Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Sexual selection makes no damn evolutionary sense.

Alfredenuman

Alfredenuman

Greycel
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Posts
36
Online
23h 56m
Le Moustier


Intro

This post will focus specifically on the human race while using animal studies as a base reference. Anthropologists, social scientists, normies and PUAs can justify describing human behavior in terms of their 'primitive animal brain' then it is only fair that this thread be allowed to do the same.
Sexual selection is the selection of mates (overwhelmingly done by females), to select the 'best' male to propagate with. This selection process is entirely based on the whims and wants of the female species. As a contrast, this is entirely different from natural selection where the best candidates for survival/propagation are determined by the environment.

With this being said, it should be noted that the argument of women selecting the best genes because of natural selection is a wholly incorrect statement. Women select purely on sexual selection and this selection process likely does not benefit to the human race as a whole, and may even impede the human race to survive.

Main

1200px Irish Elk Side white background

The image above is the skeleton of the Irish Elk, featuring it's impressively sized antlers. They were one of the largest deer species to have ever lived and successfully populated almost half the globe from Ireland to Eastern China. Unfortunately they went extinct more than 7000 years ago and to a large part due to sexual selection. With the females of their species being their undoing.

It's a well known fact in biology that there is a doctrine of 'use it or lose it'. Genetically for humans and for most life forms on Earth, our bodies value energy the most, and will aggressively attempt to save energy in the form of fat storage, or by reabsorbing body structures that consume excess metabolic energy (like large muscles that are being underutilized if those structures are not used regularly). This can be easily seen in astronauts, who are supposedly in peak human condition, return to earth disheveled and suffering from muscular atrophy from disuse in long term micro gravity exposure. This is actually an extremely useful adaptive feature which allows organisms to survive long periods of food shortages and to generally survive longer.

In the case of the Irish Elk, this base need to efficiently conserve energy was counteracted by the excessive sexual selection of it's females, that always demanded larger and larger antlers to decide on attractive mates. These antlers are a big deal, and are a massive metabolic commitment (and also completely pointless). Unfortunately for the species, this irrelevant requirement for the survival of the species is what caused its extinction. Either by the males' reaching the limit of what can be possible for antler size (and females no longer being impressed and no longer mating) or by the fact that the antlers were so large that it interfered with its ability to adapt to its environment. Either way, their extinction was purely because the females demanding things that were completely irrelevant to their survival (like being good at finding food, or caring for their young). Their bodies no longer able to support itself with the massive metabolic cost of keeping antlers around.


"Playing the role of orthogenesis is the relentless power of sexual selection. The antlers got bigger and bigger as the Irish elk stags advertised their quality. Each year they lost these monstrous growths and regenerated them the following year. As the shrubby woodlands in which the Irish elk lived began to shrink at the end of the last Ice Age, the animals could no longer get enough food to fuel those giant antlers, and they died. Sexually selected suicide, in other words. " - Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (17 Jul 1992) by Stephen Jay Gould


The Irish Elk has not been an isolated issue either. A study from 2003 focusing on birds indicated "mean population fitness of species with high intensities of post-mating sexual selection may be especially low if costs associated with multiple mating are high or if the selection load imposed by post-mating selection is higher relative to that of pre-mating sexual selection." - University of Sussex and university of Windsor (October 2003)

Studies as recent as 2018 has indicated that sexual selection has been a major determining factor in the majority of extinctions in the Earth's history: "By analyzing thousands of fossilized ancient crustaceans, a team of scientists found that devoting a lot of energy to the competition for mates may compromise species' resilience to change and increase their risk of extinction. " - Smithsonian (April 11, 2018 )

The human species
181212124927 02 neanderthal genes head scli intl large 169

Anthropological studies have indicated that modern humans have significantly smaller brains compared to our ancient counterparts, which included the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals. What made the human race unique in the animal kingdom was our disproportionately large brains to our body mass. While it may seem that we are still more intelligent than our predecessors, it's mainly due to readily available information being provided to us by technology that offsets this. Ancient humans however had to rely heavily on creativity, tool making, navigation and determination which necessitate increased brain mass.
People may argue that "if our ancient cousins were so intelligent, then why did they go extinct?", and the answer is simple; it's evident that females did not value intelligence or cranial size. They simply selected on qualities that were completely irrelevant to their survival (likely because they never were involved in hunting parties and never could appreciate the importance of intelligence over something comparatively less important like height or muscle mass). Eventually the Neanderthals and other hominids went extinct, ironically leaving the smaller, weaker (and arguably dumber) Homo Sapien male counterparts to inherit what's left. The loss had been so severe that we still have people in Africa who can't figure out how to farm.


