I know your blood is already boiling from reading the headline above and that your intellectual self-defense mechanisms have been activated to refute all ideas you are about to encounter henceforth, but make yourself a cup of tea, relax, and consider the following viewpoint that has been concealed from you during your entire life.

Since high school I have believed in the theory of evolution, a logical and elegant solution over religious explanations in describing how life originated and evolved on earth. For the next 15 years, including four years studying microbiology in university, I never once doubted the theory, and have even infused the “survive and reproduce” paradigm into the theories and ideas I have shared on my blog and in my books. This paradigm is also a domineering belief in the “red pill” platform.

In the past year a thought entered my brain that I had trouble addressing: why have I yet to reproduce? I’m nearly 36 years old, with ample resources, intellect, health, biological “strength”, and access to females, but I have not yet produced a child. It’s not that I’m ejaculating inside women but failing to impregnate them, but I’m consciously and deliberately halting insemination for reasons that Darwin and his followers have not addressed, such as bad marriage laws and wanting to be free without obligations.

I’ve had more fertile sexual partners than some kings and nobles of old, but have not reproduced once, meaning that game, in the way I have practiced and taught it, has gone squarely against evolution. In other words, remaining a virgin to this day as opposed to embarking on a multi-year world sex tour with triple-digit partners would not at all have changed the childless result I face in this very moment.

Anti-evolutionary behaviors should have been weeded out of the gene pool according to the idea of natural selection, but the more I looked around, the more I saw nothing but my own behavior, of people who were actually frightened to death about being a parent even though they were healthy and could afford to raise children. In fact, the sum of Western ideologies seem aimed to specifically halt human reproduction.

Western people are structuring their lives in deliberate ways to not reproduce at all and where their cherished hedonistic lifestyles would be greatly harmed if children entered the picture, and while it’s easy to use evolutionary theory in describing which man a woman chooses to have sex with, how can that possibly be correct if the man used condoms or the woman used birth control? Darwin’s theory refers to reproduction, not recreational sex and definitely not a prolonged period of sterile sport fucking, which has no benefit to the genes of the “athlete.” Having an explanation for why a girl on birth control went home with the “alpha male” after meeting him in the club has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection, since they both knew that no child would result and used the full force of their consciousness to prevent the creation of life. If reproduction was the purposefully blocked intent, evolution was not present during the sex event.

How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings? How could he explain that the richest peoples of the world with no lack in resources, intellect, and functioning reproductive systems were consciously going against what evolution prescribed for them?

The one aspect of evolution, specifically, that does not hold true for modern humans, especially those living in the West, is that fit humans are reproducing up to the limit of the food supply, as stated by Darwin. In fact, the more resources a person has, the less likely they will reproduce at all, which you can witness at any time in a drive through the poor and rich parts of your city. Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain why this occurs, why the “strongest” and most “fit” are having the least amount of offspring or deliberately choosing not to have any offspring at all, even though natural selection specifically states that only the strongest can pass on their genes while the weak and infirm will not.

Most animals, plants, and bacteria do reproduce up to the limit of the food supply, or at least try to maximally have as many offspring as possible, but human beings have developed a consciousness that enables them to purposefully not reproduce even if they are able, and even develop a phobia to reproduction, and this has been in effect for at least 100 years in all major Western nations that currently suffer a death rate greater than the reproductive rate.

We must therefore conclude, with logic and rationale, that evolution is so flawed at explaining modern human reproductive behavior (and not merely casual sex where reproduction was never the intent), that evolution is not an observable or correct principle for human beings living in Westernized nations. We must discard evolutionary theory as applying to all humans through the mechanism of natural selection and begin a search for a new explanation that explains our current biological behavior.

Evolution may have been the correct theory for a window of human existence, but that window has now closed and theories for post-evolutionary man, one in which there is no struggle for survival and where the strongest of the species are not reproducing, must be devised.

Even if we were to concede that we got here through the process of evolution from a primordial soup, and that our brains are the result of it, these brains are now in a modern environment which has tripwired, hijacked, or corrupted any applicable evolutionary program. We have become one with the plugged-in cosmopolitan borg, and that regardless of the process that caused us to come about, that process is no longer in effect and a new process, yet to be described or understood, is manifesting itself throughout humanity and shattering Darwin’s “survive and reproduce” model.

It’s unlikely that, after reading what I have stated so far, a Darwinist would seriously doubt his faith in evolution. His mind is already racing for the rationalizations that allow evolution to remain true for him, and it’s this race that allows evolution to frame all biological explanations through Darwin’s brain. People are so invested in a theory that tells them what the end point is (i.e. everything we do is to survive and reproduce), that many hardcore atheists are no different from religious fundamentalists in the mental gymnastics they take every day to keep their faith alive.

A book that pokes numerous holes to the evolutionary boat is Darwinian Fairytales by Australian philosopher David Stove. While not a scientist by trade, Stove provides over a dozen non-religious arguments against evolution that were not presented to us during our scientific education in school. After reading through this book carefully, I have determined that evolutionary theory is no longer useful in describing the modern day behavior of human beings. Based on my scientific background, this did take great upheaval to my belief system, but there are too many doubts to the theory, mostly based from my own observation of human behavior, that I can’t believe such a flawed model any longer.

Evolution is not applying to modern humans

From Darwinian Fairytales:

If Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

[…]

That theory is a universal generalization about all terrestrial species at any time. Hence, if the theory says something which is not true now of our species (or another), then it is not true—-finish… If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, no species can ever escape from the process of natural selection.

If you look outside your window, you’ll see that there is no longer a vicious fight for survival, even in desperately poor nations. The sick and handicap, thanks to society’s intervention (a society created by the human animal that evolution supposedly applies to), can survive with ease, and even the mentally inferior who lives on the altruism of others can reproduce to their biological limit assuming they possess basic fertility.

Darwin must have gone wrong somewhere about man, and badly wrong. For if his theory or explanation of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constantly recurring struggle for life: a competition to survive and reproduce which is so severe that few of the competitors in any generation can win. But this prediction of the theory is not borne out by experience in the case of man. In no human society, whether savage or civilized, is there any such struggle for life.

[…]

You can try reminding the Darwinian, if you like, that this theory of evolution is a proposition about all species of organisms, at all times and places; and that man is a species, that the last three centuries are times, and that advanced countries are places.

Darwinists will say that welfare, employment benefits, and even health care disturb natural selection and, if removed, we will see more of the evolutionary model of the strongest reproducing along with the fight for survival. This “veneer” idea is debunked below, but even if you were to take it as valid, multiple societies that contain billion of people currently have welfare, employment benefits, and health care, all developed from the will and efforts of the human animal, naturally and progressively. In other words, to make evolution true, we’d have to manually and artificially intervene and remove all the altruistic fruits and layers of our society that have independently come forth in all corners of the planet. Can you imagine a physicist insisting on blowing up an errant planet that doesn’t obey the laws of gravity to make sure his theories remain universally true?

The reproductive urge to make babies is barely an urge

Your reproductive urge is so strong and so intense that you are wearing condoms, not ejaculating inside women to give them your seed, having panic attacks when a girl announces her period is late, and in the case of some men, dropping out from sex entirely for the evolutionary trivial reasons that women have unreasonable standards and bad attitudes.

A common argument by someone not fulfilling their evolutionary need is that they possess a lack of “resources,” but this can be laughed upon its face with a visit to an African village or South American slum where children living on a dollar a day make it to reproductive age and later go on to reproduce heartily themselves. In fact, the more you raise your children in impoverishment, the more likely they will have more kids and spread your genes than if you raised them in comfort and luxury. The “resources” argument is outright absurd if uttered in the West where the state will raise the kid for you and allow it to reach reproductive age without you spending a dollar.

Consider that I can have 100 children in Washington DC right now and all 100 will be properly clothed, fed, and cared for without me lifting a finger. None would die from neglect before reaching adulthood. Quick—go forth young man and place your seed within every woman you have sex with! Then escape the country and watch from afar as your seeds grow. I promise you the state will raise those seeds and that your genes will be passed on for the next hundred generations, and you will have done as much to live out your evolutionary destiny as the great Mongol kings. Isn’t that why you are here for?

But of course you will do no such thing, because there is only a trivial drive in you to reproduce, and if you fail to do it during your lifetime, you would not even shed a tear, and may actually be happier because of it. Based on Darwin’s theory, we should be jumping at the chance to use the altruism of others or the state to maximally reproduce, even if it still comes at detriment to ourselves, but we’re not, showing how absurd and false the “survive and reproduce” paradigm really is.

Human life is full of opportunities for reproduction which the supply of food would permit, but which are not taken in fact.

[…]

…our species practices, or has practiced, on an enormous scale, infanticide, artificial abortion, and the prevention of conception. No other species does anything at all of this kind, but we do, and we appear to have done so always.

[…]

…women are hardly ever permitted to marry as soon as they are capable of reproduction. The result is, of course, that years of reproductive opportunities are very commonly neglected, however plentiful food may be.

Darwin also didn’t mention why the reproductive urge decreases when humans move from rural areas to cities. How can it be that bars, movie theaters, cafes, yoga studios, and sushi restaurants can diminish, delay, or outright halt a human being’s need to reproduce? Why do humans dedicate their lives—often during their most fertile years—to professions and careers and shallow social experiences in dense cities that hurt their ability to reproduce? It turns out that humans have this weird tendency, as civilization marches on, to develop specializations, activities, and gadgets that self-limit their reproduction or that of others, while at the same time becoming more energized at making money, accumulating possessions, having fun, and raising cute dogs and cats than having the maximum number of children they’re able to.

Humans do not reproduce up to the limit of the food supply

The Malthus-Darwin proposition, then, that population increases if food does, may be a truth, or a false but fertile near-truth, when it is applied to species other than Homo sapiens. But applied to our species, the best it can be is the following pure triviality: that population increases if food does, unless it is prevented from doing so by one or more of a dozen different causes that we know of, or by one or more of an indefinite number of causes that we do not know of.

[…]

The offspring of a most privileged class exhibit, in fact, more strongly than those of any other class, and far more strongly than the offspring of the poor, a proclivity towards a whole range of things, every one of which is more or less unfavorable to parenthood. To early sexual exhaustion, to sexual incapacity, to sexual indifference, to homosexuality, to religion, to study, to art, to connoisseurship, to gambling, to drunkenness, to drugs . . . To almost anything in the world, in fact, except increasing or even maintaining the numbers of their own class by reproduction.

It’s important to reiterate that Stove doesn’t disprove evolution, and leaves aside the fact that the theory can fit quite well for other organisms, but he gives too many examples to count on how evolution is not correct for explaining human reproduction and behavior. To find the greatest paradox to evolution, all you need is a mirror, since your own life goes against it, as does mine.

Here, for example, is a respected sociobiologist, Professor R. D. Alexander, writing in 1979: “. . . we are programed to use all our effort, and in fact to use our lives, in reproduction.” People who use all their effort, in fact use their lives, in reproduction: does that sound like anyone you know, or ever heard or read of?

[…]

It means that an impediment, however microscopic, to an organism’s maximal reproduction, if such an impediment ever occurred at all, would be completely eliminated by natural selection, and as quickly as such elimination can take place.

I know dozens of men personally who have had sex with over 100 women, but I do not know one who engages in purposeful reproduction, even though they are so easily able to. We are all “errors” of evolution, along with billions of other human beings.

Evolution requires high child mortality that is absent in humans

For the “strongest” to survive, the weak must continually die. Darwin suggested levels that can be interpreted as over 50%. But in human beings, nearly everyone survives, even the weakest, meaning that natural selection is no longer selecting for the strong, thanks in part to medical advances. If natural selection is not selecting, and not ensuring that only the strong pass on their genes, evolution is not occurring in humans.

…there will be in every species a severe struggle for life among conspecifics, and a high child mortality. And that is the very thing, of course, which is needed to ensure in turn that in every species there will be that natural selection which is, according to the Darwinian theory, the vera causa of evolution.

[…]

…[evolution] implies a struggle for life among humans which is far more severe, and a child mortality which is far higher, than any which really exists, or indeed could exist, consistently with our species surviving at all.

There is no “struggle for life”

If a man today really did believe we were engaged in a “struggle for life,” competing viciously for food and survival every moment of the day, he would be labeled mentally insane and instituted. Only in cases of starvation is any struggle seen, and yet even then humans will still act rationally and altruistically in times of crises, even to non-relatives, as you have seen in the news after natural disasters rip through tight-knit communities.

Considering that no modern Western citizen has seen starvation, or likely ever will, they’ll luckily escape Darwin’s all-encompassing theory for their entire lives. So while food is plentiful, and there is no struggle for life, what biological theory of life are we following? What is determining the progress of the species? It surely isn’t evolution by natural selection. A program of “everyone lives” and “everyone can reproduce if they want” is not what any Darwinist has proposed.

As for that “struggle for life” among conspecifics, supposedly universal and constant, which Darwin was later to make famous, he saw nothing of it among the Yahgans [indians]. Well, that should go without saying: there was none of it there. Collecting shellfish, their commonest form of food-getting, was done by family groups, or by individuals. In winter, when the guanaco, with a good layer of fat on them, were forced downhill by the deepening snow above, a group of men would go off for a few days to hunt them. Whatever they got was simply shared among the hunters, who carried home as much as they could to share with their families. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? Only someone who had “the struggle for life” on the brain would expect anything different.

[…]

…what would it be like, to meet a population of humans who really were always engaged in a Darwinian struggle for life? I cannot say. The best I can summon up is a very indistinct picture of a number of people in a sort of pandemonium competition for food. In my picture, the people are not distinguishable from one another by age, by sex, by rank, or by anything.

[…]

…if, on the other hand, your faith in Darwinism is so profound that you simply must have human beings, not only in the remote past but now too, always engaged in a struggle for life so severe that it leaves no room for altruism and exacts a child mortality of 8o percent or more: well, if you have made that uncomfortable bed, you will just have to lie in it. And one of its minor discomforts is this: that you will have to reconcile yourself to performing, all your life, that evasive trick of which Hume rightly complained. That is, of calling certain facts—namely the facts of human altruism—a “problem” or a “difficulty” for your theory, when anyone not utterly blinded by Darwinism can see that these facts are actually a demonstration of the falsity of your theory.

Altruism is an innate human trait

When evolutionists discuss altruism, they attempt to paint it as a “mistake” of evolution or strain mightily to somehow make it fit their theory, instead of just admitting that their theory is wrong. Altruism is indeed a pathological trait in humans, who are far from “selfish” beings constantly working in their self interests. Every single day you have a need to share, teach, help, and communicate, and not only to your relatives but also strangers, and the benefits you receive from this altruism doesn’t at all increase your ability to reproduce. In fact, I believe the need to have children is not only to pass on your genes, but to have ready-made targets to receive your overflowing and debilitating altruism.

Stove remarks how a human being or group spontaneously showing altruism would and should have been crushed by existing non-altruistic human groups. Since that did not happen, it suggests that altruism was likely with us from the first man.

…how, in a constant competition among conspecifics to survive and reproduce, altruistic individuals could possibly avoid being demographically “swamped” by non-altruistic ones.

[…]

There is no reason whatever, apart from the Darwinian theory of evolution, to believe that there ever was in our species an “evolution of altruism” out of a selfish “state of nature.” People believe there was, only because they accept Darwin’s theory, which says that there is always a struggle for life among conspecifics, whereas there is no such struggle observable among us now, but a great deal of observable altruism instead. The right conclusion to draw, of course, is that Darwin’s theory is false.

[…]

For Darwinian theory says that there is always a struggle for life going on among the members of every species. So why was not every tender shoot of altruism or morality always promptly sheared off by natural selection?

If you on an impulse make an altruistic “offer” to some of your non-altruistic conspecifics, they will—if words mean anything—close with your offer, and thereby improve their own chances of surviving and reproducing; but not yours. If you make a habit of this kind of thing, there is only one way matters can end for you, and for any offspring you may manage to leave who inherit your amiable disposition. Your lineage, far from becoming one of “the favored races in the struggle for life,” will quickly be extinguished.

If for over 100 years you incessantly teach people they have a selfish nature and act only in their best interests, you are surely enabling selfish behavior in humans, and yet in spite of this continuous brainwashing, altruism is still hugely present in all societies. If I had the ability, for over 100 years, through the media and academia, to state that mushrooms are the most vile food imaginable, I have no doubt that per capita consumption of mushrooms would decline.

The human need to communicate

Humans have an innate need for communication, for communication’s sake, among other needs that don’t improve their survival or reproduction.

…it is perfectly obvious that people do not now communicate, or communicate as much as they do, because of any advantage which accrues to themselves from communicating. Indeed, there are few human experiences more common than that of people finding that they have injured their own interests, by too great a readiness to communicate, or too great a receptivity to the communications of others. Yet lessons of this kind are constantly thrown away on us, simply because our love of communication is so strong, and so little controlled by a regard for our own interests.

[…]

…it can perfectly well happen, and often does happen, that a man pursues one or more of these “particular passions” without regard to his own interests; indeed, to the manifest injury of those interests, and even to the destruction of his wealth, health, or life itself. The man who, in defense of his good name, challenges another to a duel and is killed, is an old stock example; but still a good example nonetheless.

The myth that human communication is selfish and deceptive

Another often-heard quote is that humans constantly manipulate and lie to achieve their ends, but such tactics can only work against a backdrop of honesty and truth telling, since lying is a parasitic behavior that needs the “clean” behavior to be effective. Therefore being honest is the original human state, while lying is the parasitic and more rare form of communication.

…it is not hard to see what the result would be, if in the future such manipulative communication were to become universal, or even nearly so. Communication, whether manipulative or otherwise, would then just die out altogether, for the simple reason that no hearer would ever know what any speaker meant by the words he uttered.

[…]

…human intelligence and consciousness plainly have a degree of autonomy which is wildly inconsistent with Darwinism. If intelligence and consciousness in humans are always subordinated, like all other adaptations of organisms, to their striving to increase, then The Origin of Species was an attempt by Darwin to increase the number of his descendants. But it was not.

[…]

Yet if what The Selfish Gene says is true, what else can that book be, but manipulation of its readers by the genes of Richard Dawkins, striving for their own maximal replication?

If “all” communication was deceptive, you would be confused as to what you’re even reading right now, and take an agonizing amount of time to process a single sentence.

The veneer idea is false

This idea, that civilization, morality, unselfishness and self-restraint, are only superficial and misleading appearances, disguising our selfish, savage, animal nature, I will call for short “the veneer idea.”

[…]

…if you intend to stick to the Darwinian theory, you simply have to say that, in the human case, most of the time, the struggle for life is going on below the surface of society: concealed by the veneer of unselfishness, considerateness, and so forth.

[…]

Darwinism and Freudianism are only variations on a common theme, and what that theme is. It is that such things as self-restraint, cooperation, and consideration for others are merely part of a thin disguise which society places over our selfish and non-moral animal nature.

[…]

Despite the widespread and longstanding acceptance that the veneer idea has enjoyed, and still enjoys, it is false, and even obviously false. For it compels us to ask a certain simple question, and yet cannot answer it: namely, whence the veneer? What could have brought such a thing into existence in the first place, or kept it in place if it had once come into existence?

[…]

If the members of every species are always engaged in a struggle for life with one another, and if human beings were selfish and non-moral animals at first, how could even the least little bit of morality or of altruism have escaped being eliminated by natural selection?

If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.

The myth of the evolutionary “savage”

“Cavemen” had rigid social and community roles, and weren’t allowed to do anything they pleased. A study of even modern tribes that exist today show they were more limited in their behavior in some ways than we are.

“Savages,” by contrast, have their behavior rigorously prescribed for them, at almost every moment of life, by gods or ancestors or elders or priests or chiefs, or at any rate by some external authority. And the more “savage” a tribe is, the more comprehensive and vice-like is the grip of social prescription on the lives of its members.

[…]

Human societies are almost inexhaustibly various, but there is one thing which no human (or even animal) society is even remotely like: namely, “savage” life, and civilized life below the veneer, as selfish theorists conceive it. They think of people as though they were the molecules of a confined volume of gas, which have no mutual sympathy, or any other influence, except by way of collisions with one another. This is the selfish theory to a T, as long as you impute to each molecule a ceaseless and exclusive regard to its own interests. The only thing wrong with this idea is that there is nothing whatever in reality which corresponds to it.

A quote you hear often is that “humans are one step in the jungle,” which is another form of the veneer idea in that civilization covers our true instincts, but even birds, when put in a starvation scenario, act more “selfish” and with more desperation to survive, yet they don’t have civilization, culture, or morality. There is no veneer specifically made for humans.

…what is stripped away from us under starvation or torture is not cultural, but biological. It is not the successive layers of convention, education, morality, etc. It is the successive layers of biological development which are natural to our species between infancy and mature adulthood.

Stove suggests that “savage” behavior is actually infantile behavior. When resources are low, adults regress back into panicked and teat-grappling infants in search of food.

Evolution is the last in a long line of “puppet master” theories

The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.

“Our stars rule us,” says the astrologer. “Man is what he eats,” said Feuerbach. “We are what our infantile sexual experiences made us,” says the Freudian. “The individual counts for nothing, his class situation for everything,” says the Marxist. “We are what our socioeconomic circumstances make us,” says the social worker. “We are what Almighty God created us,” says the Christian theologian. There is simply no end of this kind of stuff. What is wrong with all such theories is this: That they deny, at least by implication, that human intentions, decisions, and efforts are among the causal agencies which are at work in the world.

Richard Dawkins has been especially successful in pushing the gene puppet master idea.

…writing in the full flood of conviction of human helplessness, [Dawkins] says that “we are … robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes,”etc., etc. But at the same time, of course, he knows as well as the rest of us do, that there are often other causes at work, in us or around us, which are perfectly capable of counteracting genetic influences. In fact, he sometimes says so himself, and he even says that “we have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth.”” As you see, he is just like those writers of serial stories in boys’ magazines, who used to say, in order to extricate their hero from some impossible situation, “With one bound, Jack was free!”

[…]

…sensible people take no notice, when yet another crank or charlatan publishes yet another book which says that human beings are the helpless puppets of something or other: God, or God and demons, or History, or Race, or the Unconscious, or Aliens from Outer Space, or whatever. The Selfish Gene is simply another member of this slum breed of books, and ought to have been recognized as such from the start.

[…]

It is no mystery why the supply of puppetry theories never fails: there is an unfailing demand for them. People want relief from responsibility, and puppetry theories promise them this relief.

[…]

You could put [Dawkins] down anywhere in the world and rely on him to find there, what no one had before, invisible puppet masters manipulating visible puppets.

Atheists are quick to throw away god and angels as the main cause of human behavior, and then what do they do but simply replace them with genes as the main cause of human behavior. One must wonder at the curious human need to attribute their behavior to something invisible and all-powerful.

According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.

[…]

Organisms have the adaptations that they do, according to the religion of Paley, because a single benevolent God intends them to survive and reproduce; and because that intention will be fulfilled the better, the better adapted the organisms are. According to the new religion, organisms have the adaptations they do, because many selfish gods intend to have copies of themselves, and as many copies as possible, carried by the next generation of organisms; and because that intention will be fulfilled the better, the better adapted the organisms.

[…]

Genetics has merely provided the new religionists with the precise locality of their gods, on the chromosomes of the sex cells.

Whether Darwin intended to or not, his theory swapped out one god for 30,000 powerful, purposeful, and apparently intelligent gods that control an individual human’s destiny. You are but a pathetic servant of these tiny genes.

Why is there evolution?

Where did it come from? What is driving it towards organization and consciousness? What is the reason for this process existing? Evolutionary theory does not answer this, and takes on the phenomenon of replication as an automatic given, like the existence of the Planck constant.

In particular, a molecule of DNA, or of water, or of anything, is not benefited by a replica of it brought into existence by this molecule itself, or by something else, or by nothing.

[…]

[Molecules] cannot delight in the number of replicas that they make of themselves. They are not even intelligent enough, after all, to know when they have made a replica of themselves.

Inclusive fitness is a flawed explanation to altruism

To solve the “altruism problem,” evolutionists came up with the idea of inclusive fitness, whereby you are likely to aid your relatives so that their genes can be passed, which contain identical copies of some of your genes. Stove makes the sarcastic comment that bacteria must then have extensive forms of altruism.

…what vast quantities of altruism must exist, between generations or between siblings, in all those species which reproduce either parthenogenically or by fission! For the members of these species share all their genes with their offspring or with their siblings.

[…]

Two sister bacteria, despite their genetic identity, will slug it out with each other for the means of subsistence, just like any other pair of good Darwinian girls.

[…]

A male robin red breast then, at least when defending a territory, cannot even tell the difference between a bit of red wool and a trespassing rival, even though a trespassing rival could quite easily be his brother. Yet the theory of inclusive fitness requires us to believe that he can tell the difference between his brother and a cousin, and again, between a cousin and an unrelated conspecific. Well, it is not logically, or even biologically, impossible.

[…]

…the theory of inclusive fitness still has the gaping puncture which it had at first. Namely, that it requires sibling altruism to be about as strong and common as parental, whereas in fact it is nothing of the kind. If so, we might as well admit that although, genetically, the sibling relation is “just as close” as the parent-offspring relation, biologically, it is nowhere near as close, at any rate as far as altruism is concerned.

We are puppets to genes that want their counterparts inside your relatives to reproduce, but this can’t even begin to work the way evolutionists propose unless you are told that you are a relative of someone, because the genes themselves don’t know what relation you have to a random man on the street. Genes are so stupid, in fact, that when newborn babies are accidentally switched in hospitals, the two unlucky sets of parents will altruistically raise the genes of another couple without any doubt it’s their own. Yet we’re supposed to believe that it’s these same genes that are working continuously to control you like a slave so that copies of them in you and your relatives can be allowed to replicate.

Evolution is like a buggy software program that needs constant patching as more “testing” reveals its obvious flaws. Instead of just doing away with the theory, scientists will create all sort of monstrous octopus legs and attach them to the theory, creating exceptions that even Darwin himself couldn’t have imagined.

Evolution blames nature for errors

People who believe in evolution victim-blame the organism when it acts outside the confines of evolution.

Contraception, homosexuality, natural celibacy, the love of truth or of beauty, accepting submission signals [in fighting], adopting children, and resenting baby snatchers: what a heavy catalogue of errors! It singles out our species as being the most hopelessly stupid of all the pupils in the great school of natural selection.

[…]

…scientific theory cannot possibly reprehend, in any way at all, any actual facts. It can explain them, predict them, describe them, but it cannot condemn them as errors. Astronomy cannot criticize certain arrangements of stars or planets as erroneous, and no more can biology criticize certain organisms, or characteristics of them, as erroneous.

[…]

Wherever Darwinism is in error, Darwinians simply call the organisms in question or their characteristics, an error! Wherever there is manifestly something wrong with their theory, they say that there is something wrong with the organisms.

[…]

Darwinians, rather than admit that their theory is simply not true of our species, brazenly shift the blame, and designate all of those characteristics “biological errors.”

Humans are an example of evolutionary farce

…far from every attribute being rigidly destroyed which is in the least degree injurious, in our species there is precious little except injurious attributes. Nearly everything about us, or at least nearly everything which distinguishes us from flies, fish, or rodents—all the way from practicing Abortion to studying Zoology—puts some impediment or other in the way of our having as many descendants as we could. From the point of view of Darwinism, just as from the point of view of Calvinism, there is no good in us, or none worth mentioning. We are a mere festering mass of biological errors.

[…]

Darwinism can tell you lots of truths about plants, flies, fish, etc., and interesting truths too, to the people who are interested in those things. But the case is altogether different, indeed reversed, where our own species is in question. If it is human life that you would most like to know about and to understand, then a very good library can be begun by leaving out Darwinism, from 1859 to the present hour.

Closing thoughts

As recently as three years ago I started noticing the flaws of evolution from self-examining my behavior and those of my hypersexual male peers, because you don’t pick up a book titled “Darwinian Fairytales” unless you already harbored serious doubts about the theory. I must admit that I made a mistake to use evolution as a reason to whore around with women when it was clear as day that I did not aim to reproduce. The behavior I did enact for so long can best be explained as entertainment seeking, relieving a lack of purpose in life, and wanting to feel masculine, but there was nothing evolutionary about it, and it has not at all increased my reproductive success than had I been an introverted 22-year-old and told my father to arrange a marriage for me with a girl from his Iranian hometown.

With this review I don’t aim to completely throw evolution under the bus, for it does apply quite nicely to other organisms, and natural selection has surely applied to humans during certain periods of their history, but it should not and can not be used to describe current human behavior, including your own, because any set of conditions that put humans through an evolutionary grinder are no longer present in modern civilization. Doing otherwise would be deception on a large scale, and I won’t deceive myself further by using it, even if it reduces scientific backing for some of my ideas.

Without using evolution as a tool, there is a big question that must be answered: where does traditional sex roles—and behavior—come from? Or more precisely: what are the correct sex roles for humans? The answer to the second is easier than the first. The correct sex roles are what has sustained human populations and society in the past and what will sustain human populations and society in the future. Biology need not be taken into account.

A careful study of history can clearly show what happens when men step outside of their traditional roles and what happens when women step outside of theirs, something spending ten minutes on Tumblr can verify. What are the sex roles and proper behavior of humans that allow a sustainable and mentally healthy population without ushering in the policies that would lead to a cultural collapse? The answer is the sex roles we already are familiar with, ones that have been known since Biblical times.

It’s a natural human urge to understand the “why” of how life came about, a question that was no doubt asked by the first man. The problem in answering with evolution is that—besides it being wrong—it locks your mind into a narrow perspective. Thinking that all humans act in genetic self interest clouds all your thoughts on human behavior and prevents you from seeing obvious contradictions and hidden truths. Because you have firm faith in evolution, you are not even allowing your mind to consider another viewpoint.

Say you encounter an article that says the following: “Men who go off to war have more children than men who don’t.” Evolution would describe this by saying that women want to reproduce with men who are most fit and strong and better able to defend the tribe. But let’s flip it and say “Men who don’t go off to war have more children than men who do.” Evolution can describe this too! It can say, “A superior reproductive strategy is to stay with the fertile women and reproduce with them during the time the alpha males are away.” Even the simplest of minds can find an explanation once it already knows the final result it’s aiming for.

If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory. In other words, the theory is like playdough that can fit in any situation, and this is even done in the red pill portion of the manopshere to take any behavior a man or woman does and somehow justify it in terms of evolution, even if it’s based on people acting on the willful mission to not reproduce. What’s convenient for evolutionists is that none of their assertions can be proven, meaning that evolution is not more than one step above astrology in terms of describing or predicting human behavior. It’s gibberish.

