# Evolution is not real



## Relaxation

If you believe in evolution, you must believe in survival of the fittest. Stated another way, it is the belief that any trait that helps an organism reproduce will survive, and anything that doesn't help will die out.

Then why do you have social anxiety? This is apparently the trait that makes most people scared of human interaction. It makes people have low self esteem. And worse, it makes people intensely scared of rejection of the opposite sex, so much so that they won't even attempt to reproduce.

According to the Theory of evolution, this disorder would be the first to be eliminated. The fact that it hasn't been eliminated is proof that evolution is not real.


----------



## broseph

Evolution is an ongoing process...


----------



## diablo9199

You assume that anyone with social anxiety won't reproduce; you are grouping all SA into an extreme version, in which no one interacts with the opposite sex. Also, you can't say that evolution isn't real on the basis of SA; what if there were alot more people with SA 100 years ago than now, and people with SA are in the process of being eliminated? Also, this kind of assumes that once the last person with SA dies, then SA will never occur on the planet, which is pretty absurd as it's not all genetic.


----------



## Ape in space

There's always a range (distribution) of individuals with various anxiety levels. If you select against the ones at the high end of the anxiety spectrum, the result is that you create a new distribution centred at a lower anxiety level. But you will always have individuals who have higher anxiety than the average. Social anxiety only has meaning in relation to the mainstream society. Socially anxious people are already much more social than most animals, but we are still less social than the average in human society.

Plus social anxiety is not completely genetic, but is dependent on our individual environment also.


----------



## Perfectionist

This thread makes me sad.


----------



## Relaxation

broseph said:


> Evolution is an ongoing process...


Hominids have existed for approx 10 million years. I think the process should have worked by now. I can't think of any advantage in having social anxiety. Do you think that back in the caveman days, women would be impressed by a man who was lacking confidence, being timid around others?


----------



## Relaxation

diablo9199 said:


> You assume that anyone with social anxiety won't reproduce;


But I was taught in school that giraffes have long necks because they had a slight advantage in eating more leaves that were high up. So after X amount of years, all giraffes had extremely long necks. If this theory is true, social anxiety would have been wiped out long ago.


----------



## Perfectionist

Relaxation said:


> Hominids have existed for approx 10 million years. I think the process should have worked by now.


Please research evolution. You will find the answer to this question in the first paragraph or so of whatever book or article you read. Evolution has no end target goal.


----------



## Squid24

You're just trying to stir a ridiculous debate or truly have no idea what evolution and SA are about. SA still exist because it's a defect or a product of your upbringing or both. It has nothing to do with evolution. Anyway it's not like people with SA don't reproduce, there's a lot of parents on this forum. And genetically speaking, your parents don't need to have SA for you to have it.


----------



## BoostedSol

I don't think it is a very good argument against evolution. At best it would count against the speed or power of natural selection as a mechanism.


----------



## Arkturus

Relaxation said:


> If you believe in evolution, you must believe in survival of the fittest. Stated another way, it is the belief that any trait that helps an organism reproduce will survive, and anything that doesn't help will die out.
> 
> Then why do you have social anxiety? This is apparently the trait that makes most people scared of human interaction. It makes people have low self esteem. And worse, it makes people intensely scared of rejection of the opposite sex, so much so that they won't even attempt to reproduce.
> 
> According to the Theory of evolution, this disorder would be the first to be eliminated. The fact that it hasn't been eliminated is proof that evolution is not real.


It's not proof of anything. Things don't have to be perfect to survive and reproduce, they just have get along well enough to do so. Most of us would probably be more successful in a society resembling the ones we evolved in(tribal societies, where everybody know everybody). Also humans are unique among the animals in that we are successful to the extreme. Human population does not stay steady it has done nothing but increase over time(cept for a plague here or there) humans moreso than any other animal can survive and reproduce even if we are rather crappy examples of our species. Finding a single supposed flaw in a theory(which in this case what you pointed out was not a flaw in the theory) does not automatically discredit the whole theory. Saying birds can fly, thus gravity is wrong is just plain ignorant.

Don't you have any better to do than post a bunch of useless threads in the science and atheism forum. Since you obviously have no genuine interest in science, which the exception of posting bogus crap against theories you don't believe in simple because you don't want them to be true.

Funny how people don't protest scientific theories unless they go against a persons predetermined wordview. You don't hear any protest form the anti-science folks against quantum mechanics, yet quantum mechanics is far more radical than evolution or global warming.


----------



## Relaxation

Arkturus said:


> Don't you have any better to do than post a bunch of useless threads in the science and atheism forum.


why do you keep reading and responding to them then? It's your choice.



> You don't hear any protest form the anti-science folks against quantum mechanics, yet quantum mechanics is far more radical than evolution or global warming.


Evolution doesn't go against my "worldview". I was merely showing evidence against it. However, you seem to protest when things go against your world view.


----------



## diablo9199

Relaxation said:


> Evolution doesn't go against my "worldview". I was merely showing evidence against it. However, you seem to protest when things go against your world view.


Hardly evidence...

so many things wrong with this thread


----------



## coldmorning

Relaxation said:


> Hominids have existed for approx 10 million years. I think the process should have worked by now.


You're assuming that there is a target to evolution. There isn't.

One of the biggest flaws is to say one species (like humans) is more evolved than an ancestral species (like say australopithicus). This assumes a goal or target...

To say that elephants are 'more' evolved than mammoths is nonsense. Elephants are more fit in their current environment. But if that environment changed and became cold again, mammoths would likely be the fitter.

There is no target in evolution. It's just constant selection based on a changing environment.


----------



## Arkturus

Relaxation said:


> why do you keep reading and responding to them then? It's your choice.
> 
> Evolution doesn't go against my "worldview". I was merely showing evidence against it. However, you seem to protest when things go against your world view.


I don't intend to continue, but it hard when you have created more threads in these forums than anyone else.

I was not protesting things going against my world view I was protesting a common problem of people saying theory xyz is entirlly wrong, but their evidence is non-existent or bogus. Their reason for believing the theory is wrong is because they want it to be wrong. If someone has a valid argument based in solid fact against a theory then they should go ahead and argue it using that evidence, thats how science works.


----------



## Relaxation

Well why do gay people exist then? What kind of Darwinian survival advantage is there in having people born gay?


----------



## CourtneyB

I seriously dont understand how you cannot be banned by now. As far as i can tell every thread you start is meant to provoke, antagonize, and primarily to start stuff. You dont seem to be asking sincere questions at all, you just want someone to argue with, imo.


----------



## Relaxation

CourtneyB said:


> I seriously dont understand how you cannot be banned by now. As far as i can tell every thread you start is meant to provoke, antagonize, and primarily to start stuff. You dont seem to be asking sincere questions at all, you just want someone to argue with, imo.


It's called a DISCUSSION forum, not a everybody-agree-with-everybody forum. If you dont' like my threads, why do you keep reading them and replying to them?

As for asking sincere questions, they are as sincere as it can get. According to evolution, if you have a trait that hinders survival, it would be eliminated. So how can something like social anxiety possibly survive? Most of the people on this forum says it makes it very difficult to find someone to date. If you think that's insincere I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Riles

It's kind of more complicated than that. Anxiety is a mental disorder that is a result of serotonin imbalance in the brain. We will always have that chemical and a chance of having an imbalance of it.


----------



## anomalous

Relaxation said:


> If you believe in evolution, you must believe in survival of the fittest. Stated another way, it is the belief that any trait that helps an organism reproduce will survive, and anything that doesn't help will die out.
> 
> Then why do you have social anxiety? This is apparently the trait that makes most people scared of human interaction. It makes people have low self esteem. And worse, it makes people intensely scared of rejection of the opposite sex, so much so that they won't even attempt to reproduce.
> 
> According to the Theory of evolution, this disorder would be the first to be eliminated. The fact that it hasn't been eliminated is proof that evolution is not real.