Why human sexual selection makes no sense
Main qimg 1bd66032c1a6ae3355dd17e290d7c3d3 c

Human females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species. In the current year women seem to be driven by societal pressure to select men whom are over 6'0 tall. This is in spite of the fact that for the large majority of human history, the average human height was less than 5'4. Even up to as recently as the 1800's the average human height barely broke 5'10.

For the vast majority of human existence height was the least important determining factor of survival. Being tall, meant you had a larger body frame, lost more heat, required more consumption of the already scarce resources, moved more slowly, and had more difficulty stealthily hunting. Being someone 6'0 tall over someone who was 5'2 (being that tall was pretty much nonexistent back then) was a completely pointless trait when facing off a mammoth for food. What mattered the most was whomever made the better spears and whomever had the better hunting technique to track and kill animals that were 4x their size. i.e. bigger brains.
Being 6'0 tall is meaningless in terms of survival, but however is only selected today because of artificial societal norms and women's illogical need to feel safe in an age where devices like guns exist.

16 Interesting Gigantism Statistics

There will be a time where human females will keep demanding taller and taller mating partners with smaller and smaller brains, resulting in misshapen and maladapted human beings. They will very likely call for 6'2 males and progress to call for 6'4 and so on.
We do in fact have people who are monstrously tall today and they suffer from a myriad of problems, because like the Irish Elk, the human body simply isn't equipped to handle the immense physical stress from the unrealistic proportions demanded by the female species. People who are 7'0 tall already suffer from serious ailments such as joint erosion, heart failure, osteoporosis and an overall higher mortality rate. All the product of relentless sexual selection pressure for no other reason than women like it that way.

Images

It's also no surprise that the vast majority of the prison population are made of hyper masculine and aggressive males, because these are traits that were ultimately selected for by females. But this makes no sense in terms of natural selection because very high testosterone levels predisposes these types of males to be too aggressive; they become uncooperative and exhibit maladaptive behaviors that threaten tribal cohesion. They are less likely to care for and look after their offspring and may even kill them. They have higher drives to only procreate and spend little or not time being creative, or learning skills (if their intelligence allows them for it). They are less likely to share food and resources. They are in prison for this reason because they cannot fit into civilized society.

Yet, more than half of prison misconduct occurs between male inmates, and female prison guards.


Is there hope left?
9780582784062

About 80% of human males are the unattractive 'betas' because of our evolutionary heritage, and also because a few clever ancestors devised a societal system where the provisioning of partners were evenly distributed based on merit. Unfortunately that societal system has eroded over the last few hundred years and part of the reason why women are disgusted by 80% of these men were because those men 'prevented them having their fun'. Yet, despite having maladaptive hyper masculine animals in prison, women will still seek them out (and unaccounted drug dealers/gangsters/crime lords, etc.) for producing offspring. Worst case scenario is that they may even engage in degenerate behavior such fornicating with animals to satisfy their sexual needs.

Index


Unfortunately I don't have the answers and its my personal opinion that the human race is doomed by the way of the Irish Elk, Pandas and many other species where the females prefer extinction and/or genetic regression as opposed to mating with what they deem as a 'not good enough male'.
 
Last edited:
thebuddhacel

thebuddhacel

the truecel buddhist
★★
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Posts
2,516
Online
47d 22h 49m
Natural selection is pseudoscience.
 
ThePlagueDoctor

ThePlagueDoctor

:(
★★★★
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Posts
3,310
Online
25d 23h 31m
Natural selection is pseudoscience.
Sorta, the underlying idea is that the traits necessary to reproduction is passed on, which is true. But the traits that get passed on aren’t always good
 
Yerberito

Yerberito

Demigod
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Posts
38,534
Online
57d 15h 36m
Is all about the genes
 
GreaseCel

GreaseCel

The Bee’s Knees
★★★★★
Joined
May 19, 2019
Posts
5,696
Online
44d 18h 10m
Cope, good looks are directly correlated to good genes. There’s been plenty of studies on this. Good looks is the way of displaying your superior genes.
 
B

BlackPill Scholar

Sagittalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Posts
6,514
Online
111d 50m
I'll read in a minute so I can make a response. But just based on the title; if this is true, how do you explain modern day beauty standards?
 
Alfredenuman

Alfredenuman

Greycel
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Posts
36
Online
23h 56m
Cope, good looks are directly correlated to good genes. There’s been plenty of studies on this. Good looks is the way of displaying your superior genes.
Like how carriers for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell can look like normal attractive people but are genetic train wrecks waiting to happen?
 
skohlkal

skohlkal

ER if no GF in 2020
★★★
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Posts
242
Online
11d 4h 15m
Women's extreme selection will become dysgenic very soon. When you push certain traits to it's limits, the others begin to deteriorate.

