Hacker News Reader

"these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only rational explanation for the vast and fervent religious behaviors we witness today."

It's certainly not the only possible explanation.

Please share your thoughts. I honestly love this subject, and am willing to waste an inordinate amount of time discussing all possibilities.

It's also possible that religion is a net negative just not a significant net negative, aka it's a thought virus. Viruses have a lot more pressure to avoid being a huge negative like killing there host quickly than they do helping their host, but as long as they can spread it's ok to be lethal as long as it's not rapidly lethal.

EX: Religions who's priests avoid reproduction are clearly a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

Quite possibly, though that begets one more question:

Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

@herbig

>Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.

Precisely!

@lutusp

Absolutely. But we have to remember that religious behaviors act through humans. As such, they become just like any other behavior which is selected by evolution through natural selection at the genetic level. Am I correct in assuming that you were thinking of bees and ants, which display behaviors which may not be individually adaptive, but genetically so? If that's the case, you may find this paper [1] interesting.

1. http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long

@pjscott

Perfect, now let's look at every single one of these factors through the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. You will find that almost each one has a direct analogue in evolution, and the behaviors become indistinguishable from those seen across a wide variety of species. They are just much more nuanced versions of the same tactics employed by every living creature.

> Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

Evolution. I know this sounds like a punch line for a joke, but consider that a religion's doctrinal choices represent natural selection -- some choices are more effective than others, and a dominant religion in a world of competing religions equals a dominant species in a world of competing species -- the same rules apply.

And what are the successful species traits? One, a reverence for authority, a time-tested way to attract and hold people who cannot think for themselves. Two, a prohibition against having sex without the intent to breed more miniature believers, a prohibition that the Catholics have raised to an art form. Three, a prohibition against independent thought or constructive criticism, in which the masses are described as a flock of sheep, and they eat it up.

The great irony is that many religions (not all by any means), while very clearly exploiting the strategy of evolution by natural selection to grow their submissive flocks, reject the very idea of evolution, describe it as an evil idea.

Looking at the most successful religions, a few candidates spring to mind:

* Proselytism: if you don't go looking for converts, you probably won't get them. In particular, a lot of religions are inextricably linked with ethnicities; they tend to stay small.

* Syncretism: your religion can get a lot of followers if it co-opts existing beliefs, and doesn't try to immediately displace them. For example, look at how Taoism fits in neatly with a lot of folk religion that predates its arrival in the area. Similar examples can be found for most (all?) major religions.

* Political fortune. Catholicism, for example, happened to spread through the world alongside European colonialism, especially by Spain.

* Luck. There are an awful lot of dead religions that used to be pretty successful.

There are probably others, but those are the most obvious ones.

I don't think celibacy of priests is a good example of this. For one thing, it rarely actually happens, as priests routinely abdicate in order to marry or just father children out of wedlock. For another, if only priests are celibate but everyone else is forbidden from using birth control, numbers will always outweigh the cost of the celibate priests.

Even suicide bombers can, through their zeal and dedication, inspire many others and bring groups and clans closer.

Heaven's Gate though, you can't really argue a net positive for, since they're all gone.

Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.

I'm tempted to say nations and states that support homosexuality (which is by far the most colossal structural opposition to reproduction) have "a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint." What do you think?

The answer is that, in a world steered more by ideas than children (or more by memes than genes), one's sexual orientation is much less important, so accepting homosexuality doesn't reduce the true fitness of the species, which is a composite of ideas and genes.

To those who doubt the significance of ideas compared to children, I ask if they can recall the names of Einstein's children. No?

I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Not at this point I might argue.

The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution.

If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. This is just what I was able to come up with off the top of my head. We're all intellectually indebted to Einstein for relativity.

> I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival?

Einstein also contributed to quantum theory and a number of other physical fields.

Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer.

> The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS.

No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity.

> One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution.

Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection.

We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas.

> If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know.

It helps us understand reality. It provides the theoretical basis for nuclear power. It's also the theoretical basis for fusion power, a future development. It helps us to understand the universe.

But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything.

> Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer.

Up to a point understanding reality has survival value. We're well beyond that. For example, dunces are still able to have kids and thus are just as fit -- if not fitter -- than smart people. Evolutionarily.