I'm not a biologist and I'm not well-read on evolution at all, but the first thing that came to mind is that human civilization has significantly disrupted the evolutionary process. In any other species, I reckon individuals with our characteristics might be fairly rare from an evolutionary POV.

With continued progress in medicine, I'd expect more and more "weaker" humans to live longer and pass along their genes.


----------



## Belshazzar

The one huge problem with this argument is that evolution != natural selection. It is simply one mechanism by which evolution occurs. Look up gene flow, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, and mutation. The other problem is that SA is not purely genetically determined. Read Gould and Lewontin's essay "Spandrels of San Marco" (http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html), which concentrates on mechanisms other than natural selection.

Second, I don't see the reason for the outcry over all these threads. Like Relaxation said "It's called a DISCUSSION forum, not a everybody-agree-with-everybody forum." Sure, maybe he hasn't done the research, but the responses will be an educational experience.


----------



## Riles

Relaxation said:


> Well why do gay people exist then? What kind of Darwinian survival advantage is there in having people born gay?


Why are we born with an appendix? The evolutionary process is still perfecting itself. Not that there's anything wrong with gay people.


----------



## diablo9199

I'm not sure being gay has anything to do with evolution, because again, it's not really genetic, just like SA. If all gays are wiped from the earth, that doesn't mean more gay people won't be born.


----------



## Squid24

diablo9199 said:


> I'm not sure being gay has anything to do with evolution, because again, it's not really genetic, just like SA. If all gays are wiped from the earth, that doesn't mean more gay people won't be born.


Exactly, a portion every generation will be born homosexual, it's not a trait that is passed from the parents. You have to do it on purpose to misrepresent evolution like that.


----------



## pita

People with SA still reproduce. Not all of them, but some. My parents, for instance. So even if SA were entirely genetic (I don't think it is), you'd still have people with SA getting together with other people with SA and making wonderful SA babies.


----------



## danberado

I'm glad I got distracted earlier, you all have done a great job debunking the outrageously misinformed original post, saving me the effort.

@Belshazzar: Agitating is not the most conducive forum for an intellectual debate. A thread feebly claiming to debunk a grounded theory does little more than test the patience of the posters who have actually bothered doing their homework. It is a waste of time to debunk such toothless arguments, essentially distracting from what time could be spent on more enlightened ruminations on the subject.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

The thing you have to realize is that everyone has social anxiety, to a degree. Some are better capable to handle it than others, though.

I mean, look at the people with boyfriends/girlfriends on here. I've never even kissed a girl, despite being highly attracted to them. However, these people that are in relationships have other struggles, that are much tougher than mine, and I have struggles, much tougher than theirs.

Nobody has it easier on here. The only thing I agree with is that hot girls don't date ugly men, usually, because of evolution and survival of the fittest.

But usually social status can make up for lack of muscles and physical attractiveness now, so even ugly men with high paychecks can get a hot girlfriend.


----------



## LostPancake

I understand the OP's point, but the evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection is overwhelming, and it's more likely that there is a flaw in his argument. 

Social anxiety is an adaptive trait. For humans, threats to social status are very dangerous, because social status is so important to survival and reproduction, especially in small hunter-gatherer groups. Unfortunately society changes way faster than our genes and brains can, and our modern nuclear families and fragmented social structures are NOT good for us, especially those of us on the higher end of the anxiety spectrum. 

Social anxiety disorder is apparently about 50% genetic, 50% environment (yes, they've done twin studies). 

Rats who don't get enough care as babies switch into a higher anxiety mode, which presumably prepares them for a more stressful environment. Anxiety keeps you on your toes, on the lookout for danger. This is a good thing for your genes, but bad for YOU, as the person experiencing anxiety.


