I am a veteran of several internet discussions about Creation vs Evolution and related subjects and I learned that the internet is a valid proving ground for your arguments and beliefs and ideal to hone your thinking. So I don't know a better place to throw your arguments into the pit than this site where brilliant minds come to battle.

Now I got three thoughts entertained lately and I want to test them. Here we go: We learned from Evolution theorists that men tend to have several relationships and spread their offspring and that women want their men attached in order to have them defend them and their offspring. And Evolutionists say that everything - be it cultural or biological - is a result of Evolution.

Now, why is it that men feel pain when a relationship ends? I got a friend who is just recently deserted by his girl-friend. What is the evolutionary explanation for his pain? Shouldn't we expect some reward instead, a little dopamine, anyone?

Why is there this dominating ideology in the Western World/First World to encourage abortion? How does Evolution explain the overwhelming force with which this ideology spreads globally? And why is it that this ideology centers in the prospering part of the world, the First World? Shouldn't we rather expect it in the lesser successful part of the world, if anywhere at all? Should I go on about this upcoming rule of PC? How does Evolution explain Political Correctness and its power, siphoning in all people, making them into obedient followers? There should be an Evolutionary explanation for all successful up and coming phenomenons, shouldn't there?

Why is it mostly men encouraging/forcing their women into abortion? Weren't they off to diversify and spread their offspring in the first place? What does the Selfish Gene think of this behaviour?

Now guys, try tear my arguments to shreads. Give me some insights. Thanks. :)

PS: Basically, the question is, where is your Evolution now? :P

Edited 4/14/2014 19:11:56

The Simic Combine teaches me that life and evolution can be molded to the whims of the molder.
Meaning, we are this way because someone, something, made us this way.

I have not studied these subjects so all I can do is give my opinion and sight on it.

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

It is probably so we leave eachother less quickly. It has apparently for humans an advantage to have fewer partners during life than having a lot of "fuckbuddies". Humans are social animals and it will probably give more advantages to our childeren if the parents stay together for a longer while.
To avoid us leaving eachother to quickly we feel pain when we leave eachother.

Why is there this dominating ideology in the Western World/First World to encourage abortion? How does Evolution explain the overwhelming force with which this ideology spreads globally? And why is it that this ideology centers in the prospering part of the world, the First World?

Because humans in the first world have passed the phase where getting childern is nessecary for the individual. Where in the other parts of the world childeren mean survival (Or at least it is thought they do, while often it doesn`t help to get lots of children) this fell away in the First world. Besides that we in the western world often find that it would be better for both the mother and the child to not have the child. That way the child won`t be unhappy and the mother, who is often very young, wouldn`t have to do the difficult task of raising one while she is not able to. Abortion is seen to help in that way, while in the less rich countries childeren are seen as the way to survive. And besides that I think that the will of humans to have power over everything and to control everything will have helped.

How does Evolution explain Political Correctness and its power, siphoning in all people, making them into obedient followers?

Following is what humans do. If somebody gets beaten up on the street everybody just watches and keeps watching. Once one person gets in action to help, more often follow. A lot of people just follow somebody once he has taken the lead. Even though sometimes they see it isn`t right what the leader is doing they`ll keep on following. It appears to be humannature to be a follower most of the time. On the other hand, humans also seek power and that is why we will always be trying to get a more important role. I think following makes it easier for people to live. You don`t have to think, but you are still accepted in the community. After all you are doing what you should do. Also being a follower makes you easier accepted by that group, giving an evolutionary advantage. If there are people to support you, you are stronger. That is why religion got big, because it has an advantage to people to connect and feel one in a big strong group (Now religion also has the extra of answering that what we don`t know, and we are afraid of what we don`t know so we search excuses for that)

Edited 4/14/2014 19:34:07

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

Evolution explain processes of every living creature adn the process that takes thousands of years. Using evolution to try to explain interactions in a human society is like explaining cooking with quantum physics.

Why is there this dominating ideology in the Western World/First World to encourage abortion? How does Evolution explain the overwhelming force with which this ideology spreads globally?

First, I am not sure this ideology is dominant in any way. Second, again, evolution does not explain how an ideology may spread, you are completely confusing the field of discussion. To answer a question directly, there are several major reasons and a miriad of tiny ones why pro-abortion message might be spreading.

First it is connected to human liberties and rights, basically the whole 20th century was an incredible revolution in those terms. Now when we have the right to vote, live, not be persecuted for our beliefs (yeah, I know I'm narrowing the subject to western world, but the question specifically asked for that) we move on to other things. Some apologets of liberty feel that is their civil duty to fight for adoption rights for gay people, gender "equality" and the right to legally perform an abortion.

Second is related to church and how much power it used to have. At the very least in Europe many laws are remnants of an era before our parents or grandparents were born, and the fact that most people fighting against abortion laws are related to church in some way almost automatically puts everyone who considers themselves anti-church on the other side.

The third is most mundane I think, we live in a society that emphasises personal growth, careers and overall success in life, abortion is something that is pragmatic for a woman that has not yet finished college/does not have a stable job. Nowadays people are much more concerned with how their children will live than with bringing them to the world. Falling birth rates around the world are a proof of that.