No, the computer I'm sitting at doesn't require understanding quantum theory. Computers are (largely) built out of transistors and they're decidedly classic devices. You don't need any quantum mechanics to understand a transistor. Quantum effects only come into play when you're making exceedingly tiny transistors, and they hurt rather than help.

> No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity.

GPS can only work because we understand relativity and thus can correct for it. Transistors can work just fine if we're ignorant of quantum effects. GPS's locating ability goes from meters to many kilometers without understanding relativity. If you want to argue that GPS would be just as good if it could resolve only 10km, OK, but most would disagree with you.

> Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection.

Most reproduction is done well in advance of deep learning and understanding so I might argue that the ideas don't play in evolutionarily. Dumb or uneducated people reproduce just as successfully as smart or educated ones. I don't have a study to back this up but if you can find one to the contrary I'd love to know about it.

> We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas.

Actually a lot of research shows that we're the dominant species because we've taken a serious evolutionary right-turn by shedding all the fur, walking upright and having hands that allow us to carry things. All the things that you would need for the persistence hunt where you basically walk/jog/run an animal to death. Our ability to shed heat by having a fairly high surface area to mass ratio and little/no fur might be more important than our brains in many ways.

> But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything.

I'll ignore the part where you pass off opinions as fact and move on. This is a logical fallacy, nature absolutely does waste things. Suggesting otherwise is a bit nutty or requires that you construct a tautology. The idea that every single species on the planet is 100% tuned optimally is patently ludicrous; if that were true no evolution would take place anymore since everything would be perfect. If we accept that the world changes (which it does) and that adaptation takes time (I don't know how else it happens) then we can't help but conclude that nature is wasting things all the time, however good it's doing. Since evolution can't predict the future it wastes plenty with unsuccessful mutations.

Gay people are gay whether the country they live in accepts them or not.

> What biologists must emphasize is that religious dogma (i.e. behaviors) are distinct from religious theology (i.e. mythology).

You know that these are distinctly non-standard (to the point of not having any resemblance to the usual ones) definitions of "dogma" and "theology", right?

If you mean "behaviors" and "mythology", then just say that, rather than saying "dogma" and "theology" with those others in parenthesis, when "dogma" doesn't mean "behavior" and "theology" does not mean "mythology".

Agreed and amended. I henceforth swear to never again employ religious vocabulary in scientific discourse.

There is no gene for religion.

There is a very simple explanation for religion: most people conform to the culture of their surrounding.

That's why most people growing up in Muslim country become Muslims, most people growing up in Mormon area become Mormons, most people growing up in atheist countries are atheist and Germany (yes, I'll go there) had a surge of Natzis-ism.

Cultural norm is a powerful thing.

But hey, I'm open to changing my mind given some evidence.

Why don't you sequence a few deceased atheists and a few deceased religious folks and by way of simple diff isolate the "religion" gene. There might be a Nobel prize in it.

> Why don't you sequence a few deceased atheists and a few deceased religious folks and by way of simple diff isolate the "religion" gene. There might be a Nobel prize in it.

It's been established that there's no single religion gene, and there's no single stupidity gene. But I repeat myself.

Interesting that you bring up Richard Dawkins, as he seems to be adamantly in agreement:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-de...

Unfortunately, by releasing the God Delusion, he engaged creationists as equals in an intellectual debate. He would have been better served by supporting research on the evolutionary psychology of religion, while staying very far away from debating creationists, which has sadly become a hobby of his.

That being said, I have yet to read a book which so elegantly describes evolution as The Selfish Gene. This includes Darwin's own works. It is an absolute masterpiece, and was the foundation of my lifelong passion for biology. I consider Dawkins the most influential man in my life. That is why it hurts me to see him behave in such a counter-productive manner.

I'm not very into the whole atheism/religion scene, but I think there are many people who basically don't care one way or the other about "the great questions", but when asked might have said that they're religious or spiritual in vague terms. I think it's these people that Dawkins has been helping, by essentially letting them know that 'unbelief' is a totally OK category for them to fall into.

I agree that formal debates over evolution are counterproductive - they give the impression that evolution and creationism should be taken equally seriously, and anyway they're more about who's a better presenter than who has the better evidence.

I appreciate Dawkins' writing, though. If nothing else, it contributed significantly to my shift away from evangelical fundamentalism. One of the benefits of Dawkins' choice of material is that it can communicate new ideas to the very religious (not "always does" but "has the capacity to"), whereas arguments about historical accuracy or studies of religious behaviour can't - because, from a fundamentalist perspective, that sort of evidence is necessarily secondary to communication directly from God.

For me, Dawkins first presented the idea that it might be possible for evidence to be more meaningful than faith, that everyone who wasn't a fundamentalist might not be lying or deceived. I consider that a justification for his work, though perhaps I'm wrong about its effectiveness (though I was a fairly strong believer when I read it). I don't know on what criteria you're basing your own judgement.

(Of course, I'm speaking here from my own experience and observation just of the community where I grew up. I'm glad that he existed at that time, but this is ultimately just an anecdote with a limited perspective.)

I'm surprised by your enthusiasm for evolutionary psychology. My admittedly limited experience of it seems like it's just a story telling contest with no actual science. The stories are often very interesting and plausible, but is there any sense in which they can be tested or have predictive power?

More to the point, evolutionary psychology fails the standard litmus tests for science:

1. Skepticism toward ideas not supported by empirical evidence, specifically the assumption that an idea not supported by evidence is assumed to be false (the "null hypothesis") -- the opposite of the normal attitude toward ideas shared by psychologists, who famously assume an idea to be true until it's been proven false.

2. A basis for falsification of theories based on empirical evidence. Not to say all ideas are false, but any of them must be falsifiable in principle by empirical evidence, by reality tests.

3. The idea that all theories are temporary and open to replacement by newer theories supported by better empirical evidence, in other words, nothing ever becomes true and beyond challenge.

Psychology in general, and evolutionary psychology in particular, certainly fails one or more of these tests.

Dawkins has made an awful lot of money following this foolish path.

I do truly wonder. I mean do you guys give absolutely zero consideration to the massive psychological difference in message ?

What does evolution say ?

Well, if one were to be really blunt, here's the message : First of all, the natural laws generally referred to as "conservation laws", mean that there is a finite carrying capacity of our planet. And even if we find more ... well this explains it far more eloquently than I ever could : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ . Second, evolution can only work with a high growth rate and a high rate of natural selection. Natural selection means you and your family/friends/... die.

Translation : whatever level of comfort, safety and survivability you currently have, evolution means that outside of very short exceptional periods (like the one we're in now : the oil/fossil fuel age, as it will be called when historians finally see the need for sane naming) it will go down. A large portion of humans will die without offspring, and if you allow for a few generations, most people (>90%) will not have any great grandchildren at all. The chances of you dieing without offspring, and without energy to keep you warm and without food to eat, are in reality over 30%. This is masked by currently being in an oil age, in a rich country. Evolution means that it will run out though.

The scientific view on this (which almost no-one accepts as true, especially the fact that evolution MUST stretch resources to the breaking point and the inevitable consequences of doing that) is accepted by almost nobody. I'm willing to bet you'll see plenty of evidence of that in replies to this post. But, for example, if evolution is true, global warming is unstoppable until oil/coal run out or get replaced. That's a trivial consequence of evolution, but nobody accepts it.

Oh and the correct reaction to global warming is to make it worse, as fast as possible. Any economics textbook about nash equilibria will tell you why, as will running computer simulations of actors surviving on limited resources.

Other things are that are beyond obvious make much more sense if viewed in the frame of evolution. Rationality, for example. Aside from the fact that it cannot exist (see your nearest philosophy of logic course, or read a course about the "failure of the AI project"), humans are not rational, they think along evolutionary lines. What does our mind do ? It looks for ideas, ways of doing things, what to do, how to behave. It changes the ones it finds a little bit, then executes them. If you look at the architecture of the human brain, I find it rather obvious that you do not have original thoughts. Some ideas' origins are really hard to trace, because they are a combination of what someone did in a tv show plus something you saw a squirrel do, and slightly modified, making it incredibly hard to see the connection between the "new" idea and the originals, but the same goes for genes. And yes, there are "new" ideas that you saw in a random pattern, but keeping in mind how fast human generations work, there would be no more than 1 of those per year for the entire human population, if that.

This of course means that no matter how convinced you are of the opposite, you are NOT thinking rationally.

There is plenty of proof that this is how it works. For example, kids that get raised by animals (it happens sometimes) do not walk on 2 legs (well except those raised by chimps and even then, I wouldn't call their gaits 2 legged), despite obviously still having a body that's built for walking on 2 legs.

