There are two main processes by which evolution can take place;
Natural Selection; which is defined as differential potential for survival based upon genetic traits and the practical advantages they provide the subject over other animals and members of their own species within their natural habitat.
Sexual Selection; which is defined as the process by which certain genetic traits become exemplified over time because of the their influence on mate selection due to their appeal to the opposite sex.
- example; it is theorised that the reason that humans have larger penises than the great-apes is because human females understood the relationship between a larger penis and increased pleasure during sex, and so selected males with larger penises, slowly breeding out lesser endowed males to the point where the average penis size of a human male increased over time. (I will likely be making another thread on this in the near future).
Because the great apes are our closest living relatives, it is useful to use them as a reference point when mapping out the evolution of various human traits since some point around 6-8 million years ago, when chimpanzees and humans shared their last known common ancestor, known as CHLCA. It is theorised that CHLCA was equipped with much greater physical strength and bone density than a modern homo-sapien because not only are the great apes on average 2-3 times stronger than a man, but also early man, from homo-erectus to homo-neanderthalensis exhibited greater physical strength and bone density than modern man, so weaker frame and muscle mass are a trait specific to modern humans within the greater hominid family tree.
The only way to explain this natural recession in a uniformly advantageous evolutionary trait such as physical strength is the rise of another trait with even higher evolutionary value, which would demand a larger share of energy metabolised by the body and a change in the emphasis of its allocation away from the muscles involved with physical strength. Incase you haven't guessed it, this trait is intelligence, and it is what sets human beings apart from the other great apes as evolutionary compensation for the weakening of our physical stature. A human brain (despite only making up 2% of our body mass) consumes roughly 25% of our energy consumption, double the percentage required by a chimpanzee brain.
This trade-off between physical prowess and mental acuity can be effectively summarised in incel terminology as a transition from brainlet to framecel, as all great apes are effectively brainlets in comparison to humans despite the fact they framemog us into oblivion.
interestingly, for those of you who buy into the bell curve displaying variation in IQ scores between the races (generally accepted as Asian > White > Black) the trade-off between intelligence and physical strength/athletic ability is also evident along this continuum, as where one race may supersede others with regard to mental acuity, this advantage comes at the price of a decrease in their physical prowess, with the exception of South Asians who are outliers in this respect (sorry curries, I do not know why nature can be so cruel).
The reason this trade-off is interesting is because it is clear to me, as it should be to all of those who are blackpilled, that perceived physical prowess is a far, far more advantageous evolutionary trait when it comes to sexual selection than intelligence. Yes, it is theorised that the reason women are more attracted to funny men than unfunny ones is because the ability to make people laugh is often indicative of high-intelligence, but we blackpilled all know that having a naturally powerful body increases your likelihood for sexual selection by females to a much greater degree than being funny or smart does.
So why has evolution sacrificed our physical strength for intelligence when being strong would actually be more advantageous in helping us find a mate and spread our genes? My new theory states that it is because; millennia ago in a more brutal and harsher world, settlements of smarter men outbred those of stronger men due to their heightened ability to control their environment and extend their lives, this process is evident in the quick extinction of Neanderthals from Europe in the proceeding millennia after the arrival of Homo sapiens in the area. This shows us that natural selection, particularly back then, favoured intelligence over strength - however - sexual selection on the part of women has always favoured strength over intelligence, and thus after the base level of higher intelligence in the successful Homo sapien settlements was established, a process of sexual selection began, breeding out the physically weaker males thus slowly increasing the average strength of all males in the same way the smaller penis males were selectively bred into recession to be replaced by generations with on average larger penises. Due to the rapid spread of intelligent human activity across the world, both these processes have not yet been carried out to completion, which is why we see such dichotomy in male body types across and within human populations, and why framecels and dickcels who are the end of their evolutionary line are still being born today.
Natural Selection; which is defined as differential potential for survival based upon genetic traits and the practical advantages they provide the subject over other animals and members of their own species within their natural habitat.
Sexual Selection; which is defined as the process by which certain genetic traits become exemplified over time because of the their influence on mate selection due to their appeal to the opposite sex.
- example; it is theorised that the reason that humans have larger penises than the great-apes is because human females understood the relationship between a larger penis and increased pleasure during sex, and so selected males with larger penises, slowly breeding out lesser endowed males to the point where the average penis size of a human male increased over time. (I will likely be making another thread on this in the near future).
Because the great apes are our closest living relatives, it is useful to use them as a reference point when mapping out the evolution of various human traits since some point around 6-8 million years ago, when chimpanzees and humans shared their last known common ancestor, known as CHLCA. It is theorised that CHLCA was equipped with much greater physical strength and bone density than a modern homo-sapien because not only are the great apes on average 2-3 times stronger than a man, but also early man, from homo-erectus to homo-neanderthalensis exhibited greater physical strength and bone density than modern man, so weaker frame and muscle mass are a trait specific to modern humans within the greater hominid family tree.
The only way to explain this natural recession in a uniformly advantageous evolutionary trait such as physical strength is the rise of another trait with even higher evolutionary value, which would demand a larger share of energy metabolised by the body and a change in the emphasis of its allocation away from the muscles involved with physical strength. Incase you haven't guessed it, this trait is intelligence, and it is what sets human beings apart from the other great apes as evolutionary compensation for the weakening of our physical stature. A human brain (despite only making up 2% of our body mass) consumes roughly 25% of our energy consumption, double the percentage required by a chimpanzee brain.
This trade-off between physical prowess and mental acuity can be effectively summarised in incel terminology as a transition from brainlet to framecel, as all great apes are effectively brainlets in comparison to humans despite the fact they framemog us into oblivion.
interestingly, for those of you who buy into the bell curve displaying variation in IQ scores between the races (generally accepted as Asian > White > Black) the trade-off between intelligence and physical strength/athletic ability is also evident along this continuum, as where one race may supersede others with regard to mental acuity, this advantage comes at the price of a decrease in their physical prowess, with the exception of South Asians who are outliers in this respect (sorry curries, I do not know why nature can be so cruel).
The reason this trade-off is interesting is because it is clear to me, as it should be to all of those who are blackpilled, that perceived physical prowess is a far, far more advantageous evolutionary trait when it comes to sexual selection than intelligence. Yes, it is theorised that the reason women are more attracted to funny men than unfunny ones is because the ability to make people laugh is often indicative of high-intelligence, but we blackpilled all know that having a naturally powerful body increases your likelihood for sexual selection by females to a much greater degree than being funny or smart does.
So why has evolution sacrificed our physical strength for intelligence when being strong would actually be more advantageous in helping us find a mate and spread our genes? My new theory states that it is because; millennia ago in a more brutal and harsher world, settlements of smarter men outbred those of stronger men due to their heightened ability to control their environment and extend their lives, this process is evident in the quick extinction of Neanderthals from Europe in the proceeding millennia after the arrival of Homo sapiens in the area. This shows us that natural selection, particularly back then, favoured intelligence over strength - however - sexual selection on the part of women has always favoured strength over intelligence, and thus after the base level of higher intelligence in the successful Homo sapien settlements was established, a process of sexual selection began, breeding out the physically weaker males thus slowly increasing the average strength of all males in the same way the smaller penis males were selectively bred into recession to be replaced by generations with on average larger penises. Due to the rapid spread of intelligent human activity across the world, both these processes have not yet been carried out to completion, which is why we see such dichotomy in male body types across and within human populations, and why framecels and dickcels who are the end of their evolutionary line are still being born today.
Last edited:
