NTs fail to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution

Post Reply New Topic

I found it strange how NTs fail to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution. At my workplace, I we was talking about the beauty being an important factor when looking for a partner. I brought up the fact that beauty is the way to find out the healthiest mate. My office supervisor said where did I get that one from, I said it was evolution common knowledge. Beautiful woman tend to have beautiful children. She replied does it matter if the children are not beautiful. In an attempt on dumbing thing down I said if the child looks like the elephant man, that child couldn’t possibly be healthy.

Maybe NTs are not suppose to understand it, else the wouldn’t be open to various religious suggestions and I know religion is a form of evolving lie itself.

She didn't fail to understand. It's part of the NT games to pretend that all are equal, but, by no means, really believe in it.

Beauty and everything else is tied to the logic of evolution. Fundamentally we are tubes to metabolize and reproduce in the niche that is assigned to us as a species. Sounds not attractive, but it's good and is all there is about life. You wouldn't eat and copulate because it is in the logic of evolution?

Science functions as a religion too. How many people believe in it without understanding it? How many of the people who practice it realize that it is only one of a number of possible perspectives on reality? Like any other religion, you are only permitted to question the beliefs of science in the in the context of the assumptions of science. I love the game, but that's all it is.

What makes everything extremely complicated and, in a way, fascinating is that you have to do these things (survive and reproduce) "in the niche". That means that you have to respect your companions of species (morality), choose the right foods, find an apt refuge to sleep and keep your temperature and so on and so on (establish hierarchies etc. among needs...). Someone also said the the hen is the astute instrument of the egg to produce another egg. Who knows? Anyway it's all more entertaining than it looks at first sight.

I have to admit that even though I believe that my mobile phone uses radio/microwaves to transmit messages and not black magic or witchcraft is solely a faith driven belief. I have no idea of knowing this because I don’t know how mobile transmit information; I put my trust in scientist and common agreement that it is the case.

With the theories of evolution, I have a very good understanding of it. I answer many evolutionary questions even without previously learning about then beforehand.
One question I asked myself one day is why are men attracted to woman with big knockers. Using the logic of evolution I answered that question. I also answered another question why are many woman attracted to thugs and crooks.

the only difference between science and relgion is that with science, you can test and prove/disprove your hypothesis for ANY question and in relgion; the answers for specified questions are spelled out for you and you are required to believe what you're told.

and as for beauty... it is supposed to denote good genes. several species of animals pick their mate based on displays from the opposite sex.. most are non-functional displays.... serving no real purpose~like "beauty"

Sadaka said.
several species of animals pick their mate based on displays from the opposite sex.. most are non-functional displays.... serving no real purpose~like "beauty"

It's the case of the pecock's tail or od the stag's antlers. But selection sometimes goes astray, and I think that man's brain might be another example (Gregory Bateson).

Peacocks are strange, there bigger tails make them easier to be caught by predators and to grow such a large tail put a strain on their immune system because they have to grow it.
Can’t peacocks find a better way to attract a mate and display its health; it is very confusing

I may answer only in a very fuzzy way. There seem to be two forms of selection that sometimes contradict each other: natural selection and sexual selection. Sexual selection orders: "display to mate!". Natural selection produces functionality (usually females are functional), sexual selection produces often some form of extravagance and excess. It's certainly not "intelligent design" (that has no credibility), but a kind of zigzagging among different solutions to the problem of survival of the species. I know this is very rough. I have in mind to read a book by Helena Cronin, "The ant and the peacok", on the subject, but, being 500 pages it won' be done tonight.

Incidentally, Darwin was probably an Asperger.

Last edited by paolo on 21 Oct 2006, 3:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

THe difference between science and religion is that scientific knowledge, if lost, can be rediscovered whereas religious information cannot.

If all the bibles of the world were burned, and all the other forms of knowledge of christianity were as well, if all the christian peoples one day simply *forgot* and all the historical artifcats of that religion disapeared no one could ever re-discover Jesus.

However, if all the science books were burned and the rest of the recorded knowledge were lost and all of the scientist simply *forgot* one day this would not be the end of science. Yellow and blue will always make green no matter how hard you wish to believe otherwise. Gravity will still be in effect as well as the motion of the stars. Because of this, knowledge about the universe around us can always be re-discovered in the future.

So no, science is NOT faith based because all scientific knowledge can be tested. With faith you believe because you want to believe and damn the evidence. So you can't test faith, but you can test science.

A good example of a popular belief that is not sceince is Freud's idea of an Oedipus comlex. You can't test for such a thing, the "theory" is non-falseafiable and therefore is not science.

-------

As for the topic at hand. Beauty is usually an indication of good health. That's why no one goes looking for a date in their local hospital's cancer ward.

I find that most people fail to understand the fundamental concepts of most things. It apprears that less intellegence and more herd mentality results in more reproduction, though the latter might be a good thing I suppose if you're not at the top of the food chain.

But humans are at the top of the food chain.

Yes, and it was our competitive nature that got us here. But now, being competitive doesn't serve us as well as a collective as being cooperative does. Now which will lead to more reproduction, being competitive or being cooperative? A complicated question for this complicated society.

I don't care, whether a man is fat, or fit. If I find one whom I find attractive, I'll choose to spend the rest of my life with him. There are some fit men who aren't that attractive, and there are some fat men who are psysically attractive. Whether Mr Sexy is fat or fit, I'll know that I can't stop thinking about him.

I don't know; I've seen a lot of Aspies here clearly fail to understand the principles of evolution as well (cf. all those "Hey, we must be evolving into a new species!" posts). It's definitely not an NT thing.

As for beauty = health, not necessarily. That correlation is only true in terms of the symmetry of facial features (more symmetry = more beauty and more health; things like tiny asymmetrical differences and, oh, skin blemishes would tend to indicate a general lack of health). Certainly the so-called 'beautiful' standard currently popular, involving a very thin, tall body is not necessarily healthy, not when anorexia is considered, and the nearly-obese body considered beautiful in other cultures (say, the Dinka people) is not precisely healthy either. What about Chinese foot-binding? That was considered a standard of beauty at one time as well--or even the practice of wearing high heels in my culture; high heels are very hard on one's ankles as well as being uncomfortable and difficult to walk in.

On the other hand, the only completely cross-cultural standard of feminine beauty is a .70 waist-to-hip ratio anyway, but that correlates to ease in giving birth rather than general health. In today's world, when so few women die in childbirth compared to the rate of centuries past (interestingly, my own mother would almost certainly died in childbirth had she lived as recently as a hundred years ago rather than surviving to give birth to two other children) this isn't really a necessary trait for survival.