Ah, of course. That old zombie of an idea that refuses to die. This characterizes the wishy-washy, pseudo-academia field of evolutionary psychology.
The proposal that sleeping around, getting random people pregnant or getting pregnant by random people, spreading the seed, with no regard to what will become of those fetuses once they have hatched -- that this is somehow indicative of evolutionary success. They especially seem to have a desperate frenzied fervor to insist adamantly that all males have a drive to be promiscuous and bed as many females as possible. This is disgusting, so let us analyze and scrutinize this theory under a microscope.
The theory is posited by hiking-up-their-forties, still single, balding, paunchy, pudgy white male philosobabblers that have now happened to acquire a degree in pseudoscience, and are trying their damndest to foist their opinion on the general population. They hope against hope that if they only just insist on this theory enough, they might be able to get a date.
You want to talk about evolution? Let's talk about evolution.
What determines evolutionary fitness of a given organism in any species? Let us assume that for the purposes of this exercise, neither a sense of right v. wrong nor emotional connection exist. There are two ultimate factors:
1) Desirable traits, the organism's biochemical and physical makeup, to be passed on through genes, -and-
2) Procuring stuff -- food, shelter, safety.
Throughout the history of all dioecious species including early primates, these two factors were one and the same. (Dioecious means that male and female reproductive systems are completely separated into two distinct genotypes. For example, earthworms are not dioecious. They are hermaphrodites; each and every earthworm is both male and female.)
This is true for humans in our ancient prehistory. The two factors sprung from the same one general trait of an organism: sheer physical ability. Physical strength and athleticism were desirable as genes for obvious reasons. Physical strength and athletic ability determined the capability to go hunt down a gazelle for food. Physical fitness determined the ability to chase a bear away from one's offspring. It determined the ability to chase physically weaker members of one's own species out of a cave or tree and then claim that domicile as one's own.
Only as the human species advanced into complex social structures, were these two phenomena divorced from each other as determinants of evolutionary fitness.
Back then, only *young* healthy males who were in tip-top physical shape were seen as feasible possibilities for procreation.
Older middle-aged males are kicked out of the tribe by the younger, stronger, healthier competitors. Watch any nature documentary that follows a pride of lions through the Serengeti. When younger male lions grow up a bit, and achieve a stature of physical prowess that can supersede that of the king of the tribe, guess what. They overtake the pride. They kick the old geezers out.
I am not just spitting out numbers. The United States military has established 24 as the peak age for optimal physical fitness including reproductive ability.
***
You want to talk about evolution? Let's talk about evolution.
Evolutionists insist that it is men's evolutionary drive to try to sleep with as many women as possible. This is supposedly best to increase their chances of reproductive success. It is a matter of probability and chance; sleep with as many females as possible, get as many females pregnant as possible. Their adamant theory is that way back in our evolutionary ancestry, aka the caveman days, all males used this reproductive strategy.
Wrong. Only the alpha male gets to reproduce with as many females as possible.
Only an alpha male that is able to demonstrate for a fact that he is alpha is going to get any tail. "Alpha" traits out in the natural world, which resemble those in our distant past, are athleticism, strength, physical build, physical prowess.
Have you ever gotten mugged and let the mugger take your money? Has your car ever been broken into? Has your home ever been broken into? Would you be able to fend off an attacker or intruder?
How tall are you? What percent of your body weight is lean muscle mass? How much can you bench? Are you able to beat your buddies at arm-wrestling? How about when they are sober? Do you have any chronic medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, tendency to gain excessive fat, any autoimmune disorders? Do you drink? That's an out. Do you take recreational drugs? That's an out. Are you in any physical condition lower than military-grade? That's an out.
Males that are physically healthy and strong tend to have a more capable and efficient immune system, can do heavy lifting more easily, and can heal and repair from injuries, such as broken bones, much more easily.
It is laughable that you think males want viable, healthy, robust offspring from females-- but that females would not want the exact same thing from males.
You really think women are magically somehow not going to seek health, fertility/virility in men? The best indicators of reproductive success of men, meaning what would produce the healthiest, most robust offspring, are actually not so far removed from what indicates best chance of reproductive success of women. A female doesn't want to look at non-pretty boy.
***
You want to talk about evolution? Let's talk about evolution.
