I suppose, I, like many others, enjoy "underdog", "against-all-odds" stories (it might seem to be you against a vast army of intellectuals, some with nothing but time + ridiculous amounts of resources, to study, research, test, experiment, explore, analyze, ponder, theorize, etc.), but I don't really intend to encourage what might seem to be, from some perspectives, destructive behavior.
Quote:

10). Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution. Self sacrifice certainly being a big one. I can't imagine losing for the benefit of others would be selected for quite easily. You can't argue from the fact that love exists. Try arguing for the evolution of love, assuming that love had never existed. Doesn't make sense.



If I were pretending to be you, I think I might strike this one from the list. I definitely wouldn't want to become side-tracked with elaborate discussions about love, what it really is, how it is defined, its meaning, its relevance, etc.

I, being the dummy that I am, must have missed something, because even a dummy can obviously see, that an organism, that aids its offspring in the quests for survival, when possible, may ultimately extent its version of "code" further into the future, in greater numbers, than an organism which merely aids itself. Particularly for the maternal parent, the materials of which offspring are composed, may represent resource costs which might be considered "investments".
If after offspring emerge into environments, offspring do not survive, then perhaps the resources expended to produce those offspring might have been wasted. If a parent has access to excess resources that its offspring may not have access to, and its offspring can benefit from such resources, but the parent does not assist the offspring in obtaining the excess resources when it is able to do so, then pehaps, such instances might also be considered "wasteful" or less than optimal.

It's not difficult to conceive, that individual organisms that may initially survive somewhat independently, may benefit from the aid of or relationships with other organisms, and, after time, develop severe, complex, necessary dependencies.

An organism's mate or mates may assist in overall survival, with gathering resources, helping offspring survive, etc., if the organism hasn't terminated its mate after directly mating with it, but, in such instances, it was probably beneficial to terminate the mate.

I've probably missed something blatantly obvious, while stating that which is equally blatantly obvious. Sadly, I'm really too much of a dummy to actively participate in such discussions. I can only stare blankly on the side lines, drooling with envy, as I try to make some sense of the clash of highly-advanced, developed minds, and blows of sharpened knowledge.