There are fun experiments. Even the very signals we use to control our bodily functions are not actually generated by our brain. Our brain simply finds ways to process it's inputs to generate the correct signal to send, e.g. to your legs to walk. So if you give your brain an overwhelming signal that's explicitly designed to make processing it really hard then you can make the human brain sabotage it's own body because it can't reconfigure the external signal fast enough to make it useful. Result : human incapacitated (heart attack happens after ~2 minutes as was discovered by accident. Note that that figure is based on 2 accidental experiments and is probably not very accurate, but nobody's about to do more testing) [3]

And then you have the other side :

Christianity : good news ! Jesus will save you (and we will help you make the best of it in the meantime). You live in misery anyway ? That's God testing you. Invite more misery and help others and it will help you too[1].

Islam : that's may or may not be true, but you can fight and take richess (and -slaves-) from dar-al-harb (everyone else), in fact that's what those other guys' "God", henceforth called allah, wants you to do to earn your salvation. Oh you live in misery despite fighting ? Well either you're a traitor, or it's the enemy's fault.

Judaism : we have a contract with God, and as long as you follow these 613 rules to the letter, that will not happen. And don't worry, they sound insane, sure, but you can read them a million different ways. It happened anyway ? Look, you violated interpretation 5 of rule 328, you deserve it !

Buddhism : you will live in misery, true, salvation lies in accepting it and making the worst of it.

Socialism : that is true, but if we all pull together and follow the little red book/this charter/hitler/... we can make life comfortable for everyone through research, working together, building everything up, ... [2]. Didn't solve your misery problem ? Must be the bourgoisie/spies/traitors/... screwing it up ! Let's kill them.

I don't mean to be rude, but is anyone truly in doubt why atheism can never win ? Hell, I don't want it to win. If I ever am in real trouble, then I'd like to find a group of Christians in my path if you don't mind. Despite knowing more than 99.9% of hacker news about evolution and how the human mind works.

[1] I would argue that that last part is the essence of our modern states.

[2] I don't mean to make it sound so ridiculous, but it worked for large parts of the world for quite a while in the sense that it improved their situation considerably for up to half a century, so please don't think it can never work. This way of thinking got the first human to space, and collected pretty much the only information we have about the inner solar system.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_Incapacitator

Kudos! It drive me nuts how people who are supposedly devoted to rationality accept the premise that rationality will win simply because it is rational, despite the fact that you can show rationally (via Darwinian evolution!) that this premise is false.

I agree. And you know what sucks? Illogical people, office politics, and having to play them. We shouldn't have to... But a logical and analytical person understands they exist whether we like it or not and plays them (if they care about getting to a desired result quickest).

> Second, evolution can only work with a high growth rate and a high rate of natural selection.

This is false, quite false. Even a flat growth rate, a population that doesn't change in size at all, supports the mechanisms of natural selection. Examples abound in which one or more species that are pushing against the carrying capacity of their environments continue to evolve, both within and between species.

Can you give me an example of such a species ? Because I don't know any. The type of growth you're referring to would be like rabbits versus cats, and their numbers are anything but stable.

And frankly, even if you can actually do that, give a stable species, the fact is that humans follow a pattern of massive expansion followed by large die-offs, rinse and repeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_(l...

Note the logarithmic scale. Realize what it means if, on that graph, there is a very slight but visible drop. Note that "details" like the holocaust + all worldwide WWII victims simply don't register on that graph at all (events like that have been a near constant throughout history, just read what happened during islamic expansion in Europe over 700-800 years, with constant extermination campaigns usually, but not exclusively, by the invaders. And that's something that barely registers if you compare it to the islamic massacres in India). Then realize that this is a smoothed graph, where you wouldn't even see the majority of die-offs at all.

The minimum you'd need to see it on that graph at all is a 10% die off, and that would be a flat horizontal line. Can you imagine a 10% die-off ? The minimum we'd need to detect it >200 years back, is a plague-sized event. There were lots of those, as you can see.

That's the species we are. That's how our numbers have evolved. That's the reason evolution works.

Still a fan ?

> Can you give me an example of such a species ?

You need examples of species whose numbers aren't changing, but that are subject to the process of natural selection? Where shall I start? Well, there's one obvious starting point -- the fact that the theory of evolution models stable populations mathematically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

> ... even if you can actually do that, give a stable species, the fact is that humans follow a pattern of massive expansion followed by large die-offs, rinse and repeat.

You just answered your own question. From the standpoint of natural selection there's no difference between a species whose numbers don't change, and one whose numbers fluctuate up and down around a maximum defined by its environment.

In any case, apart from humans there are thousands of species whose numbers are limited by their environments, and natural selection continues to choose which members of that species survive, based on the changing nature of the environment. This is evolution 101.

> Still a fan ?

What are you going on about? Do you or do you not want to understand evolution? You have already accepted, and given examples of, the idea that natural selection applies to growing populations and declining populations -- all you need to do now is fill in the blank space lying between the two.

I note you failed to actually illustrate species with stable numbers. What the logistic function has to do with anything, I don't know. When reading through the reason they choose this function to model population growth it is exactly to construct a stable population growth, not because this was observed in practice.

And most certainly the human population curve looks nothing like the logistic function. It was going up much faster than the logistic function predicts. And the current slowdown of human population growth is so much faster than the ramp-up it's ridiculous to compare them. In the logistic function the slowdown mirrors the ramp-up. That's obviously not happening to humans.

I can give plenty of popular examples of wildly fluctuating population numbers. Cats versus kangaroos/wallabies versus rabbits versus birds in Australia. Buffalo's versus beavers versus cats versus ... in Yellowstone park. Those are well studied examples of major flips in population density. I also grew up in an area with lots of farms, and I know that for example the number of wolves living in nature follows this pattern. Some years it is so bad they actually attempt to eat adult humans (and sometimes succeed), sometimes there are none. We had a rabbit problem while I was at university, and the biology department investigated. There was an exchange between the number of cats (ex-housecats) and the number of rabbits. First the cats would eat nearly all the rabbits, then they'd starve to the point that few cats remained (and human interference like milk bowls does indeed make things worse), after that the rabbit population multiplied in two years by a factor of more than 1000, after which the cat numbers started growing again.

In all these cases you will observe massive swings in the population numbers. The swings were so large that just the swings themselves were at risk of making the species die off entirely (if a swing hits the number 1 or 0, the species never recovers, and has to be reintroduced. In practice that number is 9-10 according to the biology department. For rabbits or cats it never takes long for the species to be reintroduced of course). The biology department paper also claimed that while the timeframes vary wildly from species to species, these swings are the status-quo (within one habitat, the global population is more stable), not the exception.

I do know this more from an algorithmic point of view, and I learn biology only as I need it, or if I'm bored or stuck. Which is why I asked you for a few examples of these stable population numbers, as I wouldn't really know. In genetic algorithms stable population numbers don't occur.

Normally, because from time t -> t+1 you either let every current try duplicate n -> kn (higher k is better, but requires more resources), which is of course exponential growth. Then you kill all the ones that underperform (which is always basically all of them), or you select the k best performers. Or you can try to be smarter and model sexual reproduction, at which point you grow like n -> k n * (n - 1), which is even faster.

There are plenty of variations, but almost all the ones I've ever seen work have exponential growth + 90%+ die offs. Even then genetic algorithms are disappointingly slow in most cases. On the plus side, genetic algorithms will find answers no other algorithm is able to find (much better coverage of the search space). However this comes at a truly massive cost in resources (as you would expect, but it'd be nice if it didn't).

So you have an exponential growth, followed by a 99% dieoff (the number that die off has to increase the greater the population size becomes due to memory/cpu constraints).

> I note you failed to actually illustrate species with stable numbers.

In that case, you have no idea what stable numbers means -- it means a species whose long-term average remains the same. Or do you think species are like dormant bank accounts, with constant balances to the penny?

> What the logistic function has to do with anything, I don't know.

If you don't understand the evolutionary role of the Logistic Function, and since you didn't bother to read the article on that topic I linked, there's no point in this conversation.

> And most certainly the human population curve looks nothing like the logistic function.

Absolutely false. Do you really want to advertise your ignorance this way?

Here are some articles that demonstrate the relation between the human population and the logistic function:

http://www.neds-projekt.de/Sabine_Hoehler_-_Growth_Curve1.pd...

http://www.cs.xu.edu/math/math120/01f/logistic.pdf

http://monkeysuncle.stanford.edu/?p=933

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populat...