What determines desirable genes that a male would pass on to offspring? Two main factors -- Healthy physical condition, and viable sperm. And I will laugh in anyone's face if they try to tell me that a seventy-five-year-old man still produces healthy, viable, and motile sperm same as a twenty-five-year-old man is able to. Some people are egged on in this notion by a couple of male public figures that on the surface seem to be able to produce offspring nearly in their triple-digit ages, such as Strom Thurmond.
What age is optimal for this? The twenties are the prime physical age for a purveyor of this "evolutionary-based" logic to reproduce.
Thirty is kind of pushing it. Fifty is a laugh, forty is a laugh. [[[[___mention medical statistics for peak ages of maximum sp production.___]]]]]]
***
In the natural world, it is ladies' choice. The females get to pick and choose whoever is the fittest male to father the offspring.
This is the reason that males of many species engage in ever more ostentatious (and entertaining) displays of beauty, physical prowess, and impressive feats of athleticism. You have the peacocks with their beautiful grand plumage. You have elk with their majestic towering, commanding racks (hehe racks). Elk, deer, and others of these type of sure-footed beasts engage in violent displays of physical agility and force. Males compete with other males in physical fights to see which one is more aggressive and physically fit.
Many have tried to suggest that the modern-day equivalents of men's "evolution" are intelligence, a good job, a sizeable paycheque --
No, no. We do not use modern equivalents. If we use modern equivalents for males, then we must also use modern equivalents for females. That means males could not use the excuse that shapely symmetry or big boobs indicate that a woman would be a good mother. Modern science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that human males are not able to determine when a human females is most fertile. Medical science has proven that breast size and facial characteristics have very little to do with fertility, health of a fetus, or production of breast milk. Yet somehow magically, evolutionary psychologists continue insisting that these traits are what males desire from females due to "evolution."
It is not much of a leap to follow that in the same vein as the popular evolutionary theory, modern-day jobs do not rate very high as indicators of evolutionary fitness of the homo sapiens.
Modern equivalents? Uh, no, not too terribly, no. According to all the assessments of how evolution as a behavioral motivation would manifest in the human species -- logic, reasoning, morals, respect, mutual respect and understanding, respect and acknowledgment of women as whole complete human beings and equals to men, people regarding each other as human beings deserving and worthy of care and concern -- none of these behaviors are part of evolution. This exclusion would extend to occupations of time that consume intelligence, marketable skills, mathematics and logic reasoning, language or spatial skills. None of these would be included in determining evolutionary fitness of males.
Yeah, you want to talk science with me, buddy? I will put you where you belong.
---
If you are so damn worried about following the natural world, then the first things you should do are cut all your electricity and phone cables to your house, dissemble all your indoor plumbing, and burn all of your clothes including underwear. Sorry, but you do not get to pick and choose which aspects of civilization you get to deploy.
What's that, someone wants to see my medical degree? I'll show you mine after you show me yours. It's called common sense, dumbass. Kinda like how every person on the planet has an honorary degree in psychology, as well as one in sociology.
So, intelligence, compassion, commitment -- these do not register on your radar as emblems of an evolved progressive species?
So according to you, precepts of critical thinking, consideration of others' feelings, consideration of your own feelings and morals, and indeed having any at all, intelligence, dignity, social responsibility, treating others with respect, these do not count as evolution?
Growing up in a stable two-parent home in which the two parents love and respect each other, rather than breeding uncontrollably like rats -- these are not emblems of your evolution?
Sorry, but you cannot pick and choose which tenets of your own doctrine to practice or not. What do you think you are, an organized religion?
If you can apply reason and logic to one aspect of your life, then you should be able to apply reason and logic to all aspects of your life.
No regard to those offsprings' nutritional and physical health, no regard to their emotional health, or no regard to whether they can read, write, or count. These are behaviors well-established in government housing projects, mobile home parks, slums of third world countries. They (males) have gotten pregnant as many different people as possible, or they (females) have gotten pregnant by as many different people as possible. Their children are scattered loosely around the town or village, whatever the case may be depending on the size of the surrounding population. Children consume usually two hundred calories or less per day (that is equivalent to one can of beans) and most are not able to attend school past the fourth or fifth grade.
Regarding the ones here in America, children born under these circumstances are not able to graduate high school. Growing up they receive very poor quality nutrition of food, not even close to the optimal amounts of food (that would mean not too little and not too much).
However, if the parents had bore only a few children, then they would have invested all their energy, time, and effort into raising those few children, thereby creating healthy, functional, normal, productive members of society.