----------



## Doc Rice

:doh


----------



## Judi

Natural selection doesn't apply for humans, obviously... ever since ethics was created.

I mean, look after the sick, the mentally ill, everyone has equal rights. Everyone has equal rights to produce, and all types of genes proliferate. Forget SA and think about myopia for example, if people were to selectively not breed with those with glasses, then the average eyesight of the human population would be better, no? 

Anyways, I should stop posting in any of Relaxation's threads, it always seems to piss me off in some way =.=

Edit: Gawd, Can I report someone for have a pretentious status? right now, Relaxation's status is 'The #1 Authority on SAS' ... makes me want to laff


----------



## diablo9199

Relaxation said:


> Actually most scientists today believe there is a huge genetic factor that causes homosexuality. Identical twin studies have shown that very clearly.


Once again, even if it is a huge factor (which I don't believe it is), it's not the WHOLE reason. Your theory may make some sense if it genetics were the only variable, but it isn't. You seem to ignore the environmental/hormonal factors.



Relaxation said:


> What's most interesting about evolutionary theory is that it is unfalsifiable. Any evidence given against it is dismissed as being the "imperfections" of evolution. But anything that could be interpreted as being evidence for evolution is kept. So you end up with this one-sided rationalization.


"Just because I proposed one flawed theory and it was debunked, then it must be unfalsifiable"


----------



## Relaxation

diablo9199 said:


> "Just because I proposed one flawed theory and it was debunked, then it must be unfalsifiable"


But it is unfalsifiable. For example, why are humans the only living organisms that have long hair at the top of their head, their armpits, and their genitals and virtually no hair anywhere else on their body? What kind of advantage is there in something like that over the hair patterns of other animals?

The hair on top of a person's head grows forever unless it is cut. What a great Darwinian advantage.


----------



## sda0

Go read this book and we'll continue the thread afterward.


----------



## Belshazzar

Relaxation said:


> But it is unfalsifiable. For example, why are humans the only living organisms that have long hair at the top of their head, their armpits, and their genitals and virtually no hair anywhere else on their body? What kind of advantage is there in something like that over the hair patterns of other animals?
> 
> The hair on top of a person's head grows forever unless it is cut. What a great Darwinian advantage.


Now you're just repeating the same flawed argument -- try re-reading my first post: evolution is not natural selection. Natural selection is one mechanism by which evolution works.

Second, it is completely falsifiable. Micro-evolution has been observed in lab settings. If a new species could appear without evolving from another species, that could be experimentally verified and would falsify evolution. But that hasn't happened. Evolution could also be falsified if there were no change in the fossil record, i.e., all species appeared instantaneously without transitional forms. Irreducible complexity would be another case.


----------



## diablo9199

Relaxation said:


> But it is unfalsifiable. For example, why are humans the only living organisms that have long hair at the top of their head, their armpits, and their genitals and *virtually no hair anywhere else on their body? *What kind of advantage is there in something like that over the hair patterns of other animals?


A lot of researchers say that humans have the same amount of hair follicles as apes, just the texture is different. You have millions of hairs all over your body, just most of them you can't see.


----------



## LostPancake

Relaxation said:


> But it is unfalsifiable. For example, why are humans the only living organisms that have long hair at the top of their head, their armpits, and their genitals and virtually no hair anywhere else on their body? What kind of advantage is there in something like that over the hair patterns of other animals?
> 
> The hair on top of a person's head grows forever unless it is cut. What a great Darwinian advantage.


It traps heat, which is useful in the winter, it protects your head from UV rays, it's stylish (like lions manes).

The other hair is there to trap scent.


----------



## SilentLoner

Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun. No other theory has stood up to so much testing and outright attempts to disprove it.

Anyways, I was reminded of this excellent documentary:


----------



## thesilenthunter90

Relaxation said:


> Yeah and that's why it's called a theory and not a law.