Why is it mostly men encouraging/forcing their women into abortion?

Source please.



Overall comment, what you wrote has literally nothing to do with evolution, unless you regard all human beings as ones that only follow their basic instincts and have no other possible motivation.

Edited 4/15/2014 00:27:37

Edited 4/15/2014 00:27:46

Now, why is it that men feel pain when a relationship ends? I got a friend who is just recently deserted by his girl-friend. What is the evolutionary explanation for his pain? Shouldn't we expect some reward instead, a little dopamine, anyone?

Becouse if a woman leaves you, you can spread less/no offspring. That it hurt when she leave encourage you to make sure she stay with you. It also encourage you to keep her safe.

Now, why is it that men feel pain when a relationship ends? I got a friend who is just recently deserted by his girl-friend. What is the evolutionary explanation for his pain? Shouldn't we expect some reward instead, a little dopamine, anyone?

From a biological standpoint I'd say it's the denial of routine sex. Also, it could imply that she didn't see him as capable of taking care of her or that there was a better man available to do that for her, i.e. his ego took a severe hit.

But like Sze put it, this has less to do with evolutionary biology and more to do with the evolution of society. The birth-rates of developed nations tend to drop throughout history, check out the theories on the Roman Empire and the declining rate of birth among Romans with the rising rates of minorities. Interesting stuff.

This is also a Nature vs Nurture argument, we're born with a set number of abilities and depending on how we're raised and taught, some of those abilities are honed and others are lost or digress. It's also been hypothesized that genes can be manipulated indirectly over time when they're used more often and vise-verse, less often. -> So, depending on what values we as a society teach our children, they'll either adapt or reject based on how well they can use these values to further their own ends. Abortion, family planning and self-improvement are all notions that have been around for thousands of years, but whose popularity have waxed and waned depending on practicality, societal norms, etc.

Edited 4/14/2014 22:10:02

First point: Darwins theory survival of the fittest, familys that have a male to look after their children and wife are more likely to survive. Linked to evolution, without it we wouldn't be here today. This process is natural now, but at first it is adapted to, hense evolution. Male's feel pain (a guess) because they losevtheir chance to produce into the world. Their chance to have genes transferred from generation to generation or perhaps the women's really hot. Women oftern desert men if they don't think the man is for to support the women and child. Vis versa men oftern leave women if they are unsatisfied or don't think the women is fit to support the child.

Point 2 has to much to think of...may do it later.

Edited 4/14/2014 22:33:22

So, what happens to your theory if the entering arguments are unfounded?

Edited 4/15/2014 00:27:53

And Evolutionists say that everything - be it cultural or biological - is a result of Evolution.

No, they don't.

Well some may, but those are almost exclusively agenda-driven, crackpot 'popular scientists' with a complete lack of understanding of - or disregard for - the philosophy of science (*cough* Dawkins *cough*). Your questions for the most part do not concern (evolutionary) biology at all, but the social sciences / humanities instead.

"Evolution", in biology, is a scientific theory about the origin of species. It's not a theory about why lovesickness happens. Or why so and so many women choose an abortion at some point in their lives. Or even why most heterosexual men like boobs.

tl,dr your evolutionists are straw men.

Furthermore, ITT:

My basic line of thought is this: If mankind is the highly refined result of a millennia-long process of selection benefitting the survival of those individuals with the superior survival strategies, then you - as the result of this process - should give proof of this descent and your inner akins and tendencies should resemble this, or else you are simply not a result of such a process.

It is even valid in my view to look out for such preferences in current human individuals and in current human culture which should give proof of mankind's fit-for-survival-predecessors. Therefore I don't agree with Sze, that this would be like explaining cooking with quantum physics, but to the contrary, our culture is where Evolution should show as well as in our genes or does in fact not show. We should expect some overall Fit-for-survival-culture and/or some refined instincts in ourselves to sniff out the better strategy, if we would be the result of such a process stretching over millennia descending from fit and even fitter fathers.

And then, when you are feeling pain at the break-up of a relationship this on the other hand must be some hard-wired result of this evolutionary process, if there was such a process at all. And it must be a successful strategy, because it is wide-spread so to say. This is nothing cultural. Therefore I see there a contradiction to the Selfish Gene which favors promiscuity according to Mr Dawkins. It is completely plausible to think that it would be a successful strategy for men to impregnate so many women to spread your genes. So why the pain then? And no response of man's biological reward system like: 'Very well, you got that one, you are free to take the next now. Spread your genes! Oh, happy day!' I cannot see a trace of any such reward by Evolution for freeing myself from this or that woman to impregnate the next and, indeed, my friend does not as well. Of course, it is well played to claim that caring for your woman is some survival strategy like Dutch did, and this is what the pain is for, but then the obvious promiscuity in men stays unexplained. There is a contradiction.

