produce lots of babies doesn’t mean Evolution isn’t true. Natural selection occurs in small increments over long periods of time, and is meant to solve very specific problems. For example, find food, avoid predators, fend off rivals, etc. People didn’t evolve to think “Win at Evolution!” We didn’t even realize it existed until 150 years ago.
    The adaptation for reproduction is that sex is enjoyable. Throughout nearly all of human history, people just felt horny, and sex felt good and felt satisfying. This was all that was needed to create babies. It was an adaquate Evolutionary solution. However, we have a new selective pressure our distant ancestors didn’t have: birth control. If birth control is around long enough, humans will eventually evolve a “solution” to that too (latex allergy? immunity to the pill? etc) That or perhaps slowly go extinct, as the birth rate in Western Europe is 1.6 children per woman, while 2.1 children is the minimum to sustain the population.
    An example of Natural Selection in modern humans: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/04/did-natural-selection-make-dutch-tallest-people-planet
    Evolution by Natural Selection is not an option. It is the LAW.

    1. You’re overgeneralizing Roosh’s points. He’s not saying that it’s completely gone in modern humans. He’s just saying it’s nowhere as important to humans as it was before the modern age. In modern society, the people who reproduce more are not necessarily the “fittest” of the species. That is an undeniable fact. Because society supports them through monetary aid, on average, the lower classes of society reproduce more and more even though they are in no way the ones with the most desirable reproductive traits that their mates look for. Then, the example you gave is of how the average height of the Dutch going up by 20 centimeters in 150 years is somehow supposed to indicate natural selection occurring nowadays. That’s scientifically absurd. That shows a correlation at best and in no way shows causation: that evolution was what caused this change. All it is showing is that tall Dutch men ARE HAVING more kids than shorter Dutch men. Does that prove without a doubt that being tall is THE REASON they are reproducing more? Of course not. Just like I stated previously, perhaps, the taller men belong to the lower classes, since being tall and strong helps them perform more physical labor which is what they primarily do for a living, and since people from the lower class typically have more kids, they are reproducing at a higher rate and thus increasing the number of tall people. So, this is not Darwinistic evolution because they are not reproducing as a result of being the fittest, but rather because of SOCIETAL conventions. I believe that in civilized humans, civilization and society has trumped pure evolution.

       1. In modern society, the people who reproduce more are not necessarily the “fittest” of the species.

          In the natural world, the fittest are the ones who tend to survive. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re the strongest or smartest. Reproduction is the end game of life. Those who reproduce live on. Everything else, including intelligence means nothing, as the only purpose of the brain we know of is to help spread the body’s genes.
          So, Evolution is taking place as we speak. Those who “win” will be those who reproduce. End of story.

          Because society supports them through monetary aid, on average, the lower classes of society reproduce more and more even though they are in no way the ones with the most desirable reproductive traits that their mates look for.

          This is true. Like I said, the end game of Evolution is not wealth or intelligence, as those were only ever meant to be tools to aid in reproduction. Reproduction is all that matters. It certainly is possible to create an environment that makes society evolve into a stupider species. Perhaps we could even make the argument that being stupid in modern society may give you an evolutionary advantage. I’d have to check the data on that, but I admit it’s certainly possible.

          That’s scientifically absurd. That shows a correlation at best and in no way shows causation: that evolution was what caused this change. All it is showing is that tall Dutch men ARE HAVING more kids than shorter Dutch men. Does that prove without a doubt that being tall is THE REASON they are reproducing more? Of course not.

          It’s evidence of Natural Selection in humans. It shows how populations can gradually change over time. Technically, sexual selection was taking place here. Women evolved to prefer tall men, because being tall likely indicated good health and success in a hunter-gatherer environment. Women are primary concerned with resources, and in a small hunter-gatherer tribe a man would need to have access to extra resources to be taller than his rivals.

          All it is showing is that tall Dutch men ARE HAVING more kids than shorter Dutch men.

          THAT is natural selection, as well as sexual selection.

          So, this is not Darwinistic evolution because they are not reproducing as a result of being the fittest, but rather because of SOCIETAL conventions.

          Again, you’re making some assumptions about what “the fittest” means. Perhaps being poor, tall, and stupid is actually “more fit” in certain human environments. The definition of “fit” varies according to environment. What makes a whale “fit” for its environment may be unfit for a chicken hawk. Fitness is a flexible variable, it is not absolutely defined.

          1. I think we’re on the same page.

       2. epigenetics too, don’t forget that.

13. I dont get you guys who deny evolution or think it is not an observed phenomenon.
    How does evolution make less sense than the planets orbiting the Sun? Did I miss something?

    1. They don’t understand Evolution, or deny it purely for religious reasons. It doesn’t change the fact that Evolution has only become more powerful as time has gone on. It’s explanatory power is unrivaled. We are starting to see all the social sciences being unified under it.

    2. I don’t think many people are denying evolution as it happens in non human organisms. Darwin did a pretty good job of proving it with his work on the finches. However, here’s the difference between the past and today. In the past, the biggest and strongest caveman with the most resources available in his territory would lead a tribe and he would have the widest range of female options for reproduction. His genes for strength and intelligence would be passed down more frequently than the genes of the weaker and dumber cave men. Today, that’s simply not true anymore. Society and civilization have changed quite a few things. It doesn’t matter if a guy is a billionaire, a male model David Beckham lookalike, or both; no matter how insanely attractive he is to women (money and looks wise), he is NOT going to be the one who is reproducing the most and getting his genes out into the gene pool. Rather, the people today who are reproducing the fastest are the ones from lower income countries; and they are nowhere near the top of the most attractive (or “fittest” as Darwin called them) to females either looks or money wise. The whole point of a civilization is the benefit of society as a whole. Even the weakest man has the chance to survive and reproduce, where as in the past he would have quickly died. This is why there is no evolution in modern human beings.

       1. Good synopsis.
          The only part I disagree with is that this IS evolution.
          Just because we don’t like it that low IQ welfare folk are reproducing at a higher rate doesn’t mean this is not evolution.
          Evolution isn’t necessarily going upwards. We might have already peaked at greatness for all we know.

          1. But wouldn’t evolution have to exist naturally? What I mean to say is, aren’t we thwarting the spontaneity of evolution by building societies to cure illness, protect the weak, and prolong life? Aren’t we altering its very course through artificial means? Sorry, but it confuses me a bit.

          2. I think you’re making a distinction between the “natural” and “unnatural” world.
             You’re right, humans have drastically changed the environment they dwell in. But you can think of this ability to mould the environment as along a spectrum. Animals do the same thing but to a lesser degree and we still call it evolution when the genetic economy of different species changes over generations.
             For example, bees build hives, birds build nests, beavers build dams and roads. These are all examples of technology. Humans are just a level up, we build houses with internet connections.
             You can argue that our environment is unnatural, but it doesn’t change the fact that the human genetic code changes over time in relation to environmental pressure. I think it’s easier to understand by not differentiating between “artificial” and “natural” environments.

          3. That actually does help in a way, but then it made the question pop into my head: why does it matter? If we do adapt to our environment (artificial or natural) then what of it?
             We already know social engineering can alter our minds and behavior, and philosophy has dealt with nature/nurture for long enough to suggest that we are products of both.
             So, what is the point of evolution? What deficiency does it fulfill? It makes for invigorating intellectual stimuli, but as of yet, I don’t see the point.

          4. Evolutionary theory is the foundational theory of biology.
             Biology relates to all other sciences by extension.
             Biology > chemistry > physics > philosophy
             Some practical applications of evolutionary theory include medicine, agriculture, computer science (genetic algorithms), animal breeding, ecology, human psychology, etc.
             These fields existed before the discovery of evolution but the underlying theory allows you to make predictions to test, which has been a factor in the rapid development of these fields in the last 150 years or so.

          5. That makes some sense, but really, Evolution is not necessary in performing the function, and never was. It sounds more like a calculator (maybe even a crutch/training wheels), you can do mathematics without it and still get the right answer, it might make it faster/easier, but taking the more considered and basic approach tends to lead to fewer errors.

          6. And yet here we are anonymously sending text messages to each other at the speed of light from our handy porn-dispensers 😛

          7. lol. Indeed; WhEn w shuld AWL bee meting face too face and formulation (damn auto-correct) our plann to rool the world.
             Until tomorrow sir, it has been a privilege 🙂

          8. yes, we are. but that is not a problem, because our rationality is an evolutionary adaption. only time will tell whether these adaptions make us more fit for survival in the long run.
             “natural” does not require the absence of intent, because intent is a natural mechanism, too.

          9. evolution does not have a purpose, it is only an observation.

          10. Your porn dispenser has hands? I’ve got to get me one of those!

          11. If evolution is just about survival and reproduction, why did anything ever evolve past the level of a parasite?

          12. I don’t understand your question.
              Why would parasites halt natural selection?

       2. There IS evolution in human beings. You are making the same logical fail that Roosh did: assuming that natural selection is always good for a species.
          Natural selection leads species into blind alleys all the time: the fossil record is a long litany of species that made wrong turns and went extinct. Humans are not immune to this.
          See the movie “Idiocracy”. Short term breeding success does not always mean long term species survival.

          1. I’ve wrote nearly the same thing elsewhere. Those who “win” at Evolution are those who reproduce. Period. If only stupid people reproduce, then the future will be filled with stupid people. THAT is, in fact, Evolution by Natural Selection. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Being stupid would thus be considered more “fit,” because apparently too much intelligence impedes reproduction.

    3. >>or think it is not an observed phenomenon.
       Husbandry is the observed phenomenon. Evolution is the theory.
       Evolution will no longer be the theory when we observe an nth grandchild-generation of an organism that is not able to have children with its nth grandparent-generation due to genetic drift.
       We have not observed this yet.
       Before you go around waving your “I’m so smart” dick around, consider that you might be boasting a turgid 3-incher.

       1. What’s the alternative hypothesis?

          1. Well there is the idea that organisms can self-modify and re-engineer their more basic genetic code through top-down feedback. This seems to happen a lot, through various mechanisms, suggesting a teleological rather than an external driver for evolution.