Your right. The law stating that their is a god that designed everything is what we should listen to. Thats not a theory at all


----------



## SilentLoner

Relaxation said:


> Yeah and that's why it's called a theory and not a law.


Poor argument. Very little in science is an considered an absolute fact.

This is an excerpt from the documentary I posted:



> _ROBERT ESHBACH: _*To say it's just a theory is really a bit insulting to science because in science, a theory holds more weight than just a fact does.*
> 
> _KEVIN PADIAN__: _And here I think the term "theory" needs to be looked at the way scientists consider it.* A theory is not just something that we think of in the middle of the night after too much coffee and not enough sleep. That's an idea. A theory, in science, means a large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. *It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses and many different lines of evidence. Gravitation is a theory that's unlikely to be falsified, even if we saw something fall up. It might make us wonder, but we'd try to figure out what was happening rather than immediately just dismiss gravitation.
> 
> _KEVIN PADIAN: _Facts are just the minutiae of science. By themselves, they can be right or wrong. But a theory is something that has been tested and tested over and over again, built on, revised. It continues to be reworked and revised.
> 
> _ROBERT MUISE__: _Dr. Miller, would you agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is not an absolute truth?
> 
> _KENNETH R. MILLER__: _Well, I certainly would, for the very simple reason that *no theory in science, no theory, is ever regarded as absolute truth.* We don't regard atomic theory as truth. We don't regard the germ theory of disease as truth. We don't regard the theory of friction as truth. We regard all of these theories as well-supported, testable explanations that provide natural explanations for natural phenomena.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html


----------



## Amocholes

*I will say it in this thread too. Don't make things personal!*


----------



## Relaxation

thesilenthunter90 said:


> Your right. The law stating that their is a god that designed everything is what we should listen to. Thats not a theory at all


Why do you believe there are only 2 choices? I have noticed that just about every atheist in this forum will do that. Their argument is essentially, "Well, organized religion or a certain definition of "god" is wrong, so that means atheists are right."

It would be like someone saying, "I can prove Greek Mythology didn't exist, so that must mean current scientific theories are correct."


----------



## Relaxation

sda0 said:


> Go read this book and we'll continue the thread afterward.


Darwin wrote in that book about Lamarkian evolution.


----------



## thesilenthunter90

Relaxation said:


> Why do you believe there are only 2 choices? I have noticed that just about every atheist in this forum will do that. Their argument is essentially, "Well, organized religion or a certain definition of "god" is wrong, so that means atheists are right."
> 
> It would be like someone saying, "I can prove Greek Mythology didn't exist, so that must mean current scientific theories are correct."


I dont believe there are only 2 choices. The reason I am atheist is because I came to the conclusion that their is no reason to believe in god, thats my opinion. It does'nt mean I am right but I am only saying their is every reason to be atheist and NONE in believing in god (their is zero logic in believing, tell me the evidence). The evidence I use to be atheist is that their is no reason or evidence to believe in god and so I choose not to believe rather than hope and imagine that something is real when I have no reason to believe. The thing is that you theist cannot point to any evidence that their is a god, nothing, nada


----------



## Relaxation

thesilenthunter90 said:


> The thing is that you theist cannot point to any evidence that their is a god, nothing, nada


Firstly, you are assuming I am a theist.

Secondly, just because something doesn't have the kind of proof you are looking for doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no known cause of the big bang, so does that mean there is no cause?


----------



## thesilenthunter90

Relaxation said:


> Firstly, you are assuming I am a theist.
> 
> Secondly, just because something doesn't have the kind of proof you are looking for doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no known cause of the big bang, so does that mean there is no cause?


True, not having proof does not mean it does'nt exist but not having proof does'nt mean that a random god is the solution. Their are an infinite number of solutions but believing in a god is just one (yet people believe just 1 out of a infinite number of possibilities). So do the math, 1/ infinite possibilites = a very small probability of a god ( yet so many still believe). Their is a equal possibility that my guitar is the creater of the universe or this cup of coffee is in fact our god but nobody but a lunatic would believe that yet we believe in a god which as I have shown is of equal possibility.