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. People are shown the real part, which makes them ready to believe the imaginary part. That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

 
Deleted member 24160

Deleted member 24160

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Posts
6,504
Online
104d 19h 37m
This is pretty good though I disagree on the parts about women being pressured into wanting a tall guy.
 
ERadicator

ERadicator

Exalted Clowncel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Posts
12,997
Online
256d 22h 40m
Cope, good looks are directly correlated to good genes. There’s been plenty of studies on this. Good looks is the way of displaying your superior genes.
Exactly, the Nazi's knew this better than anyone, which is why they were based
 
Deleted member 24160

Deleted member 24160

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Posts
6,504
Online
104d 19h 37m
Like how carriers for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell can look like normal attractive people but are genetic train wrecks waiting to happen?
Seriously there is this weird thought process on here that chads are some super species. Their just more attractive, that's it.
 
Alfredenuman

Alfredenuman

Greycel
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Posts
36
Online
23h 56m
I'll read in a minute so I can make a response. But just based on the title; if this is true, how do you explain modern day beauty standards?
I appreciate the read. I currently don't have a fully developed idea of why women select for the traits they do in the modern age, so it'll have to take some time for me to think about. All I know is that female selection choices makes no major positive impact on human survival when the biggest factor for us being an apex species was our ability to create tools (and use them) with our intelligence. Otherwise we'd be no different to the other great apes.

Modern choices in what is attractive seems to be a detriment to our development in the human species in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Words2_live_bye

Words2_live_bye

What a Shame ...
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Posts
18,336
Online
115d 9h 23m
The worst part is not only that they only want Chads, but they prefer to fuck animals than us.
We're literally less attractive and sexual to them than a FUCKING dog
I still can't understand their logic in doing this.
Maybe they see dogs as cute fluffy things that can eat them out whenever they want and fuck them whenever they want and not risk pregnancy
but it's disgusting.
Women should use us beta males for fucking them.
not an animal
life sucks
 
Alfredenuman

Alfredenuman

Greycel
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Posts
36
Online
23h 56m
The worst part is not only that they only want Chads, but they prefer to fuck animals than us.
We're literally less attractive and sexual to them than a FUCKING dog
I still can't understand their logic in doing this.
Maybe they see dogs as cute fluffy things that can eat them out whenever they want and fuck them whenever they want and not risk pregnancy
but it's disgusting.
Women should use us beta males for fucking them.
not an animal
life sucks
Women will literally choose extinction over mating with a beta male. Just go look at Japan.
 
Words2_live_bye

Words2_live_bye

What a Shame ...
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Posts
18,336
Online
115d 9h 23m
Women will literally choose extinction over mating with a beta male. Just go look at Japan.
oof
do you think jap girls are like white girls when it comes to dog fucking?
 
Deleted member 10531

Deleted member 10531

incelecni
-
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Posts
2,185
Online
3d 11h 11m
Cope, good looks are directly correlated to good genes. There’s been plenty of studies on this. Good looks is the way of displaying your superior genes.
send me the studies
 
Alfredenuman

Alfredenuman

Greycel
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Posts
36
Online
23h 56m
oof
do you think jap girls are like white girls when it comes to dog fucking?
No idea, I don't have any statistics or data to back up those claims. The only thing I had to go by was that White girls openly brag about it publicly
This is pretty good though I disagree on the parts about women being pressured into wanting a tall guy.
It's the best explanation I can come up with considering the fact that for the 99.9% of human existence we never were 6'0 tall, not even close. It's likely that the 6'0 standard is a modern creation, maybe because whole numbers look nice or that like the Elks, women just keep demanding more than necessary.
 
Last edited:
B

BlackPill Scholar

Sagittalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Posts
6,514
Online
111d 50m
This post is filled with leaks, so much so that I will argue only against the major ones.

Firstly your point about the Irish elk. The term for this effect is the fisherian runaway effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

Sexual selection is not always logical. There are faults in any species. What I find troubling however, is the isolated example. And even if the point about scientists finding thousands of examples was true, its still nothing compared to the billions of species that have existed. You have to ask yourself from a logical standpoint, if sexual selection was not beneficial, why would it exist in the first place? Although I guess you could argue that sexual selection itself is a runaway of another evolutionary feature. I'm not sure, maybe I'll come back later and try to give a better explanation.

Your point about human brain size decreasing is interesting. That is true though, over the last 30,000 years it has been decreasing. I could just use your own example, the 'use it or lose it mentality', if we as humans don't need to remember as much information about our environment, then why keep this extra brain mass which is serving no purpose and using up energy? Also the comparison between Neanderthals and humans is kind of irrelevant, we were different species. Some of the brain mass lost could also relate to losing some of the 'bodily control' functions of the brain as we entered civilisation and didn't need to hunt.
Then there is counter examples like Albert Einstein and Anatole France who were ridiculously intelligent, but both of their brains according to autopsy reports, were much smaller than average.



