You Are Not Evolving
The Darwin media industry manipulates irrelevant evidence to sell the public fake science notions that claim evolution is happening in humans.
Darwinians believe that every irreducibly-complex, highly-efficient function in our bodies and brains came about through mindless, aimless, purposeless byproducts of the Stuff Happens Law. Since that is too hard to prove, they tell stories with little details, hoping that the public won’t realize how they are being sold a bill of goods. Look at these recent examples.
Here’s why we crave food even when we’re not hungry (The Conversation). This article begins with a photo of a shapely lady craving a plate full of donuts. From there Charlotte Hardman and Carl Roberts, both Darwin storytellers at the University of Liverpool, launch into their just-so story:
The food reward system is highly efficient at directing us towards food sources and encouraging consumption and, because of this, it can easily override satiety signals. In our evolutionary past, when we were hunter-gatherers, this system would have been highly advantageous as we needed to be able to rapidly detect food sources and consume high quantities of energy-rich foods when available. This opportunistic over-consumption would have protected us against future periods of famine and ensured our survival.
Apparently Hardman and Roberts didn’t get the memo that “evolutionary psychology” that locates modern behaviors in some misty “evolutionary past” is nonsensical (30 May 2020). Food craving has nothing to do with “our evolutionary past.” That would be impossible to prove even if it made sense. The “food reward system” is (did you get this?) a system. The word system means “an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole.” That is the opposite of evolution. The ability to rapidly detect food sources requires eyes, a sense of smell, a brain, and things that make the idea of evolution by chance laughable. These Darwinian propagandists have taken evidence for design and twisted it into support for Charlie.
The “ability to consume high quantities of energy-rich foods when available” is evidence of design for beings like us able to climb mountains, cross deserts, sail to distant islands and navigate the world when food sources on the other side are uncertain. Even worse, the story told be these science charlatans reduces them and us to products of chance, unable to exercise self-control about our eating habits, even though the rest of the article tries to tell us what we “should” do. But such advice is fruitless to products of evolution. You’re not fat because of bad character, they say in effect: you’re fat because Darwin made you that way and you can’t help yourself.
Romantic relationship dynamics may be in our genes (Medical Xpress). What is more personal and voluntary than a man or woman’s choice of a spouse? The history of human romance has launched a thousand operas, plays, books and musicals. This glorious aspect of human life is cheapened by comparing it to animal behavior (see “animality” in yesterday’s post). This article demotes human beings even further by alleging that romance reduces to genetic determinism.
Variations in a gene called CD38, which is involved in attachment behavior in non-human animals, may be associated with human romantic relationship dynamics in daily life, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
It may be, or it may be not. What kind of scientific explanation is that? It may also be associated with stupidity in Darwinian explanations, because the storytellers fail to see how it undermines their own free will.
Patrick K. Durkee, Aaron W. Lukaszewski, and David M. Buss, “Psychological foundations of human status allocation,” .
This paper is just as logically challenged as the other two, except that it is better stuffed with academic Jargonwocky. The authors argue for “competence” models of status, which measure fitness by those earning it, over “conflict models,” in which the loser is intimidated to give way. It has the same flaws, though, demoting people to pawns of genes and evolutionary forces in the dim, dark “evolutionary past.” But what evolutionary forces would cause random mutations to appear on cue, and be selected by random acts of stuff happening? Does this make any sense to evolved primates that they believe humans are? Does “sense” itself make any sense to the products of blind, aimless “mechanisms”?
From an ultimate perspective, there must have been fitness benefits associated with deference throughout the evolutionary past to produce psychological mechanisms underpinning status hierarchies. Across species, assessment mechanisms produce deference to individuals with greater resource-holding potential because this tends to increase the deferrer’s net fitness by reducing the costs of direct dyadic competition. In many group-living species, these assessment mechanisms produce patterns of deference that create relatively stable hierarchies of varying steepness. For example, in nonhuman primates, access to monopolizable resources is primarily determined by deference from less formidable individuals to more formidable individuals, although groups of individuals sometimes form alliances to increase their relative formidability and access to resources. Evidence suggests that humans also possess psychological mechanisms necessary for producing deference and hierarchical structures based on dominance. Consequently, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that cost-infliction ability plays an analogous or homologous role in human status allocation.
In some assumed “evolutionary past,” there is no ultimate perspective. There is no perspective at all. Psychological mechanisms reduce to evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection), which reduce to genetic mechanisms (random mutations), which reduce to physical mechanisms that simply produce patterns by chance. But in scientific materialism, patterns are not even visible, because the beholder itself reduces to physics, and physics has no capacity for understanding or caring. Ultimate perspectives are only discernible to rational minds.
Once again, the authors appeal to “evolutionary game theory” to concoct their just-so story. This “explanation” has more holes in it than a sunken ship. In fact, it is more holes than ship. The three storytellers hedge their bets by saying that evidence “suggests” this or that, as if they don’t want to come out and admit their genetic determinism. They say “it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize” that we are just like nonhuman primates in our associations, even though reason has nothing to do with it! How can non-reason lead to anything reasonable? It’s goofy to think such a thing.
They call it a hypothesis, but it is pure imagination, based on their worldview belief that humans are nothing more than evolved apes: “there must have been fitness benefits… throughout the evolutionary past” that produced these “psychological mechanisms,” they say, which implies it was all the mindless and irrational outcome of the Stuff Happens Law. Finally, they ‘suggest’ that ‘cost-infliction ability’ “plays an analogous or homologous role” in the way humans distribute status (by some inanimate, mindless “mechanism,” remember). Well, which is it? If it were analogous, they can claim convergence; if homologous, they can claim common ancestry. Either way, Darwin wins! Copious application of Darwin Flubber rescues this mindless theory, and it gets published by the National Academy of Sciences. What does that tell you about the NAS, that it tolerates a theory that its own hierarchy of editors and leadership is the result of blind, irrational mechanisms?
So much for the “serious” paper about human psychological evolution. The first two were included for humor, just to show the degree of silliness within the Darwin Propaganda Empire. If the propagandists ever had to face their critics outside the walls of Emperor Charlie’s castle, they would quickly be exposed as the charlatans they are. That’s why the Darwin industry must maintain its totalitarian, dictatorial grip on power. It would quickly dissipate into hot air if it were ever exposed to the public.