What if evolution bred reality out of us?

[Wootah]

So I know I've argued this before: that evolution is not about the truth but about survival of the fittest.

But now you can hear it from a scientist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/0 ... -out-of-us

Did evolution breed reality out of us?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 18 by Kenisaw]

Well the authors mathematical models indicate higher success rates for organisms less in tune with reality and more in tune with fitness.

That is fascinating in a way, since they claim we can't actually know reality. Makes me wonder how they can be sure what is truly "less in tune with reality"...

Consider it like this. Atheists often have low birth rates and religious people high birthrates. Might that mean that atheists are more in tune with the existential despair of reality and religious people less so and so more evolutionararily fit?

Or atheists aren't afraid to use birth control. Life choices. I pulled this from the following article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... _aNQfkrLcs

"This post is of interest because of my recent post reviewing Eric Kaufmann’s Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth. Here’s the top line conclusion from Tom’s post:

Berghammer found that people following the ‘traditional’ lifestyle were more likely to have 3+ children than those following the ‘modern’ lifestyle. What’s more, traditionalist individuals were more likely to be religious (all Catholic in this analysis).

But – and this is the crucial bit – among those who followed a traditional life path, there was no relationship between their depth of religious belief, or their Church attendance, and the number of children they had.

Exactly the same was seen for those following a modern life path. Although this was more popular among non-religious women, those religious women who did follow this trajectory had no more children than the non-religious.

There was also no difference between the religious and non religious in the chances of remaining single and childless.

Berghammer concludes from this that the critical factor in determining fertility is the choice of life trajectory. Once this has been decided, then religiosity has no further effect on fertility.

The model here is then that religiosity shifts the probability of one following a particular life path, but that there is no marginal return on religiosity once that life path is chosen. This sounds broadly plausible to me. It explains how more religious societies such as Greece, Italy, or Spain, could have lower fertility rates than more secular societies such as Iceland or Finland. There are lots of variables which go into determining life path, and the average between society differences can have a big impact on the distribution of fertility. Though within societies the religious on average seem to be more fertile. Or do they? Again we need to be careful as different societies have different correlations."

Edit: why can all the evolutionists so confidently disagree?

Because we aren't afraid of disagreeing?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 21 by Kenisaw]

Behind my question I was highlighting how all the evolutionists are agreeing with each other. Where's the open mindedness, the hmm I can see that?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 21 by Kenisaw]

Behind my question I was highlighting how all the evolutionists are agreeing with each other. Where's the open mindedness, the hmm I can see that?

Perhaps because the author did not adequately make their argument and therefore people cannot "see that". You'd have to ask each person what their disagreement is before being able to discern why someone disagrees. Remember, just because multiple people disagree with a conclusion does not mean they all disagree for the same reason.