          2. That’s off the subject. I don’t have to present an alternate hypothesis to observe that a hypothesis hasn’t been observed empirically yet.

          3. Sounds like magic. Got any links?

          4. Def posted about this before. This guy at U Chicago has some good stuff, but he’s not the only one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425741/

          5. http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/things-that-show-evolution-is-an-actual-fact#.fjLwovMM9

       2. what about genetic drift trees in bacteria? they don’t mate, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t distinct species.

       3. Ring species are what you’re looking for, and there are plenty of examples.
          And no, it will always be a theory, like the theory of gravity, or cell theory, or the germ theory of disease. You misunderstanding comes from the difference between colloquial and scientific uses of the term.

          1. I have no misunderstanding. If there’s a school of thought that decides things are “proven” before they are actually observed, then that school of thought is merely a fatuous mental exercise and not a philosophy or science.

    4. Read DARWIN ON TRIAL by Phillip Johnson. I could recommend dozens of others. But that was the first book that woke me up. Darwinism is a philosophy posing as a science. Its “proofs” are entirely based upon interpretation of data, not observed and repeatable data. Even its strongest and most educated proponents (high priests), like Richard Goldschmidt and Stephen Gould, etc, had to resort to the ridiculous punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster saltation theory because they finally admitted that the “fossil record” shows no transitional forms. It is a trade secret of darwinian paleontologists.

       1. idiot, fossils are rare enough on their own, how are we supposed to find fossils from the short period of ‘transition,’ whatever the hell that means. evolution is a statistical phenomenon based on reproductive utility, not a complete historical model.

          1. “idiot, fossils are rare enough on their own, how are we supposed to find fossils from the short period of ‘transition,’ whatever the hell that means. evolution is a statistical phenomenon based on reproductive utility, not a complete historical model.”
             Then why are we finding soft tissue of dinosaurs still intact?
             http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg
             Maybe because they didn’t flourish millions of years ago, but only mere thousands; and the Bible, and the legends of dragons (as well as a global flood) of pretty much every society ever, are true.
             The journal Nature Communications reported original soft tissue in six of eight dinosaur bones investigated, leading to the conclusion that “preservation is more common than preivously thought.”
             http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html
             The Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian “beard worms” that are allegedly 530 million years old:
             http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/13-003

          2. You poor man, you really believe something as wild as this without checking the source? You have a nasty pill to swallow: your fellow christians who peddle these lies are making a nice living out of your gullibility. There is no conspiracy of scientists with a plan to deceive you: it’s your own tribe who is doing it to you.
             The fourth paragraph is of special interest to you. It is coming from a Christian, the one who discovered these substances in the first place. I hope you will take her word for it.
             http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist

          3. But you take the article at face value, sort of received wisdom or is it come from on high, carved in stone?

          4. I don’t understand your question. How is her discovery, based on empirical evidence and checked by other scientists, related to Moses’s experience up a volcano?

    5. My model for evolution is like a model for a creative process, E.g. make mistakes faster to succeed. Environmental conditions for humans have changed as a function of the evolution of society, we see “evolved behavioural traits” played out in society and those lead to success and failure on broader levels for whole colonies as it were. We prototype genetic variants at a massive and broad scale and nature is patient in deciding what might actually be an incremental improvement in the genetic project. Nature is happy to let colonies of humans run a seemingly successful course for hundreds and thousands of years and then terminate the whole developmental line on a whim. Nature plays all the angles simultaneously and has bets placed everywhere so it really has trouble losing. Nature seems to have strategies for different environmental conditions for all species and these are all emergent behaviours that are triggered by broad environmental conditions.
       I think the emergent behaviour of contemporary society is such that we all naturally tend towards having less and better children vs more of a shotgun theory of blowing sperm from one end of the town to the other as before. Society broadly speaking is altruism writ large and in that context quality trumps quantity for seeing your genetic material move forward in the game. The shotgun theory of inseminating anything with a pulse works well in environments where death is seemingly random, better to spread the goods around and develop redundancy.
       As to why Roosh doesn’t want to have kids, perhaps the software has overridden the firmware in the system. He has taken the search for “quality” to a maladaptive level and he happens to be self aware about it. The act of having children is also arguably mal-adaptive and it does take a good dose of “rolling the dice” to step into that proposition as a man in our culture. Perhaps evolution is working just fine in Roosh choosing to not have kids because his risk aversion is mal-adaptive to the genetic project. Successful genetic reproduction takes certain things that run contrary to logic to make it work.
       I think it’s a simplistic reading of Darwin to imagine that each and every choice made by a walking talking set of genes is only and irrevocably set upon the singular goal of reproduction. Emergent behaviour can lead to altruism from amazingly stupid agents with the absolute most basic operating parameters. That emergent altruism, a behaviour, can help many or all of the agents, or it can harm them. Evolution is not a one way vector that only goes up, it allows for all those mistakes (happy accidents) to happen as part of the prototype process. Nature plays all the cards all the time, in essence the house can barely lose, only the individual players lose.

    6. Evolution has not been amde stronger, in fact it is weaker, we can see we do not change at our core over time, gravity, the sun,e tc, affect US, we don’t evolve to affect IT, yes organisms adapt, you grow calluses, but callus or not, you are still the same at your core, and evolution is used to justify things like feminism, because women hope they will one day not need male authority. The bible, as hard as it is to understand, is a more accurate description of life than evolution as it is presented today (the changing of something into something else with different needs entirely). I would not say we don’t adapt, but we need to adress evolution and confront it because it is being used as a way to push progressive agendas that deny the core of our being.

    7. Adaptation? sure, but there was not a time when we did not have a core, a fish was always a fish, how would a pseudofish live with half formed eyes and malformed essential components of it’s life cycle? it could not, an adapted moth is still a moth, otherwise, you people have nothing to advocate for, why not just let evolution take it’s course and make women orcs? why do you whine about shit on ROK if it’s not that you have a NEED that is inherit, and cannot be replaced? there was never a time where man didn’t have woman, or was another type of animal. The few examples of adaptation in the modern world we have have been observed to have always been there, a dormant gene, not an evolved trait. Becoming fat slobs is not permament, the very fact that we get diseased from our new lifestyles and not evolving into it shows you that man has an ideal form that cannot be transformed, if you pass on down’s syndrome, their numbers are not enough to even be succesfull. Besides, all this evolution BS makes you guys theorize about women like there’s centuries to figure the mystery that your forefathers already solved, women are emotional and nuts, they need your authority to work properly, that’s why they like “bad boys”, their BALLS, that is THE END, otherwise you become a bunch of mgtows advocating for gay island where we’re “emancipated” from manliness as we evolve into androgynous monsters.

       1. “Adaptation? sure, but there was not a time when we did not have a core, a fish was always a fish, how would a pseudofish live with half formed eyes and malformed essential components of it’s life cycle?”
          I used to think that this was a valid argument against evolution until I did more research. Check out the following link, the basic idea is that if even a few simple photoreceptive cells procure an evolutionary advantage over organisms without them, they will be more likely to survive and reproduce. The fully functioning eye can be evolved through gradual beneficial changes.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
          Regarding the rest of your post, we’re basically in agreement.
          I never said I wanted us to evolve into some kind of sexless entity. I, like many others here, do not like the direction things are going. As we become more and more “progressive”, and celebrating every depravity possible, going back to some kind of traditionalism seems pretty damn attractive.
          If I eventually have to choose between religious zealotry and degeneracy, I’ll choose the former.

14. A person of faith and reason like myself will not automatically dismiss evolution offhand, since there are strong examples of animals having evolved into other types. (easiest example: dinosaurs into birds)
    With regard to people however, I’m not intellectually inspired enough to declare that evolution is “fact” when the science behind it has not confirmed it as such. This is the reason why it is still considered the “theory” of evolution and not the fact except by those who declare it as fact because of a secular solipsist belief system. The various pseudo-scientists I’ve come across in life tried to convince me that the two are essentially the same in regards to science and evolution, which is another way of saying that I should have “faith” that the theory of evolution is in fact, fact….this belief of believing that the theory of E is fact (and therefore undeniable) by those who believe in it is remarkably similar to people of (supernatural) faith who believe in the “theory” of God as fact despite a lack of undeniable evidence to confirm His existence as factual. The irony of secular people demonstrating a religious belief in something where their intellectual reach exceeds their grasp is not lost on me.
    That being said, i do however belief in “de-evolution” which is a theory first proposed by German anthropologist Johann Blumenbach. His research tried to explain (if not fuse) the religious “WHY” with the scientific “HOW” in order to explain the origins of mankind. His research makes the case for adaptation, or how autochthonous peoples who live in an area for an extensive period of time can adapt to their surroundings in order to acclimate and ergo thrive in them. He theorized that this would explain why Blacks have hair that is better suited for arid environments, why Caucasians and their hirsute nature were better suited for gelid environments, and so forth. Blumenbach’s research would indicate that belief in evolution as those in our secular society tend to embrace, is possibly being confused with adaptation which is not immutable and ergo can be influenced by human motivation.
    While some (mis)took Blumenbach’s monogenist research as implying that certain races were superior to others (one could argue that eugenics was philosophically reverse engineered from his research) it was amply evident that Blumenbach was trying to find a way to understand HOW humans could have originated as the bible presented it (the WHY) and correlate that to examples in nature that seemed to indicate feral or seemingly subhuman origin irrespective of biblical mentions (the HOW)
    The answer: de-evolution. Although not named as such, Blumenbach’s research seemed to demonstrate that he believed humans were designed to be perfect but if these perfect human organisms were to be removed from an environment that would sustain or otherwise maintain their perfection, they would gradually degenerate as easily as a piece of fruit does when left under the sun.
    This would spiritually account for Adam and Eve’s biblical existence and also scientifically account for the remains of ancient human-like creatures that only partially resembled today’s homosapien and were more likely to behave and/or otherwise resemble feral apes.
    I would go so far as to state that Darwin’s research on evolution is at least partly based on (intentionally or otherwise) Blumenbach’s research on de-evolution/degeneration…with all necessary adjustments to remove any monogenist (or polygenist) support in his material works.
    A lot of people make the assumption that all evolutionary study started with Darwin…Blumenbach’s research, at least when it applies to de-evolution, would indicate otherwise.