The proposal that sleeping around, getting random people pregnant or getting pregnant by random people, spreading the seed, with no regard to what will become of those fetuses once they have hatched -- that this is somehow indicative of evolutionary success. They especially seem to have a desperate frenzied fervor to insist adamantly that all males have a drive to be promiscuous and bed as many females as possible. This is disgusting, so let us analyze and scrutinize this theory under a microscope.
The theory is posited by hiking-up-their-forties, still single, balding, paunchy, pudgy white male philosobabblers that have now happened to acquire a degree in pseudoscience, and are trying their damndest to foist their opinion on the general population. They hope against hope that if they only just insist on this theory enough, they might be able to get a date.
You want to talk about evolution? Let's talk about evolution.
What determines evolutionary fitness of a given organism in any species? Let us assume that for the purposes of this exercise, neither a sense of right v. wrong nor emotional connection exist. There are two ultimate factors:
1) Desirable traits, the organism's biochemical and physical makeup, to be passed on through genes, -and-
2) Procuring stuff -- food, shelter, safety.
Throughout the history of all dioecious species including early primates, these two factors were one and the same. (Dioecious means that male and female reproductive systems are completely separated into two distinct genotypes. For example, earthworms are not dioecious. They are hermaphrodites; each and every earthworm is both male and female.)
This is true for humans in our ancient prehistory. The two factors sprung from the same one general trait of an organism: sheer physical ability. Physical strength and athleticism were desirable as genes for obvious reasons. Physical strength and athletic ability determined the capability to go hunt down a gazelle for food. Physical fitness determined the ability to chase a bear away from one's offspring. It determined the ability to chase physically weaker members of one's own species out of a cave or tree and then claim that domicile as one's own.
Only as the human species advanced into complex social structures, were these two phenomena divorced from each other as determinants of evolutionary fitness.
Back then, only *young* healthy males who were in tip-top physical shape were seen as feasible possibilities for procreation.
Older middle-aged males are kicked out of the tribe by the younger, stronger, healthier competitors. Watch any nature documentary that follows a pride of lions through the Serengeti. When younger male lions grow up a bit, and achieve a stature of physical prowess that can supersede that of the king of the tribe, guess what. They overtake the pride. They kick the old geezers out.
I am not just spitting out numbers. The United States military has established 24 as the peak age for optimal physical fitness including reproductive ability.
***
You want to talk about evolution? Let's talk about evolution.
Evolutionists insist that it is men's evolutionary drive to try to sleep with as many women as possible. This is supposedly best to increase their chances of reproductive success. It is a matter of probability and chance; sleep with as many females as possible, get as many females pregnant as possible. Their adamant theory is that way back in our evolutionary ancestry, aka the caveman days, all males used this reproductive strategy.
Wrong. Only the alpha male gets to reproduce with as many females as possible.
Only an alpha male that is able to demonstrate for a fact that he is alpha is going to get any tail. "Alpha" traits out in the natural world, which resemble those in our distant past, are athleticism, strength, physical build, physical prowess.
Have you ever gotten mugged and let the mugger take your money? Has your car ever been broken into? Has your home ever been broken into? Would you be able to fend off an attacker or intruder?
How tall are you? What percent of your body weight is lean muscle mass? How much can you bench? Are you able to beat your buddies at arm-wrestling? How about when they are sober? Do you have any chronic medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, tendency to gain excessive fat, any autoimmune disorders? Do you drink? That's an out. Do you take recreational drugs? That's an out. Are you in any physical condition lower than military-grade? That's an out.
Males that are physically healthy and strong tend to have a more capable and efficient immune system, can do heavy lifting more easily, and can heal and repair from injuries, such as broken bones, much more easily.
It is laughable that you think males want viable, healthy, robust offspring from females-- but that females would not want the exact same thing from males.
You really think women are magically somehow not going to seek health, fertility/virility in men? The best indicators of reproductive success of men, meaning what would produce the healthiest, most robust offspring, are actually not so far removed from what indicates best chance of reproductive success of women. A female doesn't want to look at non-pretty boy.
***
You want to talk about evolution? Let's talk about evolution.