Darwin’s theory came at the right time of history. The monarchy was overthrown and scientific rationalism dominated the day. The missing piece to complete the Enlightenment was a way to kill god, and Darwin came forth with a brilliant theory that did the job. The only problem is that it’s not true for humans, at least not in the way for other forms of life on earth.

There must be something else motivating and driving human beings that can’t be explained by current science, and so therefore the science we have is unable to provide a definitive and consistent account of our origin story along with our behavior. This means that if you are using evolution to structure, organize, or explain your own life, you are living a falsehood—a soothing falsehood but a falsehood nonetheless.

I must state that it’s not a comfortable position for me to neither believe in god or human evolution, for I have no working model for my own existence. It’s a weird place because my brain, for some reason, craves an origin story for where it came from. It’s searching, hunting, for something that explains how it got here, but I will be patient in this search, because I find it liberating and free that I no longer have to frame every human action through the lens of “survive and reproduce” and “all humans act in self-interest to spread their genes.”

Now that I have done this, it’s much easier to see how reproduction is not an important or essential human behavior and that evolution is nothing more than a severely flawed theory for explaining human beings.

Read More: “Darwinian Fairytales” on Amazon

381 Comments

  1. James June 3, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Very good article. I suggest doing some reading into the idea of the r/K selection theory as a way of explaining things. It certainly goes a fair way towards explaining the effects wealth has on reproduction rates, though it is far from perfect for some of the very reasons that you point out.

    1. Anon. June 3, 2015 at 4:22 pm

      Émile Zola famously said that human behavior can be predicted fully in terms of two things: Innate biological traits, and social conditioning.

      Darwinism only addresses the FIRST of those two. It explains how the structures in the body, and our complex emotional and psychic system came to be, over a period of time where natural selection WAS in full-blown effect, over millions of years. It was artificially suspended in the last 50-100 years, but the theory still stands to explain why our biology is the way that it is.

      All animals are lead to do what nature intended them to do by a hormonal system of reward-punishment. This emotional system is still present in human beings. Your sexual urge IS your body telling you to reproduce, that’s why it there, natural selection didn’t account for condoms because they never existed over the millions of years of evolution. We are animals adapted to an environment that no longer exists.

      However, nature took a curious turn somewhere and generated an organ that acts like a malleable computer system, something that was a complete random accident, just like everything else in the body. However, it is not fully autonomous, and is still governed by an insanely complex system of rules that still aren’t fully understood. One of the main social functions of the brain was to make the individual adapt to it’s tribe. Being thrown out of the tribe meant certain death. Hence the enormous tendency that people have to fully accept the ideas that surround them. Good examples of this are that in deeply religious societies, pretty much everyone that grows up there will end up religious, and the few outcasts are not really outcasts at all, they have simply received other influences (such as from social sub-groups). It is why everyone in a particular culture or society seems to think the same and have the same ideas, despite thinking that these are their own.

      When things get fucked up are when ideas go against one’s biology. Think of pairbonding, if you fall in love with a girl and then you break up with her and never see her again, if it is a true chemical bonding your brain will put constant flashes of her into your mind, because biologically you are MEANT to be bonded to her, hence your emotional system is trying to force you back, but your ideas are repressing this. When one uses condoms, the sexual urge that was designed to make human beings reproduce doesn’t just magically disappear.

      The root of depression and most psychiatric problems come from a conflict between ideas and biology. Think of a childless woman, she is designed to give affection to a child, the lack of this creates a pull towards it, which she represses with her ideas, and it manifests in anxiety and depression. Countless other examples of this, particularly in Western society, which forces people to go against their own biology constantly. I will not list them here, but just by reading anything in the manosphere you will see how BOTH Western men and women constantly go against their own biology, in a kind of fucked-up ideological system where one is controlled by his own culturally-imposed ideas, rather than physically by another person.

      Evolution IS a completely valid theory for describing why human biology is the way it is, completely adapted to a primitive savage natural ecosystem that has nothing to do with modern societies, but it is only valid in explaining human behavior insofar as emotional tendencies are concerned. One must understand these as nature’s imposition on humans to survive and reproduce in ancient tribal environments. Today these chemical systems are a residue, but are still very present in human biology and everyday life, and can be fully understood when related back to their meaning in the tribal ecosystem. It’s a classic forebrain/hindbrain conflict. Evolution is only capable of explaining the hindbrain. The forebrain requires a whole different level of study.

      1. Bob June 4, 2015 at 6:52 pm

        You’re writing and insights are fantastic. Do you have a blog or a reddit account I can creep on? What’s your background?

      2. Puni September 3, 2015 at 3:50 pm

        lol… It´s common knowledge if you “study” a topic and not just read only some bullshits in internet. See also the movie “Idiocracy” that approach this topic with some humor.

      3. biljay August 10, 2015 at 11:17 am

        I agree 100% with your view.

      4. Ivory Campbell September 25, 2016 at 4:38 am

        Can you say for sure it’s not a clash between ideas and ideas? Really with the chemical bonding and all the condom talk?

      5. barbiquearea October 9, 2016 at 10:42 pm

        How does tribalism or any of that munbo jumbo explain why some humans feel the need to adopt even though they are capable of reproducing?

        I’m not trying to knock the theory evolution here but I can never understand why when some people (not all mind you) see a baby left on the side of the road completely abandoned and crying. We feel the urge to take that infant home with us and give them food, shelter and put in time and effort into raising them and helping them survive? Because all of that is very counterproductive to anyone who already have kids or plan on having kids of their own someday (cause empathy is a bitch).

        Now some would claim this is actually ‘kin selection’ at work where if we are not investing time and resources into our own offspring, we would still feel the need to help rear the children of relatives who share common DNA with ourselves. That would make sense except for some reason many of us still want to give care and affection towards people who are not even our blood kin. Why does this happen at all if in theory we should all be programed to focus on having our own kids and taking care of them instead of those belonging to complete strangers? Because from a evolutionary standpoint doing this gives no benefit to ourselves.

    2. Dawkins June 4, 2015 at 8:35 am

      This article is, as others have already said, a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

      Western culture would in fact be a MALADAPTIVE “GENE”. In the theory of evolution, there have been tens of thousands of deformed unadapted people that died off. If Western culture held for long enough to have any effect on natural selection (tens of thousands of years, which it will not), what you would see is an erradication of it, as another deformed “gene” that did no good to the survival of the species. Mutations occur randomly, but until nature cruelly weeds the unadapted fuckers out, it takes thousands of years.

      He suggests that the “purpose” of evolution is to survive and reproduce. There was never a purpose, things happened by pure chance. Mutations occurred in the genes, and only traits that ensured an individual reproduced would be passed on. The adaption to the primitive natural environment explains perfectly the reason for all the biological structures in terms of adaptation to that environment.

      He is applying this to modern societies, saying that evolution must now make people “survive and reproduce”, so he is saying that the body is now to adapt in the period of 50 years to an ideological system that is purely a product of society? Human beings are STILL the tribesmen adapted to the ancient environment, just that some fucker put him somewhere he doesn’t belong, into an ecosystem his body is not designed for.

      1. Labayu June 5, 2015 at 8:03 am

        Exactly, cultural environments and technologies create new selection pressures. Humans have simply not adapted to the most recent pressures.

    3. PrepZ June 4, 2015 at 9:18 am

      This un-theroy theory really reminds me of John Calhoun’s rat colony experiments.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Early_rat_studies

      Repeated several times over the years, the experiments led to the same final result: death of all the mice in the society. He developed the concept of “Behavior Sink” as a result.

      We live in a similar utopian society where for much of the planet (geographically) humans basic needs are met, leaving us free to indulge our idealistic pursuits of social order and justice. The amazing thing is that the problems and symptoms mentions here — much of which we comment on daily — are the same predicted by the rat experiments. Social decline to the point of overriding the so-called biological imperative to reproduce leads the entire population to self destruct. It’s predictable and repeatable in mice. So, why not in humans as well?

      Are we humans really smarter or more sophisticated that we will avoid the fate of the rat? Rather, perhaps it is because men can reason that reproduction with aberrant behaving females is so detrimental to our own well being that we simple stop procreating, leading to Roosh’s question of why he himself has not procreated. I suggest that our intelligence and primary instinct for self-preservation trumps any sense of duty to the society to procreate merely to perpetuate what we now see as a terrible and worsening culture. We simple say it is better not to bring new offspring into this situation to suffer a worse fate than ourselves.

      Now, is this an evolutionary process? Or, is it as Roosh suggest and end to evolution? The fatal flaw in Darwin’s theory is the rebuttal presumption that evolution always moves *forward* to the benefit of the population and society at-large. And, in many lower functioning life forms you can make this case. But when it comes to humans, perhaps the opposite is true, and it’s our ability to reason intelligently that leads us to the natural conclusion that it is better not to perpetuate the bad of our modern day culture. Just as in Calhoun’s experiments yielded a Dunbar number (a limit to the size of a population’s ability to maintain relationships), so we as a planet have reached that number and are now in decline.

      With the fixed geography of the earth, there are so few places for a dominate leader to move his tribe to and start a new, or renewed society. We’re just out of room. If humans follow rats (and we can argue if the average human really behaves more altruistically than a rat), then it’s just a matter of time before the whole human population decays into oblivion. The signs are there today in several westernized countries — aging populations, declining birth rates, social unrest. In fact, many of the behaviors Calhoun noted among the rats are the same things we talk about in the manosphere. The similarities are eerie.

      So whether or not this is the final stage of evolution, it really doesn’t matter to me. I do see this as a inevitable outcome for the human species that we may not be so smart as to avoid. Maybe the dinosaurs simply allowed themselves to become extinct rather than some meteorite taking them out.

    4. Brooklyn_Bruin June 4, 2015 at 10:38 am

      r/K selection has been discredited for decades now.

      1. James June 4, 2015 at 10:45 am

        And yet we are seeing it play out right now, particularly in low-income communities. Those with wealth and success breed fewer children, but they receive the best educations and preparations for success consistent with the K-type selection theory, while in places like Detroit, you see r-type selection in full force as baby mamas seek to have as many children as possible to collect the financial benefits without any regard as to how those children will be raised or what they will accomplish.

      2. Myra Esoteric June 5, 2015 at 12:27 am

        “r/K selection” in terms of Rushton’s skewed ideas about race have been discredited by HBDers themselves. But r/K selection in terms of cads vs dads still persists.

      3. WhiteSecessionist June 12, 2015 at 2:55 am

        You guys are just masturbating. No one cares.

      4. Ivory Campbell September 25, 2016 at 4:45 am

        Which, logically if evolution where still in play would mean that wealth, success, and education have absolutely no bearing on anything pertaining to nature but are man made accomplishments only significant to man.

      5. Anon. June 4, 2015 at 11:21 am

        r/K selection in the manosphere takes some meaning from the biological theory, but it does not mean the same.

        There are two types of r/K selection: Male strategies, and female strategies.

        Female strategies:
        – R-selected: Life is a succession of one-night-stands, sex is separate from love, sex is very fast, love and connection take a second and unimportant role in comparison to sex, sex and sexual degeneracy is glorified, women gain very large notch-counts and meaningful relationships are rare and almost unheard of. Typical in Western societies (Anglosphere, Western Europe, now slowly extending all over the world in places where it did not exist before).

        – K-selected: Sex is slower, women glorify love over sex, sex is usually attached to love, one-night-stands are not part of the culture and having sex with a man implies at least a mini-relationship, more affectionate, less transience. Typical in the Former Soviet Union, and in its most extreme form, in Muslim societies.

        Male strategies:
        – R-selected: Escalates ultra-fast, playerish traits, is a lover and the girl is there for the sex and for his own innate traits.

        – K-selected: Waits many dates for sex, buys her things, the girl is there either for his money or for things that are not directly a part of him, such as the security he can provide, stable guy for marriage, etc.

      6. Steve June 4, 2015 at 11:23 am

        You forgot that the Baltics are not included in K-selection, they have shifted towards R-selection since joining the European Union. All the rest of the FSU is K-selected.

      7. Joseph Jagusah July 11, 2015 at 10:38 am

        you’re determining these strategies in terms of sex, not reproduction. I remember an article a while ago on RoK about the ‘cost per orgasm,’ and i was inclined to think of how useful this paradigm would be for evolution, if it only explained reproduction instead of sex.

  2. Koanic June 3, 2015 at 9:37 am

    Anonymous conservatives r vs k theory, sir john glubbs cycle of empire, and the problems of scale caused by the neolithic agricultural revolution explain your questions.
    Evolution has barely caught up to grains and milk, much less condoms and iphones.

    And I’m a christian skeptical of the mainstream evolutionary narrative.

    1. Gentleman X June 3, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      I was thinking of r/K selection while reading through the article myself.

    2. Anon. June 3, 2015 at 4:30 pm

      Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Questioning it is ridiculous, just like questioning mathematics is ridiculous. We have actually SEEN it happen at rapid speed in bacteria.

      The theory has been used in biological engineering in a technological context, and it WORKS as predicted. It would be like questioning aerodynamics when you can clearly see that the airplane does indeed fly and behaves exactly according to the equations.

      1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:28 pm

        Female moral superiority is a proven scientific theory. Questioning it is ridiculous, just like questioning mathematics is ridiculous. We have actually SEEN it happen at rapid speed in HR departments.

        The theory has been used in social engineering in a technological context, and it WORKS as predicted. It would be like questioning aerodynamics when you can clearly see that the airplane does indeed fly and behaves exactly according to the equations.

      2. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 2:47 am

        “Female moral superiority is a proven scientific theory.”
        ————————-
        It is?
        No scientific theory is ever proven.
        That’s no excuse for comparing apples to oranges.

      3. Ace of Lances December 15, 2016 at 10:41 pm

        He’s joking.

      4. WhiteSecessionist June 12, 2015 at 2:57 am

        LOL you’re a dumbass.

        Morality is a totally alien concept to a woman, it’s something that needs to be artificially imposed on her, otherwise she retrogrades back to the jungle.

      5. The Spooky Ghost July 11, 2015 at 3:59 am

        I thought that the proportion of women in things like HR was actually more because women are typically viewed as being more approachable and less imposing…

      6. Boris August 27, 2016 at 5:53 pm

        Female professional and college sports are the jokes and shows how inferior women really are. They want equal pay when no one comes to see them play. Women suck and many are not even any good at that. Bitches.

      7. Ulick McGee June 4, 2015 at 2:33 am

        Religious nut.

      8. Mark June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm

        OK that is true, but obviously you overlooked the parts when the editor explained that evolution is definitely applicable to OTHER species, but that he believes humans are an anomaly. I do agree with this, that humans behave not only based on their instincts/the chemical reactions that urge us to act a certain way, and also act upon their emotions and social conditioning. What other species would see a deformed child struggling to survive and feel love and compassion instead of emotionlessly assessing the pros/cons before killing it? What other animal would develop complex systems of writing to preserve ideas and knowledge, and create large vocabularies to describe every emotion? We are unique; usually when a human is given the opportunity (extra food, medicine, money, etc) their altruism comes before their selfish survival instincts.

      9. Ivory Campbell September 25, 2016 at 4:48 am

        The article was about modern humans not bacteria or math or aerodynamics.

      10. Armitage Smyth January 17, 2017 at 11:30 am

        Rape produces offspring. Shown in many primates and common ancestor.
        Therefore rape is an evolutionary strategy. Most common in war.

  3. PauBrasil June 3, 2015 at 9:50 am

    I like the way you question the faith in science, sometimes people forget that science is done by questioning and not merely propagating someone else’s opinion.
    On top of that, I am still not convinced that the evolutionary/scientific explanations for our urge to have sex are flawed. Evolutionary theory doesn’t seem to be deterministic, it’s simply tendencies that we can, through volition, overcome or use to achieve our own particular values.

    1. spicynujac June 3, 2015 at 11:12 am

      True, I mean evolutionary biology explains why we have the drive to have sex. Orgasms feel great because there is a biological desire to encourage reproduction. If not for the great feeling of orgasm, females would be avoided by all men. Even if you are just pumping and dumping, this is in response to some biological drive.

      1. OrthodoxChristian June 3, 2015 at 2:11 pm

        ” If not for the great feeling of orgasm, females would be avoided by all men.”

        Even if you somehow removed pleasure from sex and sex from marriage, you’d still have men and women pairing up and producing (by artificial insemination) large families (7+ children) just for the love of children and family life. Putin handing out “Order of Parental Glory” awards”

        http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/users/3587/3-Jun-2015/apsh3cr6vrrqdhodh5wstnu1ylic1bxl.jpg

        http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/w726xauto/public/users/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aoriginal%3Aname%5D/3-Jun-2015/l6ae4jrre2au4hyqu7llckam5gleakkv.jpg?itok=xgI5ptzZ

        http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/w726xauto/public/users/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aoriginal%3Aname%5D/3-Jun-2015/igzsszkac7tejhejrprc6hntv0kkgp70.jpg?itok=lNqBgBMl

        The Order of Parental Glory is awarded to parents (including adoptive parents), who have raised seven or more children and pay great care to the next generation’s health, education, and physical, spiritual and moral development. The decoration was instituted by a presidential executive order in May 2008, and was first awarded on January 13, 2009.

      2. Garth June 3, 2015 at 2:54 pm

        Your point is well taken, but let’s not forget a major mittigating factor: Medical nano technology. They can now produce human sperm from bone marrow, and the japanese have supposedly developed a human incubtion system, and female eggs wil be cloned. I suspect we will see the first human kid popped out of a blender withing 50 years. I’m not saying this is a good thing because human scientist still do not know everything, but this does not stop humanity from being smart idiots.

      3. Steve June 3, 2015 at 9:39 pm

        But we would never have gotten to this point of medical technology without an orgasm feeling so good. That’s what drove primates (and most others in the animal kingdom) to reproduce. Early humans and our older ancestors had no idea that sperm created babies and had sex because if felt good. Roosh is still carrying out his biological conditioning by having orgasms regardless of how he feels about having children.

      4. OrthodoxChristian June 4, 2015 at 1:38 am

        “But we would never have gotten to this point of medical technology without an orgasm feeling so good. That’s what drove primates (and most others in the animal kingdom) to reproduce. Early humans and our older ancestors had no idea that sperm created babies and had sex because if
        felt good”

        Before the flood, mankind used to live up to 900 years old while being more intelligent than modern man. They had technology that we’re still catching up to.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x39eRJA1aVU

        Oppenheimer, who was very familiar with ancient Hindu texts, believed that nuclear weapons were being RE-discovered. When asked if his was the first ever detonation of of a nuclear bomb, he said. ‘Yes, in modern times’.

      5. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 3:00 am

        “Before the flood, mankind used to live up to 900 years old while being more intelligent than modern man.”
        ———————–
        I’ll bet they were all Sumerian kings too!
        They liked to exaggerate the wisdom and age of their rulers.
        They also thought snakes were immortal cuz they shed their skin and the new coat’s all shiny and stuff.
        Know how they got that way?
        Cuz the first snake tricked the first woman into eating from the tree of death (later changed to tree of knowledge) while the snake helped himself to the tree of life (briefly mentioned in Genesis).

      6. Todd Lewis December 2, 2015 at 2:35 pm

        Do you have a blog or something?

      7. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 10:30 pm

        Fuck Putin he didn’t do any diversity in those photos he only selected white parents let’s go to world war 3 nuclear missiles against Putin.

      8. WhiteSecessionist June 12, 2015 at 3:02 am

        Don’t worry, on the streets of Moscow it will be all Muslims soon. Happy now?

      9. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 10:31 pm

        I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, based on your theory, but you don’t need a woman to have an orgasm.

      10. Monad June 4, 2015 at 9:46 am

        True, but where would you prefer to put your dick, in your hand, or a vagina?

      11. WhiteSecessionist June 12, 2015 at 3:04 am

        You know there is nothing natural about masturbation. It’s behaviour that humans need to be taught by the filthy and sleazy porn industry.

        I had no clue what masturbation was and I would have never done it if I hadn’t had this jewish filth forced on me.

        Animals don’t even masturbate.

      12. OleRocker July 10, 2015 at 12:35 pm

        Dogs hump human legs or stuffed animals.

      13. Walter Augier March 23, 2017 at 10:39 am

        Evolution is not still – it is working. Modern humans might as well be mutated and ending up eventually having bodies that do not respond any longer to birth control. The bodies might also mutate so that they end up reproducing by other means(other than intercourse). Another possibility is that those humans who don’t want to reproduce will die off(makes sense – since they don’t reproduce they’ll go extinct). Any way, those child-free people are simply a minority, just like homosexuals are. They could represent simply a small error, not the overall gene pool. The majority of people in the world are still poor and are actually physically more fit and reproduce more. Our modern people who choose to be child-free are not spreading their genes – evolution, thus, prevents them from continuation. Surprisingly, the numbers of those child-free people are increasing! But the numbers of those poor who breed like cockroaches is increasing too and a lot faster. We’ve got already over 7 billion people on the planet due to those “poor” self-reproducing people. Besides, most people in civilized world have to wear glasses/contact lenses because their vision is so much worse than the vision of people from poorer societies. Besides the poorly-sighted, there are more and more of the obese in civilized societies. Why would an obese individual would pass his or her “obese” genes while you have much fitter and stronger individuals who are struggling to survive? May be, an obesity is also a modern phenomenon, that evolution is working on right now. May be, the obese will die off or they will mutate so that their future generations will stop absorbing sugars as efficiently as they do now to prevent obesity and continue normal reproduction. There are so many factors and so many possibilities that it is impossible to conclude that the evolution stopped working at this point of time. Last century changed our living conditions, but for the evolution it was like a “millisecond” of time. Just wait at least another 200000 years, then see what happens and who survives!

      14. spicynujac March 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm

        Perhaps this is how human civilization stagnates. The most productive classes, on the whole, are not reproducing while the poor masses are.

        The “survivors” of the fittest, from a darwinian point of view, are not the most mentally fit; therefore progress stalls.

        Hell, maybe that’s not even a bad thing. I find more to admire about the developing world than the first world (not that i’m giving up my air conditioning any time soon but the human dynamics are better, and I am interested in the stories of these men who have permanently left for poorer nations but are happier).

        Perhaps the world will just be fine without the west investing more degenerate entertainment films, making a thinner iphone that can further distract us from experiencing life, and churning out 100,000 new porno films a year. Maybe society will be just fine as the rest of the world that’s several decades behind the west, slowly catches up.

  4. Ryre June 3, 2015 at 9:52 am

    Human beings are a social species. Status is therefore of prime importance in the struggle to survive. One’s ability to command resources and respect from fellow humans is the most important factor. And humans struggle for status constantly and relentlessly.

    Chimps don’t battle other chimps for every mouthful of food, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to a struggle to survive/, i.e. natural selection. Being an intelligent, social species, chimps’ struggles play out in a complex social hierarchy. Human society is vastly more complex than that of chimpanzees. Why would we expect humanity’s evolutionary drives and struggles, playing out in the context of modern society and culture, to be as crude and obvious as those of vastly less complex, less social species?

    1. Roosh June 3, 2015 at 9:57 am

      What evolutionary point is there to having a social structure that consistently and deliberately reduces reproduction? Wouldn’t such a structure (Western) die out instead of spreading successfully across the world like it is now?

      1. Ryre June 3, 2015 at 10:32 am

        Evolution doesn’t have “points.” Evolutionary drives are a factor in behavior, but not the only factor. Why would a soldier charge into machine-gun fire and certain death? Why would a species invent technologies like nuclear weapons that could result in their extinction? Why do horses mate with donkeys, producing infertile offspring? Why are there seedless grapes? Why do deer freeze in headlights? Why don’t animals die when they become too old to breed? The answer in each case is different, but none prove that evolutionary drives aren’t relevant, just because it is hard to draw a straight 1:1 connection.

        Why do humans voluntarily reduce reproduction? Because the interaction between our drives and our environment, mediated by consciousness and culture, is complex. Because birth control has existed for too short a time for natural selection to select for adaptations to it. Perhaps in the future we will see more people with allergies to latex, resistance to birth control pills, less intelligence and more sexual impulsivity, or a predilection for fundamentalist religion. Perhaps we’ll actually become a species with a stronger desire for babies as opposed to merely for sex. But whatever we look like 100 generations from now, it’ll have to do with which of us are passing our genes on today and which are not, and thus what traits are selected for.

        p.s. If by “what evolutionary point is there…” you mean “what evolutionary/survival advantage might there be to reducing reproduction,” perhaps the answer is: looking at the world today, which societies seem best positioned to survive into a changing future, one in which we may face a degraded environment with fewer resources. 1) societies like the U.S., Germany, and Japan, or 2) societies like Bangladesh, the Sudan, and Guatemala?

      2. Anon. June 3, 2015 at 4:48 pm

        The last paragraph is wrong and has nothing to do with natural selection.

        Keep in mind that Western culture was essentially designed in a laboratory. It will stay in effect until it is no longer useful, then it will disappear. It will have zero effect on natural selection, which only truly impacts on the scale of millions of years.

      3. Ryre June 3, 2015 at 5:52 pm

        You may be right, I was speculating, this isn’t my field of expertise. My point is, suppose hypothetically that we have two societies, X and Y. X controls its reproduction and limits population growth. Y does not. Over the next 1000 years, society Y experiences a population boom followed by a crash, and eventually the land on which society Y depended for survival has been reduced by overuse to a desert incapable of supporting life. Every member of society Y has died out. Meanwhile, society X continues with a steady population. Natural selection has favored the members of society X, has it not? Controlling population turned out to have a survival advantage in the long term. If the members of society X had certain biological traits, say left-handedness, in greater proportion than the members of society Y, the human race would now have evolved to be more left-handed.

        What’s wrong with my logic here?

      4. ihopmenu June 11, 2015 at 4:43 pm

        Agreed: Western culture and complex “First World” societies are *artificial*. Not only that, they are artificially perpetuated through entertainment media, political strategies and economic strategies.

        Why do people in Third World & Developing economics want to replicate the “standard of living” in the U.S. of A.? Because they are exposed to movies and TV and ideas that we send over there. How do factories, capital flows and other factors of production end up in China and Bangladesh? They are imported in by First World corporations. Why is WESTERN society spreading and dominating? Because that is what is popular right now. Just because it is popular and spreading doesn’t mean it will always dominate and never die out.

        Roosh is smart enough to know all of this, but writes in a controversial way to spark several hundreds of comments, which is why his websites are successful and get high traffic and page views. This high traffic and pageviews and higher fanbase for Roosh’s sites translates to more money for him, which means he doesn’t have to work a shitty job 40 hrs a week, which means he gets more free time and energy to think about these questions and go sport fucking around the world. Roosh has essentially built a system that provides him with resources, status, freedom, and pussy, but he is NOT reproducing, so he thinks Darwinian evo. is therefore wrong. One can make the same argument if you use successful actors like Leonardo DiCaprio as an example. Leo DiCaprio has probably fucked 1000’s of supermodels thousands of times, but he has 0 children. Therefore, Darwin was wrong about humans, hence Darwin is wrong all together!

      5. Ulick McGee June 4, 2015 at 2:38 am

        US, Germany and Japan.

      6. incognitoperson June 3, 2015 at 10:55 am

        Western culture has been in decline since the advent of effective contraception

      7. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:00 pm

        He said that humans are a social species, and you bit hook line and sinker.

        That’s ok, you’re still on the road to discovery.

        …discovery that there is no such thing as “species” in evolution. Yes, that sounds crazy coming from a creationist so here is a respected professor and evolutionist that agrees with me, Werner Kunz.

        http://www.amazon.com/Species-Exist-Principles-Taxonomic-Classification/dp/3527332073

        In the theory of evolution, each genetic organism is unique and carries with it mutations that are unique to it. Therefore there are no reasons to start out with the premise that there are species.

        People start out with the idea of “species” only because it is the tradition inherited from 2,000 years of Natural Theology. Look that shit up too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
        Although natural theology is not Christian, Christians carried science throughout the ages into its modern formulation, and one relic is the concept of species, or as the Old Testament calls it, each to its Kind, or as a Platonist each to its Form. (Plato being a Natural Theologist, perhaps the first Natural Theologist recognized by secular scholars.)

        But as a trained biologist perhaps you already know that “species” has more than 6 definitions, none of them settled, all of them contradictory. Once again, evolution is probably just wrong.

      8. Bob June 3, 2015 at 7:21 pm

        Evolution isn’t a process we are going through. It’s more like the explanation for how the end result got to be what it is. Evolution isn’t a driving force causing things to get “better” or people to improve or get more intelligent. It’s just who is equipped to deal with the current environment the best and thus survive. Check out the movie Idiocracy. We might completely be in an environment that favors reproduction of idiots or careless people. We as humans could be evolving the be careless and stupid.

        But evolutionary biology still drive our wants and needs but because we are able to override that with complex thoughts we can do things like buy condoms or pull out. I would say the current environment is of course favoring alpha males to reproduce or men with tons of resources to raise a kid. Also, you don’t know FOR SURE if you don’t have offspring out there. There may or may not be a cute Indonesian girl that fathered a child for me in SE asia.

      9. God July 15, 2015 at 10:55 pm

        Evolution isn’t a process we are going through. It’s more like the explanation for how the end result got to be what it is.

        errr, yes it is.

      10. Bob July 15, 2015 at 11:09 pm

        No it’s not. You fundamentally don’t understand what evolution is. If you think you personally are “evolving” into something else, you’re an idiot.

        Try reading some Richard Dawkins.

      11. God July 15, 2015 at 11:15 pm

        I think it is you who doesn’t understand.

        Evolution doesn’t pack up its bags and say “ok job done, its quitting time”. I dont think “i personally” am evolving lol. But given enough time, yes there will be evidence of further evolution in everything, if the theory of evolution itself is correct.

        i see what your saying, but evolution doesnt stop, in a million years from now, its possible that we could have evolved into beings that no longer need to mate to reproduce for instance.

      12. Bob July 15, 2015 at 11:37 pm

        Seriously read Dawkins. There isn’t a force causing you or humans to change or “evolve” Evolution is the name given to the observable effects of what happens when environments act on populations. Various mutations will cause variety. Some traits will survive the environment better. Those that survive are what proliferate. This can be called evolution, but there isn’t a process we are going through on an individual level of “getting better”

      13. cantre August 22, 2015 at 2:38 pm

        epigenetics

      14. Vince Gotti August 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm

        Evolution is merely adaption basically.

      15. Delltron Zero June 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm

        Yes, to your final question.

        Evolution, remember, is not there to simply preserve all species. Species go extinct, as you acknowledge.

        One way of thinking about this is that perhaps from an evolution perspective, human beings have reached the point where it makes more sense for humans to not reproduce.