    1. This. I really do not deny Evolution as the Theory that it is, but unlike Thermodynamics it is not scientific Law, instead falling into the same category as Relativity. Religion doesn’t even factor in for my own insistence that Evolution not be over-aggrandized as something it has not yet proven to be. It is sensible, even reasonable enough, but to state unequivocally otherwise would be more of a “faith-based” argument as you say. Worse, the over-zealous approaches taken in its defense are so cult-like, I find it counter-productive. Also, nice point about Blumebach

       1. I really do not deny Evolution as the Theory that it is, but unlike Thermodynamics it is not scientific Law

          “A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.”
          http://www.notjustatheory.com/

          1. Unfortunately, there are observances in religion of the divine, written accounts and more (the validity is no doubt in question by many) and yet I would still prefer tangibility. While I respect your stance and right to it, I’m sorry, so long as a theory is an explanation (no matter how documented or accepted in this context) it is open to being disproved. Currently, by your own source, “A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is
             nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.”
             What law does Evolution explain? Allele frequency changes? (which I agree with) or common ancestry? This is why I called Evolution an umbrella term in a different article, do we mean Darwinian or something else/more?
             Lastly, I never stated that theory becomes Law, but for me the difference is crucial (not so much in the scientific community).
             From a personal standpoint I prefer to hold Law as the standard, as it can consistently be proven and re-proven.

          2. While I respect your stance and right to it, I’m sorry, so long as a theory is an explanation (no matter how documented or accepted in this context) it is open to being disproved.

             At this point, the idea that Darwinian Evolution will eventually be replaced by another theory is highly improbable. When a theory withstands constant scrutiny for over 150 years it is quite an extraordinary feat. Yes, is open to be disproved, as are all scientific theories. That is just an attribute of science, not a weakness of Darwinian Evolution itself.

          3. Indeed, we are in agreement on these points. It has withstood scrutiny, it is rational, but it is still capable of being disproved. And that is an attribute of science, and for very good reason. It may also become known as a weakness of the theory itself, we do not yet know.
             A hypothesis is not to be claimed as absolute truth until it absolutely is, and for me, theory without proven Law to explain has not yet moved beyond the hypotheses stage. It well could, but I will wait until the results are conclusive rather than to jump the proverbial gun.

          4. a law is not below a theory. a law always starts out as a theory.
             a description of patterns is not different to an explanation. read something you regard as explanation and analyze what it does. e.g. there is a “because”, which aims to describe an event that chronologically came before the event that is to be explained.
             more abstract explanations use metaphors, like the atom model of bohr, but while metaphors seem intuitively right due to the way they make things seem familiar, they often rather hide the true nature of an observation. there is no reason why an atom should behave like the solar system does. non-sequitur.
             even further down the line it becomes rather emotional and imprecise by using words like god whose meaning cannot be concretized and is associated with all the moments you have heard it while growing up, usually in moments of happiness, love, etc, thus binding these emotions to the word, making it seem like the word itself has meaning.

          5. a law always starts out as a theory

             Theories do not become laws. Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

          6. A hypothesis is not to be claimed as absolute truth until it absolutely is, and for me, theory without proven Law to explain has not yet moved beyond the hypotheses stage.

             In science, hypotheses never become “absolute truth.” The highest point a hypothesis can ever reach is to become a theory. Laws do not explain, they describe. Theories explain.

          7. and how is that ‘why?’ structured? as a model that probably uses some kind of metaphor or assumption, e.g. gas particles. and is that ‘why?’ in any meaningful way relevant?

       2. Thank you. I’m one of those people who believes that faith and science can find common ground in truth when both are used appropriately and not as a a blunt instrument of activism and biased perspective.
          Hypocrisy is one thing i don’t appreciate regardless of the side that is demonstrating it. When those of a purely secular persuasion try to make the case that (human) evolution is fact through nothing more substantial than ipse dixit solipsism and any religious belief to the contrary is ergo “wrong”, it tends to set my BS radar off and rather loudly.
          There are some atheists who don’t do this because they understand how the scientific method works, unfortunately the antitheists who do tend to behave this way are the one i am more commonly familiar with. They are sciolist jerks who despise faith and will seek any means to ridicule or condescendingly dismiss anyone who proposes that science and faith can exist on mutually respectful grounds.
          Don’t be surprised to see them come out of the woodwork to attack me, or you for not attacking me lol.

          1. Faith and science are mutually exclusive by definition. Science is predicated on the provable, faith is predicated on the unprovable. So no, they can not at any point have any common ground. If science can prove the existence of God, then you don’t need faith anymore do you?

          2. I disagree. I believe that both approach the world with the same intent (to present the truth) but from differing perspectives.
             Science is designed to explain the practical “hows” of reality, using the limited means and resources in addition to conventional (but academically educated) understanding to explain it.
             Faith on the other hand accounts for the “why”s of reality; basically giving you the answer to a question someone might ask as part of their cogito ergo sum ability without actually proving it, since that would require a “how.”
             Although both operate in fundamentally different ways, they can nonetheless find mutually respectful grounds.
             I will give you one strong example and you can decide for yourself.
             (JudeoChristian) faith would tell you to be chaste until Marriage, because sex outside of Marriage is fornication and it can bring with it further sin, which can lead to the imperiling of the spirit.
             We are all familiar with that…but are we as familiar with science essentially saying the same thing? (from a scientific perspective of course)
             From the CDC:
             “Abstinence:
             The most reliable way to avoid infection is to not have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral).”
             http://www.cdc.gov/std/prevention/
             Here the CDC is indicating that being chaste is the only reliable means of avoiding disease transmission, because those can lead to diseases and diseases (especially STD’s) as we all know are harmful. The CDC goes on to explain how diseases can transmit, but it (of course) gives no moral WHY as a discouragement, only several scientific “HOWs”.
             In this manner the faith of (Christianity) and the secular advice of the CDC reconcile on mutual grounds, in that both have the common denominator of recommending abstinence as the means by which one can lead a healthy (not simply healthier) life…physically and spiritually.
             On a related note, this reminds me of a quote by Einstein:
             “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
             While a scientist can be “religious” in his approach to new ideas, he should never be “religious” in the negative understanding of such, in that he arrogantly proclaims his secular belief as undeniable without providing the necessary scientific standard in order to justify that perspective.

          3. Your comment doesn’t address faith. It instead relates to religious dogma. Faith is the belief in that which can not be proven. Perhaps you mean religion and science can share a common ground, and I agree. Science is a perfect fit for racial religions like Creativity and Cosmotheism, and none theistic religions like Laveyan Satanism, but it certainly conflicts with all theistic religions.

          4. Seems science is quickly becoming a religion with an agenda.

          5. Do you believe aliens exist?
             (I am genuinely asking, and I do believe in alien life).

          6. And that would be my next question, what is the real-world practical application Evolution being correct will have? Will it provide me with anything useful for living or for making the choices I am going to face?
             If so, how and why? On whose authority and to what end?
             My grandfather used to say: “Be a bit worried about the destination, boy, progress is just a road.”

          7. “Perhaps you mean religion and science can share a common ground, and I agree.”
             That is what i am indicating, however those who do not subscribe to religion will not understand the actual difference between faith and religion, and my remarks were not intended to make them understand it. You fleshed it out here and i appreciate that, but nonetheless my remarks still stand despite your disagreement. You didn’t address my correlation between religion (faith) and the CDC, and until you do your remarks exist only as evidence of a disagreement but not as an evidence of a refutation.
             There is one thing you said earlier that i wanted to address:
             ” If science can prove the existence of God, then you don’t need faith anymore do you?”
             That’s just it…i wasn’t arguing that science would/could prove the existence of God, since science requires more than just beliefs related to WHY’s in order to qualify as scientific. If science could prove faith then it wouldn’t be faith anymore, it would be logic.
             I do agree with the essence of your remark, but that wasn’t what i was suggesting since conventional evidence ABSOLUTELY proving God’s existence does not exist. There is evidence for God, but it is not undeniable…and i suspect that God prefers it that way:)

          8. Isn’t faith just one part of Christianity? Forgive my ignorance on this, but I thought I was told once that the primary tenets were to follow the teachings of Christ and that entry to the after life is only granted through him? I’m not certain that faith is requisite, is it? I get confused by the multi-denominational-ism of it, but found some fairly good red-pill wisdom hiding out in the Bible when I tried reading it.

          9. It’s fine. Ignorance is an aversion to understanding things which one may find uncomfortable because of pre-conceived biases. Everything else is simply a potential misunderstanding.
             You are correct to state that Christ is essentially the ONLY means by which the Christian faith defines salvation.
             I was using the term “faith” in a dichotomic fashion to contrast it with the (purely secular) example of the CDC and not as a means of demonstrating the means by which one qualifies for salvation as scriptures generally convey.
             I suppose i could have used the word “religion” to avoid the confusion, but since there is a legitimate divergence involved in those meanings, only those altogether unfamiliar with them would think them to be one and the same. Given my advanced exegetical studies i intentionally refrain from using the word “religion” to describe faith because i consider it a negative. Those who have done advanced research would see why, but i’ll give a basic explanation for those who are curious and non piously affiliated.
             “religion/religious” can describe any faith, and it can mean more than just a supernatural belief. It can include prioritizing or giving a greater priority to a secular belief system irrespective of actual facts to support it. This is why the word can apply to an antitheist even if the one doing the applying is not doing so in a typical manner (supernaturally based)
             Being “religious” therefore, simply means one is involved in a faith, supernatural or otherwise, and with no specific emphasis on independent research, but possibly the comfort that comes with systemic inculcation and the zealotry it tends to breed. (islamic militancy on one end of the spectrum, antitheist militancy on the other, for example) One may also be involved in this religion as a result of customary complacency (going to church every Sunday but ignoring what is being taught every day before and after, for ex) which is why the term “churchians” can be applied to those so called christians who only represent the faith one day a week and are therefore simply “religious.”
             “faith” however is an evolved interpretation of (religious) understanding. The person who considers himself as being involved in “faith” and not simply “religion” tends to have a personal relationship with God that exists beyond the dogmatic instructions that a church commonly passes down to its congregation. There is also a sincere attempt to know God personally, rather than impersonally (through others)
             There is a common assumption from those of non faith regarding those of faith/religion that organized Christian religion tends to present the uniformity of scripture in the EXACT same way (hence why they tend to lump us all in the same typically negative category) when the ample number of denominational and non denominational churches (to say nothing of the pseudo religious ones) may teach scripture in completely different ways and with vastly differing meanings, depending on the personal relationship that pastor (and his clergy) may possess. The definition of that pastor’s relationship (religious or faith based) can have the same type of profound effect on his congregation that a SCOTUS decision can have on a nation, which is why it’s fundamentally important that the person of faith already have a personal exegetical relationship in his or her faith to keep themselves from possibly being indoctrinated (through heretical hermeneutically derived dogma) into spiritual servitude aka RELIGIOUS affiliation.
             Doing so distinguishes that person from the simple minded religious zealot those of non faith would define him or her to be, and make him or her a person of faith who has a faithful understanding of their religion because of personal research, and not outsourced research.
             I hope that elaboration was sufficient to differentiate the actual differences between faith and religion…needless to say, you won’t tend to find this explanation in wikipedia 🙂

          10. i think that these kind of rules actually developed in an evolutionary way. various cultures with various faiths were in competition with each other. the most successful faiths survived.

          11. i do.
              http://cl.jroo.me/z3/f/W/u/e/a.baa-Pink-and-strange-fish-from-t.jpg
              http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2010/02/02_65.jpg?alias=standard_900x600
              https://brettfish.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/spwfishsmoke.jpg
              http://www.looneypalace.com/img/bizarre-and-odd/strange-fish/strange-fish25.jpg

          12. Interesting. Would that mean that having no faith runs counter to sociological evolution?

          13. depends on whether the tribes without faith are successful. maybe superstition and social bullying (moralism) is a well-working mechanism in the long run. thus, if you grow up with morals you don’t question, you may be better equipped to simply be productive in the way you learned to be.
              a lot in christianity seems to be about accepting misery without pondering about it. instead hope for heaven. it is a good motivating force for the sheep that we are to a large degree.

          14. Science has no agenda because it’s not a conscious entity. There are undoubtedly various scientists who do have agendas, however.

          15. Like the pics, but I meant extraterrestrial life. That fish must have gotten lost preparing his Thanksgiving dinner.

          16. With regard to Christianity, the “hope for heaven” view of Christians tends to be cliched when one factors in the various verses that compel a person to improve their own lives and not wallow in stagnation.
              For ex:
              On maturity: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
              On anxiety: “1Pe 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.”
              On fear: “Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.”
              On sadness: “Psa 34:18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.”
              There are just a few examples, there are many more.
              There is truth to what you are saying though. When people started relying on other people for their interpretation of gospel, i think at that point what you said became true. Pastors started promoting a “hope for heaven” belief in order to fleece their flock and in essence manipulate them into buying their way into heaven since they successfully sold the view that living on earth was just a miserable means to an end.
              You can’t get people involved in the salvation lottery until you effectively make the concept of living too negative to bear and too difficult to take proactive steps in improving.
              Needless to say, this runs counter to scripture. If people actually read from scripture instead of having it read to them, they’d realize (basic) joy can be gained on earth; you don’t need to wait until heaven to obtain joy.

          17. it is not sensible to believe or not believe in extra terrestrial life as there is no logical way to think about it. if i was to make a guess, my brain would probably take all the information it has, do some golden ratio magic and say yes or no. not that exciting really.

          18. interesting. my interpretation came from visits to the churches here in munich. i went there to be uplifted, but the words of the pastors felt like additional weight on my shoulders instead.
              maybe the scriptures are not meant or possible to be read that way, but i think it is fair to wonder who actually reads those. part of the problem of intellectual societal concepts is that even if everybody was able to understand them the way they are meant to be understood, hardly more than a minority would be interested in finding out.
              you can build a concert hall to uplift society’s culture. you can not force 90% of ‘middle class’ people to go there instead of listening to rap. that leads me to the conclusion that morals – for most people – are not more than rules to blindly listen to.
              but even if you take away my interpretation of a christian life full of misery, my point still applies. have an abstract concept that you associate with love and good stuff and you will hardly let go of it.

          19. “part of the problem of intellectual societal concepts is that even if everybody was able to understand them the way they are meant to be understood, hardly more than a minority would be interested in finding out.”
              Agreed in totality with this and the rest. This speaks of lackadaisicalness on the part of the layman of faith in that they eventually become complacent enough to allow scriptural interpretation to be given to them rather than seeking it out themselves. The consequential result is almost always the same: people are steered towards doctrines and beliefs that represent the vision of the pastor and/or clergy rather than the God they are all supposed to represent. In this manner they end up paying worship to the Pastor instead of God. Not everyone is like this of course, but a great many are, hence the sorry state of so called christians in America today.
              The only possible push back is if the pastor takes them to an extreme fringe, such as promoting homosexuality or abortions as scripturally acceptable for instance. If however the pastor avoids that, chances are good they can fleece their flock and make them believe whatever they want, no matter how heretical. Just ask Joel Losteen or TD Fakes.
              Are you familiar with those two? They are wonderful examples of the “corporate christianity” plaguing the church today.

          20. my god (?), i did not know joel osteen, but this guy looks just too fucking sympathetic to not be a psychopath. i am sure i would be much less inclined to be spiritual, had i grown up with those smiley faces patronizing me. that smirk: ‘yeah, you get your heaven and word of god, idiot. i got my orgies with those hot faithful blondes from the church yeeha.’
              then again, this theatrical kind of salesman charisma may have worked quite well before the advent of hollywood cinema that quite skilfully mocked it.
              i think that the problem is not limited to religion. the pastor takes the place of god, science takes the place of experience, theory takes the place of work and words take the place of things. but then again, there are so many areas in which you can delve deeper that some kind of ignorance is unavoidable. you may argue that this should not be the case with something as basic as religion, but from my experience, every specialist occasionally mocks the ignorance of the masses in his domain.
              the funniest thing about it is that even if there was one book on earth that you could read to solve all your problems, there is a big chance you would never read it even if every one of your friends recommended it to you. just consider: tiny tiny choice and a whole life lived differently.

          21. I believe that our mythologies, certain archaeological finds, DMT research and masses of anecdotal evidences suggest extraterrestrial/extradimensional life forms do exist. I personally believe the hypothesis that these entities had some form of interaction with us, or may even have created certain modern day human subspecies through genetic modification of pre-evolved hominidae, is likely.

          22. Thank you for replying.
              Yeah, I find myself wondering about it from many of the same reasons you state. Maybe because I ascribe most closely to the tenets of chaos theory?
              I don’t know that alien life interacted with us enough to proclaim it unequivocally, but find that is certainly within the realm of possibility and who can yet tell what the future may reveal?
              Maybe we’ll discover that the genetic code within all life already has the ability to present the complete spectrum of adaptation and that ancestors pass down the “green-light” to progeny based on the condition of their environment over time, I don’t know, but I like to keep the options open. There could very well be a God entity, something still beyond our comprehension, for all I know, sometimes its nice just to have the invigoration of open discourse to get the brain going for the work day. 🙂

          23. He does look like a con man doesn’t he? That’s because he is.
              Regarding the ignorance that we are speaking of, let me give you a personal example.
              I used to frequent one church before i stopped going. This church had a
              “power couple” that dressed to a T, drove expensive cars, and the Pastor would routinely brag…EXCUSE ME…”mention” his blessings to the congregation. The more i went the more this started to bother my soul, back when i was less astute than i am now. They were especially fond of quoting from The book of Malachi in order to guilt trip…EXCUSE ME AGAIN…”inspire” their congregation into giving generously in tithe.
              The verse they quoted most was Malachi 3:8-
              *Will a Man rob God? Yet he have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee In tithes and offerings.”
              They of course conveniently left out the rest of it-
              “Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
              Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. ”
              See what the verse is actually talking about? MEATS AKA FOOD. Back then tithing was more about food, about keeping it in the storehouse of God which could be used for the benefit of a person of faith falling on hard times. It was NEVER meant for pastors to use as THEIR personal bank account. I’m not saying all Pastors do this of course, but a lot of them do. Losteen and Fakes, for instance. If you take even one dollar from tithing for your own personal benefit, you are in essence declaring yourself as God through the action, since the tithings were supposed to be given to God and NOT the priest/pastors…they just collected it. This of course is something that very few churches teach unfortunately, hence the ignorant state of spiritual affairs of the layman of faith.
              Back to my example from earlier. What finally did it for me was when the pastor’s Wife was sweeping up some dirt off the floor, and one of the congregation members said “Lady X, you don’t need to sweep up, let me do it” as if she was some sort of royalty that was too good to get her hands dirty. I had a red pill spiritual epiphany, and i realized then that i was in the wrong church. I haven’t gone back since, even though i run into former congregation members who urge me to come back.
              Multiply this and other negative phenomenons exponentially and you can easily see why the ROK article about wimp christianity is abundantly true.

          24. so the tithing was a sort of welfare back then?
              very interesting indeed. it is the sheep who are born into believing that lying is difficult and with trust into their fellow man who are never able to grasp the profound insincerity of morals.
              funny anecdote about that ‘lady’. i reckon i would not wonder about it, since it seems to be such a common gesture to me, but now that you say it, i agree with your perspective. it reminds me of a passage i read in ‘how to manage your slaves’, which goes:
              ‘it never ceases to amaze me how many in authority today have no inkling of how best to treat those who are so fortunate as to serve them in their ambition. instead, desperately seeking to ingratiate themselves with those whose loyalty should be in no doubt, they fawn and pander to even the lowest sort of humanity. i have even seen a leading politician smile warmly at a woman working in the street in a pathetic attempt to win her worthless support.’

          25. You could say that, yes. (welfare)
              It’s why socialism/communism can be considered corrupt philosophies that borrow heavily from scripture. When people of non faith see how much easier it is to enslave someone mentally rather than physically, to the point of having them be their own jail keepers (intellectually speaking) it inspires them to incorporate that kind of religious zeal into their own philosophies, with them as the natural substitute for the Abrahamic God. Jim Jones and the former Westboro head Fred Phelps are marvelous examples of this…not coincidentally, they were both registered democrats as well and active men of influence within the democrat party of the US.
              With regard to pastors today in general, I dare say that they have probably read more from Machiavelli’s “the Prince” than from the book of God.

          26. you know, everybody ought to read from ‘the prince’ and similar works. i think it is partly the naive belief in integrity that makes people oblivious to frauds.

          27. I’m in complete agreement.
              And since we are on a site that emphasizes alpha Men, let me make mention of an additional relevant fact.
              That person i mentioned earlier? The one who was in essence idolizing the pastor’s wife? That person was a female. I hope you weren’t surprised.

          28. that is a clever twist, did not expect that.
              does it surprise me? not really. the more i cultivate a healthy distance to my emotions, the more it becomes obvious that life is a power play and there is always a hierarchy.

15. The theory of evolution ABSOLUTELY applies to modern human beings, just not in the way we want it to…
    http://www.molecularevolution.org/molevolfiles/images/evolution.png
    http://www.uv.es/jgpausas/he/heObeso.jpg
    http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-11-04/1257308646897.jpg

    1. There hasn’t been an honorable American president since Teddy Roosevelt

       1. Wrong, Calvin Coolidge!

          1. Damned straight. TR was a Progressive prick who was responsible for the greatest land theft in history, the creation of the Forest Service and the BLM.

          2. Wasn’t he also mad?

    2. The error in the logic Roosh uses here is assuming evolution exclusively selects at the individual reproductive level.
       Worker ants, worker bees, the non-germ-line cells of your body, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, and Nikola Tesla all beg to differ. While they may not reproduce directly, their respective species continue producing members like them, because not all contributions to one’s species are purely replication.
       The more stratified the society, the more it specializes, handing off reproduction to certain groups and things like intellectualism and invention to others.

       1. Great comment.
          Do you know if there is anything written on this subject?

          1. Here is a good start:
             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion
             Modern humans ARE subject to natural selection, and it is ongoing. The SJW crowd denies this human biodiversity, because it demands that some humans are always un-equal to others.
             Natural selection does not always seem to make sense, and often leads species into blind alleys that seem good, but turn out poorly in the long term: male peacock feathers are a good example. Very anti-survival, but they push a lot of instinctual buttons in the females, so the feature gets promoted.
             Roosh is failing when he tries to apply logic to natural selection. It isn’t logical, it’s all quite mindless. Extinction takes care of the species that get led into blind alleys.

       2. There is no “logic” in Darwinism. It is just the latest creation story created by government to control us.

          1. I didn’t know that Darwin worked for the Government.

          2. You do know that Darwin was a Christian who went on his first voyage under a Christian captain on a mission to prove the stories in the bible?

          3. True.

          4. Ever since the enlightenment, evolution has been a favorite of the powers that be, it’s an old mythology.

          5. Nothing you said makes any sense.

       3. Very interesting point of view that I also thought about as I was reading Roosh.
          I was thinking about the creation and the spread of intelligence and knowledge. The passing on of those skills, their adaptation to new environments or even their transformation in light of new evidence. Shouldn’t that be considered as ” brain semen” for instance ? Then I was like : ” No. I’m just trying to make the evolution theory of Darwin hold no matter what; and this is wrong. ”
          There has been an attempt to make the original theory evolve in light of the fact that original terms used by Darwin are simply no longer valid. Because reproduction means what it means. And he meant just that. I don’t think the re-structuring or modification of that theory was included in the original theory as it was written ?
          The revival of that evolution theory (example : the The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, the 2009 book by anthropologists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending) in light of everything we know today about ourselves as a group is – in my opinion – a re-shaping of the theory to make it still valid even though the original writings were limited and are now seriously challenged by the way our dynamics changed as a group.
          The theory itself is evolving thanks to the new generation of Darwinists who are re-writing it.
          Re-thinking his theory in light of its obvious flaws (when he wrote reproduction this is all he meant…) is an interesting task.
          And I have great respect for those working on it.
          But let’s try and admit he did not have the possibility to see the future. This future which is our present. And his theory does not hold as it was written.
          And most importantly : it’s a THEORY. And Darwin was only a human.

    3. Related, DEVO was abbreviation for ‘devolution’
       https://youtu.be/DG-ecVMqhCA

    4. this is what i expected from the article.

16. If the goal of evolution (or any other scientific theory) was to disprove religion, then the scientist doesn’t understand science at all.
    Science describes the “how”. Religion and philosophy describe the “why”. The difference is staggering when you think about it.

    1. De Maistre in critiquing the French Revolutionaries described how their quest to base society around the “how” of reason and science (as opposed to the historical norm of basing it around the “why” of theological ruminations and revelations) was an awful idea. In doing so, they have replaced what was an unquestionable and stable core with an erratic and unstable one constantly open to revision, because reason and science are at the deepest levels always in a state of revolution, ideas overturning ideas after theories overturning theories with only an imagined pinnacle of truth which its methods will never attain.
       Jastrow once made an analogy to a scientist climbing a mountain, and then being disappointed to find at the top, a band of theologians who had been sitting there for centuries. I would actually say the scientist will never reach the top because he will constantly have other scientists grabbing his ankles, waving evidences, and telling him he’s got everything wrong.
       As I commented on Vox Day’s blog, “today’s ‘settled science’ is tomorrow’s Flat Earth Society”

       1. The fact that the earth wasn’t flat was demonstrated by Eratosthenes in the third century BC. Only the religious continued to imagine it flat, as some of their number still do today.

    2. Spot on.

    3. Good evolutionist can determine the difference between evolution and religion. An even better evolutionist can understand that they can exist simultaneously and you don’t need to chose a side.

17. The desire to reproduce is not necessary for the propagation of the species. All that is required is the desire to fuck. It wasn’t until the advent of contraception that we could have sex and not reproduce. Also, the evolutionary strategy of children as a support network for us, particularly as we reach old age is no longer as necessary in today’s world. What we are starting to see is people reproducing who either specifically want families, or people who aren’t to concerned with the welfare of their offspring, because those men who were trapped into reproduction via their desire to fuck (I.e. the majority) is declining thanks to modern living and birth control. Also, we know women do have an instinctive need to reproduce. That is why they go bat shit in their late twenties on, and start trying to trap men (often younger) into reproduction. Again, children offer the support network to the female.
    There are good evolutionary reasons why men would not want to reproduce, it is only now that they really have a choice not to if they want to get their balls wet. Children create vulnerability against competitors, and they place a burden on your time and resources.
    ‘Altruism’ doesn’t exist. A willingness to aid others, with seemingly no material benefit, endears you to those you depend on to support you, or at the very least, not attack you. Even willingness to give your life in the place of another serves as a protection mechanism for the race/species as a whole.
    As for communication? The evolutionary advantages to being able to communicate are obvious and numerous, from aiding in cooperation to build shelter, to cooperation in destroying collective competitors.
    The issue of today is that we don’t organise societies in harmony with darwinistic principles, not that our behaviours are not congruent with them.

    1. It would seem the case that with an eye towards history, the less we knew about evolution, the better off we were evolutionarily! Nice icon by the way.

       1. Thank you.

    2. actually, the desire is not necessary. neither is happiness. if a species could succeed in reproduction in misery, there is no need for nature to expend energy to make it happy. thus being a beta provider is – while only partly fulfilling – evolutionarily plausible.
       e.g. a desire could be substituted by another desire. hypothetically, a female could offer a man money to fertilize her despite his lack of desire. if his semen would produce fit offspring, that would be perfectly fine for him.

       1. So what are the options for men who wont so easily give away their freedom?

          1. not to do it.
             if you want children, though, you could become an anonymous sperm donor. then again, they will probably retroactively forbid anonymity soon.

18. I thought this article was already debunked when originally posted.

19. The day isn’t far off when women will be able to clone themselves as a treatment for infertility, or simply because they can’t find a male they want to reproduce with, instead of those females dying off and not being able to pass on their genes. Evolution with humans was already interrupted before that with modern medicine.

    1. True the modern cashed up woman can do that now – they can go to a sperm bank mainly in America, look through a catalogue of donors, get inseminated with the sperm of their choice, have the baby and raise it all without a man physically involved.

20. Hmmm – something this big and detailed I should set aside for later to give better attention to.

21. FYI- you keep throwing “survival of the fittest” around with Darwin. Darwin never actually said this (Herbert Spencer coined that phrase).
    Natural selection speaks to an organism’s ability (or inability) to adapt to its environment. Nature really doesn’t make “value judgments.” Either you survive/ prosper or you don’t.
    Darwin wrote a lot in his journal about Finches in the Galapagos Islands. Finches on the islands that produced mostly nuts evolved to have larger beaks so they could break nuts more easily; Finches on Islands with mostly bugs and grubs evolved to have smaller beaks to access the bugs more easily. Neither finch was objectively more “evolved” than the other; just better suited to its environment.

22. The classical drivers of evolution no longer apply to modern humans. Hence the end of evolutionary pressure. There are some animals that also lack the urge to procreate as well. Camels and Pandas are two examples (both would have become extinct if it were not for the intervention of mankind). Evolution is real, but it does not apply in all circumstances.