What determines desirable genes that a male would pass on to offspring? Two main factors -- Healthy physical condition, and viable sperm. And I will laugh in anyone's face if they try to tell me that a seventy-five-year-old man still produces healthy, viable, and motile sperm same as a twenty-five-year-old man is able to. Some people are egged on in this notion by a couple of male public figures that on the surface seem to be able to produce offspring nearly in their triple-digit ages, such as Strom Thurmond.
What age is optimal for this? The twenties are the prime physical age for a purveyor of this "evolutionary-based" logic to reproduce.
Thirty is kind of pushing it. Fifty is a laugh, forty is a laugh. [[[[___mention medical statistics for peak ages of maximum sp production.___]]]]]]
***
In the natural world, it is ladies' choice. The females get to pick and choose whoever is the fittest male to father the offspring.
This is the reason that males of many species engage in ever more ostentatious (and entertaining) displays of beauty, physical prowess, and impressive feats of athleticism. You have the peacocks with their beautiful grand plumage. You have elk with their majestic towering, commanding racks (hehe racks). Elk, deer, and others of these type of sure-footed beasts engage in violent displays of physical agility and force. Males compete with other males in physical fights to see which one is more aggressive and physically fit.
Many have tried to suggest that the modern-day equivalents of men's "evolution" are intelligence, a good job, a sizeable paycheque --
No, no. We do not use modern equivalents. If we use modern equivalents for males, then we must also use modern equivalents for females. That means males could not use the excuse that shapely symmetry or big boobs indicate that a woman would be a good mother. Modern science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that human males are not able to determine when a human females is most fertile. Medical science has proven that breast size and facial characteristics have very little to do with fertility, health of a fetus, or production of breast milk. Yet somehow magically, evolutionary psychologists continue insisting that these traits are what males desire from females due to "evolution."
It is not much of a leap to follow that in the same vein as the popular evolutionary theory, modern-day jobs do not rate very high as indicators of evolutionary fitness of the homo sapiens.
Modern equivalents? Uh, no, not too terribly, no. According to all the assessments of how evolution as a behavioral motivation would manifest in the human species -- logic, reasoning, morals, respect, mutual respect and understanding, respect and acknowledgment of women as whole complete human beings and equals to men, people regarding each other as human beings deserving and worthy of care and concern -- none of these behaviors are part of evolution. This exclusion would extend to occupations of time that consume intelligence, marketable skills, mathematics and logic reasoning, language or spatial skills. None of these would be included in determining evolutionary fitness of males.
Yeah, you want to talk science with me, buddy? I will put you where you belong.
---
If you are so damn worried about following the natural world, then the first things you should do are cut all your electricity and phone cables to your house, dissemble all your indoor plumbing, and burn all of your clothes including underwear. Sorry, but you do not get to pick and choose which aspects of civilization you get to deploy.
What's that, someone wants to see my medical degree? I'll show you mine after you show me yours. It's called common sense, dumbass. Kinda like how every person on the planet has an honorary degree in psychology, as well as one in sociology.
So, intelligence, compassion, commitment -- these do not register on your radar as emblems of an evolved progressive species?
So according to you, precepts of critical thinking, consideration of others' feelings, consideration of your own feelings and morals, and indeed having any at all, intelligence, dignity, social responsibility, treating others with respect, these do not count as evolution?
Growing up in a stable two-parent home in which the two parents love and respect each other, rather than breeding uncontrollably like rats -- these are not emblems of your evolution?
Sorry, but you cannot pick and choose which tenets of your own doctrine to practice or not. What do you think you are, an organized religion?
If you can apply reason and logic to one aspect of your life, then you should be able to apply reason and logic to all aspects of your life.
No regard to those offsprings' nutritional and physical health, no regard to their emotional health, or no regard to whether they can read, write, or count. These are behaviors well-established in government housing projects, mobile home parks, slums of third world countries. They (males) have gotten pregnant as many different people as possible, or they (females) have gotten pregnant by as many different people as possible. Their children are scattered loosely around the town or village, whatever the case may be depending on the size of the surrounding population. Children consume usually two hundred calories or less per day (that is equivalent to one can of beans) and most are not able to attend school past the fourth or fifth grade.
Regarding the ones here in America, children born under these circumstances are not able to graduate high school. Growing up they receive very poor quality nutrition of food, not even close to the optimal amounts of food (that would mean not too little and not too much).
However, if the parents had bore only a few children, then they would have invested all their energy, time, and effort into raising those few children, thereby creating healthy, functional, normal, productive members of society.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment