The implications of Evolution

A point of clarification. In science, a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts.When there are several ideas competing to become a theory, they are more accurately described as hypotheses or something else, not theories.You are confusing the points you are trying to make by describing them as theories or competing theories. At this point, there are no competing theories to the theory of evolution. There are only religious beliefs and apologetics pretending to be science, but they aren't fooling many people.And a lot of the arguments in the social, philosophical, and theological fields do not use the same methods and their results are not necessarily comparable to theories developed using the scientific method.So, please be more judicious in your use of the term, "theory."

It sounds like you should simply leave evolution and scientific theories entirely out of your musings, as your musings have no appreciable relationship to either...

If so, then you have to have an accurate knowledge of the theory of evolution. In other words, you have to know what the theory of evolution explains and what it predicts. The theory of evolution explains a given set of facts, it is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and it makes predictions which have been tested and shown to be accurate.The various subjects you have introduced seem well outside of the theory of evolution.Perhaps you should phrase your "implications" as such: If the theory of evolution is correct, then (given implication) must be supported by the evidence. (Here) is how we can test that hypothesis. (Here) is what the evidence shows.The problem you have is that most of what you are proposing as "implications" are in the realm of social science, philosophy, or theology and are not as amenable to testing against real-world evidence as are scientific hypotheses and theories.

You are making perhaps a common mistake here. Evolution is not just individuals, but populations.If a given population reproduces effectively then that population (or species, or genus) might probably stick around for a while. The contrary is also true.In prehistoric societies homosexuals were often seen in a far different light than in more recent societies--they tended to become shamans or other specialists within the tribe. Their contributions, which furthered the success of the tribe, increased the chances that the offspring of the tribe would live to reproduce.This is perhaps an indirect cause, but it must be considered. As must the role of grandparents. Although past the age of reproduction, grandparents can still increase the chances that their offspring, and those of the tribe, can live to reproduce. This can be as simple as babysitting while the parents are out hunting and gathering. Or more complex, such as remembering the knowledge of the tribe and passing it on to future generations, thereby increasing their chances of survival. In many primitive tribes much knowledge was no more than five generations--what was passed on from an individual's grandparents to that same individual's grandchildren.So, the reproductive success of a population is more complex than having a lot of offspring. There are many ways that members of a population can help to improve the reproductive success of those offspring.There is a vast literature within Anthropology that you might seek out and apply to this question.

My background is in science and anthropology.Most of what you are posting seems to be unrelated to either.None of my classes in graduate school included John Travolta or dancing, or many of the other topics you are introducing. What they did include was a lot of evolution, fossil man, human osteology, human races, and other solid subjects.In other words I have no idea what you are taking about.

You're right. Based on your earlier posts, the consequences (or ramifications) of the theory of evolution are too frightening to behold, so let's just pretend that evolution never happened and we'll all be happy, OK?Actually that is nonsense. If these consequences (or ramifications) that you're trying to tie to evolution are accurate, what can be done about them? You can't cancel science and what it produces, although a lot of creationists would like to do so. If these consequences (or ramifications) are real then you have to deal with them, not try to wish them away, as creationists have been trying to do with evolution for decades.So, just what is the main thrust of your argument?