23. I have a theory as to why this is the case.
    A good study to look at is this:
    http://io9.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-into-a-terrifyin-1687584457
    Our western civilization is literally signalling us (the beautiful ones) to stop this madness. And to be honest we are acting with great compassion by not producing children since we know that all that lies ahead for them is pain and an empty struggle for survival.
    Until this changes we will see more and more trends like this continue to grow, such as MGTOW and the herbivore male.
    For me it is kind of exciting to be a member of the last generation to have it better than the generation before him. It is going to be a sharp drop off over the coming century and hopefully I will be dead before shit really hits the fan.

24. Great write up. And interesting views. But I believe that theory of evolution holds good for humans because of a simple reason; civilisation. According to Darwin’s theory, every species undergoes constant natural selection when it is pitted against the nature, and this results in survival of the fittest.
    You must understand that Darwin, put across this theory to explain the evolution of all biological life on the planet. Wildlife in particular. And considering that as the case, you must understand two things.
    First, when evolution or natural selection (to use the better words) acts on a species, it is usually the traits of the individual species like tall, fast, adaptable, or other such traits. And another set of traits that it acts on is social skills of the species; like whether it works as a group to hunt, follow a hierarchical system of mating/eating/hunting/ and all such social/productive activity.
    Secondly, if you notice; when a species is put under the stress of natural selection or survival of the fittest; “The type of social behaviour exhibited by that animal plays a very important role”
    In short, if the spices is a group or civilisation based then the pressures of natural selection has to act on it with a much higher strain. This is evident from the fact that animals which work as group usually adapt for a longer time understrains. The group might break up into smaller nuclear groups, and those nuclear groups all adapt different life choices resulting in the survival of either of the group, hence the spices.
    So basically, it takes a great amount of evolutionary pressure because of the group dynamics.
    Now scale that to humans, who are actually living as civilisations and under countries and under governments. Now the strain needed would be exponentially higher. And hence, I believe that evolution still seems to be functioning on humans, it takes a large amount of time for it to show up. Besides, the geological and the ecological clock of the Earth, is a LOTTT larger than a time frame which we can comprehend.
    Having said that, my belief is that, when such high strains act on us for natural selection, it is going to be a very tough fall when we break.

25. All of this these symptoms are explainable by the same results as the Mouse Utopia Experiment. Look it up.

26. Roosh, I would recommend a chapter of René Guénon’s groundbreaking book ‘The Crisis of the Modern World’ (1946), namely ‘Chapter 4: Sacred and Profane Science’.
    The entire book is available here in .pdf format.
    http://tohno-chan.com/ddl/src/Rene_Guenon_-_The_Crisis_of_the_Modern_World.pdf

    1. thanks mark… downloaded for future reading!

27. (Too long, I just read part of it.)
    Evolution is not about survival exactly, is about ‘adaptation’ to the environment. If there is no situation/challenge/struggle, you do not evolve much, for example when we live in abundance we pervert. e.g. Humans, Bonobos
    Species stagnate for millions of years unless they had to adapt to something
    We are relatively stagnated and our genes don’t matter explicitly through reproduction, but implicitly there might be happening a depuration mechanism.
    The model of evolution is more evident with instincts in animals, but we now have tendencies, self awareness, abstract intelligence and control, all beyond basic needs. We are transitioning from the animal state, to a mental state, with the capacity to redefine who we are(cloth, moral, etc), or to lie to ourselves(ego, justice, power, money, laws, etc)
    The “weak” benefits from the strong and wise, who shares what probably shouldn’t, and so they survive and even rule over others, but they also die ignorant, mentally insignificant. Meanwhile knowledge is our food, ideas and logic our sperm, children are still our future, and our society is the hostile environment that we have to adapt to, to evolve our minds and transmit our thoughts for future generations.

28. I’m confused as to why you think anecdotal evidence and 30 year time frame is enough to discount evolution being a guiding influence in the world. I mean if anything maybe you don’t want to reproduce because your genes recognize you as a dead end or others see you as being a producer of bad seed.

29. I don’t believe the theory of evolution at all now, yet I studied it in depth and was indoctrinated into the theory. The writer talks about reproduction between men and women when there is no acceptable evolutionary theory for how there are two sexes with complex sexual organ systems that like nearly everything else in the body are a functioning whole that can’t evolve in any piece by piece way. They just assume it somehow happened.
    In the far future the theory of evolution will be laughed at … and there isn’t even a theory now. Darwinism has been tossed and they claim punctuated evolution happened where it happened in spurts because they can’t find any gradual evolution.
    People throughout our society; even those with only high school education fiercely believe in evolution. They believe because they never seriously looked at the numerous and I mean really numerous arguments against it. And also because they do not want to face the alternate theory that God created life. If they don’t want to believe that they should just say that we don’t know how life came about.
    The writer talks about biology yet any student can see that the cell can’t evolve. It exists inside a membrane and is complex, there is no slow evolution possible. All species are fully developed; there are none that are on the way.

30. This article really demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. I really hope people don’t read this and take it for fact because you have a lot of fallacious thinking here.
    It really is sad to see how much effort you put in to attempting to attack a discipline which has unequivocal scientific evidence. I urge you to look in to articles related to the “misconceptions of evolutionary psychology.” There are many people out there who have explained this very well and my comment won’t do it justice.

31. If in 500 or 5000 years there are no longer any humans on planet earth because we have given up having children that in itself is evolution and our species dies out.
    if we produce more and more then our species is a success.
    the goal of evolution is the success of the species but that doesn’t mean success is guaranteed.
    species die out all of the time, we are no different except we are aware.
    and the time frames referred to are very short in terms of the ability for genetics to have an impact and the results seen.
    world population 1927 – 2 billion
    est world population 2027 – 8 billion
    so a 400% increase in species numbers over 100 years or about 5 generations.
    seems like a successful species from my perspective (for now).

32. Roosh these ideas were all addressed by Alexis Carrel in ‘Man, the unknown’. Eugenics as a means to counter the burden that humans have inflicted on evolution were widely accepted by most academics barring those associated with the Church. This was commonly accepted till the end of the Second World War. I would posit that a huge growth in wages and taxes in the West post war and depression made any eugenic ideas far less fashionable than just the adverse press that the Nazis gave the agenda.

33. It depends on what one means by evolution. The process of evolution (accumulated changes over generations) clearly exists and has been observed. The theory of evolution, as formulated by Darwin to explain the process, has not applied to humans ever since the advent of civilization.

34. This is the path of evolution in Western society.

35. Quote:Since high school I have believed in the theory of evolution,
    This is where we differ… Since the first lesson in school about Darwinism, I knew that it was pure bullshit ! BTW Still do today after over 60 years !
    But seeing a photo of Darwin, I thought that maybe there’s something in it, that men descend from monkeys… Darwin photo could prove this……..

36. A bit literal application of Darwinism, I say.
    “Fit” doesn’t mean strongest or smartest, but rather the most adaptable. The “weak” have become fit because they take advantage of the “strong’s” philanthropy.
    In short, those who depend on welfare and whatnot could be considered to be more evolved, because they expend less energy to survive. Due to their simple mental nature cannot understand what went wrong with women, thus are able to tolerate their shit and reproduce.

37. I think you are confusing natural selection with ARTIFICIAL selection.

38. I don’t know enough about the theory to decide one way or the other on the raw scientific merits, but it seems to me that there’s a major flaw in your logic. If this is really about the strongest genes surviving, who says that “strongest” means most intellectual, richest, most well groomed, most handsome, etc…? There are plenty of these people in my neighborhood, and thay are evolutionary dead ends. Too many resources makes them lazy and lethargic. Too much education cripples their ability to see reality and make decisions. Too much vanity focuses their energies in shallow persuits. What we often call the “pinnacle” of civilization – pick your East Coast Liberaltopia – is a festering hive of emasculated, effete pussies. Not exactly the mongol hordes. So part of the problem is definitional. You’ve been conditioned to think of certain traits as strengths, just as pre-red pill you were conditioned to think certain behaviors from women were desirable. The truth may be different than what you have been told.

39. Not to point out the obvious, but you don’t understand evolution if you totally omit natural selection with regards to sex. People have and still do make decisions about who they reproduce with. Most people aren’t going to pick somebody with a major developmental disability to have a child with.

40. Wow, that article went downhill fast.

41. Lol this reminds of a funny scene from True Detective:
    
    “I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law…We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory, experience, and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody.”

42. I don’t think anything has changed evolution wise. It’s western culture, and the laws that come with it that are deterring rich and desirable men from making babies. If guys could still get away with knocking up every woman they fuck, without it leading to financial ruin and unwanted responsibilties I’m confident they would. I know I would.

43. This site has turned into complete nonsense. It isn’t about masculinity anymore. It is about Christianity.
    Just as irrational as feminists. Hamster away at your Christian ideas.

    1. In rejecting one tenet of the ‘Enlightenment’, men will inevitably begin to reject the other tenets. They are returning to the organic state, and the organic observations of the world.

    2. Actually Christian society built a society, in the long run, more successful and prosperous than Rome.
       Most people are not cut out to live without a moral code, they fail mightily. If not Christianity, then something else needs to take its place. Expecting every man to be a top shelf physicist with a PhD in philosophy is silly.

44. As i commented on the rooshv article, altruism is key to human development. While it is sometimes a sub-optimal strategy, it is easier for evolution to produce than the superior ‘market interaction’ strategy that enables modern society, and it is better than having contempt for all lazy people. Other than that, every other fault is due to the maladaptation of modern western society.

45. In this world, is the destiny of man controlled by some kind of transcendental entity? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true, that man has no control, even over his own will.
    The problem for not having an origin story is the human need for such answers Roosh. Man desires to know why life is such, and from acute observation to intense studying, science seems to have grown as a thinking man’s go-to for answers on life.
    But science, many times, is wrong, a mere postulation than an encountered reality. While the mystical sense of God and religion loom to the other side of the ring, I do not doubt that there are many facets of truth to both the existence of God and of human behaviors described in evolution, but perhaps humans are also filling in a gap on another part of our physiology that is not discussed because it would show too much truth: the desire for conflict.
    Everything flows within the currents of causality. The slightest touch, the smallest push, sends echoes throughout. There is little here in the way of finding an answer, but perhaps there is no answer to our query. Perhaps existence is not cyclical or linear, but rather spiralic in nature, and we cannot confirm anything relating to this stance except for the images of far-off galaxies that show the spread of molecules and ions over time in a spiral pattern, which, if for sheer artistic effect on distant star-gazers, is quite breathtaking, but only gives us humans a glimpse of the possible history of our existence and prior to that as well.
    We live, and then we die, but there is more beneath the surface to fate and destiny than most belief systems would have people subscribe to, and if you really want to peer into that dimension, then you’re asking for things you can’t unsee.