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/worldpop.htm

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/rhayes/courses/Other/Logistic%...

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2981868?uid=3739728&ui...

Just a short sample of the technical articles that, if you would only read them, might alleviate your ignorance.

Have a nice day.

> In that case, you have no idea what stable numbers means -- it means a species whose long-term average remains the same. Or do you think species are like dormant bank accounts, with constant balances to the penny?

Given the examples I've seen so far, I'd consider any species that stays within 50% of it's previous numbers over 2 generations stable.

But intuitively I'd have a stricter standard, something like no more than 10% per generation.

> Absolutely false. Do you really want to advertise your ignorance this way?

Heh. Let me just go over your papers :

http://www.neds-projekt.de/Sabine_Hoehler_-_Growth_Curve1.pd...

Essentially makes the case for malthusianism, and proposes to re-introduce population control measures (laws, forced abortions, ...). It's at least 50% a political paper. Need I go on ? I'd really rather not read it in detail. It's also hosted on a site by the social sciences department of the university of Hamburg. Even so, the paper merely intends to "fuel the debate" on this issue, not actually carry out analysis.

Allow me to copy a sentence from the paper's conclusion : "Although they [regulatory suggestions to overcome the "normal population cycle"] might seem strangely scandalous and even marginal today, the suggestions and effected regulatory measures to control population growth in the late 1960s and early 1970s merely followed a rigid and conservative accountancy logic still in effect" (I do know a bit of German, the last part is a way-to-literal translation from German.

It means to say that while population control laws were repealed, the reasons for having them have become stronger.

Now to put things bluntly, but when it comes to scientific credibility, the social sciences rank significantly below my local bookstore's "Fiction" section. I would note that the social sciences see it as their mission not to advance scientific knowledge, but rather to influence public debate and regulation. This obviously means that any social sciences related paper explicitly is NOT the facts, but an attempt to convince you, and should be read like a commercial advertisement.

http://www.cs.xu.edu/math/math120/01f/logistic.pdf

A set of exercises constructed to match the logistic function by the math department ... The one example of human population it has actually contradicts your thesis : human population growth starting in 1927, and ending in 2071 (because at that point there would be no more growth) somewhat matches the logistic function. Needless to say this is a prediction. Further analysis reveals that human population growth was calculated at the UN using the logistic function, with the same parameters.

As to what this means, I'd have to say it's a very bad example of statistical fitting, nothing more. For example, they just assume they have the answer, and don't even bother to measure the error in their fitting.

Please note that this is not criticism of the authors of the paper, who undoubtedly are achieving exactly what they set out to achieve : train students to correctly evaluate a non-trivial calculus function. This is criticism of your interpretation of this paper.

http://monkeysuncle.stanford.edu/?p=933

Is a paper that I would say defends my side of the argument (I'd say it's a critique against the logistic model). Note the prominent line : "Why does the logistic model fail so spectacularly in this case (and many others)?", and look at the graph right above it, and the explanation below.

A quote : "Specifically, the logistic model fails to consider mechanisms of population regulation. When density increases, what is affected? Birth rates? Death rates? The r parameter in the logistic model is simply the difference in the gross birth and death rates when there are no conspecifics present."

I think it's probably best if I stop now.

You said you had no idea what the logistic equation had to do with natural selection, but you believed that human populations didn't show a correlation with the function. I provided the links only so you would have a way to find out how wrong that was, nothing else. But you're one of those posters who can't seem to stick to a single topic.

As to that topic, I can't believe that you're still unable to see that a stable population supports classic natural selection. In such a population, who survives is determined by their fitness, just when the population's size is changing. The fact that a population's size is stable or changing is irrelevant to natural selection -- it is unaffected. On that basis, population rate of change, and natural selection, are orthogonal factors.

The only way a stable population would interfere with natural selection is if there was no reproduction taking place, no births or deaths, and that is certainly not what a stable population means.

"Given the examples I've seen so far, I'd consider any species that stays within 50% of it's previous numbers over 2 generations stable"

Most plants are vary stable as in within 5% over time as they tend to be vary resource limited, so they kill off competitors. Infact most species's say within 5% outside of environmental changes dispite boom and bust times simply because the planet is large enough that area A may go though a boom, while area B, C, and D is in bust period. EX: Deer.