----------



## matty

thesilenthunter90 said:


> True, not having proof does not mean it does'nt exist but not having proof does'nt mean that a random god is the solution. Their are an infinite number of solutions but believing in a god is just one (yet people believe just 1 out of a infinite number of possibilities). So do the math, 1/ infinite possibilites = a very small probability of a god ( yet so many still believe). Their is a equal possibility that my guitar is the creater of the universe or this cup of coffee is in fact our god but nobody but a lunatic would believe that yet we believe in a god which as I have shown is of equal possibility.


By not believe arent you limiting yourself to one possibility too?


----------



## thesilenthunter90

matty said:


> By not believe arent you limiting yourself to one possibility too?


Yes, I am not saying its 100% but its the most likely possibility, the one which requires less assumptions ( for eg, the milky way could be made out of milk{lol at complete randomness}, its a possibility but logical thinking tells me its unlikely so I will go for the most likely alternative {that it probably not made out of milk} until some proof suggests otherwise).

Their are endless possibility, many of which cannot be proved or disproved so I am am going for the most likely. I cant help it my mind is logical and I cant belive in something that makes no sense.


----------



## matty

thesilenthunter90 said:


> Yes, I am not saying its 100% but its the most likely possibility, the one which requires less assumptions ( for eg, the milky way could be made out of milk{lol at complete randomness}, its a possibility but logical thinking tells me its unlikely so I will go for the most likely alternative {that it probably not made out of milk} until some proof suggests otherwise).





> Their are an infinite number of solutions but believing in a god is just one (yet people believe just 1 out of a infinite number of possibilities)


So its ok for you to believe in only one possibility but others not to?


----------



## thesilenthunter90

matty said:


> So its ok for you to believe in only one possibility but others not to?


i did not say it was not ok, I said it was illogical, their is a difference. My choice is logical but believing in something else ( like god or afterlife) is not. But thats ok, people are entitled to believe what they want.

Atheist views are different to the other possibilities because they require no assumptions. Just a pure scientific thought process that like all other science comes up with the most likely situation ( that is all, it does not mean its correct 100%)


----------



## matty

I agree that on paper atheist makes the most sense. But paper is very different to real life.. I agree that religion is not the answer. 

My choice is to make my own mind up about what make the most sense to me.


----------



## VIncymon

Well, in reference to THE ACTUAL THREAD STARTER ....

Here is what could happen.

Scenario 1:
A few of the brave but somewhat foolhardy extroverted males, may have been killed by the beasts giving the Social anxious male just the window of opportunity he needs to mate and pass on his genes.

Scenario 2:
At a time, men chose women almost exclusively for timidness & submissiveness ( after beauty of course) ... thus further ensure that the genes of S.A. are passed on..


----------



## thesilenthunter90

^^^while their is no overall law, we do know for a FACT that evolution occurs ( as I explained earlier about bacteria and drosophila flies) <-----with these evolution can be seen within a few hours. Scientifically there is no disputing evolution.


----------



## Doc Rice

Relaxation said:


> In science it goes from hypothesis to theory to law.


"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Scientific_laws


----------



## Belshazzar

Relaxation said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for bolding that line.
> 
> No theory in science is ever regarded as absolute truth because only laws are regarded that way. In science it goes from hypothesis to theory to law.
> 
> It's called the Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Gravity because they are regarded as the truth. Evolution isn't.


Wrong. There is both a law and a theory of gravity. A law is not "above" a theory, it is a mathematical statement which describes observed data. A theory, unlike a law, has a causal element. A theory suggests why or how something happens as well as that it does happen.

I think all these threads are a good argument for stickying a link to a primer on evolution and the scientific method in this forum. Mods?


----------



## Jnmcda0

You often hear in commercials for anti-depressants used to treat social anxiety that the disorder is caused by a chemical imbalance. The question is why does this chemical imbalance occur? It is theorized that it is triggered an unnecessary application of the fight or flight response. We falsely perceive that there is a threat and our brain sends signals to the body to release hormones like adrenaline. 

Social anxiety seems to be more of a learned condition than a genetic one. While the fight or flight response is genetic, how we respond to it has more to do with environment and upbringing than with heredity.


----------



## Space Ghost

Social anxiety is actually an advantage in terms of survival. Socially anxious people are extra careful.


----------



## Magaly

Relaxation said:


> Well why do gay people exist then? What kind of Darwinian survival advantage is there in having people born gay?


"Same-sex sexual behaviors are flexibly deployed in a variety of circumstances, for example as alternative reproductive tactics, as cooperative breeding strategies, as facilitators of social bonding or as mediators of intrasexual conflict. Once this flexibility is established, it becomes in and of itself a selective force that can drive selection on other aspects of physiology, life history, social behaviour and even morphology,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/17/same-sex-relationships-gay-animals


----------



## low

It's foremostly a learnt social trait. Probably a modern one also as whilst big cities in society have existed for a long time now it's still only 3 to 4 thousand years on the evolutionary scale. Also the majority of populations lived in smaller rural or countryside areas in smaller communities. You also have modern technology, people not learning social skills as well possibly because of this. You also have the majority of populations living in cities or towns now, and so there would likely be an increase in SA due to social pressure and stress.

It's not really a fair argument basically, there are loads of (appropriate wording) social factors and technological factors.


----------



## Amocholes

Evolution changes once an organism begins changing it's environment to suit itself. It is no longer a matter of survival of the fittest. Instead of adapting to it's environment, the organism now tries to make itself more comfortable and tries to keep change from happening.


----------



## tennislover84

Relaxation said:


> If you believe in evolution, you must believe in survival of the fittest. Stated another way, it is the belief that any trait that helps an organism reproduce will survive, and anything that doesn't help will die out.
> 
> Then why do you have social anxiety? This is apparently the trait that makes most people scared of human interaction. It makes people have low self esteem. And worse, it makes people intensely scared of rejection of the opposite sex, so much so that they won't even attempt to reproduce.
> 
> According to the Theory of evolution, this disorder would be the first to be eliminated. The fact that it hasn't been eliminated is proof that evolution is not real.


If it's OK, I'd like to address all the points made in the original post.

Firstly, survival of the fittest only applies when there is intense competition over limited resources. When there are enough resources for everyone, then the "less fit" survive just as well as the "fittest" do. Somebody pointed out earlier in the thread that in most human societies, even people who can't help themselves at all are not just left to die.

Secondly, while social anxiety makes people have low self esteem and to be scared of rejection, I don't think that this is likely to stop most from reproducing at some point in their lifetime. We live long lives in relative comfort, and while there is competition for mates, it isn't a fight to the death. Being very outgoing would definitely help to find a mate sooner, but like what I said about there being enough resources to go around, if there is enough time and enough potential mates to go around, it doesn't matter if you are first or last to reproduce, as long as you do it. Socially anxious people have been "good enough" within the environment that we've existed in so far, so there would be no reason for a "social anxiety gene" to be deselected.

Also, there's evidence to suggest that mental health issues are linked with creativity, so it's possible that things like anxiety, OCD and depression stick around because they go hand-in-hand with more positive attributes, that might have given those people an edge when resources really were scarce! Creativity could help somebody figure out a new way to hunt prey/gather food, or a way to reproduce with a more conventionally strong person's mate when they're not around. :wink

The thing is, assuming that social anxiety is at least partly to do with genes, us socially anxious people clearly still exist in this world, so if none of the above arguments persuade you that evolution is real, what is your explanation for why we are still here? While I find the theory of evolution to be self-evident, I suppose it could be wrong. It's just the best fit considering what we know. If I'm to disregard the best current explanation, I'd like to have a better explanation presented to me first, that's all.


