Interesting topic. Have to read Roosh's article and a rebuttal of it here:
http://themanthemyth.com/roosh-aint-no-g...k-learnin/
From my research back in the day personally I think that there is definitely some kind of development going on with species. But the problem is that it does not seem random at all. I listened once to a talk by a mathematician and he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the changes and jumps in evolution could not possibly be created in a random fashion. The probabilities in useful genetic changes would be so low that you would get 99,9999999% useless negative mutations with the odd-ball chance that something worthwhile happens.
So essentially our own mathematicians agree that in order to have a semblance of evolution some kind of intelligent force has to shape those changes.
Of course I am no creationist here and the concept of "Intelligent Design" was co-opted by them too.
Personally I think that life is for the benefit and experience of souls and we have divine imperatives to learn about life, about love and about many other things here. From a spiritual perspective altruism makes sense - even animals when fed and cared for exhibit such things. We are more than instinct driven animals in a brutal fight of survival of the fittest.
On the other hand I don't really understand why evo-psych guys get upset by it that much. Whether you call it evolution or not does not matter - behaviorism explains it all very well and the terms and concepts someone like Rollo uses are valid regardless whether you think it is based on Darwinian evolution or it is just based on what men around the world have observed. Behaviorism unites us, while evolution in time will become better researched if we can keep our civilization going for another million years at a similar technological level.
http://themanthemyth.com/roosh-aint-no-g...k-learnin/
From my research back in the day personally I think that there is definitely some kind of development going on with species. But the problem is that it does not seem random at all. I listened once to a talk by a mathematician and he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the changes and jumps in evolution could not possibly be created in a random fashion. The probabilities in useful genetic changes would be so low that you would get 99,9999999% useless negative mutations with the odd-ball chance that something worthwhile happens.
So essentially our own mathematicians agree that in order to have a semblance of evolution some kind of intelligent force has to shape those changes.
Of course I am no creationist here and the concept of "Intelligent Design" was co-opted by them too.
Personally I think that life is for the benefit and experience of souls and we have divine imperatives to learn about life, about love and about many other things here. From a spiritual perspective altruism makes sense - even animals when fed and cared for exhibit such things. We are more than instinct driven animals in a brutal fight of survival of the fittest.
On the other hand I don't really understand why evo-psych guys get upset by it that much. Whether you call it evolution or not does not matter - behaviorism explains it all very well and the terms and concepts someone like Rollo uses are valid regardless whether you think it is based on Darwinian evolution or it is just based on what men around the world have observed. Behaviorism unites us, while evolution in time will become better researched if we can keep our civilization going for another million years at a similar technological level.