46. Practicing for the first of April?
    Dude… if you’ve ever been on a campus, it must have been to deliver a pizza. That book looks like the textbook case of a straw man argument. If the number of people claiming to have read “The Selfish Gene” actually had, then Dawkins would be one of the world’s most successful authors.
    Whether or not the theory of evolution by natural selection applies to humans is moot in the context of this article, because you have robustly demonstrated that your familiarity with theory’s concepts is about on par with that of a 12 year old meth addict.
    Yes, granted, a lot of the theory’s supporters (who share your abysmal understanding) do make endless just-so, ad hoc explanations that are unverifiable. Shining a light on enthusiastic ignoramuses hardly counts as a worthwhile critique of something you know little about.
    Try actually READING “The Selfish Gene” before commenting on it.
    Bert Holldobler can’t write for shit, but his books about eusocial insects might be good for you.
    But, seriously man… were you drunk when you wrote this?

47. GOD created Adam and Eve. We did not “evolve” from dirty apes.

    1. We’re still apes.

    2. That’s true, we didn’t — rather, we both evolved from a common ancestor. Go eat a banana. BTW Adam & Eve had three children, Cain, Abel and Seth… who did they have sex with to procreate?

48. Great article.
    Evolution is just the Church of Darwin.
    A politically correct government approved THEORY.
    It is a creation story just like all the others that governments (religious or non-religious) use to control the minds of their subjects.
    Before you Church of Darwin members respond with a government-conditioned knee jerk response of “So you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Sky Fairy?!”…let me say this…
    You do not know how old the earth is or how life was formed.
    I do not know how old the earth is or how life was formed.
    Charles Darwin does not know…neither does Bill Nye the Science Guy. Nobody knows and no one will.
    It is the classic divide-and-conquer strategy.
    You either must be a Creationist or a Darwinist.
    You either must be a Republican or a Democrat.
    You either must be a Liberal or a Conservative.
    FREE YOUR MINDS!

    1. You don’t understand what the word ‘theory’ means in a scientific context, and you don’t understand that evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life, but the diversity of life.
       And we do have a good idea of how old the earth is.

       1. I do understand what theory means in a scientific context.
          Many people on this forum write things such as “evolution is a proven scientific theory”. Many people believe the theories of scientists just as their medieval ancestors believed what their priests told them.
          You (whoever all of you are) have NO IDEA how old the earth is.

49. and that my friend…is how i think when i’m stoned.
    (not sarcasm, I swear to my mothers grave.)

50. “How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings?”
    First: Charles Darwin’s thoughts are pretty irrelevant. The modern 21st century version of the theory of evolution differs from Charles Darwin’s 19th century version. For example, Darwin knew very little about genetics and got a lot of things wrong in that aspect.
    Roosh, you use a caricature of evolutionary theory in an attempt to discredit it. According to your thinking, everything humans would ever do is mating. Never ever would a human being sit in a car to race down a track just for enjoyment.
    Now, it is a given that the instinct to have sex IS strong in humans. Most people have that drive – hint: even those people who choose not to have children.
    Second: how would a modern evolutionary biologist answer your question? He would acknowledge the fact that human beings are not only biological beings but also cultural ones. Culture can change biologically driven behaviour.
    Human behaviour is influenced BUT NOT DETERMINED by our instincts. We can decide to live a childless life if it suits us. The price, of course, is that the genes of those people won’t survive into the next generation of human beings. That means the heritable traits in the gene pool of the population that the non-breeders are a part of will change over time – and you know what that is the definition of? Evolution.

51. Evolution is the variation in allele frequencies over time. Only your attempt to impose your own definitions of “strongest” on the system cause you misunderstanding.

52. You are cherry picking an example. The Theory of Cultural Evolution aptly describes what you are talking about. This issue has been anticipated and discussed.
    As for evolution, this applies to human being. We know that because we can observe it.

53. Being horny is the will to reproduce. Wanting to get laid is an instinct. Everything else is the human game AKA the ego, which other animals don’t have.

54. China seems to be reproducing quite well, so is Africa, so is India. Evolution does not guarantee reproduction, and it does not say that you will strive to take actions that are logically in accord with reproduction. When two tigers fight to mate the results can be deadly, and one of them will likely not reproduce at the end of the fight. Does that mean that the actions of the two males fighting is anti-evolution? No, quite the contrary, the fittest with the most advantageous evolutionary traits wins, and fucks.
    This article is an awful lot of rationalization to dance around the notion of free will. Human beings in the *West* have convinced themselves to adopt a whole slew of anti-reproductive traits, which is having the *very predictable* effects of causing us to under-breed, which ultimately will lead to extinction of Westerners. NOW, that being said, other societies have chosen not to convince individuals to be suicidal, and as a result they are reproducing at a huge rate. Evolution does not compel choice, it simply weeds out the weak. We (most of us), through each of our own conscious free will choices, raised our hands *voluntarily* and opted to be weak. Evolution is not violated, because all we’ve done is enter a state of behaviors that *are not in accord with nature* and nature is responding as designed, she’s weeding us out, while those who do not adopt this mental illness are fucking like bunnies and increasing their numbers accordingly. The theory is perfectly congruent.

    1. Lots of white Leftists still cling to the stereotype of the poor, starving black African. Wrong. Their population is set to quadruple by the end of the century. The future of humanity is going to be African.
       https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/16/the-amazing-surprising-africa-driven-demographic-future-of-the-earth-in-9-charts/
       Meanwhile, Europeans reproduce at an abysmal 1.6 children per woman, when 2.1 is the minimum to sustain the population, and their immigration policies have foreigners coming in, using their welfare system, and out-reproducing the natives. Whites are on their way to extinction, and if you think about it from an Evolutionary perspective, if we can’t get control of our own society perhaps we deserve it.

       1. ‘African’ doesn’t really describe a race accurately. Worldwide the main population explosions are with mixed race groups. The ‘purebloods’ are waning and the mixed breeds spread like wildfire. Take the West African nations ravaged by disease, famine and fiat money. The Ebola stricken areas are the homeland of the original Bantu race. Home of the ‘purebloods’. Larger nations like Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa have roughly 50 mil pop, but metropolitan Mexico City alone has 50 mil mixed race majority mestizo. Africas largest country Nigeria at 170 mil has a number of mixed race French creole and South Africas doubling of pop in the past two generations is due to not so much racially loyal unions or even ‘black on white’ couples but ‘indian on indian’ or mulatto on mulatto. Once a ‘new race’ is born, an ‘explosion’ of breeding takes place. Within a century of Spanish conquistadors arriving in the new world and screwing a few natives, the mixed race numbers soon exceeded the indigenous numbers. Africa’s second most populus, Egypt, has been thoroughly semitic mixed for over a millennia.
          Far to the north, the ‘pureblood’ white groups are suffering the same fate as suffered by the pureblood Mongolians in Tibet and pureblood Bantu in ravaged places like Ivory Coast.
          The world model of Marx’s ‘world man’ of mixed breeds replacing purebloods in every corner is unnatural but is pushed by semitic elitists who can all the easier blend in and work the shell game in societies of majority semitic ‘mixed blood’. Ever seen the MSM clownfest that passes for ‘bread and circus’ and ‘pop entertainment’ in Latin America? The mixed breeds gobble it up like it’s cappucino puddin’.

    2. China has a difficult language with over 600 characters. Any outsider who hasn’t had the alphabet drilled in at an early age can’t function in Chinese society. The Chinese don’t need a great wall to keep outsiders out and their race a billion pure. Their impossible language IS their great wall. German, the most phoenetic language is easier to crack than English. It is surprising that Germany has held thus far. Westerners plan in short sighted ‘quarters’ while the Chinese have a 5000 year plan. Their language is definately planned but their killing of the second child ‘one child’ policy is puzzling. They’re streamlining perhaps for an ant invasion. All planned.

55. Fuck you.

56. Even the graphic artwork of the supposed lineage of man, that famous ART work of monkey to man, is completely fictitious and fraudulent in its history. Read ICONS OF EVOLUTION by Jonathon Wells if you want thr truth on that.
    Darwinism is philosophy posing as a science, a house of cards ready to collapse. When it goes, it will go fast. Just like Phrenology.

    1. ‘Evolution theory’ is pushed for mass consumption like gmo processed food, fluoride, bread and circus, and is like the old Roman numeral system which was a dead ‘toe tag’ system, only good for sequential numbering or placing an I.D. mark or persons or property. Even with an abucus, a person can barely budget, forecast trends or use calculus to solve scientific problems. With ‘evolution theory’ as foundation, a person is handicapped without the proper building blocks of knowledge to make accurate hypothesys and discovery or uncovering history of the true origins of man. It is very unempowering to be ‘kept’ as a dumbed down animal.

57. While my thoughts are continously forming on this subject my knowledge of the paradigm of r/k type reproductive strategies and pure human will seems to be very logic scientifically sound theories to mordern human sexual behavior and the play of civilization is likely to make darwins theory absent because natural selection assumes that nature forces traits that are like grabbing at straws (not always i believe) so human sexual behavior after civilization has been partly disgenic but still aligns within that r/k continuum if anyone knows any flaws to this I’d love to hear

58. Humans evolved in a very different environment to the one they now inhabit. Evolution has shaped humans, humans are the result of evolution. To understand the role of evolution on humans is to understand human nature.
    Roosh makes a very basic mistake, he sees that humans are maladapted to the current environment they are in so he thinks they have not evolved. All it shows that human evolution has not caught up with the extremely fast changing environment. To claim that evolution does not apply to humans is simply wrong.

