Morons are needed (some considerations on evolution) — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

Morons are needed (some considerations on evolution)

This page's ID: 28036

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	Oh, and while we're at it.. Lil' summary, so far, the most valid conclusions are: 1) perfection doesn't exist in real world 2) evolution is not random, but is a natural process that changes beings adapted to one context, to beings adapted to another context 3) difference does good to a gene pool: uniformity kills evolution or slows it down a lot. These are the only facts, so far, that can be proved to a certain extent, and stand out of the philoso-brainstorming. For human beings, a LOT of what makes our minds and behaviors is genetic. A lot more than anyone would think, so, to give another answer to the following question... [quote] 1. What do you do of human evolution so far? Is human kind better suited to its "Context" than 2000 years ago or just differently suited? In other words, was human kind less adapted to its "Context" 2000 years ago? [/quote] Simple example: are you ever aware of the ongoing temperature regulation in your body? Well, your body, nervous system, every cell knows what's going on in terms of temperature, but we never have to think about it. It just happens. I think our minds and therefore our societies and cultures have evolved a lot in the past thousands years, a whole lot. But I think our genes and inner behavioral patterns didn't follow at the same speed, nope. In other words, we ARE better suited to our context in our minds and culture, somehow (proof: demography, the race grew a lot within the last thousand years). But not in our guts, we're the same cavemen our ancestors were, or almost. Proof: mating rituals. Did they really change that much :confused: I don't think. Females are still attracted to dominant males "regardless of what common sense would tell them", some of them being abusive jerks (I am all against the abusive bit), but still... And males are essentially attracted to nameless hotties (Playboy magazines make a living of this). This is controversial theory, but such mating rituals (as opposed to dating and pseudo-romantic bullshit that does not work when it comes to seduction) suggest the following: - males are supposed to play a protective role towards the family, hence the fact dominant males are perceived as better reproductors to the woman's instinct - women are supposed to give birth and nurture, hence the fact women that look good look like "good genes and care for the children" to a male's instinct This still works 100% for most mammal species, and to an extent, behind society, morals and ethics, I strongly think it still is what determines mating in humans. FWIW. Oh, lil' warning... I expect many males to totally disagree with this theory, find it ridiculous, etc. I expect kimmy, or girls, to understand what I am talking about a bit better (simply because society, morals and ethics taught us that a good male/father is someone kind and romantic. Go tell that to a woman's instinct ;)) Proof of concept: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/718e39b3 Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu