The Truth of Evolution

[Unome]

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.

[Methmatician]

You're using the word 'devolution' as if it is separate from 'evolution'. Devolution and evolution are the same thing. Evolution makes no distinction from progression and regression, it's about adapting to the environment. This sounds like politically charged pseudo-science.

[Unome]

Evolution is the culmination of all 'superior' or 'better' traits within a person or society, trending toward more success and survival opportunity.

Devolution is the culmination of all 'inferior' or 'worse' traits within a person or society, trending toward more failure and extinction opportunity.


Devolving individuals will go extinct over time, either from not reproducing or outright dying due to inferior qualities (such as low intelligence), "Darwin Awards".

My summation of evolution is opposite of politicking; because I included the whole human race in my analysis.

[dude]

The truth about "devolution":
Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. It is a form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution

Devolution (biology) is more of a sketchy term created for a hidden agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29

The people who came up with this term sound like ignorant people. Evolution theory is about adapting to the environment, failing to adapt leads to extinction. "Devolution" only exists in the mind of someone who does not see life going in the direction he wants.

[Unome]

Biological devolution is the result of excessive breeding of 'inferior' traits, such as low intelligence or ugliness for example. Let's say people are given a reward $100000 for breeding with low IQ people (and they are in the US, in the form of welfare handouts). So more & more people beget low IQ children. A national eventually fills with low IQ people. Let's presume further that this nation collapses and a huge segment of the population dies off.

That is devolution. It could have been stopped. It could have been prevented. But there were forces at work which went into the process, such as paying people and rewarding the breeding of stupidity.


You can use any biological trait you like. Strength. Wealth. Beauty. Aggression. Passivity. Etc.

Evolution is scientific in this context. Not every human group or person will be "better" for reproducing. It's either better or worse. Superior breeding leads to superior people, over time. And this superiority and bettering, is defined through universally recognized trait.

Beauty is easiest to see and identify. It's obvious that beauty is a positive result and reward for superior breeding, hence beauty is a conclusion, an end result, an objective, of evolution.


And it's applicable to call this "intelligent design" even. Because parents 'design' their children in a way that directly corresponds to mating habits.

If a group of people only have sex with beautiful people then this group will become more beautiful over time, and create human separation.

[Journeyman26]

You're using the word 'devolution' as if it is separate from 'evolution'. Devolution and evolution are the same thing. Evolution makes no distinction from progression and regression, it's about adapting to the environment. This sounds like politically charged pseudo-science.

Agreed. Whoever passes on the most genes to the next generation is the most fit according to Darwinian evolution, regardless of how favorably we see the traits they pass on. Evolution and devolution are subjective.

[finþaų]

Ah, relativism rekt the hypothesis. Shame.

[Unome]

D/Evolution is not "subjective" nor "relative" when comparing different species… try again.

[Longbowman]

The reality is you have no free will, all your actions are predestined, and the story is already written, even if you don't know it. You have no control, evolution will/will not happen regardless of what you think are your desires, and you will die, and so will everyone else, and it won't matter anyway.

[Unome]

The reality is you have no free will, all your actions are predestined, and the story is already written, even if you don't know it. You have no control, evolution will/will not happen regardless of what you think are your desires, and you will die, and so will everyone else, and it won't matter anyway.
You have free will, and are responsible for yourself, your mating choice, and the quality & quantity of your children.

[Thunder_shock]

Biological devolution is the result of excessive breeding of 'inferior' traits, such as low intelligence or ugliness for example. Let's say people are given a reward $100000 for breeding with low IQ people (and they are in the US, in the form of welfare handouts). So more & more people beget low IQ children. A national eventually fills with low IQ people. Let's presume further that this nation collapses and a huge segment of the population dies off.

That is devolution. It could have been stopped. It could have been prevented. But there were forces at work which went into the process, such as paying people and rewarding the breeding of stupidity.


You can use any biological trait you like. Strength. Wealth. Beauty. Aggression. Passivity. Etc.

Evolution is scientific in this context. Not every human group or person will be "better" for reproducing. It's either better or worse. Superior breeding leads to superior people, over time. And this superiority and bettering, is defined through universally recognized trait.

Beauty is easiest to see and identify. It's obvious that beauty is a positive result and reward for superior breeding, hence beauty is a conclusion, an end result, an objective, of evolution.


And it's applicable to call this "intelligent design" even. Because parents 'design' their children in a way that directly corresponds to mating habits.

If a group of people only have sex with beautiful people then this group will become more beautiful over time, and create human separation.

If a group of people whom i assume are intelligent breed with the less intelligent then their offspring will balance out, inherit both genes. That's not necessarily devolution. And if smart people die off, that isnt devolution either because that's outside the scope of biological inheritance.

[Unome]

If a group of people whom i assume are intelligent breed with the less intelligent then their offspring will balance out, inherit both genes. That's not necessarily devolution. And if smart people die off, that isnt devolution either because that's outside the scope of biological inheritance.
If intelligence is biological and genetic then it would be the most important value to reproduce.

Like begets like.

The details get confused when intelligence breeds with unintelligence, strength with weakness, wealth with poverty, etc.

Just like males and females withhold different traits and values. Are men smarter and more intelligent than women, on average? Stronger on average? Wealthier on average? Are women more beautiful on average? Etc.

[Petalpusher]

Agreed. Whoever passes on the most genes to the next generation is the most fit according to Darwinian evolution, regardless of how favorably we see the traits they pass on. Evolution and devolution are subjective.

I agree as well, but it's favorable to pass the most genes only because it polarizes even more the next generation so it gets easier for selection. You have to put pressure on this diversity, otherwise you just end up disturbing the previously, painfully selected genes. It's like reversing the process without the benefits, in our subjective positive view of it (evolution doesn't give a damn if it makes anything "better")

[Thunder_shock]

The reality is you have no free will, all your actions are predestined, and the story is already written, even if you don't know it. You have no control, evolution will/will not happen regardless of what you think are your desires, and you will die, and so will everyone else, and it won't matter anyway.

Typically the most fit reproduce the most, which affirms their place.

[Thunder_shock]

If intelligence is biological and genetic then it would be the most important value to reproduce.


Yes, but on the subject of evolution/devolution a species is not devolving if it's offspring does not end up with the best selection of genes.

[Longbowman]

You have free will

Nope.

[Unome]

Nope.

:icon_yes:

[Longbowman]

:icon_yes:

Explain how. Use science or religion, idc.

[dude]

Biological devolution is the result of excessive breeding of 'inferior' traits, such as low intelligence or ugliness for example. Let's say people are given a reward $100000 for breeding with low IQ people (and they are in the US, in the form of welfare handouts). So more & more people beget low IQ children. A national eventually fills with low IQ people. Let's presume further that this nation collapses and a huge segment of the population dies off.

That is devolution. It could have been stopped. It could have been prevented. But there were forces at work which went into the process, such as paying people and rewarding the breeding of stupidity.

Who came up with this non-sense peudo-science, or better yet, oxymoron?



You can use any biological trait you like. Strength. Wealth. Beauty. Aggression. Passivity. Etc.

Evolution is scientific in this context. Not every human group or person will be "better" for reproducing. It's either better or worse. Superior breeding leads to superior people, over time. And this superiority and bettering, is defined through universally recognized trait.
Beauty is easiest to see and identify. It's obvious that beauty is a positive result and reward for superior breeding, hence beauty is a conclusion, an end result, an objective, of evolution.
And it's applicable to call this "intelligent design" even. Because parents 'design' their children in a way that directly corresponds to mating habits.
If a group of people only have sex with beautiful people then this group will become more beautiful over time, and create human separation.
Beauty is subjective and it is also dictated by social constructs and it can change over time. There is not a "beauty" gene in the DNA pool.