        With a population of approaching 7 billion, and with a natural ecosystem increasingly unable to accommodate such a demanding species, why would human beings be allowed to reproduce indefinitely?

        There are checks and balances, I suppose. I often play around with the idea of modernization from this angle. The more “progress” achieve (social, technological, biological, and so on), there is always a check:

        For instance, humans have reached a point where they seem to have stayed the very real former fear of disease, have learned how to farm and produce food cheaply and to counteract natural forces (to a certain extent), have found better nutritional and medicinal techniques to prolong life expectancy much more than before–thus creating this population problem.

        But with this technological “progress” comes the ability to annihilate more people than every was possible with nuclear weapons, comes urban crowding that boosts competition for territory, comes globalization which spells the death of local communal cultures and, moreover, the intensification of scarce resources like water and other natural resources.

        I agree that we have not necessarily “evolved,” that things are in a decline state, but this could all be in accordance with how other species have also become extinct, albeit in a different fashion.

        Dinosaurs dominated far far longer this earth than humans have, but all that remains are relics of their fossils buried in the dust.

        I tend toward theism because I can’t speak of a purpose to this madness otherwise, but I cannot nevertheless rule out the possibility that devolution is also built within the theory of evolution.

        To come directly, the scarcity of reproduction actually makes sense with how humans have evolved, as well as with the augmentation of the ability for humans to totally annhilate each other with the same set of scientific principles that preserves life and postpones death.

        YMMV of course.

        P.S. I enjoy reading your blog.

      16. deshler June 4, 2015 at 2:40 am

        There’s not supposed to be “a point”, organisms adapt to their surroundings. You say evolution doesn’t apply to human beings; and you’re wrong, but you’re on to something. Human beings are the only animal that creates a SOCIETY (and a changing society at that), which is a new evolutionary pressure that other organisms do not experience. If you look at human evolution over the past 10,000 years, it has evolved at a rate that; if stayed consistent over the entire existence of humanity, would render us incomparable to our other ancestors, the great apes. The reason for the “10,000 year explosion” is because human beings created civilization, the ultimate evolutionary pressure. You are different from your ancestors genetically going back even five to ten thousand years. Read the book that I suggested in my other reply to this article. I would be interested to see your thoughts on it.

      17. Daniel Ramos June 9, 2015 at 9:34 am

        Interesting. So i take it by your responses that you have in essence proven the “theory” of evolution to be the fact of evolution?

        So where exactly is the missing link evidence? Can you post a link to it please?

        For the record, i don’t believe in the concept of human evolution, i believe in the concept of human de-evolution.

        If you are unfamiliar with it, i suggest you look it up.

      18. deshler June 11, 2015 at 5:35 am

        You’re misusing the term “theory” as its used in science. “Theory” in science does not refer to someone’s opinion or philosophy, as its used in typical language. “De-evolution” is insinuating that “evolution” means for a species to improve, another gross misunderstanding of a scientific concept. Evolution is a the process of an organism adapting to its environment, hence why creating an environment that caters to the breeding of a bunch of shiftless, brainless degenerates like we have in America today, can quickly create a change in the human genome in front of your eyes. How someone can look at genetic mutations such as lactose tolerance and sickle cell that are less than 10,000 years old and not believe in evolution is beyond me.

      19. Daniel Ramos June 11, 2015 at 11:26 am

        I’m not misusing it, i am stating that the belief in evolution has not been undeniably proven. Just because a collective of arrogant scientists chooses to believe in it (it’s not unanimous btw) does not therefore make the theory infallible. As i said and as you failed to refute, there is as yet no evidence of the missing link which ties us to Darwin’s monkeys from which we supposedly originated from.

        While i do believe that animals do indeed evolve (from dinosaurs to birds, for ex) i see no definitive proof of that in humans, merely educated conjecture. Since we possess a higher consciousness that makes us involved in how we interact in our environment, i therefore question the infallible belief in evolution as you have presented it. If you can provide me with undeniable evidence i will of course reconsider.

        With regard to my belief in de-evolution and since you are obviously unfamiliar with it, i suggest you look into the research of German physicist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for a brief understanding of his theories, specifically those which describe de-evolution of the traditional homosapien.

        When you mention “evolution” i think you mistake it for adaptation, which is actually different. Adaptation is a means by which a human organism (autochthonous, invariably) adapts to its environment in order to maximize its survival potential. The organism itself has input on that adaptation, however marginal. The adaptation however can be reversed if that organism migrates to another environment and especially if it copulates with other organisms who also adapted to their environments. This explains why Blacks had hair that better suited them to their arid climates, why Caucasians had a hirsute physiology to better suit their gelid environments, and so forth. The intellectually redoubtable Mr Blumenbach’s research scientifically expounds on this, so again i suggest researching him further.

        But first i want to ask you, how long does evolution take? I have heard of scientists claiming that evolution takes millions of years, and i have recently heard them say it can happen in a relatively few weeks, such as it the case with a recently mentioned bird. So which is it? Or is the belief in evolution excluded from the normal scientific method assigned to prove a theory as otherwise infallible?

        You are free to believe what you like, however

      20. ihopmenu June 11, 2015 at 4:31 pm

        Roosh, you assume that (1) evolutionary forces work on social structures and complex social behaviors such as “Western society” and (2) because the Western structure/society is successfully spreading it will always spread and never die out.

        Obviously, (2) is incorrect: we haven’t been alive for long enough to conclude that Western society will always dominate just because we currently see it spreading and dominating. If we were live for long enough and see the whole outcome play out, it is likely that Western society/structures will die out in favor of a new model, or a return to Traditional structures.

        Assumption (1) is also incorrect since Darwinian evolution describes the way natural selection works on random mutations: random mutations which aid an organism’s survival or sexual reproduction are continued, while random mutations which hinder an organism’s survival or sexual reproduction are gradually weeded out.

        Human intelligence is a random mutation, and it arises from enlarged prefrontal cortex regions at the individual brain level, as well as the way it aggregates in societies as layers of “knowledge”. More advanced societies such as the U.S. have more layers of knowledge such as tech and science that build and build upon each other over years and decades. Less advanced societies have less knowledge and therefore behave more in a more primitive way, like isolated tribes in the Amazon who still struggle to survive, adapt and have sex the way Darwin describes.

        Human intelligence as it is expressed in First World modern cities and “Western Society” is therefore unexplained or inconsistent with Darwinian evolution because it is by it’s very core essence *artificial* and not natural.

        Modern human behavior within complex economically/technologically advanced cities are very different from the way human behavior was in primitive periods (which you mention) and the way it is in primitive societies that currently exist even in the present-day.

        Evolution theory applies to modern human beings but because we transgress it at every turn with our materialism and artificial behaviors (e.g. sport fucking without reproducing, making money to get food and careers, and working out at in gyms instead of getting exercise from physicality). And, lastly, because Evolution theory cannot explain the unpredictable chaos that arises from this mutation we call human intelligence that is very different from simpler random mutations like a bird’s longer beak or thorns on a plant.

        Human intelligence and consciousness is arguably the #1 hardest phenomenon for us to explain, predict and understand, and it is just as hard to explain/understand as the Origin Story of human existence itself.

        I don’t think Darwinian evolution is “wrong” per se because it cannot explain and predict human behavior that currently tends toward less reproduction. I think it’s more fair to say that it is *incomplete*.

        But hey, I’m just an anonymous guy writing to you, someone who I’ve never met, using a metal computer that is processing little tiny electrons across the air along “wi-fi” waves to debate an article on “the internet”, when I could be out trying to get food and then trying to fill an ovulating fertile young girl’s pussy with my semen, so who knows.

      21. ua2 June 16, 2015 at 6:42 pm

        The future is owned by those who show up. Perhaps Roosh, the time window you are analyzing is too small.

        It could very well be a fact that the western structure dies out literally over the course of a 1000+ years due reduction of reproduction compared to other societies.

      22. Efa Owuya October 1, 2017 at 5:38 pm

        Said structure would reduce reproduction and limit said act to those who could adapt in the best way, rather than to completely stop reproduction.

  5. Libertas June 3, 2015 at 10:07 am

    Well, this is an interesting article. Agreed with some points and disagreed with others.

    I think you should read some of the essays by Nathan Hagens, who goes over how certain inherited behaviors can actually work against us (in this case how they’re leading to rapid resource depletion, which I would argue is the reason, consciously or not, that people are not reproducing in the West), and also a book I read a long time ago called “Why is Sex Fun?” by Jared Diamond, which goes beyond the narrow “survive and reproduce” model to explain the important *social* aspects of human sexual behavior that are more or less universal.

    The key point though, that I think you’re hinting at here is how the theory of evolution shouldn’t be used as a completely satisfactory explanation for some human behavior (as we both know, the altruism in the West is reaching suicidal levels) and more importantly that societies [b]should not[/b] be using the theory as some kind of guidepost for ethics or values, and that I do agree with.

  6. John L June 3, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Maybe self-limiting reproduction is part of evolutionary strategy. Since infant mortality is reduced to almost zero, the collective cultural evolutionary stratagem limits reproduction in light of potential resource limits (over population).

    1. Mark Fox June 3, 2015 at 10:12 am

      Except that overpopulation is a myth. Human beings don’t even occupy 10% of the landmass on this planet and food is not in short supply unless you are facing interference from other humans.

      1. spicynujac June 3, 2015 at 6:01 pm

        In your opinion.

        The more humans there are on the planet, the scarcer resources such as fresh potable water, meats (which require acres of water and millions of gallons of water), fossil fuels, and size of dwelling units, and the greater the prevalence of diseases, destruction of nature, genetically modified food, hormone and anti-biotic laced meats, globalization of economies.

        While it is probably true that humanity could still exist fairly well with twice as many people on the planet, I feel it is already “over” populated and would prefer a planet with a smaller population. While there are real tangible benefits to a smaller population, what benefits does a larger population give you?

      2. Mark Fox June 3, 2015 at 10:27 pm

        Not an opinion. It’s a fact. On the continental United States alone, human beings only occupy at most 5.6% of the land mass.

        We’re not even close to squeezing into this ball.

      3. Bavieca June 4, 2015 at 2:04 am

        If each individual human being simply needs room to stand motionless like the statue of David and can defeat hunger, thirst, diseases, elements, drowsiness, etc simply by wishing it like a Genie does then yes perhaps we can have at least 975 billion people on this planet without taking even the slightest toll upon our life quality.

        But the sad fact is, you can’t even manspreading without getting arrested.

        http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/02/war-on-men-first-arrests-for-manspreading-on-new-york-subway/

      4. Mister Alighieri June 3, 2015 at 10:55 pm

        I understand the original posters point that the human population could inhabit much more of the terra than we do. But as several others and even Roosh points out, we don’t face the same pressures directly that evolution holds to be true. The artificial environments that humans excel at creating, behave like the laboratories they mimic(for good or ill of the culture and individuals involved). And humans seem to be reproducing the famous mouse study on a citywide scale. An organism will react to the environment it’s presented. When we as a civilization pack people ever more densely into these created environments, creating perceived scarcity, subjectively the organisms often self limit out of their inherently flawed map of reality. I really think evolution explains the mechanism of how we developed but only hints at why we behave as we do.

    2. Labayu June 5, 2015 at 8:14 am

      Many species have the urge to deliberately limit reproduction. Some birds will push one egg out of the nest, because there are situations in which attempting to raise two offspring is less likely to result in one successful surviving adult than focusing all resources on one. The real issue though, is that human tendencies are simply not adapted to birth control or the current social environment, so any tendencies toward self-limiting can easily be maladaptive from the perspective of net-reproductive success.

  7. Barwin June 3, 2015 at 10:15 am

    Yeah, I agree. Not being a believer in a supreme being, and having studied evolution and having a thorough understanding of its workings, I’ve also wondered about the place of human beings in the evolutionary model. All I could ever come up with is that, while in basic organisms, their reproduction stops when the resources run out (or they start killing off), in human beings our reproduction stops when we PERCEIVE that we have insufficient resources to reproduce. In some third world countries, people reproduce plentifully because they actually want to increase their own resources, securing themselves for old age sort of thing, same as in ancient European civilizations. However, in western societies, advertising and materialism makes people think they’re not successful if they don’t drive a fancy car, don’t have a fancy house etc, so we are brainwashed to PERCEIVE that we don’t have sufficient resources to be worthy of reproduction. I can sort of back this up by looking at the behavior of my friends who have immigrated from Zimbabwe and from Zambia when they were already 25 or 27. They do act more upon their evolutionary drives than I do – someone who grew up in the west. They have already impregnated a number of women during the few years that they’ve been in North America. I can only ignorantly assume that reproduction in the countries they’re from is more geared toward increasing resources for old age. So, perhaps Darwin was incorrect to say evolution programs species to reproduce until the resources run out. Perhaps evolution programs species to strive for maximum resources instead, and maybe reproduction is a result of resource maximization. That could explain why, in poorer countries, people reproduce to secure themselves for old age (resources-by-offspring), and why in western countries people don’t reproduce if they have a perceived lack of resources (emphasis on perceived as in: “no woman will want me because I don’t have an expensive condo and Benz”). In reality, these women don’t care about your resources of course, as proven by the many western women that have been knocked up by my Zimbabwean and Zambian friends. All women want is an alpha to get fucked by, which is what my African friends did, and they knocked them up. This means that it is only western men who get brainwashed by perception-of-lack-of-resources, because it is only western advertising that causes that inferiority complex. My African friends have no such inferiority complex, so they reproduce far more, in this case with western women here in North America, but the location wouldn’t actually matter to them. So, if evolution programs species to strive for maximum resources rather than maximum offspring, it would also explain rather complex hierarchies in chimps, and why they’re not constantly battling each other for their food, hierarchies in chickens (pecking order), and so on. Efficient division of resources probably became the primary target of evolution, because maximizing resources led to a maximizing of offspring. If maximizing resources leads to maximizing offspring, it makes sense that species would have evolved to first maximize resources, and then to maximize offspring. So perhaps western men are trapped in the continual process of maximizing resources, and due to their advertising-induced inferiority complex, they never get to a stage where they feel they have enough resources to reproduce, while my African friends, who haven’t had the western brainwashing, do not have the same perception?

  8. ME June 3, 2015 at 10:20 am

    “I know your blood is already boiling from reading the headline above and
    that your intellectual self-defense mechanisms have been activated to
    refute all ideas you are about to encounter henceforth…..”

    No at all. I was thinking it’s about time somebody spoke the truth. The whole article was well presented.

    Not wealthy and successful, I married young, had kids immediately, and it was the best decision I ever made. According to survival of the fitness theories, only the strongest, most educated, smartest, will reproduce, right? Yet, as people saw in that movie Idiocracy, it isn’t true at all. Those of us in the trailer park never stopped having babies, never really plunged into this so called blue pill world. So that either means the most educated, most successful, are examples of human failure, are the least fit, or evolutionary theories are wrong.

    Considering what I’ve seen of feminist academia and the behavior of many so called successful people, I like to embrace the idea that they are less fit and the world is attempting to remove them from the gene pool, but that is only a pleasant fantasy I entertain.

    1. Bob June 4, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      “According to survival of the fitness theories, only the strongest, most educated, smartest, will reproduce, right? ”

      You fundamentally don’t understand how evolution works. Try reading Dawkins.

  9. Krum June 3, 2015 at 10:20 am

    Evolution takes time, a LOT of time. Your behaviour means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce, the instinct has not died, it is only overwritten by cultural indoctrination.

    1. ME June 3, 2015 at 10:30 am

      “Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce…”

      I’m aware this is a very feminine and romantic notion, but our desire to have sex is actually a desire for intimacy and communion with another. That is our most powerful urge. Reproduction was tucked in there to catch us unawares, as it was through much of human history, before the invention of birth control and abortion.

      If anyone rationally, reasonably made a well educated and informed choice about having babies, there would be no babies. They are not cost effective, they are not beneficial to our own survival, they are called dependents for a reason. Many of us love them dearly, but from a purely logical perspective, they are not logical at all.

      1. Krum June 3, 2015 at 10:51 am

        You’re confusing things. Oxytocin, the cuddle hormone of intimacy, is responsible for the development of parenting in humans but the sexual desire is driven by dopamine. There’s no desire for intimacy prior to ejaculation, it’s an urge for a release.

        The fact that despite the cultural indoctrination and the variety of contraceptive methods, humans still reproduce is a prove of the brutal force of evolution.

      2. ME June 3, 2015 at 11:20 am

        “There’s no desire for intimacy prior to ejaculation, it’s an urge for a release”

        All in good humor here, but you’re going to have to speak for yourself because you are only one side of the equation. I assure you oxytocin and a desire for intimacy are quite present on the other side of things. Oxytocin men actually absorb from us through osmosis, your own being in shorter supply.

        “The fact that despite the cultural indoctrination and the variety of
        contraceptive methods, humans still reproduce is a prove of the brutal
        force of evolution.”

        I suspect that is more the result of dopamine intoxication. Look at how many people today still seem to have absolutely no idea where babies come from. Women especially can be completely clueless about cause and effect. If 20 year old girls did not have their brains soaked in a chemical soup, placing them in a bubble of bliss, there would be no babies.

      3. Krum June 3, 2015 at 11:26 am

        So you’re a female …

        Case closed.

      4. ME June 3, 2015 at 11:42 am

        And you are a brilliant man to have caught on so quickly. I always assume the girl in the dress will give me away,but what do I know.

      5. Harvey Wallbanger June 3, 2015 at 3:08 pm

        I want to try and take you seriously. Do you not think that sexual desire and the desire for closeness (a term i like better than communion or intimacy) are distinct? Consider the raw arousal you feel when you are masturbating, is the desire for “communion” also present? Or the arousal you feel when you see something sexy, it has nothing to do with closeness.

        What say you?

      6. ME June 3, 2015 at 7:41 pm

        I say that even when someone is alone or fantasizing or seeing something sexy, they are ultimately dreaming of intimacy or closeness with another person. They are generally not fantasizing about reproducing.

        I think our porn focused culture has tried to separate sexuality from intimacy, even to separate actual people, from the flat two dimensional images on a piece of paper, but in spite of all that, it is still intimacy, connection, closeness that motivates sexuality for both men and women. Men however are much better at compartmentalizing and therefore denying that fact, but I still believe it to be true.

      7. Harvey Wallbanger June 4, 2015 at 1:46 pm

        Thanks for replying substantively but I have say that I think don’t really understand human sexuality or intersexual dynamics that well. So, let me break it down very simply for you:

        1. When we speak of arousal, it’s generally measured by observable biological phenomena that then trigger behaviors. But the arousal comes first. Many studies have been done that look at genital blood flow etc (the standard scientific measure for sexual arousal, in case you were not aware).

        There are big differences between men’s and women’s sexual arousal and what stimulates it. For example, due to evolutionary and competitive pressures for males living in a partial tournament intersexual dyanmic, and given female sexual selection dominating, males have developed to become aroused in a matter of seconds, even to full arousal. For women it begins slower and then builds more gradually, but still happens in a pretty short period of time, still minutes.

        However, women are stimulated by all scenes of sexuality. In numerous studies of sexual arousal, women and men are shown scenes of various sex acts. Hetero women were aroused by women having sex with each other, homosexual sex between men, animal sex and hetero sex between men and women. Hetero men were aroused only by scenes of hetero sex between men and women.

        So, when I speak of arousal, I’m talking about the kind that can be measured by genital blood flow and how arousal is discussed by scientists.

        2. Sexuality has long been separated from intimacy by men and women, long before porn came along. In fact, before the dominance of Christian culture in the west, the overt sexuality of some societies would be considered downright scandalous. Take the Etruscans, where nakedness was not considered wrong, but instead the human form was adored and sex was not shamed. Many other cultures have encouraged libidinousness and wild sexual behavior. What Christianity brought us is not a human norm.

        Just consider prostitution, the ultimate form of transactional sex without intimacy that there could be. It’s been around as long as recorded history.

        So your analyses doesn’t really hold up. I think you are just presenting your biases as fact and argument, but if you consider what I’ve said here, they don’t really hold up.

        I used to think as you do about this, fyi. But I discovered that my own sexual attraction wasn’t as bound up with love and romance as I once thought it was. Yes, I do readily acknowledge that humans get “attachment” needs met via sex, and that intimacy is something we all want. I just don’t think they are paired. I’m not saying closeness and intimacy aren’t important, I just think that I can have sex with someone but not be super close to them other than when I’m having sex with them.

        Maybe you mean when sex is actually happening? My experience is that I do feel close to a woman when I’m having sex with her. But by that time I’ve gone a long ways beyond being attracted to her. We’ve built up some kind of agreement, connection that leads to the sex – even if in only a few minutes.

        I’m just talking about arousal and desire being distinct, not the morality of it. I do not find that a desire to be close causes me to be aroused. In fact, I’d say it’s the other way around.

      8. Bavieca June 5, 2015 at 12:11 am

        “I say that even when someone is alone or fantasizing or seeing something sexy, they are ultimately dreaming of intimacy or closeness with another person. They are generally not fantasizing about reproducing.”

        Not me, I fantasize busting a nut into the front and rear hole of Taylor Swift then depart in no time flat. Perhaps after finished fucking her, other dudes may fantasize having some meaningful conversation with her about the ramifications if Vercingetorix were victorious at Alesia or how Murica would look today had the Confederates won but I suspect those kind of dudes are in the tiny minority.

        “I think our porn focused culture has tried to separate sexuality from intimacy, even to separate actual people, from the flat two dimensional images on a piece of paper, but in spite of all that, it is still intimacy, connection, closeness that motivates sexuality for both men and women.”

        Pop culture is more guilty of the same thing, millions of women were duped into feeling intimacy, closeness, connection for dudes from Twilight or One Direction or Super Junior or whomever alpha dudes those women saw on screens & mags. Pop culture is actually much worse than porn because pop culture is celebrated and glorified

        “Men however are much better at compartmentalizing and
        therefore denying that fact, but I still believe it to be true.”

        We are all entitled to our beliefs, I personally believe that in the year of our Lord 2112 the ancient Titans shall arise from their long slumber to clash with Jesus Christ and the Silver Surfer over dominion of our galaxy.

    2. Overtaxed June 5, 2015 at 10:17 am

      “Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce, the instinct has not died, it is only overwritten by cultural indoctrination.”

      No. The desire to have sex is the desire to have an orgasm. The desire to have an orgasm comes from the chemical release that an orgasm provides. That’s it, full stop. If we ever discover a way to test this (by taking all the pleasure out of sex/orgasm) we will quickly discover that men no longer have an interest in sex. It’s not intimacy, it’s not closeness, it’s not the desire to have children. It’s the desire to have a bunch of hormones/chemicals bathing your brain that make you feel really, really good.

      Equating the “desire to have children” with sex is like equating the “desire to become a drug addict” with someone using hard drugs for the first time. The vast majority of drug users are looking for the chemical release that drugs provide. A very small group are looking to throw their lives away and become drug addicts. Some of the vast majority will become addicts (fathers). However, they did not desire this outcome; what they wanted was the chemical feeling, not the possible results/side effects.

      Birth control has broken the link for women. Male birth control will break the link for men. It’s as if we’ve discovered heroin that cannot possibly cause addiction, but still has all the positive side effects. And, because of that, birth rates are now dropping. And will continue dropping indefinitely until something fundamental changes.

  10. GrampyBone June 3, 2015 at 10:23 am

    The author basically doesn’t understand evolution. Natural selection doesn’t create “perfect” organisms, it creates “good enough” organisms. If humans are good enough to survive with a weak reproductive impulse–that’s easily distracted with other pursuits–then that’s good enough for evolution.

    There have been societies which competed fiercely in more traditional darwinian “law of the jungle” ways: The Spartans. While their men were the pinnacle of human fitness, their destructive competition left them weak to outside attacks.

    Humans have evolved a kind of “constructive competition,” where the survival aspects of natural selection are channeled for group benefit rather than personal. Nash’s equilibrium: whats good for the group is what’s good for the individual. Societies that find a balance between selfishness and altruism flourish, others die out.

    Finally it’s ludicrous to assert that honesty is natural. Ask any parent, kids lie their asses off from the moment they can speak. Honesty has to be drilled into them with an iron fist.

    1. ME June 3, 2015 at 10:40 am

      “Honesty has to be drilled into them with an iron fist.”

      I disagree. Children actually have to learn to lie. They learn how to lie from us. Before a certain developmental stage their brains aren’t even capable of holding two perceptions of reality at the same time, so their ability to ponder a false presentation of reality and then present it, is a skill they must develop.

      What we “drill into them with an iron fist,” is a willingness to hold onto an ideal and value that the world does not reward. You want to win friends and influence people? Lie to them. You want to set yourself up for constant alienation and outrage? Speak the truth.

      1. Bavieca June 4, 2015 at 12:37 am

        “You want to set yourself up for constant alienation and outrage? Speak the truth.”

        Let alone the truth, men nowadays can’t even speak their opinions without risking verbal and or physical consequences.

        Sally : So, Tom, whaddaya thunk of my friend Sally? She is a good girl and she kinda allow you to fancy her you know, teehee.

        Tom : Well….. I’m not into her.

        Sally : But why? She is such a good girl, are you gay or *GASP* hate women?

        Tom : I’m straight and I love my mother so I don’t hate women.

        Sally : Then why, why you’re not into her? Tell me why? I demand to know why!

        Tom : Um….she’s sorta…..err……you know………fat?

        Sally : OMG!! What a horrible thing to say!! How shallow can you be?? OMG!! You must have a tiny dick!!

      2. Clark Kent June 4, 2015 at 11:09 am

        Lol that happened to me last weekend.

      3. Bavieca June 4, 2015 at 11:27 am

        OMG! It surely must have been, like, so totally and insanely creepy and gross! OMG!

      4. Clark Kent June 4, 2015 at 11:39 am

        I had a couple people ask me where things are going between me and the girl and I almost spat out my coffee. It’s amazing to me how low men have allowed their standards to drop, especially for LTR material.
        For me a woman needs to at least be able to jump off the ground.

  11. Truth June 3, 2015 at 10:29 am

    Since you are reading the Old Testment now, you will notice many of your questions answered. Especially in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. You will notice too, that God reveals Himself as the final meaning of life, the one that satisfies our most primal inner need of being truly loved. He builds an ever expanding alliance first with one man, then with one family, then with a tribe, then with a nation, then with a kingdom, and finally with Humankind (in the New Testament). All the alliances (execpt the last one) are broken when humans go against their inner purpose and adopt “parasitic behaviours” that clearly challenge the Truth revealed.

    There is a reason why Christianity has grown from a tiny cult in middle east to a Global, civilization building force. Truth moves you with incredible power, it breaks the chains of the parasites that control you. The lives of Saints are the greatest rebuttal to Evolution. It cannot explain why the people who are role model to billions of humans are the ones that (mostly) did not reproduce at all.

  12. temmy9 . June 3, 2015 at 10:32 am

    Th only thing that matters is who has how many kids. We are still evolving. The future belongs to the Duggars, the Durka Durkas and the Africans.

  13. Doctor Doctor June 3, 2015 at 10:41 am

    At the moment it does seem that human evolution has reached a plateau. Our skills at sharing information and resources have minimized the impact of a “struggle for life” on the individual whereas other species face more constant threats from the wild. Presently, traits that we think should obviously lead to more surviving offspring, such as intelligence, do not produce this result. This is not necessarily counter to evolutionary theory, however, since it recognizes that evolutionary changes tend to occur in bursts (i.e. punctuated equilibrium). The old threats (starvation, the elements, predators, diseases) are not threatening us at the moment. If the earth’s temperature suddenly jumped 15 degrees or a highly communicable and deadly disease arises we might experienced a more pronounced period of selection.

  14. No BS June 3, 2015 at 10:44 am

    The cultural marxist paradigm that we all live under in this era is not natural. It is, at its core, anti-nature and anti-human. Hence, it is not surprising that the results it produces (i.e. the fit do not reproduce) go against what the Theory of Evolution suggests should happen. These results, however, are produced through artificial intervention and are not naturally occurring.

    Take away the cultural marxist control of the educational and media sectors of society and you would see society revert back to a more natural state consistent with Evolutionary Theory. Specifically, the “fit” would start having kids again.

    1. Doctor Doctor June 3, 2015 at 10:53 am

      Nobody wants to live in a society in a “natural state” where survival of the fittest is directly at play. Should we go back to drastically higher infant mortality, no modern medicine, no division of labor to efficiently produce goods including food etc.? If not, it’s inevitable that the “less fit” will prosper disproportionately.

      1. No BS June 3, 2015 at 11:26 am

        So cultural marxist control of the media and educational sectors of society equals lower infant mortality, modern medicine, and a more efficient economy? Funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

      2. Doctor Doctor June 3, 2015 at 11:45 am

        Perhaps you should seek out a cultural marxist educator to help with your reading comprehension.

    2. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 3:53 am

      “Take away the cultural marxist control of the educational and media sectors of society and you would see society revert back to a more natural state consistent with Evolutionary Theory.”
      ——————-
      Well, not exactly.
      Take away the technology that keeps liberals alive to preach their liberal B.S. and then you would see society rapidly revert to a more ‘natural’ state.
      (Note the quotes since what is a ‘natural’ anything? Urea is synthesized by the body. It can also be made in a lab. Are urea molecules synthesized in a lab made up of ‘artificial’ atoms? Plastic is carbon chemistry. So is biology. Why is one natural and the other not? It’s all ‘just so’ bullshit that has nothing to do with anything real.)
      Liberalism is where mutants (the ugly, the weak, the dumb) that would otherwise not survive are kept alive by technology.
      Eventually they come to outnumber the fit and when that happens they persecute the fit.
      And upon reflection persecution of the fit really is what liberalism (and cultural Marxism) is all about.

    3. oldfashionedfellow June 6, 2015 at 11:28 pm

      If the origins of life, and all it encompasses, is explained through the processes of evolution, including that of humanity, why are the so-called “artificial interventions” of human beings rather conveniently excepted from the natural process that creates all life, including human beings and everything about them? How can anything be artificial, and not natural, if its the product of human action, and human beings are themselves wholly a product of natural processes?

  15. Barwin June 3, 2015 at 10:46 am

    I’ve been reading the comments and I’m happy to see how many intelligent followers Roosh has. Most of the people I talk to, my friends and coworkers, and the girls I date, don’t actually have any understanding of evolution. They think it’s just something somebody said one day, or that every monkey will eventually become intelligent over millions of years, and that every basic organism will evolve into a complex organism. They don’t get that it’s moments in time of being the most suitable to its environment and then being able to reproduce, spread over millions of years of random events. But most people here really do get it. I think that signifies the intelligence of your readership.

    Something that’s always bothered me about living in North America is people’s inability for objectivity. It’s like the culture doesn’t teach people what being objective is. But people here make objective comments, objective observations, scientific observations, almost as if they were peer reviewed, or double blind executed. That’s why I like this community so much.

    1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 8:19 pm

      How’s this for objective.
      A new organ has never been proven to arise from evolution. Nor is there any good theory as to how a new organ can just pop into existence. And it all hinges on that. A freshwater fish can’t just swim into salt water and develop the organs to respirate, nor can it accidentally develop the organs to respirate in salt water and then swim into the ocean; the steelhead salmon is a total mystery.

      1. Barwin June 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm

        I would think organs would evolve, the same way organisms evolve. Initially a new organ would be nothing more than a mutation of a normal organism, like liver hypertrophy for example. But over millions of years and billions of co-incidences, any mutation can give one member of a species an advantage in survival, and make it more likely for that organism to pass on its genes, thereby giving its offspring the same mutation (but not necessarily). So, to think that evolution is invalid because entire developed organs haven’t been proven to pop up as mutations in members of any species isn’t a valid argument in my opinion. A freshwater fish’s offspring may not have salt water gills as a mutation, but it may have the ability to reside in salt water one minute, or a few minutes more than its brothers and sisters. That one minute, over millions of years and billions of members of any species, could mean the survival of that fish with that particular mutation, and the death of some of the others in those same surroundings. If that fish gets to reproduce, chances that its offspring could also reside in salt water longer than its ancestors are also higher, and so on.

      2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 11:22 pm

        You would like to think that organs evolve, yes, so would many others. Unfortunately, I would like to know, and you would like to think, and I am not satisfied with your lukewarm theory that is not supported by the math. How many species evolved over time and what is the mathematical rate and the probability given the number of modern species, and why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? AND you need to make this math work for the Cambrian Explosion.

        Your theory simply doesn’t answer my questions and that doesn’t even address the philosophical aspects of it, which are worse.

      3. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 4:06 am

        Sheeple on the right deny evolution but agree that men and women are naturally different.
        Sheeple on the left deny that men and women are different but agree that evolution is real.
        So I guess if you put half a right sheeple and half a left sheeple together you either get someone that makes perfect sense or one that makes no sense.

  16. Jack June 3, 2015 at 10:49 am

    Contraception is novel, and a new selective pressure. As sex drives and procreation drives become decoupled, those with the highest desire to procreate will be the ones having children, and will thus be the “fittest” from a Darwinian perspective.

    1. André June 3, 2015 at 4:14 pm

      Exactly. Replication has nothing to do with being the strongest or the most intelligent, or most ressourceful.. those genes that creates the greatest desire for having children are the ones that will survive to the next generation. If let’s say 60 percent have more than 2 children, that is a form of selection right there. Genes that create bodies that are more interested in wealth than in children arr bound to die.

      I disagree with roosh, for the first time in a very long time.

      There are no “good” genes.. No strong genes.. The only good genes are the ones who create bodies that want to have children (in this certain environment we are living in right now, hunting for wealth and status and never having children are “bad” genes, no matter how sofisticated a body and brain they are in..

      There is no striving for perfection in evolution. There are only those genes which happens to create behavior that happens to get more offspring than other allelles..

      While i do not think that darwins evolution is totally up to speed, i would suggest anyone interested in evolution to read “the mating mind” by geoffrey miller.

      He explains that striving for wealth and status and creative intelligence is all a show off, of a low mutational rate in the genome, and thereby, better chances of survival.
      The code for the brain takes up more than 50 percent of the genome. Thereby, a brain that is healthy, symmetric and can create beautiful language and get power will be an indicator of a low mutational / error rate in 50 percent of the genome.. And thereby, selecting a mate with a large healthy brain would get you off spring with fewer mutations, and thereby better chances of surviving to adulthood..

      It’s the same with testosterone. It is an immunosurpressor, therefor, signs og high testosterone is an indicator of a very healthy immunesystem.. And females will always be attracted to good immunesystems..

      So evolution can explain many of our behaviors..

      But evolution will by default always make individuals that are not so well adapted. And those with no desire for children, are very badly adapted for this certain environment we are in today. Had those same individuals been living during a time of famine or starvation or winter, maybe the desire to not have many children would make those few children survive into adulthood, instead of having ti take care of 10..

      Those who are poor but get way more genes into the next generation than the rich, are by evolutionary terms “better” and more fit..

      Fit are those who happens to put most surviving and reproducing offspring into the world. Even if they seem “unfit”.. Because evolution has no purpose.. And if there is an idea going on in the brains of people that they shouldn’t reproduce, then those brains who hold on to that idea just happens to be badly fitted for that environment which contains that idea of not reproducing..

      1. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 4:14 am

        “There is no striving for perfection in evolution.”
        ————–
        Agreed. The closest thing is a kind of chipping off of the edges that stops the moment the environment changes.

  17. incognitoperson June 3, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Blacks and Muslims are taking over

    Feminized populations are going extinct

    Evolution continues

  18. spicynujac June 3, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Without natural selection, and with the most educated, stable, intelligent choosing to have fewer children or none at all, while the lower classes breed away, isn’t it possible that humanity will actually devolve into a lesser state over time? This is the theme to Idiocracy, and I don’t see how it’s wrong.

    With democracy, the proclivity for social devolution is encouraged. Consider the “Debate American Style” video which documents the first all female all minority debate team winning the national championship by frantically screaming “nigga, queer, whitey, shit” and jumping around like an animal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

    Whereas systems with social tiers, especially under monarchy or some type of Platonic Republic, establishes some sort of separation between different classes, and would never allow, for example, a slutty Kim Kardashian to dominate the entertainment industry, Democracy is based on the idea that there is equality for all, and that the voice of the next ghettho welfare child that pops out has exactly the same voice, influence, and share of societal wealth that you, as an educated, rational, hard working, independent man from a good background have. And then when that same teen mother pops out kids 2, 3, 4, and 5, your voice and influence is further diluted.

    Why is there evolution? The world constantly changes. Changes in environments, weather, climate, population levels (both local and global) are constantly in flux. If organisms could not readily adapt to changes, they would be at far greater risk of dying out. But I think the deeper question you are getting at is why does life struggle to continue? Is there some greater consciousness or undiscovered connection between all living organisms? Why may not know the why, but observation of science shows us that life DOES struggle to succeed at all costs. If it did not, there would be no life in the first place.

    The section on genes being stupid and unable to recognize relatives is insightful. Not only could parents not identify their own children, but if one meets an attractive first cousin for the first time, there would be no genetic warnings to stop this evolutionarily destructive attraction. Perhaps evolution only works for the lower species where “spawning at all costs” is a biological goal. That is not a goal, as so eloquently stated in this article, of humans today.

    The question of “correct sex roles” cannot be easily answered. For what is the goal? The highest raw number of offspring? A stable society, with neither marked gains or losses in population levels? Economically stable family units? A population most conducive to civilization and technological and societal progress? Each of these answers would require markedly different ideal sex roles.

    This article seems to successfully debunk evolution as an explanation for modern human behavior. However, there are still components of evolutionary theory that ring true. For example, consider “Exponential growth in female preference”:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Exponential_growth_in_female_preference


    In species where intersexual selection is active, as in many polygamous birds, sexual selection acts by accelerating the preference that specific “fashion” ornaments attract, causing the preferred trait and female preference for it to increase together, explosively…plumage development in the male, and sexual preference for such developments in the female, must thus advance together, and so long as the process is unchecked by severe counterselection, will advance with ever-increasing speed. In the total absence of such checks, it is easy to see that the speed of development will be proportional to the development already attained, which will therefore increase with time exponentially

    Does this not partially explain the levels of clown game needed, and the development of Caitlin Jenner, driven by today’s female desires?

    1. Clark Kent June 3, 2015 at 10:25 pm

      I’ve thought about this at length.

      To overcome a woman’s attraction threshold you need to, as a man, compete not only with other men… but with the government, the images women see on TV, the cultural context, etc.

      This is why I don’t really put too much stock in the idea that one man is more “alpha” than another. Heartiste’s definition that alpha = the guy women want to fuck, is really the best one because it doesn’t judge the men in question in terms of their character or true value. You could have a brilliant scientist like Tesla single-handedly solve many of the world’s technological limitations, but he isn’t sexay because he doesn’t fit into the social mould that women are exposed to on a daily basis. If you change the culture or social environment however, and put him in a place where intelligence is valued, he all the sudden would become “alpha” would he not (assuming he isn’t utterly lacking in other areas)?

      I say this because in degenerate cultures, it’s the guy with the drugs that gets the most ass. In more developed cultures, it’s the brilliant and handsome man who gets the most ass. In wartime, it’s the strongest man who gets the most ass, etc. Society dictates what is valuable, and women are only concerned with securing a man that is deemed valuable in that particular social environment.

      What this means for men today is that they have to become caricatures rather than authentic human beings, and Roosh has touched on this before. Either that or you have to be incredibly smart or lucky and find a unicorn.

      1. spicynujac June 5, 2015 at 3:15 pm

        Ah, thanks for crystalizing that. Now the whole “alpha” label makes sense to me.

        So if our culture is one that rewards the degenerate, physically defiled, culturally ignorant, intellectually weak, morally bereft with ass, it is clear what our society values and what it does not. Is there any hope for the west? At all?

      2. Clark Kent June 5, 2015 at 6:11 pm

        Iunno man… Things are getting pretty weird…
        One thing I hope to see is more liberals realize how out of control things have gotten.

        You said you are/used to be a liberal. I used to be a liberal as well until I spent enough time around liberals in the academic sphere. Frankly I’ve developed more respect for the working man in the last couple years and it seems they tend to be more conservative on average; they have more respect for the meaning of hard work.

        I’ve noticed a couple buddies of mine who are staunchly liberal start to come out to question this whole SJW thing. I just don’t think they realized how whacky some of this stuff can get but it’s becoming more and more obvious everyday that we’re not dealing with rational thinkers. We’re breeding a generation of fools.

  19. Jack June 3, 2015 at 10:54 am

    “because any set of conditions that put humans through an evolutionary grinder are no longer present in modern civilization. ”

    Contraception and childless sex is an evolutionary grinder. In that sense, being a sexual success and being an evolutionary success are becoming more and more mutually exclusive.

    Its similar to the hyperconsumption of fats and sugars, which once had an evolutionary purpose, but now reduces fitness, both evolutionary and physical.

    1. spicynujac June 3, 2015 at 11:00 am

      A bird in the wild suffers no real loss to its quality of life by having baby birds. Sure, it has to collect a few more worms, but what the hell else is it going to do? A human (in the context of a family) suffers a very real hit to wallet, lifestyle, hobbies, and time by having children. Now if you just hit it and quit it, impregnate a girl and then disappear, maybe not so much, but then what would be the benefit to doing that at all? And then if you are ever caught, there are back years of child support.

      1. Jack June 3, 2015 at 11:04 am

        right, and there’s the rub… personal loss of money and free time is an evolutionary gain.

        The difference between ours and past evolutionary grinders is it now is pleasurable. Whereas in the past being an evolutionary failure meant you likely lived in celibacy and poverty, now it can mean lots of sex and shekels.

  20. Zuikurkler Yamizangthang June 3, 2015 at 10:55 am

    Life is a paradox.

  21. Krum June 3, 2015 at 11:09 am

    This review debunks it all:

    David Stove has fallen into an old trap of thinking. From the start, it is clear that Stove think that natural selection is about death and brutal competition. This is a common misconception, stemming from the poorly chosen phrase “survival of the fittest”. Natural Selection is about differential reproductive success. Obviously if one dies young before reproducing, that affects long term reproductive success, but it is not the only means by which differential reproduction occurs. For example, if a trait allows one to simply have more children than those without it, in the long run, those with the trait, could out-compete those without it. Simply by out-reproducing the others.

    1. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 4:24 am

      Evolution is just simple enough for the person of average intelligence to understand it clearly if they choose to and just complex enough for a person of average intelligence to totally misunderstand it ….. IF they choose to.
      Almost everyone that challenges it turns out to be of the latter camp.

  22. Krum June 3, 2015 at 11:25 am

    How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings?

    Sex without the end goal of conceiving, asexuality and homosexuality are explained by the theory which claims that in urban areas with dense population, some people choose (consciously or subconsciously) not to reproduce in order to reduce the population density.

    Which fits perfectly with evolution as it favours the improvement of the species as a whole over the fate of a certain individual.

  23. Boz June 3, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Biological information and inheritance (DNA) and extra-biological information and inheritance (culture) are distinct and irreducible though interdependent systems in constant dynamic interaction. Culture is an emergent phenomena of biology, but not reducible to it.

    And that’s why reductive biological explanations fail to take account of many of the phenomena that you point out, Roosh.

    We need a better theory that understands this distinction.

  24. Barwin June 3, 2015 at 11:48 am

    Just one last note, this will be my last comment on this post, I promise. I want to explain the correct definition for what an atheist is. Roosh, you for example, say you don’t believe in a God, but you don’t call yourself an atheist. Let’s have a look at the word atheist for a moment. What’s another word for religion? Theism. Do you follow any of the world’s religions? No, you don’t follow Christianity, Buddhism, Judaïsm, you’re not a Hindu or a Muslim. Therefore you are not religious. This means you are non-religious, or a-religious. Since “theism” is another word for religion, and you are a-religious, you are therefore a-theistic, or an atheist.

    It’s a strange thing how America makes up its own definitions of things. This idea that the majority of Americans has about “atheists” not believing in anything and judging all religions and not having any moral code or principles etcetera has nothing what so ever to do with what being an atheist actually means. It simply means not following any of the world’s mainstream religions. But of course, in America, if you call yourself an atheist, then you won’t get hired for jobs, nobody will marry you and you’ll pretty much be stigmatized and be a loser as a result, so even though a huge section of the population is actually atheist (as in a-religious), most people are deathly afraid to call themselves atheist, because of the wrong definiton that the majority of the population believes.

    This, again, comes down to a North American culturel lack of objectivity, which I’ve complained about in the comments on this post before.

    1. BernieGoetzFan June 3, 2015 at 3:34 pm

      I think you are reading too much into it. Most people – at least in the US – take an atheist as someone who simply does not believe in God. I have been an atheist for all my adult life and have hardly even received a raised eyebrow, let alone lost a job or a friend.

    2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 8:07 pm

      No. An atheist is someone who rejects theism. Not deism. Not Buddhism. Not paganism. Not witchcraft. Not animalism, gaia, or ancestor worship. He rejects theism. He points at “those people over there, those dumb ass Christians Muslims and Jews.” and says “I’m not one of them.”

      His interlocutor asks, “Well, who are you then?”

      The Atheist must respond, “Not one of them dumb asses over there. That’s for sure.”

      Atheism is dependent on the existence of theism. Any attempts to make up your own values and morals is nothing more than doing what you claim theists do: make up gods, religions, morals, and values to control the population.

      Call yourself non-religious. Or humanist. That would be more accurate and helpful to those who want to know what you’re for, instead of what you’re childishly stamping your little feet against..

      1. Barwin June 3, 2015 at 9:15 pm

        From dictionary.com:theism

        [thee-iz-uh m]
        Spell Syllables
        Word Origin
        noun
        1.
        the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, withoutrejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
        2.
        belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

        So, if you don’t believe in a god or gods, you are a-theistic.

      2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 11:15 pm

        Listen bro, I spent the last 10 years in Oregon. Hippies. Gaia. PETA. Buddhists. Pagans. Totem animals. Witchcraft. Parapsychology. UFOs. Bigfoot. One girl has ancestral tattoos. All of them claiming to be atheists. All of them practicing no religion, observing no gods.

        That meets the definition of atheist. They have no religion or gods. They believe in spirits, powers, mysteries, and the metaphysical.

      3. Barwin June 4, 2015 at 2:03 am

        I don’t really see how any of that is relevant. All I’m saying is: Roosh does not believe in a god, therefore he is a-theistic, according to the dictionary’s definition, but still he won’t identify as an atheist, like so many Americans who are afraid to call themselves such because they think it will stigmatize them in society. And it does. My relative in Fresno, California, is an engineer and manager for an electrical company, and he told me: “I would never hire an atheist.”, now are you going to tell me, that if a regular dude in Fresno, an engineer, who is by the way pretty darn representative of the Californian population, makes that statement, that there are not millions more in the Bible belt that would rather die than hire or marry an atheist? All I’m saying is that millions of Americans are closet atheists, because they’re afraid to use the word, afraid to be labeled and to be outcast, especially in the deep south.

  25. Greg Krehbiel June 3, 2015 at 11:52 am

    Good article, but isn’t the issue relatively simple — that evolution created who we are today, but another process is now taking over? And isn’t the reason pretty obvious — that while in the past “sex drive” correlated directly with “make babies,” it doesn’t anymore?

  26. Molnár András June 3, 2015 at 11:55 am

    I feel Roosh you think too much of evolution=reproduction. Also, Darwin never said that the “strongest” and most “fit” survive, he said the most adaptable. It is a common misconception.

    Darwin proved evolution on animals, in natural settings. But man is the kind of animal who changes its environment, on a scale that makes the natural evolutionary process

    moot. It could easily be that the current civilization will be an evolutionary dead end, a maladaptation. It’s worth remembering, that history is under no obligation to give us the future we think we want.

    1. Ke June 3, 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Right. To expand on your point, it’s worth noting that human history itself is very short, a blink of an eye in terms of natural history.

      The virtuous cycle of advanced social behaviors and technological processes that gave rise to civilization occurred only 10 to 12 thousand years ago. That’s less than 500 generations.

    2. Gokus-penson June 3, 2015 at 1:17 pm

      How to increas our Acount balance with rooshv … kEEP READING

    3. Sgt POG June 3, 2015 at 6:04 pm

      I am a creationist and I understand evolution better than almost every evolutionist I’ve ever met. So let me share something simple with you.

      You cannot ascribe teleology to evolution. There are no mal adaptations. Nothing in the evolutionists cosmos cares about adaptations, or even survival. The evolutionary cosmos is random, chaotic, unordered, temporary, shifting, aimless, meaningless. The whole cosmos is. The whole cosmos must.

      Therefore there is no natural evolutionary process. There is no moot. There is nothing that won’t change, won’t evolve. Evolution must evolve. Reason can evolve. Or devolve. Even the word devolution implies teleology.

      Evolution just is.

      Everything that is is evolution.

      Period full stop.

      Nonsense I say.

    4. koseph Finn June 6, 2015 at 4:54 pm

      it’s very Easy with rooshv … kEEP READING

    5. Melissa Gandarinho June 11, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      How to earn money with rooshv … kEEP READING

    6. WadeABillington June 25, 2015 at 6:04 am

      Your first choice rooshv Find Here

  27. Visionquest June 3, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Good article Roosh. And I’d like to point out that children born today are a result of a broken condom, ineffective birth control pill or simply a reckless one night stand.

    Not great way to start out life – how does that make anyone feel knowing that they were born because they were an accident!

  28. Cameron Pritchard June 3, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Substitute the idea that the “will to reproduce” as the driving force/motivator, albeit perhaps unconsciously, and replace it with the “will to power,” the result is interesting. Using this latter notion to explain human motivation, I think a lot of the apparent contradiction between modern human behavior in our late capitalist state and evolutionary theory will be resolved. Reproduction is one manifestation of the will to power – the dominant or perhaps the only one for organisms other than humans. However, humans with their advanced frontal lobes have “evolved” beyond their animal counterparts in terms of how the will to power may manifest itself. The point, if one insists on using teleological language, is “growth,” in the abstract. Reproduction/cloning yourself is one possible course of action. We need to think about how these altruistic behaviors etc can be recast and understood not as a repudiation of evolutionary theory, but rather an extension of it, if personal or collective growth is taken on in this thought experiment, and not reduce everything to reproduction/cum shots.

    There is a lot of difficulty here: the opposition between individual and collective action; the conflict between goal-directed language that we can’t seem to help using and the constant reiteration that evolution, properly understood, eschews goal directed or teleological thinking; the conflict between biology and then socio-biology (the latter making much more dubious prescriptive claims than the first; and then the ultimate age-old battle between free-will and determinism (the puppet master is nothing other than the lion of determinism).

    Roosh seems to be rejecting biological determinism – or determinism in all its forms – and for that, I tip my hat. In this way, he seems to be joining a long line of existentialist thinkers. The will to power as described previously, is the mind-child of one such thinker, Nietzsche. I have no particular attachment to any of his ideas, but rather merely am presenting this as food for thought.

  29. Andrew June 3, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    There’s actually a more simple explanation that does not contradict Darwin’s Theory: human consciousness is not an adaptive advantage in this world, or has ceased to be.

    1. Krum June 3, 2015 at 12:33 pm

      U G Krishnamurti says that thinking is a neurological defect or a mutation that might cost us dearly in the end.

      Thinking people tend to have less children.

    2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:54 pm

      This is one I will agree with as a creationist.
      If evolution is true, the human is a sad cosmic joke parading as the world’s master, the most wise and wonderful master in all the horrific cold dead universe.

      To wit: If evolution is true, kill yourself.

  30. Week of Rodanne June 3, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, plain and simple. Natural selection has nothing to do with the members of a species with the greatest amount of resources/abilities having the most offspring. Individuals that survive and reproduce pass on their traits to the next generation, which will continue to be passed on so long as those traits do not hinder future generations ability to survive and reproduce. Thus, the people you speak of in low income neighborhoods that have more offspring than they can afford are in a way the most fit individuals for the current welfare state environment, as not being able to afford children does not hinder your ability to reproduce, others just end up paying for them. You could certainly make an argument for this being bad for society as a whole, but natural selection is working exactly as it is supposed to; individuals who are able to most efficiently use their environment to survive and reproduce pass on those traits and behaviors.

  31. Jacob Donohoe June 3, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Tbh, I don’t think there’s any girl out there worthy of my seed in today’s climate

    It’s a controlled and conscious choice, which is quite peculiar no? that until I find a girl decent enough physically, emotionally etc I won’t impregnate any others in the meantime. It would be too much of a biological risk. Likely careerism in women, and general loss of classic nurturing traits have driven me to this point.

  32. Evolution is kewl June 3, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Evolution does apply. Here is a logical argument as to why and where your argument fails.

    Humans are not adapted to the modern environment. The environment has changed significantly over the past hundred years. As such, there are several maladaptive traits humans have for this environment that would have been useful in a past environment.

    You have not produced children due to contraception.Your urge is satisfied when you have sex and not when you have babies; as such the invention of contraception effectively reduced the amount of children you produced from 100 billion or however much sex you’ve had to 0, or 1 or 2 should that ever happen.

    Evolution has not yet caught up to all these changes. Yet… it still applies because it gives a framework for understanding what traits and behaviours WOULD be effective. This is the basis of all game.

    1. Sgt POG June 3, 2015 at 6:30 pm

      Why only pick his arguments for the modern environment? He gave arguments regarding the ancestral environment too.

      Not good enough.

    2. Roosh June 3, 2015 at 6:55 pm

      “You have not produced children due to contraception.”

      My ‘contraception’ is the pullout method. So the modern invention of contraception does not impact me at all, and yet I pull out diligently and without hesitation. The pullout method has been in use for thousands of years. The fact that I can even do this consistently, you’d think, would have gotten weeded out generations ago.

      1. Barwin June 3, 2015 at 9:12 pm

        That’s a bit worrying. There is such a thing as pre-ejaculate that can quite easily impregnate a female, even if you pull out when the ejaculation is about to come. Have you been tested for sperm fertility or sperm count? If you’ve slept with this many women and you’ve always pulled out, statistically your pre-ejaculate should have made quite a many of them pregnant if you had normal sperm count and fertility. I don’t mean any offense but it may be a good idea to get a simple test done, that way at least you know. I pulled out once on a Hungarian girl in Hungary, and even though I did it correctly, she still got pregnant, and had an abortion. This is 10 years ago but still, just trying to make a point here.

      2. kanaq82 June 4, 2015 at 1:26 am

        Pre ejaculate itself does not contain sperm.
        Pre ejaculate can, however, pick up sperm leftover in the urethra from a previous ejaculation. That’s how pregnancy from pre-ejaculate happens.
        For example, if you ejaculate, then urinated a couple times. odds are your urethra would be cleaned out and thus the next pre-cum would not have sperm in it.

        pre ejaculate in itself does not contain sperm, it can only pick up strands of sperm leftover in your urethra

      3. Barwin June 4, 2015 at 1:50 am

        Yes, sure, but if you think of how many women Roosh has had condomless sex with, I still think that statistically he should have knocked at least a few girls up by accident.

    3. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:23 pm

      “Evolution does apply. Here is a logical argument as to why and where your argument fails. Humans are not adapted to the modern environment.”
      i.e. Evolution does not apply to modern humans. The very title of the freaking blog post.

  33. practicallyperfect June 3, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    It is for thought provoking insights like this I appreciate the men of the manosphere. Lately I’ve wondered if we had it wrong with regards towards reproduction. Perhaps we should be encouraging only those who feel an intense drive or need to reproduce to do so, and the rest… I’m not sure about.

  34. Tamas June 3, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    There is also an evolution of ideas (social order, religion, weapons, technology) paralell to the biological evolution. When you have an offspring its not just your genes you pass on but also basic heuristics from how to build and use an axe to how to start a cult. When you are Isaac Newton its not the reproduction of biological genes you are passing on but your legacy is a cornerstone of physics and technology, and those “idea genes” will be credited to you for a long time.

    This explains modern society, technology and even feminism well and it is only a small addition to basic darwinian evolution. There is a limited amount of brain capacity for humans and those ideas compete ferociously to survive and propagate themselves to other humans. If you consider the idea and biological genes competing at the same time a lot of the book’s arguments fall apart like a house of cards.

  35. General Stalin June 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    This author’s interpretation of the theory of evolution is a little flawed, which I think in turn is clouding your judgment about it. Many people before my comment hasv explained this so I won’t go on about it, but I will add this:

    Humans have beat survival. We are the top of the food chain totem pole by a HUGE margin. There is no biologically urgent need for us to increase our numbers to survive as a species. Seagulls aren’t picking off our babies by the thousands as they crawl their way across the beach, if you catch my drift. Sharks aren’t picking us off as we dive off the ice berg to eat some herring. We are living in complete biological prosperity – hell over half of the USA is overweight because we have such an abundance of resources that we haven’t even properly developed a way for our bodies to deal with it. If anything we need a form of population control – which is where contraception and abortion come in. China actually has federal regulations put in place to limit population growth. You think India and China have issues reproducing?

    This mass anti-reproduction is almost exclusively a phenomenon of the Western World. Brought on completely by cultural and social conditioning. If you read over the history of birth control – it only became a mainstream and wide-spread topic in the 20th century, and it started in Western Europe (Britain). The baby-free sex is a trend of the last 100 years. I would venture to say the pursuit of sexual intercourse without resulting in reproduction is simply a human social construct. Can it be called “natural” or “unnatural” that we gravitate towards this? Is it “natural” or “unnatural” that we glorify perceived degeneracy while shaming and demonizing traditional views of masculinity and social dynamics?

    I do know one thing; the time line of contraception and women’s suffrage started around the same time and progressed parallel to one another. All tropes of progressivism – to which no one knows the endgame.

    1. Libertas June 3, 2015 at 1:37 pm

      “Humans have beat survival. We are the top of the food chain totem pole by a HUGE margin.”

      This is a highlight of why I suggested that Roosh look at some of Hagens’ work. He makes a few key points that are almost stupefying – when you look at the combined weight of humanity, we outweigh every other species on planet earth. BY FAR.

      The second point he makes is that we have an obscene amount of energy available to us beyond what our bodies naturally burn. Whereas most organisms have to struggle just to get enough energy to make a living, we have available to us an energy supply that it makes us for all intents and purposes gods. One barrel of oil alone is about 11 years worth of human labor in terms of energy content.

      This has allowed us to segue into his third point – we use about 40% of the combined resources on the planet available to all life, and that number is increasing rapidly.

      And even before the industrial revolution, agriculture basically ensured our ascendancy to imperial masters of life on earth (again, an easily available energy source when you get to the barebones). We are so overwhelmingly dominant as a species that we can and are doing with the entire planet what we wish.

      Even with the problems of resource depletion (which will limit our population growth unless something changes), this fact isn’t going to change. Survival is simply not a concern for us as a species anymore. We might even be able to get out of a KT-like event intact, though obviously many billions would die.

  36. Kevin Lauder June 3, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    Evolution works over large populations over long periods of time. Specifically on those without our complex social structures that play a role in controlling our reproduction. We are the only beings with culture. We have effectively evolved beyond the confines of genetic selection. Just like we have done for various species of domesticated animals.

    Evolution has no way of predicting the future and seeing the consequences of intelligence. It is merely a result of certain organisms surviving and others not.

    Being a hunter gatherer selects for powerful brain that can develop models of the world around us. This has consequences on our abilities in other contexts.

    We have essentially grown out of natural selection. So I agree that evolution doesn’t account for human beings without taking culture into consideration.

    1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:48 pm

      “We have effectively evolved beyond the confines of genetic selection”

      In other words, we have effectively been genetically selected beyond genetic selection.

      Makes perfect sense.

      1. Kevin Lauder June 4, 2015 at 2:42 pm

        Correction. We have selected ourselves out of natural selection.

    2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 11:13 pm

      We broke evolution.
      We have become God.

      1. Kevin Lauder June 4, 2015 at 2:43 pm

        Bingo.

  37. Kevin Lauder June 3, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    TL;DR Our brains and culture allow us to change faster than just the effects of evolution.

    1. spicynujac June 5, 2015 at 3:17 pm

      This movie gets less and less funny each year.
      It was only funny when it was ironic.

  38. Hank June 3, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    I wish this article would’ve made comparisons with (or at least mentioned) the behaviors of the mice in John Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments. These experiments suggest that social species may be unable to cope with rapid social change and therefore die out. In other words, they actually aren’t fit at all despite how they may seem at first glance, and so they die out as evolutionary theory predicts.

    1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:12 pm

      So evolution has failed to program them to survive in those rapidly changing social conditions. Great theory. I’ve also heard that fish fail to survive when taken out of water. Evolution predicts that with fish, too.

      John Calhoun’s experiment, like most of science and biology, have nothing to say or do with the theory of evolution. Almost everything carried out by science and biology can be continued if you were able to press a button and delete the theory of evolution from humankind’s mind.

  39. Mik June 3, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Nature is dirty. The “paper alpha” doesn’t seduce the girl no matter how logically deserving he appears… unless he busts a move. The “paper patriarch” doesn’t reproduce like a Mongol king… unless he actually busts a move. Your plan to sire 100s of kids: sounds great! So do it! If you do not, it’s merely an ego exercise: you lack the requisite fitness in deed, like the paper alpha who won’t approach a girl. What is it, holding you back? Whatever ‘it’ is – that is why you are unfit, plain and simple.

    Endless sex without reproduction is like endless eating without concern for health: unfit gluttony. Natural selection is still going on… and the sex gluttons with 100s of partners and no children are still failing at something relevant to human fitness – regardless of their pick-up acumen or standard of Western living. I don’t know what that ‘something’ is: perhaps they are paralyzed by selfishness, have self-loathing about certain qualities of their being or selves which they do not want to reproduce, or lack the paternal capacity to ensure any children themselves can survive and thrive. Even a nanny state is insufficient to guarantee your 100 bastards are not mainly dead-ends themselves (or nuked by a non-nanny state). One reliable way to ensure your children are not dead-ends is to take some oversight in fathering them yourself.

    Rich or poor, player or putz, the risk to sire children is still real – a type of natural risk-taking which is being selected for right now… evolution at work.

  40. Blaster June 3, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    Evolution says “species change over time.” Evolution does not say that every individual organism always tries to have as many children as possible, except maybe when food is scarce.

    Evolution does explain a general drive for individuals to pass on genes, in that organisms that don’t bother to pass on their genes will die out. But it doesn’t predict exactly how this will manifest in every species. Humans, clearly, seem to possess some degree of drive to propagate in every individual. And while some people are less likely to breed than others, humans are the most numerous non-rodent mammal on the planet by orders of magnitude so I think they’re doing a pretty good job. But there’s plenty of room for individual organisms to not have any individual incentive to pass on their personal genes. Female worker bees are an obvious example. Only queens and drones breed. Worker bees just work for the benefit of the queen. There are similar, more subtle dynamics in species like wolves, where, when in a pack situation, only the alpha male breeds with the alpha female while the rest of the pack does not breed at all.

    > When evolutionists discuss altruism

    When evolutionists discuss altruism, the first thing they do is define altruism precisely and as it relates to a species rather than an invidual, because evolution is about the change in species over time not about the invidual behavior of a specific organism at a single point in time.

    They exclude what you describe as “altruism” from “true altruism” in two ways: First, it does not count behavior that is more accurately described as mutually beneficial. A great deal of human social activity is mutually beneficial rather than strictly altruistic. Second, is that behavior that is altruistic from an inividual perspective but beneficial to genetic reatives, especially close genetic relatives like family and friends, also does not count for the purposes of evolution. Even if you don’t personally have children, your close genetic relatives did and your species did in general, and so your species survived and still exists today– which is the main thing evolution explains.

    > Say you encounter an article …

    The flaw here is not Evolution, rather the design of the test. It’s this scenario itself that is unfalsifiable due to the vagueness of the definitions. What is “war”? Why is “going to war” assumed to demonstrate genetic fitness or aphaness? Why are the genetic consequences of your population being conquered or wiped out not considered? Who are the men in each scenario breeding with? Are the men who go to war breeding with a local, foreign population or did they breed with their wives back home before they left or after they got back? Why does this scenario have to be mutually exclusive? Why can’t there be some scenarios where men who go off to war have more children, and some scenarios where men who stay home have more children? Both scenarios are obviously possible. Again this points to a problem with the design of the test, not Evolution.

    1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:42 pm

      Species change over time is not the definition of evolution, nor is it special or unique to evolutionists, nor do you need to understand evolution to know that species change over time, nor does the fact that species change over time imply evolution.
      Species change over time. Utterly fucking useless, dude. Wow, so impressed.

      1. Blaster June 3, 2015 at 8:48 pm

        Yes, it is. That is the fundamental premise of evolution. Any argument against evolution that does not at least recognize this is inevitably going to be a straw man.

        More precisely, evolution is the theory that the diversity of life that we observe on the planet today and the evidence of life that has lived in the past can be explained by some mechanisms of heredity. Yes, “species change over time” is using very simple words, but it’s succinct and correct.

        And no, it’s not “fucking useless” lol. It’s the whole goddamn point. One of the most fundamental things that evolution predicts is that you will never find a species “out of order.” That is, you’ll never find a fossil of a human that existed before the dinosaurs, because no species had changed into humans yet. That definition of evolution is falsifiable, and yields falsifiable hypotheses and ultimately has predictive value.

      2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 10:39 pm

        The fundamental premise of evolution is that all creatures came from a common ancestor via a natural process whereby organisms develop more and more complex organs.

        The “complex process” is unknown and unobserved, and as posited in its numerous forms not logical nor mathematically likely.

  41. Davis M.J. Aurini June 3, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Have you read “The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics”? I think it might contain the answer you’re looking for – the author splits a Gordian Knot that’s been tearing at evolutionary theory for almost a century.

    First off, I think it’s important that Evolution is more like strategy than science. Even woo-woo sciences like climatology (which run into problems of chaos theory, making them easily manipulable by political ideas) ultimately boil down to measurable physical causes. There might be a dozen other factors to consider when raising the CO2 rates (the positive-feedback of having more trees, the effects on cloud formation, the prevalence of particulates in the air from volcanic erruptions and their interaction with this gas) but – hypothetically – you could create a model that predicts what would happen if CO2 rates went from X to X+Y.

    Strategy – unlike science – is games within games within games. This is why, in books like Robert Greene’s “The 48 Laws of Power” nearly ever law comes with a reversal; deception and honestly go hand in hand. Strategy fails at being predictive – when studying examples of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, researchers are able to explain *in retrospect* what the best strategy was, but they’re unable to predict that strategy before hand – and even then, their explanations of the ‘best’ strategy are merely probabilistic, a single black swan (a competitor who’s a psychopath, for example) can utterly skew any single iteration.

    Evolution – by its very nature – can *never* be predictive with absolute certainty. We can make guesses about what will happen to finch’s beaks, but we can never be certain. This is why evolution will sometimes propose opposite explanations. *Sometimes* the cowards outbreed the warriors; other times the warriors outbreed the cowards. The physical factors (food availability, environment) inform these outcomes, but they’re couched in recursive spirals of deception and strategy.

    Enter the Gordian Knot that I mentioned above: group selection. For the past century this has been an albatross on evolutionary theory. On the one hand, every theory of altruism (an observable fact) demands some sort of group selection; on the other, it’s obvious that the selfish gene theory completely precludes group selection. The author of “Evolutionary Theory” creates a solution, informed by his own understanding of strategy and game theory.

    Who is the most direct competitor of the gazelle? The lion, or fellow gazelles? That’s the sort of wrong-question that science has been asking, turning it into an either-or. The answer is both; that there are two strategies that gazelle can adapt, one is a fitness strategy to out-compete the lion, the other is a reproductvie strategy to out-breed the other gazelles. Following up on this, there a recursive behaviours within the gazelle tribe. Too much cheating (r-strategy) hurts everybody, but too much K-strategy hurts them as a whole. As a community, they’ll develop signalling-mechanisms to punish r-type outliers, while still permitting a baseline of r-type that avoids falling prey to the signalling.

    The use of prophylactics in humans takes on traits of both r and K type strategies. It’s K to the extent that it signals “I’m an ideal partner, since I’m responsible enough to have safe-sex”; it’s r to the extent that it states “I’m not invested in quality of offspring, I’m metaphorically abandoning them at the orphanage”.

    The proof of his theory is in its application; strategy can never explain to the ignoramus what they should do at any given time (any more than you can truly explain the right time to neg a girl to somebody who doesn’t understand the mythical core underlying game), but once you understand strategy to the core you can begin applying all of this. His theory will never be predictable in a quantifiable, scientific manner – but when you put it into application, you will see tremendous results any time you argue with Liberals (the politics of the r-type); it gives you avenues for out-manoeuvring them, and putting them into a self-destructive tail-spin.

    These are meta-scientific concepts; meta-magical even. The repeating, fractal-like patterns of strategy that occur in war, politics, and the evolution of the species. Meta-concepts can never be objectively predictable the way science wants knowledge to be (a pretence of the 17th century’s clockwork universe – that crude logic is sufficient to understand the universe). So in this sense, Evolution was never a ‘true’ scientific theory – but it has a deeper truth to it, if you know where to look.

  42. Mark Boris June 3, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    Oh Roosh, Roosh, Roosh. I am sorry for you. You don’t believe in God and you don’t believe in evolution. Yet you still recognize the need for meaning and realize you can’t get it from ejaculating inside a woman. You are truly lost. I’d be willing to bet you don’t find what you’re looking for for a very long time.

    (Source: “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until we rest in you.” –Some Guy)

    1. Marshallaw June 3, 2015 at 5:21 pm

      I never ejaculate inside a woman. Usually I’ll pull out just before I get the urge and blow my muck on her face/tits. The ladies love it, yes they do…

  43. Quintus Curtius June 3, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Interesting article. I think it would be a mistake for anyone to try to use evolutionary theories to explain his or her own life. This is because evolutionary processes take place over vast spans of time. Evolution concerns itself with the life of the species, not the life of the individual.
    An individual man may not reproduce, but someone somewhere else will. Modern Western society may be hostile to healthy family formation, but people will breed nonetheless. The fertility of the simple and the poor will always outpace that of the solitary thinker.

    1. spicynujac June 3, 2015 at 6:04 pm

      Quite true. And indeed even with trends such as MGTOW, delay of marriage, number of single people at an all time high, divorce rape, etc., still, go out and you see babies and families everywhere. Perhaps there is not such a strong biological drive to reproduce simply because it is not needed. Someone somewhere else is doing it, probably earlier and more frequently than you ever considered. The population continues to expand rapidly. So a line of homo sapiens may continue. The question is, what will their society look like in the future?

    2. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 10:28 am

      i propose the perspective that it is the intelligent man who refuses to adapt to the masses instead of the masses refusing to adapt to the intelligent man. maybe the intelligent man is simply he who recognizes that making children is not that good a choice for himself, himself being more rewarded by intellectual pursuits and self-development perhaps.

  44. EvoIsWhatItIs June 3, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    “Survival of the fittest”
    The definition of fittest does not mean most strong, resourcesfull or being able to fuck a lot of girls.
    Being fit means having the ability and motivation to reproduce in current environment.

    Now, ask yourself why are you not fit? maybe being stupid or ignorant of the current fem centric environment is being more fit.

    1. incognitoperson June 3, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      Agree. Fitness is reproductive success.

      1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 6:49 pm

        Yet evolution cares not for success, reproduction, fitness, or anything. It cares not about extinction, fratricide, homicide, deicide. Only you care. Why do you care? WHY? Because you evolved to care? Because evolution made a mistake in making you care?
        Or because evolution is wrong?

      2. incognitoperson June 3, 2015 at 10:20 pm

        Long term happiness is tied to fertility. Living things are meant to multiply. Otherwise mental illness sets in. Depression and suicidality are higher in developed nations with low fertility than they are in poor nations with high fertility.

        So, we have evolved to care about reproduction. Most “red pillers” will eventually reproduce, and their offspring will become the most important things in their lives, more important than themselves even. It’s natural.

      3. Sgt POG June 5, 2015 at 11:32 am

        None of what you said applies to plants or bacteria.

        And living things are not meant to do anything, let alone multiply.How many have not multiplied!

    2. Sgt POG June 3, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      Yes. Survival of the fittest is of the fittest for survival. A tautology. An absurdity.

      1. Blaster June 3, 2015 at 9:00 pm

        It’s not a tautology, it’s a known result with unknown factors. A next reasonable step in a scientific process would be to attempt to discover and isolate those specific factors to learn what they are.

      2. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 10:25 pm

        Survival of the fittest is useless. It doesn’t tell us anything important that we didn’t already know before evolution. It doesn’t explain how genes signal and cooperate to create new morphology, new organs. All it says is that the fittest adaptations result in survival and those adaptations carry forward. No freaking shit. That’s been known a long long time and has nothing to do with evolution.

        Just because one species went extinct and its cousin didn’t doesn’t mean anything about either particular species’ fitness. Neither species was more “fit for survival.” The environment merely changed. If you could transport the extinct species to a different environment you would say that it was fit to survive. Instead of calling this “survival of the fittest” you could easily call this “winner of natural lottery” or “survival among randomness.”

      3. CellNecrosis June 3, 2015 at 11:31 pm

        Dude, just shut up already. Everyone’s tired of your bullshit.

      4. Sgt POG June 5, 2015 at 11:34 am

        GFY

      5. EvoIsWhatItIs June 5, 2015 at 2:33 pm

        Well there are some good points in regard to the environment in your reply, yet I will say this:
        1. Survival of the fittest first and foremost give as a frame to look and understand the evolution over a long period of time.
        2. While it is closely tied to the environment, saying “winner of natural lottery” is beautifully describe evolution in the sense that the randomness is both on the gene side and on the environment side, that does not take anything from the statement “Survival of the fittest” due.
        Our genes, although random to some degree are not completely random and radical changes in the environment does not occur every other day.

        And to the point:
        Given the current environment (Be it physical or political or both), and given our genes which made us who we are (beautiful, smart, manipulative, depressive, don’t want to have a child in the current political environment or whatever), the most fit will reproduce and this have any sense only in looking back and trying to understand why the fuck humans are the way they are 400 years in the future.

      6. SgtPOG June 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm

        Randomness does not exist anywhere in nature. It has not been proven or observed. It is philosophically impossible, and to use “randomness” in a discussion of science is anti-science. Citing “randomness” is identical to saying “it’s magic.”

  45. InPursuitOfTruth123 June 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    There seem to be two distinct ideas that you’re grouping together under the banner “evolution” or “Darwinism.”

    1.) A mechanism by which biodiversity is realized through random gene permutations that, over generations, lead to the evolution of distinct species.

    2.) A mechanism by which maladaptive genes are culled from the population.

    I would argue that inasmuch as evolution entails the first item, it has an abundance of evidence in support of its truth. This much holds true for humans as well as animals: consider skin pigmentation, for example.

    The second item is the portion of the whole with weaker evidence and more potential caveats specifying how exactly the process manifests. This portion does not seem to apply to humans much, if at all, especially in modern society. Even in animals there is the possibility of such culling taking place gradually, perhaps due to climate change, or suddenly, due to a disastrous event such as an asteroid impact.

    Viewing evolution not as a causal process, moving forwards in time by virtue of its effect upon individual behavior, but rather as an explanatory device, working out retrospectively how present realities arose due to characteristics and dynamics of the underlying system, seems to be a way to reconcile the apparent contradictions you bring up in your article.

    As an aside, I found the sentence

    “If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory.”

    to be the most valuable of the whole article because it speaks to the need to reflect upon our own assumptions and reasoning processes so that we do not fall into the trap of rationalizing our behaviors after-the-fact, rather than thinking clearly up-front about what we want to do and why. Self-justification and rationalization of mistakes, i.e. playing the victim, are, in my view, the most harmful and dehumanizing habits plaguing modern society, especially women. As I hope to avoid such errors in my own thinking, your highlighting the way in which evolution can be used in that way was valuable to me.

  46. enriquegp June 3, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Roosh, there are some very thoughtful responses on here, especially from Quintus Curtius and Davis Aurini. You are in no place to criticize the theory of evolution, as it seems you don’t really grasp what a scientific theory even is. I mean this in the same way that you are in no position to criticize the theory of gravity, or music theory, or, to put it into perspective, theories in high-level theoretical physics – even if you understood the basics, you are still extremely ignorant up until the point that you have dedicated decades of your life to the study of it.

    1. Blaster June 3, 2015 at 8:52 pm

      While I agree, I do think it’s quite fair to criticize “evolution proponents” like Richard Dawkins as well as pop science literature that tries use evolution to explain everything. I don’t entirely blame Roosh for not getting the definition of evolution right, since its most vocal proponents tend to not get it right either.

  47. TFD123 June 3, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    We (and other animals) didn’t evolve to *want to reproduce*. We evolved to have an uncontrollable biological urge to mate.

    For most animals, that primal urge to mate results in offspring. For humans, it looks like we’ve become so smart and conscious (at least, those of use with low time preferences) that we’ve figured out how to abundantly enjoy the mating, while avoiding the time-consuming & life-altering aftereffect of offspring.

    In other words – based on current trends, it looks like high IQ and low time preferences are being selected out. (Or at least, these traits won’t be as abundant in future generations as compared to lower IQ and higher time preferences.)

    Evolution / natural selection doesn’t select for things that are “good”. Just for whatever results in offspring. It’s not a conscious process that says “hey, I’m gonna select for this”.

    Evolution is just a way of logically describing the biological concept that “whatever traits result in more offspring… well those traits are going to be more abundant in the next generation”. And right now high IQ & low time preferences look like they’re going to be less abundant in the next generation. So be it. (Or at least, high IQ & low time preferences *in combination with the personality type that desires to live a hedonistic lifestyle for yourself*. Aka the educated secular segment of the population.)

  48. Taco Idol June 3, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    I got halfway and have to go do something right now, but right off the bat the error of logic here is assuming there are no mitigating factors in play that can suppport Darwin’s theory. One factor is that organisms have a finite amount of energy…being deceptive ALL of the time would put a strain on the species beyond what might support even having a species. There needs to be down-time between competitive moments, or else the population dies. Also, organisms have reward/punishment mechanisms…if somebody wants to donate to a charity, they may be losing resources, but be gaining social access to wider community of potential mates or tribesmen of similar culture. Not everything is feirce competition, some things are merely a win-win for mutual parties. Competition like many things have grey areas. If you killed you best friend in ancient times because you wanted his wife, well that may not be the best thing because when someone came to kill you he would not be around to help defend your tribe. What I’m saying is, sometimes taking a loss is not a loss at all..it’s really just making the best chess move.

  49. blake richards June 3, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Darwin’s theory stopped applying to us humans the minute we got out of the food chain. We’re not in the cycle of life anymore. We raise animals and plants to eat. What other organism on Earth does that?

    1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:29 pm

      And when did we get out of the food chain? It could be when God breathed the breath of life into a construct of dust and pulled a rib out for all you know.

  50. Joe Shanley June 3, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Outstanding Article, Roosh. While I too think there is a place for evolution in science, I have never thought it applied much to humans. The nature of people suggests that human beings transcend evolution, for the reasons you listed. You are right. We have traded one god for another, but this one is no kind and loving god.

  51. Roosh June 3, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    It’s great to see that pretty much everyone here agrees that the reason for their individual existence is not to “survive and reproduce.” Instead, they are defending group evolution by the likes of EO Wilson, which is not a mainstream flavor of evolution and heavily criticized by the academic establishment (i.e. it has not received any type of consensus).

    For those who have suggested that it takes time for humans to adapt to modern living (the “Just wait 1,000 years argument”), what is stopping them from specifically adapting to internet addiction and condoms right now to begin their evolutionary destiny and pass on their genes before its too late?

    1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 7:37 pm

      Weak point in your second paragraph. Evolution of any stripe would predict that eventually, for any reason, humans will develop an organ, behavior, or social network that will address any weaknesses.
      Now, nobody has seen an organ pop out of nowhere, but behaviors and social networks certainly do pop up in organisms, although evolution would not be required to explain a new behavior or social network.

      The best adaptation evolution can point to is bacteria adapting slightly to a hostile environment over many generations. Pretty weak. No new organs. Adaptations of pre-existing abilities not far outside of their original parameters. It would be like saying after boiling 15 generations of frogs in a pot, the 15th generation was able to survive up to 101 degrees Fahrenheit, A NEW SPECIES AND PROOF OF EVOLUTION! HURDUR

    2. ShepardSays June 3, 2015 at 7:55 pm

      “the reason for their individual existence is not to “survive and reproduce.”

      One of the problems with the evolution explanation of reproduction is it never explains the sensuality side of sex. It removes any notions of pleasure, desire, or emotions related to human conception. It is a sterile explanation of sex and creation. There is one truth of every human’s existence being we are all created through sexual energy.

    3. Jack June 3, 2015 at 8:53 pm

      what was stopping the small-necked giraffe from eating leaves from a higher tree?

  52. disqus_7dOzj62cpg June 3, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    I think you’re suffering from extreme tunnel vision because you spend far too much time hanging out in a very limited social space dominated by an abnormal and self-destructive subculture.

    The theory of evolution – which is probably better discussed as a theory of natural selection – is carrying on as always.

    It’s only the pick up artists, hipsters, social justice warriors, feminists, LGBT community, career-obsessives, materialistic two-income no-kid families living in their McMansions that are the ones naturally selecting themselves right out of existence.

    There are plenty of nations and peoples around the world experiencing fertility rates at or above replacement, particularly across Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Even in America many groups are still reproducing at high levels and picking up the slack, from the reviled ghetto rats and welfare queens that produce numerous
    illegitimate children that they can’t take care of, to recent immigrants unspoiled by the America´s pop media mind fuck, to traditional rural and suburban families that are just ignoring it all and carrying on with their lives, to Hispanic-Americans more generally.

    Traditional evolution may come to an end one day, but not for cultural, socioeconomic or political reasons. When human cloning becomes available to the masses – and it will – THAT will mark the end of natural selection. At the same time, even the most selfish and narcissistic will end up cloning themselves and will probably end up turning into parents because of it. For now, just expect the world to become more African, more Middle-Eastern and more Latin American and content yourself with the idea that pop media obsessed narcissists will produce few offspring… which Darwin I’m sure would argue is a great thing for the human species.

  53. mclovin89 June 3, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    this is a very good read, and kinda was wondering this myself for a lil while. Like as you said the red pill kinda rationalizes everything through science but so do toher groups like sjws feminsts marxists sociologists,etc.
    It certainly is playdough.

    What I hate from socioligists and feminists would shame behavior and oppinions they dont like and say “evolve,be human instead of an animal, quit living backwards in the 7th centurary so that you would be a pc pussy doormat cuck.
    If they really belived in evolution and strongest survived well we are suppose to be bigger stronger fasters sadistic rapists…which feminazis see men as.
    to them socialization and evolution go hand in hand.
    same time though like errors like homoseuxality woulda been bred out since they dont reproduce. Theres so much grey area to figure this out.
    evolution without the hwole origin of the species and just focus human behaviour should really be discussed.
    here on the manosphere we like to focus on the nature aspect of things while the left like the nurture aspect. The way thngs are its kinda both….Interested to hear more of this

  54. Nah Dude Fk That June 3, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    Except deep down inside you Roosh, you wish to procreate with a “unicorn.” Problem is, there are too few of them due to “progressive” libtard hivemind & feminism. You’ve said it yourself, you are a 1-woman Man.

    Just because you’ve managed to refrain from procreating doesn’t mean you won’t ever, and just because the most fit of people are having less children than the least fit people, doesn’t mean those offspring of the least fit will have a higher chance of survival than the offspring of the most fit.

    As it’s been stated:

    “Evolution takes time, a LOT of time. Your behaviour means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Your desire to have sex is a desire to reproduce, the instinct has not died, it is only overwritten by cultural indoctrination.”

    To add to this, you still have the urge to reproduce, and to your lizard brain, you’ve successfully reproduced however many times you’ve ejaculated.

    So you have “succeeded” many times, without offspring. You’re just exploiting and tricking it.

    The strongest still survives in Nature.

    1. Roosh June 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm

      Can you please show me where in evolutionary theory there is room for “tricking” the reproductive urge through consciousness in a way that never leads to reproduction?

      1. SgtPOG June 3, 2015 at 10:36 pm

        Right. You can’t. You have to go outside the theory, or at least undermine it. You have to say we’ve evolved past evolution. We’ve transcended natural laws. Therefore evolution fails to predict our predicament.
        The truth is that whatever happens to us, even if we go extinct, is evolution, because everything that happens is evolution to an evolutionist, unless it hurts their feelings, then it’s “devolution.”

      2. Nah Dude Fk That June 6, 2015 at 6:51 pm

        Well we are fairly intelligent and articulate. Still, that doesn’t overcome our lizard brains and its hardwiring.

        Why do you have sex until you orgasm? If you truly were 100% against being a parent to beautiful children that would survive generations, you would either be 100% abstinent or you would CHOOSE to NEVER orgasm during sex or otherwise. Both harmful physically and mentally. For good reason.

        The sheer fact that you have sex until release – regardless of you getting a vasectomy, using a condom AND fucking a girl who is on birth control – means you are having sex to survive & reproduce deep down. You can’t escape that lol, ever. You cannot escape the need to feel that great orgasm, which to your brain means offspring & thus survival. All that pregnancy prevention, you cannot explain that to your hindbrain/lizard brain. To it, you have reproduced every single time you’ve came. You have filled your purpose, and it wants you to continue to do so to survive forever.

        We have a 10,000 yr old brain. No matter how hard we try to seem sophisticated and evolved, were are not that. YET. The fact that a tiny shred of “approach anxiety” exist among us during random/cold approaching a hottie you want to fuck — regardless of our vast “pickup” experience and supreme confidence — proves this. I don’t know any guy in the world who cold approaches a stone cold hot piece of ass, looking to bang, and doesn’t feel something in his belly that resembles “approach anxiety.”

        This is what feminists don’t understand. Feminism/true equality sounds amazing on paper. How the hell doesn’t it? But when you apply that bullshit to the real world… well… I don’t have to explain that to you Roosh lol. You know the serious blowback and turmoil within that feminism causes probably more than anyone I know.

  55. listenupbub June 3, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Sorry, Roosh, but the fact about evolution is that it can instill competing emotions/ desires, and that is not at all contrary to the story.

    You can desire high quality mates or numerous mates, or a safe bet with a simple woman, but sometimes you balk at either proposition because there is no way to determine which is best for your gene’s long term survival.

    Humans are social, by the work of evolution. We can regulate behavior with the upper brain, and use social disapproval to tear down competitors. This is a big part of modern life. The upper brain of us all then can flood the rest of the brain with warnings and fears that prevent you from acting normally.

    Overpopulation and a lack of culture/common race makes us live in a hostile environment that induces such anxiety that people cannot seem to make one of the simple choices we have to survive.

  56. Clark Kent June 3, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    I think you can explain the fact that more affluent people are not reproducing pretty simply. Ultimately, they are less fit.
    They have astonishing brains and comforts which actually work against them.
    Even in nature animals sometimes fuck up.
    Our environment has changed so rapidly (because we changed it) that some of us are just not adaptable enough to reproduce. Sadly you can consider the welfare hoe to be a better evolutionary fit…
    The dumber people who don’t make the same complex considerations just go for it. The rest of us are hamsturbating exquisitely.

    1. ME June 3, 2015 at 11:33 pm

      “The rest of us are hamsturbating exquisitely.”

      Ha! Well said. There is something to be said for that, the smarter we humans get, the more we are able to think up problems for ourselves that never even existed before.

      With the invention of artifical wombs and artificial intelligence, in no time we should be able to just edit ourselves out of the equation entirely.

      1. Clark Kent June 4, 2015 at 9:17 am

        Check out this article on EliteDaily written by a woman; the hamsturbation is top-knotch. She wants a baby but can’t find Brad Pitt.
        Honestly I think we sound pretty like her except for the fact that we can get on a boat and go start families with some young’n’eager foreign girl (assuming the West doesn’t infect the entire world).
        http://elitedaily.com/women/waning-fertility/1044507/

      2. ME June 4, 2015 at 12:06 pm

        That article was really a pathetic, but thanks, you gave me something to write about.

        I don’t think many of you sound like her at all. It is far more difficult for men who want to reproduce, because they have to find a partner willing to relinquish some control and actually share. Not so easy in the Selfie generation.

        This woman bemoans her inability to have a child, but she knows perfectly well she could have one in an instant. What she really wants is a husband, but exclusively on her terms.

      3. Clark Kent June 4, 2015 at 1:18 pm

        Both men and women have to make certain sacrifices for a relationship to work. But this idea is now considered “patriarchy.”
        I told this to an ex of mine and she replied “Compromise means you’re losing something, a better relationship is when there is collaboration.”
        This is fairytale thinking… the very fact that I’m being exclusive to one girl means I am compromising, but compromising willingly. That I have to take her needs into account when I make a decision is compromise. What she was talking about was having her cake and eating it. Eventually I left her for her inability to consider the effects of her behaviour on others. And then a lot of those women turn into the author of the article I posted.

      4. spicynujac June 5, 2015 at 3:26 pm

        Lack of empathy is almost universal in the women I know. If they cannot empathize, they cannot understand how their behavior affects anyone else.

    2. T and A man June 4, 2015 at 9:47 am

      A good view point.

      People always confuse Darwinian theory as ‘survival of the fittes’, when it’s nothing of the sort, otherwise explain Rabbits.

      It’s those that can best adapt, survive. The lower classes are breeding, perhaps because they can adapt to the hardship (in terms of soullnessness, burden on time) of modern life, because the poor have always struggled. They pass these survival (adaptive) traits onto their kids The precious middle classes, outlying soft as shit upper classes, and princesses who’ve married themselves to their career, aren’t reproducing. They haven’t adapted to modern life, and will be weeded out.

      1. Clark Kent June 4, 2015 at 10:17 am

        Exactly.
        It seems like some of the manosphere writers are trying to find elaborate justifications for all this. Can’t blame them, it surely can be a dissatisfying worldview. Religion didn’t just come out of nowhere.

  57. TJ June 3, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    What about Dawkins’ concept of the meme as an alternative behavioral driver? Maybe cultural viruses like social media, Tinder, etc. are disrupting the biological, genetic mechanisms which change more slowly?

  58. PeeWee June 3, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    Shark jumpingly flawed conclusions.

    Evolution describes a process a process that through conscious effort you opt out of.

    You are artificially selecting against your own genes because of perceptions and beliefs about freedom and responsibility. This has nothing to do with Darwin this has more to do with Freud and by that I mean psychology.

  59. PeeWee June 4, 2015 at 12:14 am

    Is a species that can auto regulate population before consuming all the food supply more fit or less fit than a species that reproduces to the point of mass starvation?

    1. Bavieca June 4, 2015 at 1:20 am

      I’d say that the former species is less adaptable and much pickier than the latter species.

      ” So bloody what if food supply runs out because there are too many of us?? We’re not picky about what kind of food we’d consume, we’ll adapt by starting to eat each other! Problem of mass starvation solved! ” LOL

  60. xtc June 4, 2015 at 1:24 am

    A friend of mine is a Professor of Genetics at a prestigious university. He is sceptical about evolution! It turns out that the real science is a lot more messy than the neat explanations we are given at school. There are a lot of problems in the details. As a long-time Dawkins fan, this was a surprise to me.

  61. evilwhitemalempire June 4, 2015 at 2:10 am

    Oh, Jeez!
    There are so many things wrong with this guy that it would take a month to sort them all out.
    So I will concentrate only on what I believe is the gist of the argument.
    That evolution by natural selection cannot explain human reproductive behavior because it predicts a lot more reproduction than is observed.
    There are at least 3 reasons for this.

    1) The author, with his keen eye for detail, noted the rich seem not to have nearly as many children as the poor.
    (Natural Selection actually CAN explain this.)
    Children dilute wealth. The more kids you have the more ways an inheritance must be split.
    So (quite NATURALLY!) those wealthy families predisposed (genetically or memetically) to have lots of kids tend not to stay wealthy while families predisposed to have fewer offspring tend to stay wealthy over the long haul.
    That’s why old money doesn’t hump like bunny rabbits. DUH!

    2) Natural Selection isn’t perfect. If a species has a very long life cycle (i.e. most large animals) It can take that species a long time to become ‘optimized’ for a new environment (not as long as people think but not overnight either).
    And if that environment is rapidly changing (in our case because of technology) then Natural Selection might never ‘catch-up.
    If you enjoy something that doesn’t contribute to your genetic success it only reflects the difference between the environment you live in and the one that our ancestors spent most of theirs in.

    3)Finally there is this bit to do with human intelligence.
    Throughout the animal kingdom there are ALWAYS trade-offs.
    If you want to get a longer neck to reach eats otherwise out of reach then you have to sacrifice speed in evading predators and increase your vulnerability to them (longer jugular).
    If you want to run faster to catch faster prey then you have to become a leaner animal that could be easily outweighed by slower but more robust competitiors keen on stealing your hard earned dinner.
    And if you want to grow a bigger brain (not just bigger but with greater neuron density) then you will take a lot longer to physically mature (brains, hearts and livers are the most expensive organs).
    Also if that brain power is to exceed a certain threshold then you have the ‘problem’ of it undermining the Darwinian integrity of the orgasm.
    Anthropologists have noted that for the about the past 100,000 years average human cranial capacity hasn’t increased.
    Why? Because intelligent people just don’t have so many kids!
    Now it doesn’t take Einstein to understand the consequences of sex.
    BUT the smarter the individual the more powerful their awareness is and so the more CONTROL they have over their instincts.
    Here is a good illustration.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIDtN8CDQmk
    In this case you have modules that compel you to sex and dispense pleasure upon orgasm to strengthen neural circuits that contributed to the score (i.e. learning).
    These modules were optimized for animals with very little awareness [most animals (except apes) are virtually automatons sleepwalking through their existence. Yes, I’m looking at you dumb fuck pet lover!]
    They must compete against awareness (that big module just behind your forehead) to get you to reproduce.
    Of course other modules have evolved to try and allow Darwin to have his cake and eat it too (get the benefits of higher intelligence without the liability I described).
    These other modules are part genetic and part cultural. The latter have strong roots in religion.
    Modules against masturbation are one such countermeasure.
    Everytime I hear one of you blabbin’ on about the virtues of not jacking off I think “There goes another one.”.
    You see if you are genetically (or memetically) predisposed to think masturbation is something to be ashamed of or to abstain from as much as possible then (at least in centuries past) it would sometimes result in you becoming so horny that you raped the first chick you were alone with and when you did (because you hadn’t jerked off for weeks, months?) you dumped an ice cream truck in her virtually guaranteeing that your sperm would reach the egg and not a competitor’s.
    Modules against hedonism and slackerism have similar genetic/memetic origins as countermeasure adaptations to get you off your butt and get you a courtin’ and a marryin’ and a fuckin’…..and a payin’ for it all!
    The great irony is that this sort of RELIGIOUS stuff is evolutionary adaptation.
    And going against all that is ‘maladaptive’.
    I put that in quotes because knowledge and awareness of the consequences of sex and how to steal the milk without the burden of buying the cow is quite liberating SUBJECTIVELY!
    Although objectively it IS maladaptive.
    (as surely as so many of you who think you’re better than guys that stay at home and jerk off to porn instead of fucking chicks WITH BIRTH CONTROL!
    Cuz you guys waste sperm a DIFFERENT way! WOOOOOOO!
    Truly Darwin’s winners……
    …..NOT!)

  62. deshler June 4, 2015 at 2:30 am

    Darwin died over 130 years ago Roosh; evolutionary theory has changed quite a bit since then. Read “The 10,000 year explosion” and I think you’ll change your mind and get a more modern grip on evolutionary theory. Here’s a hint: It’s not politically correct.

  63. Alex June 4, 2015 at 6:06 am

    Peter Watts has some good questions regarding an evolutional usefullness of consience. Also Dawkins had similar ideas about memes that may “parasite” on our hardware. In overall you make a good point that the evolution it not a low it just a observation of trends of complex non linear system in a given environment. Change the systems boundary conditions and you will see a different dynamics. Comparasion with buggy software is a good one.

    But in any case our behavior is still heavily influenced by psychological predisposition evolved during earlier generations. I think you are agree that spending some much time pursuing women is not a best thing for both your body and your consience but why are you doing that?

  64. Jay June 4, 2015 at 7:28 am

    And yet, human population is the highest it’s ever been, and has been steadily increasing since the year 1350, the end of the Black Plague. We ARE reproducing, and we are multiplying like cockroaches. You and some you know may not be reproducing, but the majority of humanity IS. This is a fact. Using yourself and some others (simple outliers in comparison to the majority of humanity) is to miss the forest for the trees.

    Why do you think an orgasm is the greatest natural feeling to a man? Because it’s the delivery system through which he spreads his seed. Do you think this is coincidence?

    Nature knew that there would be a few men smart enough to rigg the system for themselves- to continually have sex with out impregnating a woman and reproducing. Outliers. She also knew that a majority of men would simply NOT be that smart, and she was right- thus the steady rise in human population throughout history. Sorry man, I disagree with you on this one.

  65. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 8:07 am

    what is your reason not to reproduce, roosh? when darwin said “fit”, he meant adaption, not physical fitness. so maybe you are a maladapted fuck. while you are busy maximizing your pleasure “to relieve a lack of purpose in life”, you are actually avoiding to adapt yourself. avoiding to “man up”, to use fem-speak. you are, in fact, not ready to make the sacrifices necessary to survive. thus you are unfit for evolution. but who cares – evolution is not meant to be a religion, as you say, but merely an observed effect. darwin never said “survival of the happiest”.

    1. Booch Paradise June 4, 2015 at 9:07 am

      If he were “a maladapted fuck”, he’d be a one off, rather than a man who’s struck a cord with men everywhere. And if he’s not adapting by choice, then there are other factors at work than genes.

      In other words, your comment is down right retarded.

      1. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 9:18 am

        and feminism has struck a cord with the whole civilization. i said “maladapted fuck” to provoke, not to judge. i can understand his decision.

        i, for one, didn’t state that genes are the only factors determining choices. but if they were, your statement would still not be logical. why should it not be possible for genes to lead to a behavior that makes a man strong in every sense, but not reproduce?

        not all “genes” wish to reproduce. evolution merely describes the observation that those who do not reproduce – by inability or choice – do not have any offspring.

      2. Booch Paradise June 4, 2015 at 9:42 am

        And yet this non offspring producing trait was passed to a huge swath of the current generation of men… which is the entire point of the article. Repeated many times. And re-enforced by being examined from multiple angles.

        I swear it’s like you just read all the works of Galileo, and came away thinking “But maybe the sun revolves around the earth, he never considered that.”

      3. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 9:51 am

        it doesn’t matter if his behavior was adapted by others. that’s not at all what evolution is concerned with. evolution doesn’t say it’s “bad” to not reproduce, that’s merely a moralistic interpretation. it merely says that those who do not reproduce will not pass on their genes.

        if one was interested in studying which behaviors make a man most fulfilled or strong in a competitive sense, that would simply be another branch of science. evolution has nothing to do with that.

      4. Booch Paradise June 4, 2015 at 10:11 am

        Morality also has nothing to do with why your objection is stupid. You are the only one here talking about morality.

      5. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 10:21 am

        i don’t mind you calling me stupid, but how about backing your claim up with arguments? which part of my objection is wrong. your whole argument seems to be “roosh’s behavioral traits are great, but don’t serve evolution, therefore evolution is stupid.”

      6. Booch Paradise June 4, 2015 at 10:39 am

        If I’m being rude, it’s because your errors are so egregious that I can’t imagine you come by them honestly.

        Your objection is wrong because it only applies to an argument that was never even made.

        I never said Roosh is great, I said he is representative of a large section of society.

        I didn’t say he doesn’t server evolution, but that TENS fails to explain his behavior and therefore fails to explain the behavior of large sections of society (I actually didn’t say that either but it was a very obvious implication).

        And I didn’t say evolution was stupid, I said you’re stupid.

        And the reason is becoming quite clear. It’s because you are not responding to what people have written, but to what you imagine they have written. And so my initial thought, that your comment was not honest, was correct.

      7. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 10:55 am

        i don’t give a fuck if you are rude, it’s irrelevant. who am i to act like jesus christ? idiot.

        evolution does not explain behavior, why should it? it’s not a behavioral model, but the “change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations” (wikipedia). it explicitly describes an observation of heritable trait and does not predict behavior of individuals.

        neither roosh nor his cited source have refuted evolution. it rather seems that he has refuted his own misconception – that living the player lifestyle was somehow “evolutionary”. but it was his own misconception in the first place, not one of darwin or evolutionary science. i respect that he wants to correct his own mistake, but instead of acknowledging his misconception, he decries evolution itself.

        why does it matter if he represents a “large” section of society? you are not making sense. as far as evolution goes, our whole civilization can vanish, however successful right now.

      8. Booch Paradise June 4, 2015 at 11:27 am

        Neither the article above, nor I, have said that evolution as a whole is false. The whole point is that it doesn’t apply to human behavior. And I repeat: you are not responding to what people have written, but to what you imagine they have written.

      9. Tom Arrow June 4, 2015 at 1:11 pm

        roosh writes that according to evolution, his behavioral traits should be weeded out instead of very widespread. yet in the same breath, he writes that his reasons for not choosing to procreate are very recent changes in the environment, e.g. marriage laws.

        evolution perfectly describes what is happening. roosh possesses traits that have been very good adaptations to the environment in the past, where he would have chosen to procreate. now, the environment has changed and his behavioral traits make him choose to not procreate in it, as they do for many men like him. fast forward one generation and all those men will be gone without offspring, thus evolution will have succeeded in eradicating these traits. now, you could argue that roosh’s behavior is merely transmitted through communication and genes are irrelevant, because every man could and would adopt it, if confronted with it. in that case, though, it is not heritable – thus evolution is not concerned with it.

        evolution has no clairvoyant abilities. if the earth was flooded today, you couldn’t argue that all those who cannot swim should have been weeded out. neither is evolution a force that drives people to procreate; it the observation of heritable traits over successive generations. thus, since only an idiot would choose to have children today, stupidity and ignorance is the best evolutionary adaption to today’s environment.

        while it is the best adaption to evolution, though, it is evidently not the best for logical discussion.

  66. Zelcorpion June 4, 2015 at 8:49 am

    The theory of the “Selfish Gene” and other such statements together with eugenics were put into practice by the Darwins. For a century they interbred between their own family and the Wedgwoods and Galtons. The Rothchilds who financed them all along did the same and married only cousins for a century – all of course with the usual inbreeding results.
    The Malthusians together with the paranoid plutocracy of the time loved Darwinism and the brutal survival of the fittest. Most of them were syphilis riddled while being inbred as well – so of course it appealed to them that they should reproduce as the most fit while all the lesser people should die. In a way those doctrines are the cornerstones of thy psychopathic-plutocratic justification philosophy:
    Malthusianism, Selfish Darwinism, Eugenics, Freudism, Libertarianism – all financed by the plutocracy to justify their own psychopathic and selfish behaviors.

  67. Torsten June 4, 2015 at 8:54 am

    Sir, at this crossroads of your life, I’d like to invite you to read “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller.

    Best,
    T

  68. ML June 4, 2015 at 9:04 am

    Roosh’s presentation of himself as a reborn Messiah continues. He is reading a book by God, declares something called “evolution” to be erroneous, and himself above reproduction.

    Isn’t anyone else laughing at all this?

  69. ML June 4, 2015 at 9:09 am

    “How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings?”

    While we’re at it, let’s rhetorically ask, but really blame, Karl Marx for not writing something about the plight of the ‘transgendered’.

    Make sense?

  70. SILENTSAM69 June 4, 2015 at 9:33 am

    It is funny when people try to pass themselves off as having a legitimate idea, and then shows they have no idea what they are talking about.

    Thought this was from that Christian site return of kings for a minute there. I see similar garbage there as well.

  71. John June 4, 2015 at 9:41 am

    Ever heard of DARWIN’S THEORY OF SEXUAL SELECTION

    Plenty of man’s drives and instincts have no survival benefit whatsoever. Are they imbued from our lord and savior, perhaps you foolishly beseech. No, they simply exist because in the past they increased the chances of reproduction by keeping women around long enough to get pregnant and then raise healthy children. The peacocks with larger and more ornate tails attract attract far more mates despite said feature massively hindering survival by making it slow lion bate. Sexual selection and survival selection are clearly two drastically different and sometimes opposing forces equally important to shaping animal evolution and behavior.

    We are clearly far more complex than insects that have sex purely out of reproductive impulse. We have evolved complex cognitive mechanisms, one of which gives us deep empathy for our offspring. We probably wouldn’t survived if I our parents and their ancestors didn’t have this trait. If we indiscriminately have 100 kids who we know don’t have a devoted father and more support than bare bones welfare, we will feel riddled with guilt, worry and feelings of failure. Certainly there are sociopath outliers who aren’t as emotionally mature and do just that, but they are in the minority and considered despicable for good reason.

    I could dismantle just about every point in this blog post, but the overarching thesis is so fatally flawed it’s not worth the time.

    1. Person of Whiteness June 4, 2015 at 9:59 am

      Thank you for being a voice of reason.

  72. Carlos Espinosa June 4, 2015 at 9:57 am

    This is a good example of a Scientific Revolution as described by Thomas Khun. We just need a new theory that explains the evolution with humans included, and that will come from guys like you questioning the current faults (and trying to solve them).

  73. Gil Galad June 4, 2015 at 11:40 am

    No offense Roosh, but you’re gonna have to read much much more about evolutionary biology – especially sociobiology – before you can seriously post an opinion like this. Basically I’m betting that you read Darwinian Tales and just like that became a proponent of whatever it says. You – and Stove – greatly underestimate the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Stove tossed in the term “inclusive fitness”, which has been around for like sixty years and has been discussed and counter-discussed in numerous works; that doesn’t make him knowledgeable enough to flatly state “evolutionary theory does not account for modern human behavior”. I’d strongly recommend that you first get a more solid documentation on sociobiology, starting – but without stopping there – with The Selfish Gene.

    There are tons of animal behaviors – not just in humans – that may seem “anti-evolutionary” to someone with only limited knowledge of sociobiology, and they have been explained in light of it. Plus, the fact that a number of behaviors are still puzzling to scientists is an extremely puny excuse to reject it; if anything, it is an encouragement to keep searching for explanations.

  74. kurt9 June 4, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Perhaps evolution drove human behavior in the past. But that the blank slate (social conditioning) is becoming the more prevalent influence now.

    1. Randy Bobandy June 4, 2015 at 12:13 pm

      It’s the other way around. Civilization has rather increased the speed of evolution, than stagnated our genome.

      http://evoandproud.blogspot.fi/2015/01/sometimes-consensus-is-phony.html

      What’s important is to understand that evolution is not about constantly breeding a bigger, better version of your ancestors. It’s basically genes and epigenetics working in one big mess and something emerging as the victor, for a time… Until something more adapted to the new environment comes up.

  75. Max June 4, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    “Isn’t that why you are here for?”

    Should be either “Isn’t that why you are here?” or “Isn’t that what you are here for?”

    “I know dozens of men personally who have sex with over 100 women”

    Should be “have had sex with” unless they are actively banging them all simultaneously, which would be quite a feat.

  76. Nathan June 4, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    Some of the premises here in your understanding of evolution are problematic–but that’s to be expected when the dissenting opinion presents their opposition (in the book you read).

    However–you present a few very compelling points here! For instance–we don’t have a model to explain or predict the “evolutionary” progression of the human species at this time.

    However, mental illness is one of our best limiting factors in reproduction today. That is to say–people who don’t perform the imperative of producing children (God’s first commandment: “be fruitful and multiply”) most often limit themselves based on mental illness. Some commit suicide while others rationalize that having children is problematic (though they themselves were born as children).

    Frankly Roosh–the sport-fucking of today is deviant sexual behavior. It is anti-Biblical, anti-biological, and a slew of other nasty things I could say 🙂 However, this is what I like to think of as a problem that solves itself. The people who subscribe to sport-fucking or have some other mental illness that keeps them from having children . . . their genetics don’t continue!

    Keep up the good work

    1. Roosh June 4, 2015 at 9:11 pm

      “The people who subscribe to sport-fucking or have some other mental illness that keeps them from having children . . . their genetics don’t continue!”

      Doesn’t matter: the culture is training thousands of new sport fucking athletes every day.

    2. BrianH January 26, 2016 at 5:17 pm

      It only takes a few getting through to populate the next generation.

  77. Ryre June 4, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    There’s a conceptual confusion here in what Roosh seems to be attempting with this post, three ideas tangled up that it might help to tease apart.

    1) Modern human behavior is not explicable by reference to evolutionary survival/reproduction drives.
    2) Natural selection does not explain how humans got to where we are and is largely not, or no longer is, a factor in human development.
    3) Evolution, i.e. attempting to live out the supposed evolutionary commandments of survive and reproduce, is not a good basis for understanding the meaning of one’s life.

    I think Roosh’s real point is #3. “Evolution tells me I should live like a vehicle for selfish genes, but I don’t find that satisfying or meaningful.” The attacks in points #1 and #2 are designed to undermine evolution in service to point #3.

    But point #3 is based on a misconception. Just because you believe that you are here because your genes in the past have successfully replicated doesn’t mean that your life’s purpose is to replicate your genes further. No more than someone should walk out of a Freudian analyst’s office and say, “The purpose of my life is slay a symbolic father figure and mate with a woman resembling my mother.”

    Both evolution and Freudianism may explain why you have certain drives, but the meaning of your life is still up to you. If you find the idea of reproducing motivating, or the idea of being an evolutionary dead end depressing, by all means act on that. That our existence is explained by the tendency of certain complex molecules to replicate doesn’t answer the philosophical questions “why are we here” or “what is the best way to live.” Nor does selfish-gene theory’s failure to answer these questions mean that it isn’t true or doesn’t explain much about life as we find it.

  78. Barwin June 4, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Are there any paleontologists here or evolutionary biologists? Does anybody know any? I’d really like to understand this better.

    1. Sgt POG June 5, 2015 at 11:59 am

      Philosophy is higher than science. Philosophy guides and corrects science. Seek ye the higher minds of philosophy, not the trained monkeys produced by the liberal atheist Marxist education system.

  79. Ghost Tiger June 4, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    The articulate spokesmen for God’s existence accept that they cannot prove their case, though Aquinas, Cardinal Newman, and others make a good balance of probabilities argument (accepting a broad definition of God as a higher creative intelligence). The atheists purport to disprove the theistic case, but they have never got past their inability to dispute that spiritual forces and perceptions exist or that unexplained developments that are in fact miraculous sometimes occur, and they are reduced to imputing falsely to believers the view that anything they can’t explain is in the “gap”: God’s secret work.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-the-shabby-shallow-world-of-the-militant-atheist

  80. George June 4, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Evolution theory is still sound. Evolution does not care what you deem
    as the “fittest” individual. Evolution rewards the people that spawn
    the next generation, whether they are fat and on welfare does not
    matter. The intelligent, wealthy, educated professionals who choose not
    to reproduce have a mental illness gene that evolution will eventually
    eliminate.

    1. Bavieca June 5, 2015 at 12:24 am

      Sounds not that intelligent at all to me, were I the Creator then I would have designed that human bodies don’t produce disgusting filth like feces, piss, fart, buggers, tumors, etc etc etc. There won’t be aging, balding and obesity as well were I the intelligent designer.

      1. spicynujac June 5, 2015 at 3:29 pm

        Also wouldn’t have placed the sewage treatment plant so close to the recreation center.

  81. Brad Turner June 4, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Some scientists are now coming around to the idea that evolution is more complex than just maximizing personal reproductive success. Evolution also plays an important role in group evolutionary success. Groups that evolve altruism and put the needs of their group above their own often out compete other groups, thereby spreading that trait.

    Imagine two tribes. One tribe is very cohesive and works together and gives every member something to live for. The other tribe is dominated by aggressive alpha males who kill eachother off, kill off beta males. The cohesive group can eradicate or assimilate the divided group because it can bring more men into the field and work together to achieve a common goal.

    You see this behavior with animals all the time, such as ants.

    For more discussion about altruism and evolution, check out this scientist’s blog: http://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/

    Altruism evolved in humans because altruistic groups were able to out compete non-alruistic groups.

    Human IQ became higher and higher as well. High iq is negatively correlated with fertility because high iq people can think ahead, reason, and are more self aware. (this includes being self aware of primitive desires such as reproduction). In the absence of financial or other practical incentives to have many children (such as grabbing land or compensating for high mortality), the rational thing to do is to limit the number of children you have.

    High IQ is also connected to altruism because humans benefit when they work together. A rational person can see another person and reason with him and together they can accomplish things that would be impossible individually.

    Human evolution is still at work, but it is making humans more stupid. We are “devolving” in a sense. Since low iq people reproduce more than high iq people and benefit from modern technology and the welfare state, they can birth many children and have those children survive to sexual maturity. The selective pressures that gave us our high intelligence have been somewhat negated.

    To sum up. I would argue that evolution still applies to humans, but that the conventional mainstream study of evolution places too much emphasis on selfish reproductive competition and not enough on altruism, which evolved from competition between groups.

    1. Flavinous June 4, 2015 at 4:56 pm

      Top comment!

  82. Sangreal June 4, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Humans (at least in the West) have reached a point where we are just too damn smart for our own survival.

    1. 66Scorpio June 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm

      If you define “smart” in terms of IQ and education, what you see is that advanced societies lurch to the left, supported by the smartest and the dumbest members. Right wingers tend to be people who have something more than a high school diploma but not much more than a bachelors degree. You can see this in exit polls at election time.
      .
      Ok, so Barack Obama got 51.1% of the popular vote in 2012, a 4 point margin over Mitt Romney. Then look at the exit polls broken down by education.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2012_Elections_Exit_Polls/
      .
      It was only among high school dropouts and those with post graduate education who supported Obama by greater than this margin. Among high school graduates, the margin was 3 points and only 1 point for those with some college. Romney got majority support from college graduates who did not go on to post graduate study: 51%.
      .
      There are lots of other tid bits in that exit poll that touch on some of the issues here. If you worked full time, it was an even split between Obama and Romney; Obama had an 8 point advantage among those who did not work full time. Romney had a 9 point advantage among those who were married with children. While men tended to vote for Romney (by 7 points) and women voted for Obama (by 9 points), having children increased men’s support for Romney and increased women’s support for Obama (to 8 and 13 points respectively).
      .
      Other anti-procreation sentiments among the left are that straights split evenly but gays favoured Obama by more than 3 to 1. Abortion supporters favoured Obama by 2 to 1, and those who think it should be legal in all cases supported him by more than 3 to 1.

      1. kanaq82 June 4, 2015 at 7:00 pm

        I believe that is misleading because people with masters’ degrees and above will have spent a huge amount of time in academia, sheltered from the real world and living off government student loans.
        So your conclusion that ‘gee all these smart highly educated people vote liberal’, well its because many sucked at the gov teet in academia for a long time.
        Suffice it to say most business owners are republican, I consider a shrewd entrepreneur smarter than a dem with 3 degrees who spent 20 years in academia.

      2. 66Scorpio June 4, 2015 at 7:21 pm

        I did say smart in terms of IQ and education, so your point is well taken while not conceding anything on my part. To the extent that ‘smart’ correlates with earning power and income, then things get sort of turned around as support for Romney correlated with income, although I have seen other exit polls where the super-rich, making half a million or a million a year or more, reversed that trend and supported Obama.
        .
        The thing to take away is that the left has the support of two distinct groups: a poor, uneducated masses and an intellectual elite who invade academia, the judiciary and the government bureaucracy and then try to run everyone else’s lives. The right have a more solid base in the middle with trades people and college grads: people who can earn good bucks, take care of their family, and don’t need someone or some government to run their lives for them.
        .
        The supporters of both candidates thought their guy supported policies that benefitted the middle class while Romney supporters viewed Obama as favouring the poor and Obama supporters viewed Romney as favouring the rich. Meanwhile, those that favoured state intervention favoured Obama by about 4 to 1.

  83. 66Scorpio June 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    In Darwinian terms, “fitness” does not mean the strongest, fastest or even the smartest. It means that which is best adapted to its environment. Humans are unique in that we can create our own environment, hence the term social engineering.
    .
    Social dynamics and technology develop changes far faster than biological evolution. “Civilization” is maybe only 10,000 years old, depending on how you define it. Homo Sapien Sapiens appeared about 100,000 years ago; other homo sapiens maybe 200,000 years ago; the earlier species such as homo erectus go back about 2 million years; earlier hominids such as Australopithecus are from 4 million years ago; and so on. With all the changes in society, culture, technology and the like over the last 10,000 years, there has been no actual biological evolution of human being for ten times that. Plus, whatever social adaptations we have made in ten millennia, the biological process of evolution of humans is at least 100 times that, depending on where you cut off your definition of “human”.
    .
    In a world where “democracy” is spreading (or at least the ideas of one-man-one vote and majority rule) is it any wonder that we have an explosion of the welfare state, baby mamas with 6 kids, and the like? When people realized they can vote themselves money taken from other people, why bother producing wealth and creating resources yourself? Stay at home, breed, and let everyone else pay for you. That is the most “fit” strategy in the current environment. Of course, that could lead to an Idiocracy scenario in the end, but for now it is the r-selection strategy of welfare moms and third world tribal societies that is beating the hell out of the K-selection strategy of your lower-middle class worker in the Western world.
    .
    Still, the idea that “fitness” means “best adapted” is a wonderfully circular definition. David Berlinski commented (in the film “Expelled”) something to the effect of what survives survives: what kind of serious theory is that?

  84. Robert What? June 4, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    Two thoughts, which I won’t claim are unique to me:

    1) Since modern humans have no natural predators, the “herd” cannot be thinned that way. For that reason, Nature, God, what have you, have made humans their own natural predators.

    2) There is little or no advantage to the individual to reproduce. In fact you could consider it a great disadvantage: what with using energy and resources on another that would usually be spent on oneself. That is why sex has to be a strong urge. It is needed to make an individual want to do something that is patently against its own individual interests: reproduce.

  85. tz1 June 4, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Phillip Johnson in “Darwin on Trial” notes that Natural Selection is what is broken. When you say “survival of the fittest”, it begs the question “what do you mean by fittest”? It isn’t necessarily the physically strong. Often it is a tautology – the fittest are those who reproduce; those who reproduce are the fittest. There is also a book titled “Survival of the Sickest” that explains why weakness might be a reproductive advantage. It isn’t what we happen to think of as fittest, it is what actually is.

    And then there’s no fun in babies. Worse for the woman who spends 9 months carrying it, then many more feeding it. But even men. The abstraction of species survival is overridden by the constant need of the baby to be fed and changed. And that is just one baby, you need to average over two for replacement. Flying to eastern Europe, banging as many women as possible, and being a celebrity is far more fun.

    The old school instilled virtues – that although babies and toddlers were annoying, they were (literally) the future. You can be convinced something really good is bad. And that is what is happening. Before the passions were aligned with the Natural Law. Today they oppose it. But passions drive us more than reason. The Rationalization Hamster is a creature that arises from passion.

    It is ironic that the Chinese have the opposite problem, many want larger families but the Government says there can be only one child.

    But women are the problem.

    The old system: Stay virgin until marriage – usually in the early 20s or before (peak fertility). Have the natural number of children (breastfeeding limits ovulation). The question asked is “Will this person make a good parent for my children”. Divorce only in exceptional circumstances (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html)

    The new system: Be promiscuous, so between the abortions and the STDs you will probably be sterile or have a disease or condition that will prevent a full term birth. Wait until your late 30s to even try. The new question involves how much fun sex is with the person. Marriage is only as long as the adults feel like it is to their advantage.

    You can look through history. Jews, Muslims, Christians (until 1930, mostly until the Pill), virtuous Pagans, Confucians – who had a lasting civilization – all had the old system. The cultures moved to the new, then the empires fell. To quote Arcanum:

    The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true-namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands.

    We wonder at things. Why war is hard – no one wants to sacrifice for their country. But one of the reasons for the Baby Boom after WW2 is that the initial sacrifice was the war, but then a living sacrifice continued with raising children (the 1920’s were also a time of decadence, just not so deep).

  86. farmer June 4, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    Roosh and David Stove are not criticizing the theory of evolution. They both even admit that they agree that the theory of evolution offers a satisfactory explanation for how different species came about and how they changed over time.

    What Roosh and Stove are criticizing are theories that try to explain MODERN HUMAN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR using the theory of evolution. There have been a few different theories of this kind including “Social Darwinism” in the 1870s and “sociobiology” and “evolutionary psychology” in the 1970s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

    Plenty of biologists and philosophers criticized these latter theories when they were proposed. In fact most of the critics came from the left, as the proponents were seen as conservatives trying to justify the status quo or rationalize “selfish” behavior.

    So I generally agree with this article. Evolutionary Psychology in particular is rightly criticized for being hard to test. Pretty much any behavior can be explained away by evolutionary psychology:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

    But the example presented here is flawed.

    Roosh has spent the last 10+ years of his life in a successful quest to get laid with hundreds of women. He has been willing to make thousands (tens of thousands?) of approaches on women he finds vapid, even knowing that the chance of success on each woman is low.

    He even moved to a different continent and learned a new language primarily to satisfy his urge.

    So clearly Roosh places a high value on having sex with as many beautiful women as he can.

    THAT is the trait that has been passed down by billions of years of evolution.

  87. Bearded Bear June 4, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    There is a great mistake in this article: misusing the terms evolution and natural selection. Evolution is a fact and it was (and can be) empirically observed. Real contemporary definition of evolution: “Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations”. It’s incontestable. The theory of natural selection, however, is what the work of Darwin is based on and it’s what is really being criticized by Roosh and the book. I agree that it doesn’t explain human evolution or behaviour. That’s why we have psychology, sociology and philosophy.

    Last but not least, acting based on one’s self-interest is not being selfish. An altruistic person who acts to further the interests of others ultimately serve their own self-interest.

