Evolution, schmevolution…

Case in point...
Case in point...

Run now monkey men!!! Go hide behind your bearded idols, your simple tools at the ready, to remove those who dare to disagree from your delusional primate chain. I am here with disturbing thoughts and beliefs your “science” can not resolve. Your highest atheistas have failed, prepare to be exposed to ideas your simian minds can not hope to adequately resolve…

If there’s one thing I’ve learnt in life (and, by all accounts that might be stretching me slightly) it’s that truth is in the eye of the beholder and evidence is the ass of a penguin. By that I mean; people believe what they want (yes, even atheism is a belief structure ladies) and you can easily pretend something isn’t there just because you can’t see it.

So, to all you latent-agnostic banana apologists out there; What about this blushing thing??

Yeah, that’s right, explain to me (and the rest of the befuddle scientific community while you’re at it) how the simple act of becoming red-faced at one’s embarrassment fits into the whole natural selection scheme of things…

With the 200th anniversary of the Anti-Christ Darwin’s birth looming large on the horizon, New Scientist (in an unusual act of objective examination) decided to ask luminaries from around the globe to express their thoughts on what gaps there still are in evolutionary theory. Richard “I-can’t-believe-it’s-completely-immaculate” Dawkins surprised everyone by taking up the mantle of Lord Inquisitor and asking his usual roll of meaningless questions. Frans de Waal however posited the much more succinct “Why do humans blush?”

Apparently, after 2 centuries of perverting our best minds and devouring more research monies than Black Mesa, evolutionary science has failed to explain this phenomenon in it’s own terms. There is no advantage to having this involuntary ability in any respect, in fact it can be said quite assuredly that it is a huge disadvantage (in both society and the natural world) and should have been routed out long ago if there is even the smallest grain of truth in “The Evolutionary Superstition” TM.

Now, I’m really sorry to rain on your vegan-hippy-carbonoffset-treehugging-love-renewable-Xmas parade, or whatever other pseudo religious humanist back-slap-athon you were all planning to mark the day your heathenistic confuser was laid into the world he tried so hard to subvert, but if you can’t tell me why I go red when I’m caught looking at some pretty girls A.R.T. then I ain’t buying your wares and I may even go to the extent of shooting the horse you rode in on just so you don’t try and peddle your sub-standard dross to any unassuming saps you might be find elsewhere…

17 thoughts on “Evolution, schmevolution…

  1. mbooth

    …and should have been routed out long ago if there is even the smallest grain of truth in “The Evolutionary Superstition” TM.

    The key thing about evolutionary theory you seem to be forgetting is that the mutations are *random*. The probably of a child being born with a mutation tomorrow is equal to the probably of a child being born with the mutation a million years from now.

    Just because you haven’t rolled a natural 20 yet, doesn’t mean you will never roll a natural 20. Conversely, it also doesn’t mean you ever will either. The probability is the same will each roll of the dice.

    Like

  2. Ado

    Originally Posted By mbooth
    The key thing about evolutionary theory you seem to be forgetting is that the mutations are *random*. The probably of a child being born with a mutation tomorrow is equal to the probably of a child being born with the mutation a million years from now.

    Just because you haven’t rolled a natural 20 yet, doesn’t mean you will never roll a natural 20. Conversely, it also doesn’t mean you ever will either. The probability is the same will each roll of the dice.

    But we’re not talking about chance here, this is inherently a bad thing for someone to do/have the ability to do, so should never have “taken off” in genetic terms and lead to everyone having to blush. I say this because “we” are the only primates that have this ability, leading to the suposition that this occured though mutation, but (if so) should have died out before it became common place throughout the spicies.

    Like

  3. mbooth

    If at the time it evolved it didn’t have an adverse effect on our survivability, then there is no reason for it to have died out.

    Blushing is not the only feature of the human machine that has had neither a positive nor negative impact on survivability. We are also the only mostly hairless primate, for instance. One can only assume that by the time we lost our hair we knew how to wear the hide of other animals, negating the obvious survival disadvantages losing our hair resulted in.

    Like

  4. Ado

    Indeed, but we also have to take into account desirability as well as survival, as survival is all very well, but without breeding it counts for nothing in genetic terms.

    Hairless females were (and are TBH) seen as more attractive, they had no survival advantage but were more likely to breed, so their offspring had less hair etc.. etc.. until we are as we appear today.

    Blushing gives people away as liars or shows they are uncomfortable with something, usually leading them being found less attractive. Ergo, this trate should have slowly been lost, it has/was not and it remains, which defies evelutionary law… Mr Scientist!!!

    Like

  5. Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, I have seen the light! I beg forgiveness for my past discressions. The elegantly worded and immaculately spelt deconstruction of the myth of evolution has turned me to the righteous path!

    Incidentally, why would blushing stop you having sex? Is there something you want to tell us, o Pastor Cooper?

    Like

  6. Ado

    Now, enough about my speeling, it’s the way the language is going it’s just I’m more eveolved than you…

    It doesn’t stop you having sex, it simply limits your deirability with deserning partners (Iknow you probably can’t relate to this but that’s your deal…). In social terms it involuntarily “outs” those that are weaker (in social terms, such as liars) and thus should have never continued since the initial mutation or shoudl have fallen away soon after.

    Like

  7. Ado

    The Furry gene will be the next to be eliminated my friend. These deviants will be wipped from the face of the Earth in another generation, then the asexual “Hello Kitty” crowd followed by those that buy Ford Kas.

    Like

  8. Ado

    Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. The natural selection processes put in place by God, the most natural of selectors, will soon elimated these godless freaks from our world.

    Surely you don’t think this was an accident, the whole furry thing is/was a test to see who needs to be illiminated next. All who failed will meet their end shortly… mark my words…

    Like

  9. Neil

    Ah, so that would be why Merriam Webster defines supernatural as being “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil”
    Supernatural selection? Cool!

    But what about the gays?

    Like

  10. Ado

    I’m sorry Neil, are you insinuating there is a “Gay gene” of some sort??

    I’ve always seen this life-style as a choice and not something related to genetics or that can be tested for in somone’s DNA.

    Not like those damn Furries!!!

    Like

  11. Neil

    Maybe it’s more a ‘gay meme’ than a ‘gay gene’, and is spread by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Right Said Fred and that episode of Postman Pat. The one with Ted Glen.

    Maybe the furries are in the same boat?

    Like

  12. You should read (or get the audio book ;]) ‘Nature via Nurture’ by Matt Ridley for a better put argument than I can muster up but there is evidence that there is genetic predisposition to homosexuality. A single gene, called SRY (got to love the imaginitive genetecists, the fun they must have :P) on the Y chromosome starts a cascade responsible for the foetal development of masculine behaviour and appearance. Linked to this is a 1996 study by Ray Blanchard that tied fraternal birth order to homosexuality; that is to say that each subsequent male child is a third more likely to be gay. This suggests that homosexuality is imprinted in the womb, possibly linked to birth weight, since this increases in similar proportions with subsequent male offspring.

    In regards to blushing it depends on whether the process is controlled by just one gene or system. At a physical level a blush is increased blood flow to the skin capillaries, i believe (thus making it true :p), it is reasonable to suggest that the underlying principle governing this is used in other ‘areas’ (think erection for maximum punnage :p) which do have benefits. Maybe looking at ART is linked in your mind with a need to flush your capillaries with blood. The body often reuses neural pathways to replicate effects in many areas, so it’s certainly a possibility. It is also possible that the genes responsible are linked to other processes, possibly creating knock on cons leading to a reduced likelihood of mating.

    Furthermore the blush is not necessarily a bad thing, giving the impression of innocence in women, or lasting trudt between individuals; If it is easy to tell when someone is lying or embarassed it becomes less advantageous for that person to lie or become embarassed, with possible minor disadvatages to an individual but increased advatadges socially. It is the social aspect of our species that has driven the increase in brain size, and our dominance over the planet.

    It is likely that there will be many evolutionary gaps that are difficult to understand until we can see the full extent of the control genes have over our life. We don’t know the secondary effects of removing a gene responsible for, say blushing, it may be that it is irrelevant to an individuals survival and mating strength, or it may have a severe effect elsewhere in the organism.

    Scienced beyatch :p

    Like

  13. Ado

    @Gazz

    I can certainly see where you’re coming from Gazz, and your reasoning is reasonable. Being flushed is certainly linked to sexual feelings and/or reactions, which would adequately explain the breeding side of things.

    I think it’s just the fact that we’re the only species that do it that makes it stand out as unnecessary for such a thing (it is an indicator of blood flow, but only to the face, it’s not proportional to ones “tackle”). It just seems there is no advantage for survival at all, so that can be disregarded, and socially the disadvantages far out weigh the advantages.

    It does seem to be a mechanism which functions simply to keep people honest, but honesty is not exactly a highly prized asset in society now or in most of our history and especially not when it comes to breeding (please don’t quote me on that though). I’m not saying that can not be the reason, it just seems an unlikely one given the evidence we have regarding human behaviour.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s