Ive Got It Figured Out. Sorta.

Post Reply New Topic

EDIT::: y'know what? FORGET IT! I made it clear that i didnt expect anyone to be in agreement with me, but i did not expect the personal attacks. It speaks alot for you people to say that you cant see a young earth creationist as reasonable. I did not come here to be an antagonist or to attack you for your beliefs, so why do you feel the need to attack mine?

This reminds me just WHY i left WP in the first place.

Last edited by thechadmaster on 18 May 2011, 6:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well first: "survival of the fittest" is a simplistic British addition to Darwin's later editions of his book. The original never had this. And the theory itself and actual practice tend to go far beyond this, due to the fact that human definitions of "fittest" are often times not what nature allows to survive.

As you say:
The AS person who finds love "are extremely lucky and have beaten the odds" Producing offspring right?

But in reality we also see:
The fit athlete everbody loves, crashes his car and ends up dead at a young age. Produces no offspring.

Who really survived? Who was really fit? Was fitness equivalent to survival rate?

Well since AS is genetics produced phenomenon, thats pretty straight forward. Except! -> Biologocial presets do not equal biological results!

I don't need a response, but please take the above realization into your thoughts...

You mean, if one doesn't live under a rock?
Darwin in this context was not a religious leader, but a scientist who recorded and published his OBSERVATIONS-
knowing what's holding your butt down isn't a "Newtonistic view", for instance.

Source? It's my understanding from several psychiatrists that the overwhelming majority of Aspies do find partnerships and most of them marriage, and even a substantial number of moderately-functioning Autistics. Regardless of what the lonely hearts on this board chant incessantly, having Aspergers is only very SLIGHTLY related to difficulty or decreased likelihood of finding a partner.

Natural selection has no "aims", as it is not conscious, let alone a manipulator of reality via intent, but a MECHANISTIC PROCESS.
"Negative traits" are "positive traits", sometimes with an extremely slight change of environment and other factors.
There ARE no inherently negative traits, basic life process-altering mutations aside.
And...sure that makes sense, if one swallows your notion that AS is a "negative" trait, versus a neutral or positive one,
and,
insofar as this is referring to some very general differences between NT's and Aspies which make interaction more challenging,
ignorance of the concept that within a given population, POSITIVE ASSORTATIVE MATING WOULD EXIST FOR ALL GROUPS OF A DISTINCTION FROM ONE ANOTHER..

Who defines "needs" except the individual? Because if you're implying that AS SHOULD be "cured", regardless of whether the individual loathes having it or loves having it, that's sprinting into very dangerous ethical territory....not that AS, period, will ever be "cured", as it is a genetic neurological anomaly, and NT PARENTS CAN HAVE CHILDREN WITH AS.

Again, source?

It's very hard to accept as reasonable a Young Earth Creationist, quite frankly. I giggled a bit upon opening the thread because I thought it was a joke.


ROFL @ OP storming off like a child after asking for honest opinions on his laughable notions on matters of evolution and ethics

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 19 May 2011, 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think dinding love is like a sort of lottery. It is pure chance, like playing on those machines at the casino, eventually it goes crazy and flashes with lights and a whole lot of money erupts out of the machine.

I knows what you mean. Although, you weren't actually talking about creationist and darwinism. You are trying to make a fact based on Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Yes. It has been proven and now has been becoming a reality for my dating. If you someone disagree with what I said, they don't know me and lacks the proper ground to judge me on.

Most college girls in my college are younger than me.

As someone else mentioned it's important to keep different kinds of "fitness" properly separated.

In most developed countries, a man who repeatedly impregnates women and then runs away is more evolutionarily fit than men who would not allow themselves to do anything that irresponsible (or are not able to pull that off). So, moral fitness and evolutionary fitness aren't related at all.

If someone is getting a lot of rejection due to not being able to read subtle cues and generate the right responses, due to specific impairment in reading such cues, isn't the same as being completely inferior except in that particular way. (I do appreciate how that seems to matter very little in any practical way, though.)

It's like how peacocks and other birds evolved certain exaggerated traits, like elaborate plumage, or an overly-complicated mating dance. At some point those traits probably did represent some practical evolutionary advantage -- but then nature discovered "false advertising." So certain traits became exaggerated and their connection to a clear evolutionary advantage became diminished. (There is a proper evolutionary term for that, but I can't remember what it is.)

I.e. A lot of human male behavior is posturing. Looking tough, confident, unafraid, etc. At some point in the past certain (behavioral) makers that represented those qualities were probably a good marker in evolutionary terms. But then there were others who could, through acting, also display those markers, and so they were able to evolutionarily 'keep up' (since nature has trouble differentiating the two).

So, now, there is a mix of people who: are confident, and are good at looking that way, aren't confident, but are good at looking like they are.

Ever have someone be shocked at how calm you are in an emergency? I.e. Mr. Guy-who-seems-tough-to-everyone-in-the-office is panicked, and you're calmly directing people to the fire exit. People are shocked because they've only been reading your 'markers' (which are likely 'off' by normal standards if you're ASD) until then, as opposed to waiting for actual data which shows who/what you really are.

So, if you aren't good at showing it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You could have good genes and good qualities, except for those involved in "salesmanship." -- Sort of like a peacock with great genes, except for having all-black tail feathers, which confuses the female peacocks, since they're primed to judge mostly by tail-feather color.

So, I 'hear' the original argument of this thread. I have had it run miserably around in my mind in the past. But I think that that idea is to get human notions ('markers') of fitness mixed up with actual good qualities or fitness. Being bad at dating and/or relationships may only mean being bad at dating or relationships.

If there were no salesmanship involved in human interactions, things would be different. You might be able to accurately conclude that you have, overall, lousy evolutionary fitness. But since that isn't the case, for all you know your only problem is the salesmanship gene.


(I'm too tired to proofread this again, so I hope it's readable and makes some sense.)

If NTs discriminate against us sexually, we can still mate with each other. It's probably dangerous to ostracise nonconformists too much, as they can regroup and attack the main colony. We're often extremely able people too, so to some extent the NTs have to keep us sweet.