  88. DeathStroke June 4, 2015 at 11:43 pm

    FAN TAS TIC

  89. Giovanni Dannato June 4, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    Condoms are too recent for evolution. For eons, the desire to copulate has been enough.

    But within a surprisingly short time, humans might develop an irrational fear of condoms, as many of us have of snakes and spiders. Humans will rapidly begin to take greater satisfaction in offspring since mating is no longer enough. Now, a woman’s longing for babies might be satisfied by buying a chihuahua, but what happens when she’s been ruthlessly weeded out for generations? People will develop defense mechanisms against parasite impostors.

    Genes actually are pretty smart, everywhere I see people, they associate by extremely specific temperaments and breeds. Every bar has its crowd, every profession has its type, cliques are normal. Like finds like.

    Wealthy urban professionals live in densely packed environments. Humans are best adapted to life in groups of no more than 150 people that are spread out. The stress of crowds of millions dramatically reduces fertility. Cities have always been population sinks that require a flow of new blood from the countryside.
    One of the benefits of big brains is humans have some capability of limiting reproduction before surpassing the carrying capacity of their environment.

    We see mid to low iq people having more kids because they don’t overthink things. Indeed, the winners now are those who are dim enough to rut without care and those who are bright enough to plan beyond themselves. Everything in between gets cut out.

    Humans are indeed group selected animals. Effective societies triumph over their neighbors by adopting effective group practices even if it means less benefit to individuals.
    Because humans are group selected, social status is as important when it comes to reproduction as food. It doesn’t matter if there’s no danger of starvation if you don’t have enough esteem among the tribe you associate with. Professional types labor under very high expectations, so high, that it often precludes reproduction. Meanwhile, poor proles live under lower expectations and ironically have more success.

    Even if most individuals have enough to eat societies are always in cutthroat competition.

    Even if food is no concern, survival is not enough. Much, much more is required to win the competition to reproduce successfully.
    One need not die to fail at passing on genes. With contraceptives, one can live the most lavish life and suffer the same fate as the animal that dies of starvation.
    Are humans not reverting to a state where very many people fail at reproduction?
    How then is human civilization any different from the state of nature?
    Do we say an ant colony is unnatural? Or a beehive exempt from evolution?

  90. The Lord Humungus June 5, 2015 at 12:17 am

    While I whole heartedly agree agree for a host of reasons that TENS (theory of evolution by natural selection) is mostly bogus, I don’t think the lack of a conscious desire to reproduce is necessarily strong evidence of that.

    If I were to counter the argument I would say that up until now the desire to have sex was close enough genetically speaking to the desire to reproduce that it had the same effect. Since there was no birth control everybody had kids since they really wanted to have sex, and the population obviously selected for those who really really wanted to have sex, since they did more often and had more offspring.

    The lack of desire would not necessarily disprove that, since there was nothing that would select that trait out of the population since even those people had kids sine there was no option to have sex regularly without having kids, so even people who didn’t really want them still had them, furthering the ‘not want kids” genes.

    Nowadays those people CAN prevent having kids, so their genes of ‘not wanting kids’ won’t be passed on. The traits that will be passed on are A.) the desire to have kids, and B) stupidity that renders the desire to not have kids irrelevant since they’ll fuck it up and have kids anyway.

  91. Mark June 5, 2015 at 5:27 am

    First off, excellent article- well written and well researched.

    But, evolution may still be valid in the long term. Evolution is not “concerned” with progress. The Phd computer scientist with 2 kids is inferior to the day laborer with 6 kids. In time, evolution will overcome birth control by producing lower iq, highly impulsive people and cultures. See link for evidence it is already happening:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html

    Eventually, we will see more people like those on day time talk shows ie crack addicted 17 year olds with 1 kid and pregnant with the next. Or, we will develop a monolithic world dictatorship which controls and highly regulates reproduction. My bet is on continued lowering of IQs since bringing chaos to order is a lot easier than the reverse.

    I must commend your for questioning the status quo. Any competent scientist or inquisitive philosopher will always pose new questions and challenge the old ways.

    1. Dumb Pollack June 8, 2015 at 8:30 pm

      There is an evolutionary competition going right now which is ignored by MSM. The Amish, Orthodox Jews, Radical Mormons and Muslins are making a lot of babies who are having many babies too. And the radical liberals are having a lot of abortions or using condoms. Many think that putting a lot of investment into one kid is enough. That ignore the role of chance like earthquake, murder or other. If dead and no spare left then that father was tricked into a bad choice. Nope, the future look conservative as the population grown to overtake the childless population.

  92. David June 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    I think it is funny that you started the article defending your title…. I agreed with it before I even read it and thought about a lot of the same points you outlined just from reading the title. Well done.

  93. Moridin_hentai June 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Roosh, you’re an evolutionary dead end, like your friends. You think this is a new thing? There was something called monasticism. Lots and lots of people made vows not to have sex or children. This happened not only in Europe, but in some other places. In Mongolia, even after the communist revolution, 48% of the adult male population was composed of monks. To this day you can see men and women becoming hermits or seggregating themselves in these monasteries in Catholic countries. It has become less of a thing, due to the rising of agnosticism and atheism, but it still exists, and in the middle ages (and later ancient times) this thing was huge. Just like having sex without having children is huge now.

    Since you’ve been raised in a protestant country, and monasticism was not looked favorably by Protestants, I guess the example I’d make would be Shakers. You don’t see them anymore in the US, but they existed continuasly from 18th century to the 20th. They were a community that tried to live as Jesus, and that meant no sex. They “reproduced” their meme by adopting kids, whom they taught their religion. They stopped exisiting when adoption laws became stricter. There are only a few left.

    1. moridin June 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      Also, to say that evolution or natural selection does not apply to humanity anymore: you just have to face a global epidemic for this notion to disappear. So far we’ve not faced one (the last one was a mild thing called Spanish flu that killed only 3-5% of world population). If we face something much more lethal (like some terrorist making a mass smallpox biological attack, most humans don’t have the immunity our ancestors had to this disease, we’d be like the Native Americans facing the new European diseases), then we’ll see evolution again happening.

    2. Reason And Believing June 6, 2015 at 10:36 pm

      This is not MGTOW site.

  94. Le Fox June 5, 2015 at 11:08 pm

    Oh, wow. Even someone who is not an atheist, or is not an extreme atheist, can see how badly written this is.

    Evolution is not about favouring the ‘strongest’. It’s about favouring those that are most adapted to their enviroments and are capable of passing on their genes. As a matter of fact, reading snippets from Stove’s work, the examples he gives on how evolution is wrong is actually explained IN it.

    You write that life is no longer about survival. It is and always will be. Why is there a gap between the rich and the poor? Why do the poor struggle at all, and why can they not thrive? And the rich must struggle as well; all humans do. When he buy food, meat or vegetables, those things have been raised on farms, against the elements, and we need them to survive. We breathe air to survive. We constantly fight over water resources to survive. These are basic human instincts.

    Human communication IS selfish and deceptive; why does segregation exist? Why did cultures evolve separately, and not all together? We communicate best with our own people, and altruism is indeed including in evolution: humans are not the only ones that are altruistic. It is a group strategy to ensure survival, health, and fitness of mates so that they may breed successfully. There is no debate about that.

    Sexual urges are described as minimal, yet you went out and had sex with hundreds of women, obeying your body’s natural urges to reproduce, yet used contraception as a blockade. By your own logic, you are an evolutionary failure for many reasons:

    – You do not reproduce

    – You use cheap women that would otherwise be eliminated (sperm competition and early infertility)

    – You use a system that promotes reproduction – game – and then turn around and say that’s not true.

    If you don’t believe in evolution and even studied microbiology for FOUR YEARS, none of these things would pass your mind, because they are already explained. What is the point of promoting game, using alpha versus beta males, decrying feminism, and more when, by your own logic, none of them are true?

    Best part is that earlier on RoK you posted stuff from Kevin MacDonald, who uses evo psych, yet have on your Twitter people who say that it’s hogwash. In your own way, you admit that everything MacDonald says is wrong, and that there is no Jew/Gentile war, because competition and a struggle for survival doesn’t exist, and that modern invention does that all away.

    By your own logic, amazing logic, as you think, every word out of your mouth is untrue, and your entire system of belief: Promoting game and writing bang books, is not true, because they follow evolutionary systems, and that feminism and Jews and their culture war do not exist because humans are all altruistic.

    Not sure whether Stove or you are worse at arguing.

    I would not call you “I’m nearly 36 years old, with ample resources, intellect, health, biological “strength”, and access to females, but I have not yet produced a child.” You don’t have ample resources, else why would you write books on how to get rich and strong to make a quick buck? You don’t seem that smart to me, because why else would you LOSE to Dr. Oz, of all people, on NATIONAL TELEVISION? Why would you promote ‘access to females’ when, by your own admission, they were all ‘hate fucks’ and women with low self-esteem that weren’t looking for a long-term relationship? By law of natural selection, while you may breed a lot of children, they are not genetically valid, and would eventually become extinct as they do not possess the mechanisms needed for long term survival. Natural selection does not always mean having as many kids as needed; it means providing a generation that will survive and ultimately be better than its successors.

    Rabbits have about 8-12 babies in a litter. Not all of them live. All of them could be defective. If most die, and one lives, yet is the most genetically ‘pure’, that is the winner of the game. Not the defects.

    Stove was wrong in saying that evolution doesn’t apply to modern humans – and so are you. This is an absolute disgrace from a so-called Red Pill and I hope more people realize how much of a scam artist you really are.

    You’re 36, without a real mate, and no lineage to speak of. Even if you do not reproduce, that is still a win for evolution because you are a drain on the species and are not geared for survival.

    As said before, if all you said was true, then all you’ve written and continue to belief was wrong. Better close up shop and say that Game doesn’t mean anything. You’ve linked articles that contradict this one. So even with four years in microbiology, you’ve used none of that experience.

    If people didn’t become disenchanted with the Dr. Oz stunt, they would now. I guess scamming people that don’t know any better in the name of making money would, by your own logic, make you a Jew, and therefore, no one has any incentive to believe you.

  95. RandallFMeier June 6, 2015 at 1:10 am

    nowRead this rooshv… Here’s a Blog

    llllllllllllllllll

  96. Monzzter221 June 6, 2015 at 1:49 am

    Excellent article. I will be re reading it several times. However I would like to point out a few things.

    We don’t know where these human behaviors that appear to go against natural selection come from. Based on the theory, and assuming that they go against it, they should not exist at all.

    But we do know one thing. Humans are at the top of the food chain, we don’t get eaten a whole lot, and there are 7 billion of us here and counting. So, from an individual behavior standpoint you could say that these traits make no sense, when you look at the whole of humanity as a species its easy to see that it is working.

    We just have to admit that we don’t fully understand what a good and bad trait is. If we did we wouldn’t have a situation where a species full of what appears to be bad traits and who appear to be going against the scientific theory, but when looked at from a macroscopic scale we obviously aren’t going against the theory. Our traits are obviously good traits or there wouldn’t be 7 billion of us. We just don’t quite understand why those traits are good ones.

  97. Artirles June 6, 2015 at 4:30 am

    < col Hiiiiiii Friends…''——–.''???? ?++dailysnark++Jeremiah . you think Herbert `s storry is super… last tuesday I bought a great Porsche 911 since I been earnin $9845 this – four weeks past and even more than ten grand lass-month . it's actualy my favourite work I've ever done . I began this nine months/ago and right away earned more than $71, per hour . Get More Info < Find More='' ……..''

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????j

  98. Anon June 6, 2015 at 10:23 am

    Red Queen theory, neutral evolution, and humans being adapted to an evolutionary environment that no longer exists, on top of globalization + recent copious and regional evolution explain this.

    I will bet you a purchase of all your books that if you went to Armenia/Iran, and found yourself a nice light skinned, urbane Persian girl (you’re full blooded Persian, and I don’t see too many Persians in your list of conquests), you’ll want to settle down and make some babies. Also, considering what you said about your dad admitting to having been a bit of a player in his youth, I don’t think any Persian woman will hold the fact that you’ve ripped through a bunch of slutty white girls and dumped them all.

  99. Reason And Believing June 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    You are right. A recent study shows that the population in Canada , the UK and Australia have lost on average 14 IQ points in the last 100 years.
    Another study shows that the UK has lost 2 average IQ points in the last 10 years.
    This has good explanatory power of their embrace of mind numbingly stupid political and social views.
    Evolution has stopped and de-evolution has begun.

  100. Tony Trucano June 7, 2015 at 9:48 am

    “I think Homer gets stupider and stupider.” “That’s not a question doctor, but we’ll let the viewers decide for themselves.”

  101. Oscar June 8, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Maximo Sandin is a Spanish biologist, he says that social Darwinism was the driving idea for the theory of evolution. But denies microbiology.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJlQ_cmJ7Q

  102. Dumb Pollack June 8, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    I’m not bothered by those questions that had already been explored in detail by Herbert Spencer (any books) and Matt Ridley in The Red Queen and, especially, The Origins of Virtue. Fundamentally, evolution describe the group rather than individual, even though individuals make up the group. Failure is a built-in feature as explained by Parteo’s Law. You only need a couple of wins to get ahead.

  103. God June 8, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    When you write like this, you just sound like a fucking idiot. You not breeding is almost a perfect example of natural selection at work. Please dont pass on your Genes.

  104. Taegan Goddard June 9, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    How to earn money with rooshv… kEEP READING

  105. Jobley June 10, 2015 at 5:17 am

    < col Hiiiiiii Friends..''.——–''▬▬▬▬★★★★ that's a full enjoy with+ microsoft+ ********* < Find More='' ……..''

    ??????????????????????????????????????????????????9

  106. turgot June 10, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Not drinking the Kool-aid on this one. This whole article is so bad, it’s not even wrong. It’s riddled with logical fallacies, logical inconsistencies and cognitive and personal bias.

    Starts with “every time I fuck I don’t have babies”, goes on a tirade about Darwinism (sure, because evolution is only Darwin), then evolution (not Darwinism) it’s a “puppet master” theory that replaced god for humans, but the theory is not bad because “it does apply quite nicely to other organisms” (aka not me, because I’m a special snowflake). Also, according to the author, “natural selection has surely applied to humans during certain periods of their history, but it should not and can not be used to describe current human behavior”, sure natural selection is what evolution or Darwinism (whichever fits your argument) is all about.

    Of course, because evolution/Darwinism/natural selection (whatever fits the agenda) is wrong, then the author goes and bitch about how modern sex roles are leading us into a cultural collapse and how we should go back to biblical times.

    This is pure trash, compared only to the vile and putrid minds of jezebel.

    PUAs shouldn’t be talking about science, they just make a fool of themselves.

  107. Bram June 10, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    I think you have missed one important factor – modern humans are domesticated humans. Over the last 10,000 years or so, we have de-evolved significantly.

    The Cro-Magnons were the last true wild humans – bigger brains, bigger stronger bodies, far more robust than us. Like comparing a wolf to a poodle. Once they wiped out most of the truly dangerous animals, they started domesticating other animals, farming, then building towns and cites – often with slaves.

    Boom – they inadvertently domesticated themselves. The people who could live in a town or city re-produced more – and those who could deal with being slaves.

    Evolution was done with us 10,000 years ago. Since then, we’ve just been livestock on a farm.

  108. Simon_in_London June 11, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Natural selection is proceeding as normal, but most Westerners are poorly adapted to the current environment. Tendencies such as high parental investment and delayed gratification that were adaptive up through 1800 or so are currently maladaptive in a Welfare State. The environmental signals people get are causing a lack of reproduction, much as many animals fail to breed in zoos. The biggest issue is probably that the environment encourages young women to ever-delayed reproduction until it’s often too late.

  109. ihopmenu June 11, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    We’re intellectually debating by writing words on a website, when we could be out looking for food and filling an ovulating, fertile young girl’s pussy with our semen.

    Let that sink in for a moment.

    Why are we discussing this? Because we live in an ARTIFICIAL society that allows us to work jobs, have money, and practice non-reproductive, non-survival oriented behaviors.

    But just because we are reducing reproduction doesn’t mean that’s a bad thing. We are not reproducing because we are AFRAID of having kids in an ARTIFICIAL society where the cost of having 1 kid is perceived as being extremely high.

    Rich people and men of high status also don’t have tons of children despite their high wealth because they usually carry a guilt-consciousness. Thus, we see rich Hollywood celebs adopting little African orphans and shit like that. Rich people are also deeply flawed and also busy chasing even higher levels of status (e.g. a millionaire trying to get to $100+ mil level, etc.).

    The more ARTIFICIAL the society in which you live is, the less likely you are to reproduce, because (1) of the fear that having kids entails a high cost, (2) because of some feelings of guilt (3)

    Read the Unabomber’s Manifesto AKA Industrial Society and It’s Future by Ted Kaczinsky and you will understand why we engage in surrogate activities.

    If we continued to reproduce at an exponential rate, we would overshoot the carrying capacity of the planet, which we have already exceeded at 7 billion people. Seven billion mouths to feed, everyone trying to get a piece of the pie. Overpopulation and resource scarcity are real and that’s why it is actually better in the long-run if we reduced reproduction.

    However, reproduction declining in the First World countries does not make as huge an impact since most of the overpopulation problem comes from Third World countries. And that’s where the immigrants come from, which puts further pressure on cities in the First World country since these immigrants will need jobs and food and fucking language translation and shit like that.

    To see the bigger picture you need to think outside of bubbles and theories and personal beliefs. Roosh takes the lead (again) by doubting Darwinian Evo. but does so to spark conversation on the site without fully getting it right because hey, no one is all-knowing and right 100% of the time. That’s why we have comment sections to debate and see what’s more correct or accurate.

    With that said, I have to go find food (because I’m hungry) and then I have to go impregnate girls (because I want to and need to and because I am obedient to signals firing in my brain that make me want/need that to feel good about myself). I want to go find food because I don’t want to starve and die. I want to go impregnate girls because sex is pleasurable and also because I don’t want to die without passing on my GENES, which are just little bio-information packets carrying on information about me. I want “me” to continue and since I have consicousness and intelligence I can recognize that and talk about it the way a Cheetah can’t but Cheetahs also still want the same thing.

  110. MGTOWER June 11, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    >I believe the need to have children is not only to pass on your genes, but to have ready-made targets to receive your overflowing and debilitating altruism.

    Now that’s a very fascinating thought.

  111. Stefan King June 11, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    One angle that is productive in this discussion is to view life and evolution from a thermodynamic perspective: consider organisms as facing a demand to extract energy and protection from the environment, or die.

    For more on this, read “The Collapse of Darwinism. Toward a Realist Theory of Life”, and “The Dynamic Society”, by Graeme Donald Snooks.

    There are 4 different ways in which (groups of) animals can extract energy to survive and prosper. Species change their genes and behavior toward the most optimal combination of these strategies. The big news here is that genetic change and technological change are pursued with the same end. For example, from a thermodynamic perspective, there is no difference between dinosaurs developing claws and shields and Romans designing shields and spears. They do this with the goal of praying on their neighbors.

    I guess there are some holes in this thermodynamic story, but it’s cool to compare with classic Darwinism.

  112. WhiteSecessionist June 12, 2015 at 2:53 am

    If these whores really are choosing alpha males in their best Darwinian interests then why do so many of them end up as single moms?

  113. Dmitry Anisimov June 13, 2015 at 1:44 am

    I am sorry, evolution does work. While you’re writting BS posts, some other people are quickly replicating.
    It’s just with availability of condoms and liberalism virus evolution will have to find a new method of forcing people to reproduce, just as it had to cope with transitioning fins to legs.

  114. Shaded Lumikko June 14, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Check out with this site rooshv … KEEP READING

  115. TeresaEWilliams June 15, 2015 at 9:15 am

    Reset your job with rooshv Find Here

  116. TeresaEWilliams June 15, 2015 at 9:15 am

    Reset your job with rooshv Find Here

  117. Samantha June 18, 2015 at 2:09 am

    Russia

  118. Samantha June 18, 2015 at 2:09 am

    …….I Need Some members for manrepeller Best Detail Find

  119. shinypichu June 18, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    I cant read all the the text but you are wrong.
    1 who survive isnt the strong, who survive is the more adapted. You only have to think in dinosaurs.
    2 human body is weak and a person cant fight against elephants, tigers or others but a lots ofpeople can kill they easyly, this is the reason because people need friends. This happen in the modern world too, people with a lot of friends have more oportunities.
    3 carity was needed too, what would happened to our antecesors if they left their partners die? He would stay alone and in danger.

    Darwin is right in people too, only that we have a more difficult sistem. And remember than human body is weak.

  120. Kit Ingoldby June 18, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    Sorry, but a lot of those criticisms of Darwinism are criticising something that is not Darwinism. Darwinism does NOT claim that all people will be in constant struggle and competition. Unless you understand that reciprocal altruism is a major part of evolutionary success then you do not understand evolution and any criticisms you make are off target.

  121. AlphaBeta June 20, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    A few points:

    Animals do not reproduce because they want to. They are compelled to have sex because it is pleasurable and may not even connect the act to pregnancy. Their instincts kick in when they birth their offspring.

    Secondly, what we may be seeing today is a higher form of evolution. Perhaps we are at an epoch where human life is giving itself over to mechanical life. This would be similar to when single-celled organisms started agglomerating into multicellular organisms.

    Humans will simply be the nucleus of the cells in a higher-order human-machine form of life. Carnal pleasures will be simulated to keep people “happy” as they serve their function in the collective.

    Lastly, people in poor communities have children because sex is probably by far the best form of entertainment, and they don’t have access to contraceptives or education.

  122. Abigail_kely June 22, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    °☯$☯°. I just agree… Ruby `s comment is astonishing, on thursday I got a brand new Volkswagen Golf GTI from having earned $6134 this month and-also, 10 grand this past munth . with-out a doubt this is the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much straight away was earning more than $79.. per-hour . ..

    you can see more info this link………↷↷↷↷

    ➽➽http://www.RealDollers/IncomeNet~ToEarn.Com

    ☰☲☲☰☱☰☱☰☰☲☲☰☱☰☱☲☱☰☲☱☰☲

  123. germaniawerks June 23, 2015 at 5:05 am

    Notice, however, how vigorously we humans fight for status and abundance of resources – for more of that than we need for ourselves.

    1. Saliwa June 24, 2015 at 3:13 am

      /////// . if you, rooshv `s posting is really great… last wednesday I bought a great new audi after earning $6949 this month and just a little over 10k last munth . it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever had . I actually started 5 months ago and pretty much immediately began to bring in more than $83 per-hour . read the full info here >> < Find More

  124. monika June 23, 2015 at 5:07 am

    Reset your Only job with rooshv NOW Find Here

  125. Haven Monahan June 26, 2015 at 2:16 am

    Roosh, you completely misunderstood 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 of rivals, etc. The incentive for reproduction is that sex is enjoyable. Throughout nearly all of human history, sex has led to reproduction. However, we have a new selective pressure our distant ancestors didn’t have: birth control. If birth control is around long enough, sooner or later humans will evolve a solution to resisting it (latex allergy? immunity to the pill? etc)

  126. dimux June 26, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    Your first choice rooshv Find Here

  127. Peter June 26, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    The mistake has always been taking evolution and applying it incorrectly and making it into a world view about humans that isn’t justified. That was always a mistake. I’ve tried to explain this to people but they just don’t get it. It’s not evolution per se you have rejected, but you have rejected the implications and leaps of logic you made early on about evolution. Congratulations. You now actually finally understand evolution.

  128. Gammelsvensk June 27, 2015 at 3:17 am

    I always foud that sex is Much more exciting when there is a real chance of reproduction. In fact when there isn’t I find it more and more pointless. Shooting blanks is just relieving tension.

  129. ChristopherSSandberg June 29, 2015 at 5:00 am

    Your first choice rooshv Find Here

  130. Pamela _Anderson July 6, 2015 at 2:45 am

    @SFDR


    Just working out 6 Following Methods to work in Online Earns you 6 – Digit Income every month securing your future financial free.My Uncle Elijah got a new red Mercedes SLK-Class Convertible just by some part-time working online with a laptop. check this

    ⊰➟⊰➟⋯☞ https://www.QuickAccessCash.com

  131. ClaytonGRodriguez July 7, 2015 at 4:08 am

    Some New Features with rooshv….. Go To Next Page

  132. ShirleyLSandlin July 8, 2015 at 9:26 am

    Some New Features with rooshv….. Go To Next Page

  133. DavidMBowen July 11, 2015 at 5:14 am

    Some New Features with rooshv….. Go To Next Page

  134. Joseph Jagusah July 11, 2015 at 10:53 am

    Looking at some of the comments here, it appears that many are arguing that western culture is the maladaptive trait, forgetting that many of the points in the article relate to features such as the universality of altruism, which disproves that western culture is what disrupts human behavior from the evolutionary model. I would posit that, while many of these traits are maladaptive, they have created an environment that is conducive to reproduction, i.e. the essentially 100% rate of reproduction. The best example is altruism, as it is easier to be altruistic than to engage in market practices. This evolutionary course will end once our altruism is replaced by an evolutionary understanding of market functions, allowing us to be completely self-interested and still live in a civilized society. As a famous philosopher once said, what is the difference between a philosopher and other men? if all laws were abolished, we would go on living exactly as we do now.

    1. Hashian July 14, 2015 at 6:26 am

      Go with the help of roosh’v… My Uncle Mason recently got a stunning red Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT by working part-time off of a pc.
      You can try here ⇢⇢⇢ Start Job Here

  135. sasha July 19, 2015 at 6:33 am

    you are a special person and i question your aims.
    -evolution is more complex than you describe it: ants evove because of it, yet almost all of them are infertile, and very altruistic to the fertile ones. It is not only the one able to reproduce that survive… it is what promote the good of the specie that survives – and what promotes good in general,.
    You have no reason for thinking that the best way is that of the old stereotypes where women are to be not educated and etc. That implies nothing can progress.

  136. Jon July 21, 2015 at 3:24 am

    I disagree with Roosh, because I think the definition of evolution presented and dismantled here is a very cherry-picked definition.

    The implicit definition of it here is that “there is such and such a way that the generations within species have given way to new generations within species, and that such and such way is horrendously inaccurate in describing modern human behavior! We don’t eat our neighbor’s young like wild lions!”

    This is not the definition of evolution which I am accustomed to. The one I prefer and take as a general and fundamental principle, I would word as the following.

    “Evolution is the process in which a collection of entities is replaced by a new collection of entities. The new collection repeats this step. Etc ad infitum.”

    In terms of collections of humans, the ones that are here the next generation will be the ones whose parents reproduced. Their design will be the one which comes from their parents. The existence of a “fit” trait is a tautology, and therefore is always true. Whatever traits of the parents led to them producing this new generation, those ARE the evolutionarily “fit” traits. The specific traits can vary over time, and clearly they have in the case of humans, where it is no longer the smartest or physically strongest who are the most evolutionarily “fit”. Perhaps it is a trait you don’t even respect, but it is still the “fit” trait.

    By this definition of evolution, the altruism of humans is irrelevant to the “fit” trait. So it’s existence is no big inconsistency here.

    As for why altruism exists in humans, it is because of the evolutionary process acting on collections of species. You apply it just as you do to collections of humans. With species, mutation is “reproduction”, and extinction is “death”. Humankind is here today because the ancestor species from which it mutated had traits which made humankind able to survive. Altruism is probably one of those “fit” traits of our primate species ancestors, among others which must certainly include high cognitive ability.

  137. Lindamajor July 24, 2015 at 3:42 am

    It’s All About You o o s h < Make It Easy

  138. Brian Black July 24, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Your scale is too small. You are trying to observe evolution in real time, when your limited time on earth will ensure that the only people to understand the path of human evolution (if humans are still around) will be living thousands of years from now. Humans do not have to reproduce, having the intellectual capacity to avoid it, but that does not mean they will find a way to compensate for the lack of reproduction and not go extinct. Until we find a way to make ourselves immortal (without producing cancer, which has occurred with every attempt to engineer telomerase for this end) we reproduce or we die. You are correct in asserting that it is a poor reason to run game if you are specifically after recreation and nothing else.

    Evolution appears to have no point, but it is actually an effective way to disperse energy and increase entropy over time by metabolizing larger molecules that would otherwise take much longer to thermally decompose. Organisms survive as long as they can to make this breakdown more effective, and then other organisms decompose their bodies once they die.

    I do not believe that human beings are altruistic by nature, at least in the sense you spoke of. This can be seen in every species on the planet, whether it being an ant dying to carry vital resources to a colony or as structural support in moving colonies (army ants), or even animals developing social behavior even if it makes them more vulnerable to attack from predators and more likely to use up resources they could have conserved if living individually. Predators take resources from other organisms and compensate by sharing with their offspring (mammals) or reproducing in large enough numbers that even cannabalism is acceptable. It is favorable for humans in groups to be altruistic towards one another, and I myself consider it noble, if only in consideration of the fact that generosity, greed and altruism as terms do not actually exist; Francisco Pizarro, a man who influenced much South American culture, demonstrated this fact quite well with the simple statement that a man must be wealthy before he can be generous to justify his conquering ways. Human beings are afforded the opportunity to be altruistic even in what we consider harsh circumstances by there relative dominance of the resources on this planet. Greed can be either malicious or justified, but the idea that selfishness and selflessness are not inexorably linked is a myth.

    I appreciate your challenge of evolution, because refutation of challenges will make the theory stronger in a country that has a large percentage of people who do not understand or fully comprehend the depth of proof and support for the theory (an example would be homologous proteins that can trace the relationship and ancestry of every organism on the planet).

    You can only find truth and gather evidence properly if you have questioned everything.

  139. Nicholasadkins July 26, 2015 at 6:36 am

    ………………1=39Now Get this rooshv

  140. God Is Not Great August 9, 2015 at 2:46 am

    The obvious flaw in this article is it is written by an idiot. Yes we still try to spread our genes. We do it the same way fruit flies do, by having sex. That is why we have a sex drive. The sex drive was evolutions way of getting us to reproduce.

    It does not instil a need to have children, that is not needed. Two people have sex and children are the result. And it worked perfectly until a few decades ago.

    A sex drive is a more efficient way of getting you to reproduce. And like all forces of nature evolution takes the path of least resistance. What a moron. It is so obvious a 10 year old can see it. Fruit flies have sex for the sake of having sex, so do we. This guy thinks we are programmed to have children, we are programmed to have sex.

