Hey guys and gals, I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. I came across The Red Pill about half a year ago and have been morbidly fascinated by their ideology ever since. As a Biology PhD student, what really shocked me the most was ridiculous applications of evolution and its theories. Now, evolution is not my focus but as a biologist-in-training its important to be able to apply evolution correctly in order to try and explain some "bigger picture" problems. I want to share what I think are some of the biggest misconceptions about evolution and how Terpers use these to form some of their arguments. The idea here is trying to attack the core pillars of the movement to really break them down from the ground up. So without further ado:

Evolution has agency

When discussing a lot of this stuff you tend to see people (on both sides) using statements like "Evolution wouldn't choose trait X, because it's not beneficial" or "Evolution selected for X because that helped the species survive". These type of statements seem to imply that Evolution knows what's best for survival and will always make the right decision in selecting for those traits. First, evolution is a passive process that takes place over millions of years. Even if evolution could make decisions how would it possibly to know whether these choices will be beneficial or detrimental down the line? Second, the process of evolution is entirely random. Almost 90% of mutations are neutral meaning they provide no harm or benefit to the organism (usually because they happen in places of DNA where there are no important genes). From the small 10% of mutations, only the beneficial ones tend to make it to the next generation and even these are minor improvements at best. Only after hundreds or thousands/millions of years and multiple generations do the apparent benefit of these improvements truly show and by then the environment that a given species is in may already be favoring a different set of beneficial mutations. So basically, when Terpers try and give you "just so" stories about evolution remember that the traits they are referencing arose randomly and reflect the environment that the species was in at that time. These traits are not a statement on the effectiveness of other traits nor should they be assumed to be perfectly adapted to today's environment.

Your genetic makeup determines all

Another common argument made by Terpers that drives me crazy is the, "Well men and women are genetically wired by evolution to act a certain way so there is no real point in changing them". These arguments rest on the assumption that whatever "genetic hand" you're dealt at the start determines every aspect of your life, from your attractiveness to how smart you are. What they forget to mention is that the genes you are given at birth also function within the context of the environment you are currently in. For example, a certain composition of genes may give rise to a person who by today's standards makes them attractive in the society they are in at the current time but may in fact reduce their attractiveness in another place/time period. While this is a very basic example, the concept can be applied to pretty much any statement that tries to put a deterministic value on any inherent trait. Another fun fact: The environment you are in greatly effects how you regulate the expression of certain genes. Research has shown that animals with the same genetic makeup, but raised in different environments, can have a large differences on the types of genes are expressed. Sure, they are going to have the very basic overlap of similar essential gene expression but everything else between them could be totally different. So when someone tries to tell you that having gene X means you automatically will express trait Y remember that this may be true, but only in relatively small number of contexts.

Evolution is always right

This final point kind of plays off the two previous points already mentioned but I felt like this type of argument deserves a special treatment. Because evolution has no agency, and our genes are not expressed in a vacuum, the "choices" it has made cannot be judged on a right or wrong scale. A huge problem I have of Terper ideology is the high regard they hold for evolution. By this I mean, just because you may be able to prove that a certain trait was selected for doesn't mean that is was the "correct" trait now nor even was it the "right" choice back then. Evolution doesn't care about making the most optimal/correct "choice" during selection, it simply is the reflection of the current collection of genes at the time and their relation of their ability to provide a benefit to the species in a given environment. Therefore, when someone tries to tell you that "Males have X traits so that means evolution wanted them to be the dominant species and therefore they should always be" they are completely misinformed on the basic mechanisms of evolution and are trying ascribe an sense of authority to evolution that it simply does not have.

That's all I really wanna say about this topic for now. I'd also like to hear what y'all think about these types of arguments and if there are any other questions I'd be happy to answer them.