----------



## Relaxation

Theories, like the Corpuscular Theory of Light, have been proven wrong over time.

tennislover84: my explanation is that evolution is not random. As another poster on here said, the eye evolved 40 different times in the history of earth. How can something as arbitrary and as unique as an eye have formed that many times if it had no direction?


----------



## LostPancake

Relaxation said:


> Theories, like the Corpuscular Theory of Light, have been proven wrong over time.
> 
> tennislover84: my explanation is that evolution is not random. As another poster on here said, the eye evolved 40 different times in the history of earth. How can something as arbitrary and as unique as an eye have formed that many times if it had no direction?


If it seems like there is some guiding force causing eyes to form it's because being able to see things is such a huge advantage to survival. It's pretty simple for a chemical to react to light, and then a whole system like an eye can be built up around that over time. Each little improvement adds more of an advantage and gets selected for.


----------



## tennislover84

With things like the eye evolving over and over again, while the species and the environment might be totally different, the requirement is the same. That requirement is for something that will give an organism an advantage over its rivals, in competition over resources.

Like LostPancake said, the ability to have a very accurate, constantly updating picture of your surroundings... well that's a huge advantage over an organism that relies on more basic senses. With there being such an abundance of light photons all around us, and with the photons containing so much information about our surroundings, it's not surprising that eyes have evolved independently, again and again, to take advantage of this.

If you think about it, it's much the same as how military technology "evolves" independently in totally separate parts of the world. People in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States basically invented the jet engine independently from each other, to fulfill the same requirement. The reason why scientists and engineers came up with the same technology is because they tried lots of different things, but the jet engine simply worked the best for what they wanted it to do.

The same thing happens with the evolution of new organs and things like that, because lots of things are thrown at the wall, but only some things stick. The eye isn't the only way that organisms have attempted to solve the problem of having increased situational awareness over their rivals, but because the eye is so good at what it does, other forms can't compete and they die out. However, in highly specialised areas where the eye isn't so effective, for example in very low light environments, we see different sensory organs having the chance to shine. Bats, sharks, whales etc have unique sensory organs that are better adapted to their specific requirements than eyes are, although they have retained their eyes. But bats are effectively blind in the conventional sense, so it's quite possible that their eyes are becoming redundant and they may eventually lose them. That's assuming that bats don't become extinct before they can evolve much further.

To go back to my airplane analogy (just because I like it :b ), at the moment there is a proliferation of canard foreplanes on the fast jet planes of the world, and that isn't because all the air forces are copying each other. It's because the canards solve the same problem for everyone: they give an airframe that is optimised for very fast acceleration at supersonic speeds (i.e. with a small, highly swept wing), the required extra lift and maneuverability that it would otherwise lack. Again, that is a requirement that is being met in the same way time and again, because one solution is the best solution. Air forces always try out several different designs from different contractors, in direct competition with each other, so it's a really good analogy in that sense.  When we are talking about eyes evolving, sure the eye is a complex piece of equipment, but considering that evolution takes place over such vast lengths of time, eventually the best solution to a problem is going to keep rising above the rest.

Anyway Relaxation, if you believe that evolution is directed, what is it being directed by? Evolution is an extremely neat way of explaining how the species on this planet have gotten to where they are today, using only the information available to us. Your theory of "directed evolution" seems to require an outside force, that we know nothing about. You are answering a question with another question, so I wouldn't consider that to be a better explanation. I'm guessing that you don't have a scientific model of the directing force, and how that works?


----------



## twitchy666

*This should be published*

SAS

It's time to find the most meaningful threads to... a newspaper or TV show

Must be hard or easy to choose the best of the crop


----------



## Laboratory Rat

I'll quote your signature;


> Don't feed the trolls.


I hope this is a troll thread...otherwise, sir, pardon me but you don't know hell about biology and science.


----------