  141. TFC August 9, 2015 at 5:06 am

    The author (Roosh) is correct and still learning. By his own admission he has read the old testament. You do not have to be a genius to understand that there is no such thing as evolution. If you read just the first chapter of Genesis you will learn a lot. Believer or not, the Christian Bible is not the only historical record on this planet. It does not matter what or in which you may believe, however there is overwhelming evidence that the earth and heavens were created approximately 6,000 years ago. Even non Christian scriptures support the very same events. Evolution is not evidenced by science nor by scriptures. Anyway, this alpha male has chosen not to believe that he is the evolutionary result of a rock and rain water soup that the evolutionists prescribe.

  142. fuck you twat August 10, 2015 at 2:39 am

    Oh look a sausage fest convo. Why do you have only one woman commenting on any of your idiotic stories? Because you are a douche rocket who thinks rape should be legal. Keep sucking at life and making asinine arguments with no relevance to anyone anywhere ever because you need attention from mommy.

  143. Viewer August 10, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    Not understanding evolution is not a reason to say you do not believe in it, all you can say is you do not understand it. Evolution does not dictate every individual life form must reproduce, it increases the chances of population growth. We now have more humans on Earth today than ever before so evolution is working very well. It is so unfortunate that humans still take everything so personal, “what about me?”. It’s all not all about you, your personal reproductive system or personal growth on any level. You are not the bigger picture in any area of science, no one person or individual life form is.

  144. Vince Gotti August 13, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    Propaganda, groupthink and brainwash are having a serious detrimental effect on evolution apparently.

  145. Austin August 16, 2015 at 9:25 am

    I would say that humans don’t fit into evolution for the same reason most domestic animals don’t, selective breeding. Dogs were domesticated because man kept the ones that were nice, whereas out in the wild they would be at disadvantage to wolves. Same thing with people. The guys who were dicks and tried to fuck other people over didn’t “out compete” the other members of the tribe, because they’d gang up and kill him. Society chooses what domesticated animals look like and behave. Nothing inconsistent with evolution there. It’s just that man is also domesticated

  146. fuck you August 18, 2015 at 10:52 am

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

    WHITE POWER

  147. Puccalove69 August 20, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    You forget we run these scripts subconsciously.

  148. Dave August 30, 2015 at 11:55 am

    What about a hive or bees, or a colony of ants/termites. These systems seem very complex and mysterious. Each ant or bee is certainly not fighting for survival and reproduction. If you were to imagine a colony of ants of human level intelligence and complexity then maybe you would have humans as we see them.

  149. Pierce Timberlake October 10, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    The author tries to forestall potential critics at the outset by suggesting that their objections will be based on bias and the investment of egotism in their opinions (before he’s even heard what they’ll say). I don’t resent his opinions and I’m willing, even interested, in contrary ideas. However, this attempt to pre-silence any who disagree is intellectually sleazy. Of course people are often invested in their beliefs — the observation is so obvious as to be trivial — but it doesn’t matter. The honest way to debate is to evaluate the arguments on their own merits, not dodge them with some ad hominem imputation of egotism.

  150. gumbala October 20, 2015 at 4:54 am

    I have been suffering from (HERPES) disease for the last four years and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This disease started circulate all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information concerning the prevention of this disease, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (Hepatitis B and Cancer) by this Man Dr Gumbla and she also gave the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so i wrote to Dr Gumbla telling him about my (HERPES Virus) he told me not to worry that i was going to be cured!! hmm i never believed it,, well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me as the Dr assured me that i have cured,after some time i went to my doctor to confirmed if i have be finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all you can email Dr Gumbla on : ([email protected]) or thought his website http://eromosalspiritualtemple.webs.com or call him with +2348161850195.. THESE ARE THE THINGS DR GUMBLA CAN ALSO CURE.. GONORRHEA, HIV/AIDS , LOW SPERM COUNT, MENOPAUSE DISEASE, PREGNANCY PROBLEM, SHORT SIGHTEDNESS PROBLEM, Stroke, Bring back ex lover or wife/husband….sir i am indeed grateful for the help i will forever recommend you to my friends!!!

  151. Will October 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    god damn this is a strong contender for the biggest pile of shit ever written

  152. Wally October 28, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Nice article, based on a complete misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory though. And the more I read on the web about natural selection and evolution, the more I believe we have forgotten the very nature of what Darwin proposed back then. I understand that evolution in a broader sense might be thought as a generic changing process, which shapes organisms to different forms. But strictly speaking, it is not. Honestly, I’have recently forced my self to read ‘On the origin of species and the preservation of favored races through the struggle of life’ and I have to say that as of today, Darwin’s work is the most convincing explanation of how one species could give rise to a new one. I’m very much convinced that we are not going to evolve into a new species, because natural selection doesn’t act on humans anymore (oh yes, don’t get mad at me plz.). Consider also, that in our super-interconnected modern society there is so much genetic exchange within humans across the world, that I can hardly see how the necessary long-term isolation of a group of individuals could occur. All that said, it doesn’t mean that we are not in the process of developing new features in our species as a whole. And forget about disproving evolution with such a petty and stretched argument. People say, evolution is just a theory. Ok then, explain to me why inside mithocondria there is bacterial DNA, closely related to the DNA of existent bacteria (alpha-proteobacteria). Isn’t that the ultimate proof of evolution?? And may I ask to people who categorically deny evolution, why is it that this amazing principle of life bums you out that much? And people no hard feelings

    1. paroikos November 25, 2015 at 2:42 pm

      “And may I ask to people who categorically deny evolution, why is it that this amazing principle of life bums you out that much?”

      Glad you asked. Your Darwinian origins-metaphor adheres to a single “amazing” metaphysic: ylem originating from the Big Bang contained a ‘mojo’ which, over eons, taught dead, primordial matter to think. Evolution, as the “principle” that generated and propagated the incredible informational complexity of the biosphere… and cognition, has bummed itself out.

  153. Argu November 19, 2015 at 9:24 am

    “Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain why this occurs, why the “strongest” and most “fit” are having the least amount of offspring or deliberately choosing not to have any offspring at all” Just because you think, that they are the fittest, it doesn’t mean they are. Darwins Theory is based on reproduction. When they don’t reproduce they aren’t fit. You forget that sex is not only about reproduction in human beings, but also a social thing.

  154. MGKing January 16, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    I completely think that you were to emotionally involved when writing this. There is a TON of text here and whats mostly conveyed is your opinions on the subject instead of facts supporting your argument. I know you believe what you do about our existence for good reason. I’m just unsure if you think But i dont see how the only support behind abandoning the idea of Evolution is that if it’s laws dont apply to us it doesn’t apply to anything. Really the we are still evolving. We are at a point were as you’d said about Survival of the Fittest eliminating the weakest parts of humanity has turned against itself. It’s through Sentience that we have places highest value on human life and thus allowing, even embracing insemination of the weak. But we dont evolve to solve the problems we face now but the problems faced by our ancestors. One of many future problems will be adapting to a poisoned planet. A possible Evolutionary process after Sentience is population control. Some forms of technology very efficiently direct and limit the people as desired by varying groups. The leaders of your community and governing parties. Some rich and influential but more is from Marketing teams pushing consumerism, fashion Magazines, GMO’s and processed food, Internet Porn, Video games, planned parenting, and especially pharmaceuticals and narcotics. These are all traps of the modern day that take the desires we have instinctively to Produce or lets say, Reproduce but instead will go through sexing several times before completing your bodys natural goal of producing offspring. Now if we continue that same action of sleeping with others for pleasure instead of purpose in time we’ll see the evolutionary adaptation. Probably changes emotionally as well as physically in fertilization. (Im just shooting from the hip as an example.) There are many adverse effects from those modern norms that will make the whole of our species weaker and weaker still until the ones who are the modern day “Fittest” who saw what was happening or made it happen. Now in the sense that the strongest survive it’s not in physical strength but mental aptitude to learn act with wisdom and avoid the traps others have set.
    In all likely hood we will not survive the century. For at least four catastrophies we are bringing upon ourselves. If such an event happens soon it’ll cause all man to suffer and turn on each other. And when the majority is gone in the wake of destruction a remnant, the surviving fittest, will rule the world. If there’s a remnant at all.

  155. InformNow Media August 27, 2016 at 5:03 am

    Agree with you that Darwinism/Evolution is gibberish.

  156. Boris August 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    The writer of this article should go visit the ark park in Kentucky. He can be one of the fixtures because he’s got the brains of a Bronze Age animal sacrificing primitive. Evolution denialism is the new crazy.

  157. Ivory Campbell September 25, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Where is Altruism most prevalent? The Ghetto? There is a much deeper yearning to fuck when you’re not sitting behind a desk, constantly traveling, on the phone, or staring at a computer. It’s really that simple. And all these outside forces are total BS. Who knows if years from now we find that texting causes e.d. LOL step out of the science box…or back into it. What if climate change makes dark skin races horny? Hahaaa…no one knows and you can’t really throw all these big names under the bus with this level of article.

  158. ErPanza78 October 6, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Not a nice ‘incipit’, I came here just to link my point of view to a friend without having to explain it 😀 Thanks, though 😀

  159. robert franklin stroud October 10, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    Good read. Thank you.

  160. Reed Schrichte October 17, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    I appreciate your thoughts on this. Genes morph, that much is obvious, just look at any dog. Even Gould had to introduce Punctuated Equilibrium to “explain” the dramatic shifts. Darwin is the beginning of the discussion,not the end. And evolution is only one tool in the toolbox, the random asteroid is part of the equation as well.

    https://www.amazon.com/Social-Conquest-Earth-Edward-Wilson/dp/0871403633

    https://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Principle-Scientific-Expedition-History/dp/0871136643

  161. Ross Wind December 2, 2016 at 10:17 am

    With all the life forms supposedly from 500 million years, transitional fossils should have been fairly easy to find. Between the 19th and the 21st century, millions of fossils were found. None were transitional fossils. If the theory was correct, we should have found millions of them. It is so bad that evolutionists do not use fossils as evidence for evolution anymore. And yet, in some dishonest sites, they used longtime left out proof because they don’t have anything else. Darwin said that the only way to establish his theory was by the fossils record. We should ask ourselves about the honesty of many evolutionists from the past. Hundreds of books stated that they found transitional fossils, we know now there was all made up proof. True scientists would not fabricate evidence, true scientist would only look at the facts without preconceptions. If they used preconceptions, it is no longer in the scientific domain, it is pure doctrinal, closer to a form of religion. Fossils are not the only problem the evolutionists are struggling with. In fact it is so bad that the Nature magazine of the October 8, 2014, titles an article
    ” Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? ” Two evolution clans have different opinions. It would not happen if evolution was a fact. Other crashes inside the evolutionist community has happened before. Nothing really new under the sun. The reason there were so many disproval and frauds since the beginning of Darwin’s theory is because, it’s very hard to prove something that never happened.

  162. Gregor December 5, 2016 at 10:04 am

    The biggest mistake that you make is thinking that what Darwin thought is actually the theory of evolution that we have today. Trying to dispute Darwin only shows ignorance of the subject. Yes Darwin has laid the foundations but the theory of evolution has progressed so much after Darwin because the data was simply unavailable back then, entire scientific fields didn’t even exist at the time and the ones that did exist, the major studies weren’t done yet (the same is true for Freud and psychology). Genetics was only in its infant stage, for instance Human Genome Project (the decoding of the human genome) wasn’t completed until 2003! The fairytale book that you provide is from 1995 (21 year old book) and tries to refute Darwins book from the 19th century – 150 year old findings! So what you end up with is pure nonsense. Let me explain how evolutionary theory progressed since it’s beginnings. After Darwin you have Modern evolutionary synthesis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
    And after that we now have Extended Evolutionary Synthesis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis
    So your understanding of evolutionary theory is outdated, you have to learn about 2 generations of scientific discoveries. Evolutionary theory gathers information and discoveries from many scientific fields. When these fields make progress so does the evolutionary theory. It’s a never ending work in progress. I am a science geek and I follow current studies vigorously and the one thing that has become clear to me is that scientific progress is happening in an exponential rate where it is hard to even follow one field unless you are doing it professionally. Since understanding of evolutionary theory is multidimensional covering various scientific fields, the amount of effort that you have to put in to stay current is exponentially larger.
    Darwin could only make conclusions from the data that was available to him at the time. That’s because he had no means (knowledge, time and resources)to experimentally evaluate things. He was not shy to tell that he doesn’t completely understand the mechanism that guide evolution and natural selection. A great documentary on this subject:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYBRbCLI4zU
    Now we have the means and many studies have been done. Our understanding of how evolution works has changed substantially. The mechanics of natural selection have been drastically changed and explained in much more detail using different branches of science. Since it will take to much time for me to go over all the errors that you made in your article (i will do only the ones i find most important), a lot of errors that you make are explained on Berkeleys page about misconceptions about evolution, so i highly recommend you read it: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
    Modern evolutionary theory doesn’t support the “survival of the fittest” anymore. Though “survival of the fittest” is the catchphrase of natural selection, “survival of the fit enough” is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two “best” individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the best genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the “fittest” in the population, but they are “fit enough” to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. So to put it simply – whatever lives long enough to reach reproductive age and is able to successfully reproduce will pass on it’s genes.
    “I’m nearly 36 years old, with ample resources, intellect, health, biological “strength”, and access to females, but I have not yet produced a child”.
    Well in your case (and in mine) from an evolutionary standpoint some tribesman with very few resources, low iq and a weaker body is a better specimen than us because he is able to reproduce. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). If you don’t reproduce we can’t really talk about descent can we? The reason why you don’t reproduce is from standpoint of evolution irrelevant, but i will go in more detail about the mechanics of how this works in humans later.
    A giant error that you make in you article (the one that penetrates through all your writings) is that you try to use yourself or the people you know as proof. In scientific terms you are just one member of one species. Even if you had the most strange and odd features or some weird mutations it doesn’t matter, in that sense you are just an anecdote. The major problems with anecdotes(although there are many more problems) is that people have cognitive biases, our memory is unreliable and what is certain in your case – the sample is to small, it has no statistical significance at all. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. You can’t refute a scientific theory with around 170 years of studies from multiple scientific fields with anecdotes. From the information that I’ve gathered about you I would have to conclude that you are at least somewhat scientifically illiterate. I suggest reading this book for starters:
    https://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-Scientific-Method/dp/1111305552/ref=pd_sbs_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1111305552&pd_rd_r=7MED56TBV7QXGK5BJ0QN&pd_rd_w=A1xxL&pd_rd_wg=erZWK&psc=1&refRID=7MED56TBV7QXGK5BJ0QN
    This article explains why being scientifically illiterate is actually an evolutionary trait:
    http://eatingacademy.com/personal/wired-think-scientifically-can-done
    Statistically (as sad as it may sound) most people who graduate form scientific fields are scientifically illiterate:
    http://criticalthinkeracademy.com/courses/critical-thinking-about-science/lectures/350180
    There are many animals who are otherwise healthy with abundance of resources and don’t reproduce. Homosexuality is a great example. You claim that homosexuality is somewhat special (at least that’s how I understand you) to humans but in reality homosexuality is found in many species, so it’s a thing we inherited from our ancestors.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I5N34Q1Bio
    Another interesting thing is that social suppression of reproduction is also not unique of humans as you claim it to be. It happens in other animals also, albeit by a different mechanism:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1989.tb02616.x/abstract
    You claim that altruism is special to humans which is wrong. Altruism does not appear only in humans:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6243664_Spontaneous_Altruism_by_Chimpanzees_and_Young_Children
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-you-rat-me-out/
    http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-june-2016/necessity-kindness-altruism-animals-and-beyond.html
    Natural selection does’t mean that every individual should behave in manner that increases it’s reproductive success. Natural selection only states that individuals who do that will spread their genes better and thus better spread some of it’s behavioral traits. That is called individual selection. The offspring will be more inclined to behave in a similar manner because it inherits some of these traits. Those who won’t do that will have less success spreading their genes and behavioral traits. Because of sexual reproduction there will always be mutations so the offspring will be different from it’s parents. Some individuals will therefore have the characteristics that enable survival and reproduction and some won’t. In many cases the individual is not fit enough to reproduce. The reasons for that can vary from homosexuality to disease, or just not having some traits that are desirable in that species (sexual selection). Of course the environment is always changing and traits that guarantee reproduction change all the time. Since our culture, science and technology is a huge part of our environment, what constitutes a “fit enough” human being has changed dramatically.
    Every healthy animal has a sex drive and sex feels good thats why we do it. Since you have a mammalian brain you also have a sex drive. So all your sexual behavior is an evolved trait. Period. But on top of that you also have the human part of the brain specially the large prefrontal cortex. This part has also evolved. This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior. The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals. And this part is the one that says “I won’t have any children”, for some people at least.
    So its a double edged sword. Everything in nature has its upsides and downsides. More muscle means more strength but it can also mean less agility and in times of famine it also means more energy expenditure and could cause death. The same with humans and our brain. Having a larger prefrontal cortex (combined with opposable thumbs etc.) has allowed us to develop technology and reproduce to almost 7.5 billions individuals right now. Our behavior is a combination of physiology and physical environment(our hardware if you will) and culture(software or social environment if you will). In most animals physiology and the physical environment are the most important part. Since no other animal has evolved their prefrontal cortex in the extent found in humans evolutionary speaking sex drive was enough to drive reproduction. But because of the way our brains (specially the large prefrontal cortex) have evolved we are capable of complex language and learning which means that our culture has became very important in guiding our behavior, much more than in other animals. Because of the western culture but mostly science and technology (condoms, contraceptive pills, abortion ect.) some of the population will not have children.
    But don’t get fooled! Evolution is ALWAYS working you can not get out no matter what. As long as you have species and reproduction you will have evolution because every sexual act creates changes in the offspring, otherwise it would be a clone. What will happen with humans now because of contraception is that people like you and me who don’t want to have children will not be so successful at passing on the genes and people who do want to have them will be better at passing their genes. In terms of evolution you and me are the weak ones no matter how many women we have slept with. Western culture could be looked like a maladaptive gene, or better like a virus. Because of it we are like someone with a broken reproductive system but in our case it’s social, cultural. So you and I are gonna have less of our genes transfered to the future generations, dependent on the reproductive success of our relatives. If the current trend continues there are going to be more and more people who really like babies as they are the ones that will spread their genes more successfully. Since this is a very recent phenomena we won’t be able to see the results for quite some time because evolution is a very slow process. But there are many studies that have observed evolution happening in humans. Some of them are:
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a8
    But even without reproduction we can spread our genes through kin selection. Many species have specimens like for instance homosexuals which don’t have individual selection. These specimens can help with kin selection and thus help with the survival of their genes. If you have a brother, sister or any other close relative that has children and you are in any ways helping them, well you are taking care of your genes at least partially. Your brother or sister have 50% of your genes. Thats how you can spread some of your genes without actually reproducing yourself. More info:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NABwKMWOtQU
    About child mortality, that also doesn’t go against evolution. Yes humans are an extreme case but still cases of this exist in nature. New discoveries suggest that evolution doesn’t always happen gradually as it was previously thought, instead it in many times happens in steps, when strong environmental pressures arise. So the way you can look at humans right now is like some species that lived in the most abundant times, when there was a lot of food, water and no predators. When the environment is abundant and not hostile more individuals will survive then when it is not so. Selection will not be as strong as in the harsh environment. When the environment changes (less food, competitive species, cold, predators…)selection will get stronger and less individuals will survive. The problem that you have with evolution is that you look at the current human situation as fixed. In order to understand evolution you need long time scales. At least thousands of years, preferably hundreds of thousand of years or millions of years. What will happen with humans no one knows, because no one knows the future. But if we analyze the past and create future trends from that we can expect major wars coming up, fighting for resources and so on. In that case the weaker individuals will get weeded out eventually. Since we are destroying top soil and emptying out the oceans, scarce food will (unless we change course) become inevitable. Add to that the rise of human population (yes globally is still rising) and you have a sure recipe for disaster.
    Species population can decline for many different reasons and what many times follows is extinction. 99.9% of anything that ever lived on this planet is extinct now. So in that sense evolution is not a perfect system where every step is a progression, it’s more like “whatever works”. Sometimes new parts of the body will grow, sometimes parts of the body will disappear (like legs in snakes). If the species has enough food and is able to reproduce, well then it works. If the species for whatever reason doesn’t gather enough resources or doesn’t reproduce then it will go extinct. That’s why you have so many species that are (forgive the expression) dumb and weak as fuck. A sloth would be a prime example of that, but it has just a few characteristics that let him survive. One is climbing and the other is that it can survive on very few calories. Thats all it takes sometime.
    Great review for Darwinian Fairytales:
    Criticism of the book has come from biologist Michael Ghiselin:
    “Much of what he says is completely wrong. According to his version, organisms invariably reproduce as much as possible. And yet, contrary to what he says, there is nothing contrary to the theory as it is taught to undergraduate biology students, when older males prevents younger ones from getting access to females. It is straight-forward consequence of competition for a finite number of mates. Nor does there exist, as he claims, any contradiction in the fact that organisms defer reproduction until they reach a certain age and size; they are accumulating capital.
    The author of the book doesn’t have any clue about factual biologic proofs of evolution of his time (the book was written in 1995) and concentrates all his efforts in destroying very old (and already known false at his time) non-biological (mostly social and behavioral) arguments in favor of evolution. Like many other people, he forgets that Darwin was merely a pioneer and didn’t have all the answers at his time to explain the exact mechanisms of evolution, which we now know.
    I have taken my time to answer your comment. Hopefully you have learned something new from what i have wrote and the links that I’ve provided. So in the spirit of reciprocity what I would like you to do now is read a MODERN study or a book about evolution. Choose the one you like. I can suggest firstly a general book:
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393937933?ie=UTF8&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&tag=teachbiolo-20&creativeASIN=0393937933
    And then the extended synthesis:
    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019#sec-7
    https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Extended-Synthesis-MIT-Press/dp/0262513676
    I also highly recomend lectures from Robert Sapolsky from Stanford University since he is great at describing the multidimensionality that governs human behavior.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL150326949691B199
    As you will see, understanding evolution will take you years. Anyone can read Darwins books and dispute them but not many people can read the whole scientific literature and understand what it’s actually about. Thats the reason why so many people don’t believe in evolution.
    If you do what I suggest then it would be cool to write another article. Refute the books if you like. But just be sure to use the CURRENT DATA. I wish you all the best on your journey.

  163. RSF32 December 15, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    One eensy-weensy tiny flaw in your thoughts. You are wrong. The DNA cannot lie, evolution happened to us bipedal Great Apes and we can see the markers in our ancestors. You ain’t getting a lady pregos because ya pulling out has got nada to do with evolution..more you being a sensible chappie!

  164. Ace of Lances December 15, 2016 at 10:54 pm

    I’m not an intellectual; I live in rural Canada, cut trees, hunt, homestead; wife, two kids. I think there is a flaw in the idea that folks have kids to pass on genes. My wife and I conceived both our kids at the ‘worst’ possible times, when resources were scarcest, be it money, childcare, shelter, food or otherwise. I see my kids as helpers, to help me with more wood, more gardening, more successful hunts. My wife and I don’t have much sex when times are good; it’s when we need one another, intimately, for comfort. Having kids urges me to acquire better tools, techniques, more land, and savings in various types. It gives life a meaning, beyond ‘where did I come from?’ or ‘what is my purpose?”. My purpose simply and immediately became them. I think with humans there is a quality over quantity coefficient (I might be using that word wrong; you know what I mean).
    I am a practicing Catholic. I joined the Church, from not being very religious at all, because I wanted my children to have a community…And a standard moral compass without the ambiguities of alternatives. It’s not perfect for many folks, but it works for me, answers my questions, and let’s me move on to the business of denying myself anything selfish so that I can build a better future tomorrow, or in an emergency, for my family.
    Anyway, just my input. Please don’t tell me I’m stupid; I know that my thinking is simple, just saying what I experience, maybe it adds something to the discussion (?)
    Cheers!

  165. Simple & Open-Minded December 29, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Your Article is clearly a product of evolution resulting in natural selection – The strong, health, smart, and reproductive families will survive to pass on inherited or evolved, characteristics and/or traits to offspring. The weak, dumb, or unproductive family characteristics and/or traits die off.

    EXAMPLE: Any living organism losing the instinct, ability, or mentally choosing to depress the drive, to reproduce is evolution resulting in natural selection. If you do not have children your traits have been naturally eliminated.

    As for myself – I do not believe entirely in any one form of creation but more-less a combination of many beliefs from Evolution to God as the creator.

    Today, I do not believe all of Darwin’s theories are correct. In fact in many cases he is completely wrong, In others, he is very much correct. Depending time, place, and let’s not forget we have evolved since Darwin. What applied then and there may not apply here and now.

    Fact is – I waited until 34 to have one Girl child. I would not be surprised if she does not reproduce, which would lead to the end of my family tree. For the world left to inherit the naturally selected human race to continue to evolve and be naturally selected over and over again.

    1. Simple & Open-Minded December 29, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      Further more no one wants to hear the hard truth – Today’s society has and still is corrupting the “Gene Pool” by providing well-fare, heath care, and a long list of benefits to the lazy, weak, and dumb. The fundamental fact of natural selection is – if you cannot survive you are eliminated. The Survivors create a stronger, smarter, and reproductive species of humans. It is a COLD HARD FACT – I do not like it and frankly I would probably be eliminated if I am not strong enough. However, the human race would be so much better off if we could to evolve the way we were naturally designed.

      1. Simple & Open-Minded December 30, 2016 at 2:19 pm

        OK – I am rambling, but I awoke with a clear picture of human evolution this morning. I believe I was wrong with my last statement of, ” The human race would be so much better off if we could to evolve the way we were naturally designed.” WE ARE EVOLVING AS NATURALLY DESIGNED. Where humans are today is because of choices we have made. I nor anyone else knows if we are better or worse off, because of our previous choices as humans.

        Fact and prediction- Humans have evolved and been naturally selected into the species we are today, that cares for the weak and lazy – this will continue for many years to come. However we have also evolved to become a “Creator”. Smart and capable enough to genetically alter life. This too will continue. Not only with plants, animal, but on to Humans. Who will ultimately become the future of our evolution and naturally selected to continue. Hopefully able to continue life on Earth and beyond. If life does not evolve the species of humans will eventually be naturally eliminated.

        I have now come to terms with who we are as humans. We must accept the fact – we are who we are, because of where we have come from, and we will be who we will be, because of where we are going. CRM

      2. Simple & Open-Minded December 30, 2016 at 5:23 pm

        My thoughts continue – Humans do not need to worry about homosexuality as it is naturally eliminated from generation to generation as they do not reproduce.

        Of course as genes are passed on a small percentage of new ones will be homosexual, however will be dominated by heterosexuals as they are the only group to reproduce.

        Currently, this causes an endless cycle of discrimination, because Homos are a minority in a majority of Heteros. They are viewed to the majority as different, weird, strange, and misunderstood. This will continue until the majority can understand the endless cycle of evolution and the natural selection that is taking place and accept it.

  166. David Tripp January 18, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    I haven’t done a lot of reading on Darwin, ( not really being my interest ) but from what little I remember from school, your right , modern man doesn’t fit in the theory.
    But what if, instead of being the exception to the theory ( kind of ) What if what we see with modern man, is the beginning of the end. The death of a species. Other species have died out without any good explanation, And nothing is forever. ???

  167. Manored January 24, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    Evolution still applies to modern human beings, we merely have a skewed idea of what constitutes “fitness”. We apply our own, humans conceptions of success, but nature does not care for them, it only cares for our reproductive success specifically. You, for example, seem to think you would be considered fit because you have ample resources… but the fact that you decided to not have kids makes you unfit. You do not adapt well to your environment of modern technology and education, because when these modern ideas and possibilities combined with your genetic behavioral predispositions, they resulted in a “I’m not gonna have kids” result, aka, a failure.

    So evolution is currently selecting for humans who still want to have kids even after being exposed to modern technology and education that in many ways encourage us to have few or no kids. It is selecting for humans with a strong innate desire for children that defeats those viewpoints, or perhaps for humans with a tendency towards carelessness (and thus unprotected sex).

    Aka, our technology and culture have rendered physical traits largely irrelevant and largely unselected for. Now what is evolving is primarily our genetic predispositions towards specific behaviors.

  168. Jacob Calihan October 3, 2017 at 9:14 am

    The problem with humans is that they care for their stupid and mentally retarded. This is rarely seen among other animals. Other animals would simply let them starve. In western societies the government will help you live thanks to people who actually get off their arse and do something daily. Rich people don’t have time to have kids because they are working so that poor people and their numerous children can live off the taxes that the rich person pays. Humans are no longer evolving. The result of dumb people having more children then smart people accounts for why Europe’s average IQ has dropped a whole point after the new millennia. By trying to be “humane”, which in itself is a fallacy, is why we no longer see human evolution. We are constantly trying to take care of people who are too lazy or dumb to take care of themselves. And these dumb people reproduce and then the government uses my tax dollars to take care of their kids. Do you see any other animals doing this,? No. Only humans. Humans would undergo evolution if only the smart and strong reproduced and liberal governments stopped trying to take care of people who are dumb and lazy. The Eugeneticists were correct in the idea that if we continue to let idiots reproduce and then we proceed to take care of their offspring we are only making the problem worse. Less taxes for taking care of stupid people the more money corporations can pay their employees and humans will become smarter. Becoming smarter is human evolution. Taking care of dumb and lazy people isn’t smart. So it’s time for the smart humans to start doing something about this. Or maybe the elite doesn’t want us to be smart. They’d rather see the majority overrun by a bunch of violent idiots living off welfare. Who knows?

  169. Bobby Richardson December 7, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Riddle me this, all you so called smarty pants, and if u can’t grasp this, smack your mom and dad for failing u. Math. It’s abstract, numbers are conceptual, if I wrote 3 on paper and lit it on fire, u didn’t kill 3, its a physical representation. Numbers don’t evolve, nor do they live out by pluto. They only exist in the mind. WE DIDN’T INVENT MATH MKAY. So, while we were swinging from our tails, why were the planets bound by mathematic principles, u can go back at any moment in time and find where the planets where using, u guessed it math. If u wanted to destroy math, u would have to destroy every mind aware of it,then all CREATION, THEN YOURSELF, BUT GUESS WHAT, THERE IS STILL ONE MIND THAT KNOWS MATH, I would tell u to guess, but u dont want truth. Oh, and numbers and letters go hand in hand, u need numbers To be able to spell words, and letters to describe what numbers do. Yall don’t even know that the word universe (uni-verse) actually means – single, spoken sentence: GOD SAID LET THERE BE. Yall are stuck in the matrix and don’t know it. U suck at life, If natural selection was real, it would have taken the trash out years ago, yet here u are, instead, it’s a couple inbred harelip hillbilys, having a circle jerk. Simpletons.