The Truth of Evolution

[Stefan]

This evolution/devolution paradigm you are trying to create lacks a measure of context. A beneficial trait in one contextual environment might be a trait which will get you dead in another. For humans, I will present the example of skin color. In more heavily irradiated parts of the world, higher skin pigmentation is an advantageous trait. This allows the body's epidermal cells to cope with higher electromagnetic radiation and mitigates any damage induced during cellular mitosis, which reduces the rates of malignant tumorous tissue. In said environment there is no issue of Vitamin D deficiencies (which we get from sun light exposure.) When people with dark pigmentation are born further from the equator, however, where solar radiation is less direct they suffer from issues of Vitamin D deficiency. Their natural protection against sunlight also prevents them from obtaining sufficient Vitamin D. In turn, they must supplement such a deficiency with certain dietary requirements. Likewise, cancer rates increase greatly among white populations in irradiated parts of the world, which they must cope for by using sun-blocking technologies.

As others have noted, the fitness of an individual (or population) depends greatly on how well they can adapt to changing conditions. Most extinctions occur when there were large environmental transitions. While our intelligence has enabled human-beings to create technologies in which we create elaborate shelters, it isn't impossible for a scenario to occur in which these shelters no longer exist. For that matter, intelligence is a great trait to have, but that doesn't make it special or the sole deciding factor for survival. There are plenty of other ways in which populations can adapt to environmental changes.

[revealman]

Too many people here have misconceptions about the process of evolution…

You individually cause evolution, or devolution. You are responsible for yourself, nobody else. You choose your mate. Your mate choices cause your future children. Your choices affect the future of earth, humanity, and society. If you are a woman, and have sex with criminals/thugs, then you will perpetuate crime and criminal behavior. Like begets like. People routinely complain about murderers, rapists, child abusers, etc. But all of these "problems" could be solved, if women chose to quit breeding these traits back into new generations. However women consciously or subconsciously choose not to. Instead women choose violent, "evil" men to breed with, and raise their children. Women (and men) perpetuate "hate" and "evil".

Actions speak louder than words.

Women act (and breed) contradictory to their words. The average person retains the popular liberal idea. Everybody wants the world to be "a better place". This is a utopian idea. And most (young) people presume that this means less violence, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. But is a violence-free world really worth the cost? What is the cost? What is the cost and result of breeding violence out of the human gene pool? Imagine planet earth with 7 billion docile zombie drone humans. No passion. Lifeless. Stupid. Dull. Pathetic. Who wants that?

The problem with evolution and breeding is that life is competition. And everybody competes for "more" on an individual level. Everybody is competing for more, based on individual values. One person values this. Another person values that. One person values big cars. Another person values big tits. Person X will spend $1000 on a toy. Person Y will spend $1000 on a vacation. Everybody has different values. It's only when human values align, and represent a popular trend, that people "agree" about other matters such as opinions, ideas, politicks, religion, etc.

Evolution is a big conflict about opposing values between humans.

This conflict occurs on an individual basis (man versus woman), or can be interpreted on a social level too (country A versus country B). Society F versus society G. Culture L versus culture M. Everybody and everything can be pitted against everybody and everything else.


To properly understand evolution, you must add all the factors, values, and context together. You must understand that adults are not children, men are not women, whites are not blacks, conservatives are not liberals, etc.

Evolution is about breeding better and superior humans.

But better and superior require context, better at what, superior than whom? This is the core and crux of evolution. What is the exact context? People will disagree, debate, and argue about this context. Because every single individual that "my value!!!" is higher than everybody else. And this is predictable. People are egocentric and will base evolution on their ego first and foremost. But on a social level, evolution is much more complex. It's most complex on the appropriate specie level. What is evolution of humanity?

Consider humans versus other animals… compared to a cat or dog, compared to a whale, compared to hawks, compared to beetles, compared to whatever specie you can think of. Humans claim that humans are more evolved. Is this true? How would it be true?

Since it's obvious that every individual will claim him/herself as "more evolved" based on ego (Subjectivity) then it would also be implied that the human specie will claim itself "more evolved" based on the whole "human ego" of the entire specie. All humans working together, represents the will of all cultures, countries, and peoples. It represents the whole of human evolution as a group, against what or who else?


Evolution is a history of apex predators, "top of the food chain".

When you reach the top, and there are no other predators, then infighting begins, as is the case of human history and war. This is the reason and cause behind war. If one human becomes too powerful then all other men will fight to bring him down. If one country (Nazi-Germany) becomes too powerful then all other countries will fight bring it down. This is the law of apex predation. Weak people cannot stand to see another (human) group become so powerful that it excludes the rest of humanity.

Liberalism is the ideology that attaches the weakest human elements, to the strongest human elements, like a ball & chain. Liberalism is a politickal and ideological force that actively prevents human evolution from "progressing" further. Liberals represent Devolution. Instead of humanity growing "better" or "stronger", more intelligent, more powerful, more beautiful, more everything, liberals want to attack any superior anomaly before it becomes "too evolved". Too superior.

This is represented by the "Human Equality" phenomenon. Liberals want to ensure that all humans (and all different human races) are "equal" at all times. This ideology binds humanity together, even when those at the top want to separate themselves from those at the bottom. When the intelligent want to separate from the stupid. When the strong want to separate from the weak. When the beautiful want to separate from the ugly. When the rich want to separate from the poor. When the tall and robust want to separate from the short and frail. Etc.

Liberalism represents that anti-evolutionary, Devolutionary, (negative) force.

Liberals will call themselves "progressive" when they actually are regressive. They move backward and call it "forward". They focus on all the negative human qualities, deem them worthwhile, valuable, and even redefine them as "superior", and attack all the positive human qualities.

This is the reason-why and cause that people are so confused about Evolution. They can't tell which "direction" humans are evolving in, positive or negative, forward or backward, left or right, etc. because they've been swayed, deceived, disoriented, and confused by (liberal) lies. Devolution poses as evolution. Suicide poses as Survival. Illness poses as Health. Degeneracy poses as Vitality.


Evolution occurs through your choice in life! You choose your lifestyle. You choose your mates. You choose your future, nobody else. You are the cause of evolution. You choose suicide or survival. You choose positive or negative. You choose, more intelligent children or less intelligent children. You choose strength or weakness. Beauty or ugliness.

You choose the direction of evolution.

Success is evolution.
Failure is devolution.

excellent work!

[Unome]

This evolution/devolution paradigm you are trying to create lacks a measure of context. A beneficial trait in one contextual environment might be a trait which will get you dead in another. For humans, I will present the example of skin color. In more heavily irradiated parts of the world, higher skin pigmentation is an advantageous trait. This allows the body's epidermal cells to cope with higher electromagnetic radiation and mitigates any damage induced during cellular mitosis, which reduces the rates of malignant tumorous tissue. In said environment there is no issue of Vitamin D deficiencies (which we get from sun light exposure.) When people with dark pigmentation are born further from the equator, however, where solar radiation is less direct they suffer from issues of Vitamin D deficiency. Their natural protection against sunlight also prevents them from obtaining sufficient Vitamin D. In turn, they must supplement such a deficiency with certain dietary requirements. Likewise, cancer rates increase greatly among white populations in irradiated parts of the world, which they must cope for by using sun-blocking technologies.

As others have noted, the fitness of an individual (or population) depends greatly on how well they can adapt to changing conditions. Most extinctions occur when there were large environmental transitions. While our intelligence has enabled human-beings to create technologies in which we create elaborate shelters, it isn't impossible for a scenario to occur in which these shelters no longer exist. For that matter, intelligence is a great trait to have, but that doesn't make it special or the sole deciding factor for survival. There are plenty of other ways in which populations can adapt to environmental changes.

I mentioned the discrepancy of contexts in the OP. This issue is already addressed.

Yes everybody needs to frame 'Evolution' by a particular context, for example… skin color, eye color, intelligence, height, money, whatever.

The point is, you can choose more than one trait. It doesn't have to be just one. Evolution can represent all the "positive" traits. But this still requires an analysis of all the "positive" versus negative traits.

So it's a matter of survival versus suicide. Some sexual choices are dead-ends. Some people, already born, literally have no future. They will not reproduce.

[revealman]

The great hermetic (or nature) philosophers have taught throughout history that the creative force and intelligence (whatever that means to you) formed all we perceive as duality, light and dark, hot and cold, positive and negative, male and female. Existence, as we know it, requires polarity and by extrapolation the tension or struggle that results. Indeed, life would be true Hell, or a living death, without competition. Be it war, a golf tournament or the Battle of the Sexes, the joy is in the struggle. On a false intellectual level we can speak of the equilibrium of "peace," but it is sugar-coated deception, whether in the realms of religion, politics, sex or anything else. An eternity of sitting on a cloud singing, "Jesus loves me" would be a torture just a step behind the Christian alternative lifestyle called hell. True pleasure comes from struggle, from achieving, from accomplishments which require time, effort and sacrifice. So why would anyone think the Battle of the Sexes would be different? The word "battle" is absolutely appropriate and those who would abstain from the contest deserve neither life nor pleasure. In a primitive and natural society the strongest or otherwise most successful male captures the most females and the most desirable females. Thus, the greater share of the best genes are passed along for the strength, beauty and preservation of the race. In species with social structures, the female then attempts to "tame" the male who has captured her. This she must do in order that the hunting and providing skill of the male will aid her offspring.
http://www.davidlane1488.com/women.html

this naturalist theory sounds the most realistic to me! but since we devolved degenerated effeminated and became neotenous the last 10000 years by starting to live in cities by unnatural man made corporate fiction we lost the connection to natural laws which are simple and harsh but honest! the purpose of life is to procreate and evolve in strenght and intelligence but under natural law and in natural environment as hunter gatherers do, not in agricultural corporate fiction states living a fictious life by fictious laws under the order and laws of a fictious self proclaimed elite kings... humans are made to live in nature, procreating, fighting for women, territory and aquire strenght by natural selection!

our lifes should be ruled by natural law not man made fictional laws!!!

natural laws declare animals and humans fight for women, territory, food and survival. xenophoby is normal under animals! homo sapiens is also an animal! liberals have disfunctional amygdalae according to new studies, they also carry toxoplasma often.. they are xenofilians! oxytocin is secreted when for example a mother carries her child or a group of fans celebrate their countries win in a football game! this proves diffrent kinds of people feel naurally inclined to their nation and have natural aversion for others! in animals the same mechanism is working! deviancy and xenophilia is the product of agricultural societies from the last 10000 years which are ruled by unnatural man made laws and concepts..