Sign into an existing account

Evolution is the end goal, yes, but it's too broad a concept to be immediately useful.
If we are attempting to create a future race of Ubermensch, we need stepping stones to get there.
That's what the "Soap Operas" are for.
Why do we have the "Don't kill your brother episode"?
It's because your brother shares half your genes and therefore you both have an incentive, at a genetic level, to protect each other and your offspring.
Because your nephew's genes are your genes.
Protecting 1 brother or 2 nephews is the evolutionary equivalent of protecting 1 of your own children.

That's just 1 episode.
You need the entire series of stories in order to get to "evolution" in any way that's manageable.

No shit.
We both agree on this, so let's move past it.
The question here is "Why are the hollywood TV shows important?"
Obviously they are. We wouldn't have stories if they didn't fill a need.

I'm proposing that we fill our need for stories with the stories that created us, as opposed to stories written by Jews to subvert us.

Irrational beliefs are useful.
It's better to be the ape that is scared and runs from an imaginary tiger than it is to be the ape that ignores the real tiger.
The superstitious ape survives to pass on his genes. the rational ape becomes cat food.

It's possible to BOTH acknowledge the superstition AND acknowledge it's utility.

We have these superstitions for a reason, and it is dangerous to neglect them.

Beyond Evolution: Unraveling the Origins of Life with Stephen Meyer and James Tour | UK - Hoover Institution [1.04.16]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBHNDTEgWk
Stephen Meyer is the author of Return of the God Hypothesis and the director of the Discovery Institute. James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist and professor at Rice University, renowned for his work in nanotechnology and his skepticism toward the current scientific models explaining the origin of life.
In this wide-ranging conversation, Meyer and Tour contrast biological evolution with the more complex challenge of chemical evolution, where modern science still struggles to explain how nonliving chemicals could give rise to life. They critique early experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, emphasizing that producing basic molecules is far from creating life itself. Meyer and Tour also argue that as scientific understanding deepens, the complexity of life's origins becomes more daunting, raising both scientific and philosophical questions about the adequacy of the current mainstream scientific explanations and theories for the origin of life.
Recorded on May 26th, 2024 in Fiesole, Italy.
For further information: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson | Hoover Institution
https://www.hoover.org/publications/uncommon-knowledge

Criticisms on "The Origin of Species. " https://biblehub.com/library/huxley/lay_sermons_addresses_and_reviews/xiii_criticisms_on_the_origin.htm … But it is one thing to say, Darwinically, that every detail observed in an animal's structure is of use to it, or has been of use to its ancestors; and quite another to affirm, teleologically, that every detail of an animal's structure has been created for its benefit. On the former hypothesis, for example, the teeth of the foetal Balaena have a meaning; on the latter, none. So far as we are aware, there is not a phrase in the "Origin of Species," inconsistent with Professor Koelliker's position, that "varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurtful, or indifferent." On the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary of Chap. V.): -- "Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part varies more or less from the same part in the parents.... The external conditions of life, as climate and food, &c. seem to have induced some slight modifications. Habit, in producing constitutional differences, and use, in strengthening, and disuse, in weakening and diminishing organs, seem to have been more potent in their effects." And finally, as if to prevent all possible misconception, Mr. Darwin concludes his Chapter on Variation with these pregnant words: -- "Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the offspring from their parents -- and a cause for each must exist -- it is the steady accumulation, through natural selection of such differences, when beneficial to the individual, that gives rise to all the more important modifications of structure, by which the innumerable beings on the face of the earth are enabled to struggle with each other, and the best adapted to survive." We have dwelt at length upon this subject, because of its great general importance, and because we believe that Professor Koelliker's criticisms on this head are based upon a misapprehension of Mr. Darwin's views -- substantially they appear to us to coincide with his own. The other objections which Professor Koelliker enumerates and discusses are the following:[66] -- "1. No transitional forms between existing species are known; and known varieties, whether selected or spontaneous, never go so far as to establish new species." To this Professor Koelliker appears to attach some weight. He makes the suggestion that the short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological product. "2. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the organic remains of earlier epochs." Upon this, Professor Koelliker remarks that the absence of transitional forms in the fossil world, though not necessarily fatal to Darwin's views, weakens his case. "3. The struggle for existence does not take place." To this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Koelliker, very justly, attaches no weight. "4. A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and a natural selection, do not exist. …

Evolution has been debunked by science:
https://biblerad.io/evolution.pdf
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20 KJV

deleted