Richard Sharpe's explanation isn't convincing. If he was right, there would be some reward for changing your partner once you fathered offspring. And the pain at break-up would be reduced. And he did not grasp the contradiction between abortion and evolution: You are killing off YOUR OWN offspring, not that of other people! There cannot be an evolutionary reasoning behind this or can there? Where is the Selfish Gene? I wanted to hear that.

My point is, that this right-to-abortion-ideology is obviously gaining ground and if we would be this highly refined result descending from evolutionary fit predecessors we would instinctively abhor this evolutionary nonsense or if there would be any resemblance of a Selfish Gene in ourselves we would never kill our offspring at any time, at least we would not WITHOUT NEED. Because my point was, that abortion does indeed not happen in the suffering and poor countries like he readily suggested, but in the prospering countries. It is completely the other way round than his explanation went. Richard, I feel that your explanations were just from the shelf without any thinking. If that would have been some Warlight move, I would have beaten you into smithereens.

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

Sze, if you are just saying that our current society and the direction we are going is not fit for survival, I totally agree. The Western World is right before downfall in my view. Rotten. The ideology of PC is for lemmings and surrender monkeys. But then remains my questions, how could we be a highly refined result of an evolutionary process, if we make such mistakes, once we are at the pinnacle of wealth and welfare of all societies of all times? I am seeing a contradiction there.

Gnull, yes sure it was Dawkins who claimed that everything beyond genetics should somehow be a result of Evolution, as well. And you are just saying it is not. Alright. I agree.

Edited 4/14/2014 23:14:49

Edited 4/15/2014 00:28:06

- this is Sharpe's exact point -

Overzealous me.

Edited 4/14/2014 23:28:23

Edited 4/15/2014 00:28:13

But then remains my questions, how could we be a highly refined result of an evolutionary process, if we make such mistakes, once we are at the pinnacle of wealth and welfare of all societies of all times? I am seeing an contradiction there.

Your post deserves a wealth of response, but I'll tackle this point first.

Darwin noted on the Galapagos Islands that during times of famine (i.e. drought) certain birds had an advantage over others. The Western World is suffering neither widespread drought, famine or wars (within their borders) to destabilize their comfortable living.

It has been observed that a comfortable person will tend to regress to a lazy-apathetic state at the cost of his/her health and well-being, because the notion of relative safety. This is something of a general trend and not exclusive. It can be observed though (again) in Roman literature and historical documents.

I'm alluding the to Romans because it's one of the best resemblances of a multicultural empire, but old enough to not be mixed in with the enlightenment and industrial revolution, which can be seen as the birth of the "American/Western Empire" rather than a separate event from modern empires. The Roman Empire is sufficiently old enough to extrapolate comparisons. It's also a good case to study if you're curious what could happen and what the major similarities and differences there are in these wide-spanning cultures.

The other thing to note in regards to evolution is that it is only a theory.

Just as electricity, magnetism, atoms, gravity and plate tectonics are mere theories to name a few.

Yeah, "theory" as in "in years and years and years, nobody could ever come up with an experiment to disprove it" as well as in "it's predictions are so fucking reliable that we can do all our 21st century stuff with it". Like, everything around you that comes with a plug.

Gnullbegg, that was my exact point...

Well, theory does imply that they're not complete.

All these theories are true, to the best of our current knowledge, but lack the fine tuning to be considered proven fact. At the same time they're all critical to our current understanding of reality and even if proven false, are true enough to the extent that we can apply them positively in our daily lives.

They, at the very least, hold fundamental truths, which would help us to later discover the "real truth" whatever that may be.

Edited 4/14/2014 23:29:34

Richard, no I did not ignore this part of your argument. I just accepted that argument as plausible. Of course, the pain points that way. An Evolutionist should absolutely understand this pain as the result of a selection process stretching over so many thousand years, which says that man should stay with their women as the winning strategy. But this hard-wired evolutionary lesson obviously leaves male tendency to promiscuity unexplained. You can't have it both or can you? If both would somehow be favorited by Evolution, then why did Evolution make this pain so terrifying without any powering up of your biological rewarding system? That was the initial question.

And the one about resources is just not hitting the target. Think again.

And abortion still kills your own offspring. An evolutionary strategy would be to let the others kill off their children, if they really are so stupid and if resources really are any point. Because that would leave more resources for your own ten-fold horde, then. So think again.

Edited 4/14/2014 23:36:08

Gnull, yes sure it was Dawkins who claimed that everything beyond genetics should somehow be a result of Evolution, as well. And you are just saying it is not. Alright. I agree.

Cool, so we agree this thread is over now?

Taisho, right. This is what is to be observed. And now what? We are observing again and again evolutionary stupidity. Now what? ................. We are no result of a evolutionary selection process? At least, there is no resemblance or proof of such in our current minds or that of the Old Romans or any others. And to reach this conclusion was my strategic goal. I reached it. Or did I?

Yea Gnull, its over. Thanks for the game, mate. ;)

Oh yes, and this thread was about bashing PC and abortion. I gave it a decent thrashing now. I am happy. =) Though I got the feeling that this was too easy. :/ There is still something to come, I feel.... Enter Aranka. Oh, oh, so much to read. Are you serious, girl?

Edited 4/15/2014 00:05:21