[Unome]

Explain how. Use science or religion, idc.
You are responsible for yourself, thus you necessarily must have free will.

No free will = no self responsibility.




____________________

Beauty is subjective
Beauty is objective.



There is not a "beauty" gene in the DNA pool.
lol yes, there are many, some people are more beautiful than others:

Exhibit A: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?2079-Beautiful-European-Women

[Longbowman]

You are responsible for yourself, thus you necessarily must have free will.

No free will = no self responsibility.

That's not an argument. You also haven't proved 'you are responsible for yourself.' Try again.

[Unome]

That's not an argument. You also haven't proved 'you are responsible for yourself.' Try again.
So you imply that you're not responsible for yourself? Who is responsible for you then? Who do you hand your personal autonomy over to? The state? Your parents, perhaps? Are you still a child, or an adult? Boy, or man?

The difference between a child and an adult is that an adult begins to bear the burden of personal responsibility (authority/autonomy/free will).

[Longbowman]

So you imply that you're not responsible for yourself? Who is responsible for you then? Who do you hand your personal autonomy over to? The state? Your parents, perhaps? Are you still a child, or an adult? Boy, or man?

The difference between a child and an adult is that an adult begins to bear the burden of personal responsibility (authority/autonomy/free will).

So children don't have free will? Cool, good argumentation.

[dude]

You are responsible for yourself, thus you necessarily must have free will.

No free will = no self responsibility.

____________________

Beauty is objective.


lol yes, there are many, some people are more beautiful than others:

Exhibit A: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?2079-Beautiful-European-Women
You know that whites have an average IQ of 100. There are lots of people with IQ's over 100 such as 140 and even higher, let's call these people the high end and for everyone in the high end there is someone in the low end (IQ < 100). Your statement definitively did not come from the high end.

[Unome]

So children don't have free will? Cool, good argumentation.
Do infants have free will?

Free will is the measure of responsibility and morality. Arguably "soulless" creatures and inanimate objects lack free will. Free will is indication, evidence, or proof of spirit/soul. The most popular term of this concept is Autonomy or "self-law".

[Unome]

Your statement definitively did not come from the high end.
Nice ad hom/insult.

Try logical counter-arguments and responses instead. I'm comfortable with my intelligence.

[Longbowman]

Do infants have free will?

Free will is the measure of responsibility and morality. Arguably "soulless" creatures and inanimate objects lack free will. Free will is indication, evidence, or proof of spirit/soul. The most popular term of this concept is Autonomy or "self-law".

This is a very flimsy argument. We don't have free will. We can only act one way in any given situation, and the same is true for all objects, animate or not.

[Unome]

This is a very flimsy argument. We don't have free will. We can only act one way in any given situation, and the same is true for all objects, animate or not.
I didn't say "we".

I said you have free will, you personally. I'm certain as a police cadet you learned to become responsible for the safety of others? That indicates at least some small degree of free will.

[Longbowman]

I didn't say "we".

I said you have free will, you personally. I'm certain as a police cadet you learned to become responsible for the safety of others? That indicates at least some small degree of free will.

I know, but I specified 'we.' To include all things.

It appears that we have free will, but we don't. My brain being as it is, I could only have reacted in the way I did to my training.

[dude]

Nice ad hom/insult.
Try logical counter-arguments and responses instead. I'm comfortable with my intelligence.
How about using it then and posting intelligent arguments rather than simply being contradictory and argumentative. There is not any specific gene for beauty, there are traits that you or someone else may find attractive, yet attractiveness is ultimately decided by the individual. This is common knowledge and not my opinion. I understand your personal opinion is that you prefer White women, well, I do too, yet that does not mean that what I like, or you like is the best for everyone, nor does it determine if that is the best for the survival of the species. The claim that what I prefer is "the best" is clearly a egocentric statement and that alone discard it as a logical argument.

[Unome]

I know, but I specified 'we.' To include all things.

It appears that we have free will, but we don't. My brain being as it is, I could only have reacted in the way I did to my training.
Free will is a measure of physics.

Somethings have no autonomy at all, like a rock or boulder. Maybe it rolls downhill, but absolutely is under the law of gravity. It has no free will worth speaking of. It cannot walk, talk, breath, move of its own volition. Plantlife is a little more autonomous. A tree cannot walk, but plants have chemical reactions to light and humidity. Roots grow and recede according to hardness of soil. Insects are yet more autonomous, lifeforms beginning to move. Then up the food-chain, beetles, fish, birds, mice, squirrels, deer, wolves, etc.

The more intelligent a biological organism becomes, and is claimed to have, the more autonomous and freely willed it is claimed to be and represent.

Humans at the top of the food chain, the most intelligent, sentient, and morally capable organisms on earth. Other animals do not marry; they do not have wedding ceremonies. They do not have advanced communication and literacy. They cannot pass ancient memories from millenniums ago, to today. Non-human animals depend on genetics and instinct more than humans. Humans write in books, pass wisdom on through the centuries.


Is this beginning to make sense yet…?

[Taiga Lake]

Too long didn't read. I don't think evolution theory is the totem of truth, but it's much better than believing you descent from two humans that were created from mud about 6000 years ago.

[Unome]

How about using it then and posting intelligent arguments rather than simply being contradictory and argumentative. There is not any specific gene for beauty, there are traits that you or someone else may find attractive, yet attractiveness is ultimately decided by the individual. This is common knowledge and not my opinion. I understand your personal opinion is that you prefer White women, well, I do too, yet that does not mean that what I like, or you like is the best for everyone, nor does it determine if that is the best for the survival of the species. The claim that what I prefer is "the best" is clearly a egocentric statement and that alone discard it as a logical argument.
It has nothing to do with "preference". The link I posted is just one example of many. There are many scientific analyses of objectively beautiful/ugly faces that cross cultures, countries, and societies. It's not subjective. Beauty is a heritable trait, as is body-size. Intelligence is debatable. Wealth is not directly inherited via genes, but the behavioral trends that tend to make a person wealth (greed) may very well be genetic.

[dude]

It has nothing to do with "preference". The link I posted is just one example of many. There are many scientific analyses of objectively beautiful/ugly faces that cross cultures, countries, and societies. It's not subjective. Beauty is a heritable trait, as is body-size. Intelligence is debatable. Wealth is not directly inherited via genes, but the behavioral trends that tend to make a person wealth (greed) may very well be genetic.
You could grab that European women thread and ask 100 people who is the most beautiful one and you will get many different answers. They have been making beauty pageants for a very long time and people still don't agree with the judges on the winners. So how can we say that beauty is universal? We simply can't. It is not the same as simply saying if a face is attractive or not, if we were to say that beauty is very objective then we should be able to measure it and come with an absolute beautiful, where is that at? Who has an accurate measurement? and where is that absolute beauty?

[Longbowman]

Free will is a measure of physics.

Somethings have no autonomy at all, like a rock or boulder. Maybe it rolls downhill, but absolutely is under the law of gravity. It has no free will worth speaking of. It cannot walk, talk, breath, move of its own volition. Plantlife is a little more autonomous. A tree cannot walk, but plants have chemical reactions to light and humidity. Roots grow and recede according to hardness of soil. Insects are yet more autonomous, lifeforms beginning to move. Then up the food-chain, beetles, fish, birds, mice, squirrels, deer, wolves, etc.

The more intelligent a biological organism becomes, and is claimed to have, the more autonomous and freely willed it is claimed to be and represent.

Humans at the top of the food chain, the most intelligent, sentient, and morally capable organisms on earth. Other animals do not marry; they do not have wedding ceremonies. They do not have advanced communication and literacy. They cannot pass ancient memories from millenniums ago, to today. Non-human animals depend on genetics and instinct more than humans. Humans write in books, pass wisdom on through the centuries.


Is this beginning to make sense yet…?

No, and you don't understand, so I'm going to stop trying.

[Unome]

You could grab that European women thread and ask 100 people who is the most beautiful one and you will get many different answers. They have been making beauty pageants for a very long time and people still don't agree with the judges on the winners. So how can we say that beauty is universal? We simply can't. It is not the same as simply saying if a face is attractive or not, if we were to say that beauty is very objective then we should be able to measure it and come with an absolute beautiful, where is that at? Who has an accurate measurement? and where is that absolute beauty?
I didn't say absolute beauty, you did.

I'm talking about 10% of humanity (7 billion). That means: 700,000,000 humans are more beautiful than the rest.

People don't need to agree on just one woman, but maybe a few thousand. And those would represent a superior breed of beauty than the rest, by obvious admission. That's just one form of evolution (sexual selection), as breeding of superior traits. And it doesn't mean "only white people". There are beautiful women of other races/peoples of course.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

In all northern areas, monogamy is the norm. K-selection basically. You find the higher quality mate and pass these traits to your offspring.

In places where food is abundant and disease does the selection, people don't have monogamy and they just fuck whoever at random. This is why most of the planet is not that bright.

Nowadays since church has been all but obliterated and our countries are full of r-selected 'people', genetics are degrading at the speed of light.

[dude]

I didn't say absolute beauty, you did.

I'm talking about 10% of humanity (7 billion). That means: 700,000,000 humans are more beautiful than the rest.

People don't need to agree on just one woman, but maybe a few thousand. And those would represent a superior breed of beauty than the rest, by obvious admission. That's just one form of evolution (sexual selection), as breeding of superior traits. And it doesn't mean "only white people". There are beautiful women of other races/peoples of course.
How did that number come up, where are the statistics to prove it that number?

So if a few thousand males like a specific female, that determines the evolution path, is that what you are saying? What about other factors such as diseases that cause death and ability to feed the offspring. These things are not seen in first world countries but are actively seen in developing countries.

Are familiar you at all with how evolution works?

[Unome]

How did that number come up, where are the statistics to prove it that number?

So if a few thousand males like a specific female, that determines the evolution path, is that what you are saying? What about other factors such as diseases that cause death and ability to feed the offspring. These things are not seen in first world countries but are actively seen in developing countries.
You need statistics to admit there are a lot of beautiful people in the entire world, or that it would be more or less than 10% of the entire population???

Have you ever seen a beautiful person in your life?



Are familiar you at all with how evolution works?
Have you read this thread at all?

[dude]

You need statistics to admit there are a lot of beautiful people in the entire world, or that it would be more or less than 10% of the entire population???

If it is being quantified then yes, otherwise is just a number pulled out someone rear end, or more nicely said, a mere opinion.



Have you ever seen a beautiful person in your life?

Yes I was born with 2 working eyes. I don't understand the point of this question.



Have you read this thread at all?

Yes. I posted the definition of "devolution" according to the English dictionary. That word as used in this post does not relate with evolution at all. Evolution is based on a specific species changing to survive, yet, this does not mean the ancestor specie will survive, instead what it says is that the new species will evolve, and the old will extinct. The term better or superior are superseded by "evolved" and "extinct". The details of how that selection happens are unknown, all we know is that the extinct were now able to survive.
By observing current animal species that are close to extinct we get a glimpse. For instance the California Condor, the largest North American bird was endangered. Nobody knows how it did, but luckily shelters bred them and got them back. It seems simply a rough patch in the species can cause it to extinct. In this case it would be a dead end in the evolutionary path.
What this means is that what evolution is preserving is the Genus and not the species themselves as those will evolve. For us our genus is "Homo" and when we go extinct then another "Hominid" species will be in the Homo genus.

[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..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNRYO6ZA61U