59. Islam and Hispanics and India are on the move population wise. It would be wise to read Mark Steyn’s book America Alone, Roosh. Your concepts are applicable to modern, feminist-dominated cultures. Feminist culture HAS to disappear because it’s about low/no birthrates and the propagation of women and men with no stomach for a fight. Of course, evolution applies to those cultures are still around. No birthrate, no evolution. You cannot get around simple demographics.
    But Darwin, evolution and dog-eat-dog cultures with little time for feminist bullshit are here today and relevant and growing with quite healthy birthrates, thank you very much. Islam and Hispanics will one day fight a war over the spoils left behind by our Western, feminist-dominated (for now) culture. Islam makes quick work of feminism, transgenders and gays and will eliminate of all of it. Hispanic men have NO tolerance for feminism polluting their women, either. Gee, how many shrinks exist under Islam? None. It’s the luxury of a declining culture of weakness, sloth and a feminist culture men will one day refuse to fight for. What’s in it for men in this culture? Nothing. Well, the elimination of cultures IS evolution, IS the modern age and feminism should be considered the extinction-event for the modern, relatively peaceful age and scientific advance of this culture. If you could come back 100 years hence, the culture of today will be gone. You can’t argue birth rates, you don’t get around demographics. Strong culture wins, breeds, evolves. That’s not feminism I can tell you that for FACT.

60. Or maybe evolution is true and when God created man “in His own image” He implanted an intellect in us that makes applying evolutionary theory to us impractical.

    1. Of the varied sciences, biologists rate as the most ‘athiestic’ having the lowest numbers who profess to have belief in supreme being or ‘god’. Strangely physicists tend to be pious!! Many quotes by Einstein and other physicists refer to god. Max Planck had always been deeply religious but non denominational. He eventually converted to Roman Catholicism late in life. Modern biologists are knee deep in evolutionist dogma from their earliest studies in even the primary textbooks.

61. We are in a period of reverse evolution where the branches of Humans with the lowest IQ, achievements and inventiveness are having the most children – mainly because they benefit from all the medicines and other advances that have been made entirely without their input.
    Yes – the negro.

62. There is hardware (our brain) and software (culture). Both evolve and interact with each other in complex ways. Evolution doesn’t care what works. Lemmings throw themselves off cliffs to thin their numbers. Males insects mate only to be eaten by their lover. Evolution isn’t elegant. Our genitals are right next to our poop shoots.

    2. I agree with your statement about evolution, but lemming’s throwing themselves off of cliffs is nothing more than a factoid.

       1. Ow wow, you’re right. Lemming suicide is complete BS. Thanks. Must remember that.

63. evolution theory is human logic at its best.

64. Oh dear, you were off to such a good start. Read “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins. Social animals have different evolutionary strategies than individual animals — activities that promote group survival (communication, altruism, socialization) benefit all the individuals’ surival and thus perpetuate social behavior. The theory of the triune brain (limbic, mammalian, neocortex) shows that primal and social urges can inhibit each other: You see a hot girl in a club, and your libmic system is aroused, but your frontal lobe knows that paternity is costly and limiting, so you wear a rubber. The rest of your statements get less and less true as they go on. Communication among a group has a tremendous survival advantage in hunting and defense (cf chimps), I’m surprised you missed that. Altruism (in all animals), besides conferring advantages to the whole population) diminishes in direct proportion to genetic relationship, proving Dawkin’s theory of gene-centered evolution. Read Durkheim’s “On Totemic Religions” and you’ll find that the majority of primitive religions were mostly laissez-faire except for some big festivals during the year (mostly conjecture, but then so was yours). In addition, read about the well-documented evolution of the horse, the evidence of many “missing links” (eg lungfish, flying fox) and of course the fossil record of genus homo (no homo) will suggest you are most mistaken. Even in regards to your last statement, recently professor Jeremy England advanced the theory that even inanimate molecules “evolve” to use energy more efficiently — although that has yet to be proven. Still, the preponderance of evidence supports evolution. You also tellingly fail to come up with a plausible replacement — intelligent design perhaps? Methinks not. Nice try though.

65. God created men. as simple. Satan deceives man in various ways. And hides his own existence. part of greater deception

66. evolution in humans hasn’t stopped, the environment (the social environment) changed. in r/k selection theory western society arouse through k selection which meant higher investment in fewer children. this worked quite well for centuries, to the point that tiny europe dominated the entire globe like non before it. but as k selection went further and further it passed a point at which the returns began to diminish. now high fecundity societies are on the rise because life there is still cheap enough to produce. the vaguely eugenic notion of survival of the fittest can quickly be turned to favor dysgenic breeding when environment (re. social) economics change. this is what has happened. this doesn’t mean evolution has stopped. it never stops. it merely means the same evolutionary forces which favored the proliferation of religion and human ignorance for the knock-on effects of high fecundity have merely been reasserted. the evolutionary dead weight in this case being what we call civilized behavior, civilized society, and the values of the enlightenment. laws of evolution are arrested no more than laws of economics. the very ideas of the dark enlightenment (i.e. R.O.K. it’s self) call to light the fatal flaw in k selection gone mad.
    within all human groups women will tend towards k selection, men will tend towards r selection unless environmental factors inhibit them. one of the central complaints about western society is that it’s become “soft” which is a euphemistic way of saying feminine. men increasingly accept notions and behaviors and societal rules which limit THEIR reproductive behavior. while no such rules limit women’s because they already have home grown genetic predispositions towards k selection. sorry roosh, this time your wrong. it’s not that evolution has stopped it’s that the environment favors dysgenic breeding and a dystopian future that comes with it. enjoy the decline.

67. Seriously man, you are losing it. Get your shit together.

68. Lazy writing and lazy thinking. Even old Christian Darwin could tear your assumption apart. Doesn’t anyone get an education these days or do you just blurt out anything and hope no one will notice? The only way the articles point could be made is if evolution happened over decades and not millennia. Extremists left and right can go and frack themselves.

69. Not quite evolution, we are now achieving devolution. Where first the environment selected the right genetics now women do. Where first weak genes were killed off by nature now women kill off genetics whichever is not fashionable. Instead of forcing women to choose a good man now women can bed many of the lowest thugs and receive welfare from the state. It is a crime against humanity and all our ancestors.

70. I think Roosh and David Stove are simply underestimating how slow and gradual evolution is… The mechanisms of evolution are simply too subtle to see them functioning if we just take a snapshot of recent human history.
    Stefan M. recently had a really interesting series about how gene expression manifests in culture, sometimes in ways that seem quiet contrary to evolution (and common sense), worth checking out if you found the theme’s of this review of Darwinian Fairytales interesting:
    
    
    

71. But the theory of evolution DOES apply to modern man. It’s working as intended. We need to rethink what constitutes “alpha” and what constitutes the “fittest” in survival of the fittest.
    Why aren’t the most successful reproducing? Simple. Western nations lack strife, or at least the perception of strife. In the animal kingdom, strife (warfare/survival) is ever present. We’ve gotten so comfortable that we’ve unlearned how to detect dangers and how to survive. That doesn’t mean strife isn’t there. We simply operate under the illusion that it isn’t.
    The managerial class isn’t the most fit. They never have been ever since they popped up as the merchant/money-changer class. They may control governments now, but for most of our history merchants were essentially scum, scarcely better than lowly serfs. Many times I hear about the trainwrecks that are these people’s lives. They have money, sure. But they don’t often have much else.

72. Excellent read. Humans are in an odd transition period that really only began half a century ago. Even as recently as 1950, a child could be considered an asset, a helpful worker on a family farm. With automation, industrialization, and explosive population growth, a child has gone from an asset to a massive liability in just the last 100 years.
    I think the idea of an alpha male trying to bang as many girls as possible while simultaneously trying to not produce any offspring is a prime example of this conflict. One interesting explanation is that since a child is perceived as a massive drain in resources in today’s society, and thus would diminish the amount of sex we have and thus greatly limit potential future offspring. I’m grasping at straws though and am really in the same place you are in searching for what drives us today now that the “cosmopolitan Borg programming” (love this btw) has taken over.

73. Adaptation is the word you are looking for, not evolution, evolution is handled incorrectly, it assumes we can jump from being something to then something else entirely with different needs, but rules are universal, needs ar euniversal, women’s needs and men’s needs are the same. Evolution is used by feminists AND MRAs to hope that one day they will evolve to be like seahorses to self-reproduce and live in a secluded island where strong independent black women “need no man”. Evolution as it is rpesented to us is a hoax, we have clearly designs and functions, technology advances and we lag behind because we are not made to handle it, and will NEVER be.

74. I love it when non-scientists try to comment on science. It’s like a liberal arts major trying to give me a lesson in chemistry xD

75. Trying to find a Theory to describe all humans is futile, we are divided into k and r reproductive stategies, roughly divided into sun people(blacks and browns) and ice people( whites and asians). You brought up the flood in a (white) midwest town where everyone shows up and works all night sandbagging a strangers house, compare with Katrina where Blacks turned New Orleans into a looting, raping war zone. How is a Theory gonna describe both of these? How about apartheid S. Africa where the government fed, educated, and provided health care to every Black, even on the reservations, compared to now where Blacks have excluded whites from being elligible for full time jobs or any welfare when whites are still the biggest tax base? Something huge seperates

76. This issue is long overdue . . . and is front and center with all these articles about travelling to places like the Phillipines to find and bed the best women. Why? What a waste. And we criticize the “carousel riders” as being useless betrayers of life’s purpose?? Does our community think about having children and a family?? Isn’t that what we are talking about? Why not marry the Phillipina and get her pregnant and support her in her village? How much does that cost? 10% of alimony risk in the US of A? . .. and some courage. Have we nothing to offer a child – with our education, knowledge, vision and resource? What are we afraid of? We have the best of the world bring to places where good women are guiding their character and their dreams to match what they know to be right for us. There are corners of the world where we can – whenever we return to oversee the family – truly be Kings – if we so chose to make it so.

Comments are closed.