Shitty Journalism and Evolution

I've decided that war needs to be declared on shit journalism. I'm sick and tired of reading stupid fucking articles that are as pointless to read as they are in content. They're written by fucking idiots to appeal to fucking idiots, which is a trend that has to stop. To start with I'll focus on how evolutionary science is being ruined in the media by these clickbait based shitty news sources, written by morons just to try and cram their own stupid and worthless opinions into unrelated scenarios. Whilst I'm critically analysing this horseshit, please keep in mind that this is intended to be a factual piece of journalism that should inform the reader.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.upworthy.com/something-fascinating-happened-after-these-male-baboons-died-men-should-keep-this-in-mind
______________________________________________________________________________

- Aside from being just an excuse to post vaguely related pictures instead of writing anything of note, this article just loves to make huge sweeping statements without ever explaining them. I suppose that's not surprising when for some fucking reason the article is in bullet point form. Has this really become the standard of journalism when the actual journalists don't have any care for the quality of written communication? There isn't any quality in the argument either, it's on par with something you would hear at a nursery school. I get the point of aiming this argument at men, as they're more naturally aggressive than females, which is more common knowledge than informative. However to then make the stupid point that men cause all wars, which isn't true, is just an insult to anyone's intelligence. How am I supposed to take an article about evolution seriously that claims poison gas is the fault of human males?  How in any way can you justify that meaningless shit in an article centered on animal behaviour?

- Natural human behaviour does not go all the way back to when we were monkeys because humans have never been monkeys, only primates. At one time humans and monkeys would have shared a common ancestor, but your lack of knowledge on the subject is instantly apparent. Having said that your description of mating behaviour is actually largely correct, albeit worded incredibly poorly, with no notion of any principles that lead to the increase in a certain behaviour. You prove my doubts in the next sentence by claiming that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. They are not. Natural selection is a singular component in the process of evolution. Survival of the fittest, another concept you clearly don't understand, is a Darwinian term that aids the explanation of how natural selection favors certain adaptations within a population. Nice to see we have an informed scientist writing this article.

- I'm getting the gist of this piece being set on the moronic assumption that instinctive human behaviour can be rewired by learning about a single group of baboons. Baboons really aren't that closely related to humans, and are separated by tens of millions of years of evolution, so it's a very questionable process to start drawing unqualified parallels between the two species. Even if we do give the author the benefit of the doubt in suggesting humans and baboons are related enough to draw comparisons on, we still have to address the fact that baboons live totally different lifestyles to humans, so we absolutely cannot suggest that this particular behaviour in baboons would benefit humans. For that matter we don't even know if this behaviour benefited the baboons, only that it happened in a single group.

- The baboons didn't invent a culture on the scale of what the author here is implying. Biologically they have adapted their behaviour in a way that doesn't appear to have been impacted by genetics or the environment, but that's simply not comparable with the human concept of culture. They changed their behaviour, that's it. Under the principles of natural selection you can bet your fucking life that this peaceful and idyllic behaviour would change if we introduced some unfavorable selection pressures, and only then can we really start to draw any form of conclusion. The author here hasn't grasped how scientific reasoning works, just comparing apples to oranges and inventing some skewed sociological point that stupidly assumes two drastically different behaviors are even vaguely related.

- The whole piece has an unbelievable confirmation bias, and one that arises from the echo chambers of websites like Tumblr, that enjoy cherry picking information and mangling it into a misrepresented point that resembles some form of pseudoscience. For reference here is the Tumblr response to this scientific work. Watch how these morons use this case study as a feeble excuse to start demonising male behaviour because a SINGLE SOURCE agreed with them. Neither Tumblr or this shit article decide to actually look at the wider picture and set up any form of scientific debate; they simply misrepresent any form of serious science with their own stupid opinions. This is the result of this toxic echo chamber of lies I was talking about, and I'm fucking sick of it degrading a proper science by lowering it to the standard of feelings and opinions. They have no place in evolutionary biology; rather more worthless subjects such as gender studies.

- The conclusion however culminates in a show of stupidity that trumps the rest by a mile. Despite naming only a single example of animal behaviour out of a whole kingdom this moron has decided that a single case study obviously suggests that culture is more important than biology in terms of behaviour for humans. You see I was under the strange impression we were talking about the behaviour of baboons, not the vastly different tendencies of humans. And even then, when the fuck does the study cited claim that culture is more important than biology in human behaviour? It doesn't. Still, even that's not the most stupid thing this guy says. He also say that unlike biology, culture can change. WELL THEN HOW THE FUCK DOES EVOLUTION WORK YOU BELLEND?

The actual study behind this pointless article is actually quite interesting and informative, and also something this author could learn a thing or two from. This article however is neither interesting or informative, drawing moronic conclusions that are weakly supported by the primary evidence. I'm mot sure what the actual message is supposed to be, but this article appears to be suggesting that it might be beneficial for more human alpha males to get tuberculosis. The thing is there's no proven benefit to this change in behaviour from the group of baboons in question, but apparently that's enough justification for this imbecilic author. All the study proved was that more aggressive males in a social group leads to higher stress levels in baboons; that's it. The continuation of this behaviour was largely debated, but that fact is completely ignored by these stupid journalistic sources that jump to conclusions and misrepresent a study just to push their very unscientific agendas. The mere fact that male dominance is prevalent in various primate genomes is enough counter evidence to prove that aggressive and dominant behaviour from males has an inclusive fitness benefit over a given population. That's the overriding science here, not some sociology based moral story that takes any science away from this article. How about journalists start sticking to stuff they actually know something about and stop broadcasting myths on the internet that idiots will suck up and believe?