Finally, the last point. Height can and has been a beneficial feature depending on the environment it has evolved in (which is why different races have different average heights). Honestly, give me any feature that a male can possess and I will give you a reason that feature is in some ways evolutionarily beneficial. There is substantial evidence that women have differing preferences on the masculinity of partners, and most women do not like extreamly masculine males. Most desire a balance of masculine features; for hunting, and feminine features; for caring for offspring.


Don't get me wrong though, masculinity is needed for the attractiveness of males to a larger extent.
 
MountainGorilla

MountainGorilla

gorillas are my favorite animals
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Posts
6,263
Online
154d 12h 46m
No idea, I don't have any statistics or data to back up those claims. The only thing I had to go by was that White girls openly brag about it publicly
oof
do you think jap girls are like white girls when it comes to dog fucking?

I think any foid of capable of fucking dogs so long as the culture they're living with allows them. Japs have some of the most degenerate porn genres like vomit, piss etc. but never have I seen any jap porn with dog fucking. Also egyptians engaged in bestiality.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
14,909
Online
192d 2h 11m
High IQ post, coming strong through the door for a greycel.

@BlackPill Scholar already covered the criticism I had with your thesis - that all observable phenomena in biological nature have some evolutionary purpose or function for the overall benefit of the species.

You can think of sexual selection as an unrestrained evolutionary mechanism. It veers wildly and swings from one end to the other. The process then takes feedback from the environment and then calibrates to make gradual adjustments to the parameters of the species. Unfortunately, the process sometimes swings to far and too hard, and the environment destroys the species, resulting in extinction.

Height and muscle mass do have very obvious survival advantages. But like anything else, there's an optimal sweet spot. Sexual selection, unfortunately, will keep swinging and trying to max out the height parameter, and I don't know if our environment will be able to give the females of our species feedback that tells them to slow the fuck down on this height thing before you kill us all.
 
Last edited:
Alfredenuman

Alfredenuman

Greycel
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Posts
36
Online
23h 56m
This post is filled with leaks, so much so that I will argue only against the major ones.

Firstly your point about the Irish elk. The term for this effect is the fisherian runaway effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

Sexual selection is not always logical. There are faults in any species. What I find troubling however, is the isolated example. And even if the point about scientists finding thousands of examples was true, its still nothing compared to the billions of species that have existed. You have to ask yourself from a logical standpoint, if sexual selection was not beneficial, why would it exist in the first place? Although I guess you could argue that sexual selection itself is a runaway of another evolutionary feature. I'm not sure, maybe I'll come back later and try to give a better explanation.

Your point about human brain size decreasing is interesting. That is true though, over the last 30,000 years it has been decreasing. I could just use your own example, the 'use it or lose it mentality', if we as humans don't need to remember as much information about our environment, then why keep this extra brain mass which is serving no purpose and using up energy? Also the comparison between Neanderthals and humans is kind of irrelevant, we were different species. Some of the brain mass lost could also relate to losing some of the 'bodily control' functions of the brain as we entered civilisation and didn't need to hunt.
Then there is counter examples like Albert Einstein and Anatole France who were ridiculously intelligent, but both of their brains according to autopsy reports, were much smaller than average.



Finally, the last point. Height can and has been a beneficial feature depending on the environment it has evolved in (which is why different races have different average heights). Honestly, give me any feature that a male can possess and I will give you a reason that feature is in some ways evolutionarily beneficial. There is substantial evidence that women have differing preferences on the masculinity of partners, and most women do not like extreamly masculine males. Most desire a balance of masculine features; for hunting, and feminine features; for caring for offspring.


Don't get me wrong though, masculinity is needed for the attractiveness of males to a larger extent.
Thanks for taking the time to read it. I'll try to explain my thought process:

1. Thanks for the wiki link on the fisherian runaway effect. I had a hard time coming up with a good term for what I was describing.

2. The argument that billions of species existed which proves that sexual selection on some level might be beneficial, but I also considered that even though we have a billion species alive today, multiple billions of other species are also extinct. We have more extinct species than alive ones in existence. When 90% of the iterations are failures, then sexual selection is a poor, wasteful and risky tool for selection. A lot of enduring species we see alive today tend to have comparatively low sexual dimorphism.

3. There's evidence that at least 20% of Neanderthal DNA survives in the human genome that suggests that we interbred with Neanderthals. We are in many ways related to them, which is why I thought it would be relevant to include them. (There's also a presiding theory that we simply interbred the Neanderthals into extinction, but I'm not sure if that's relevant to the post.)

4. Your point of brain size is a valid one. Perhaps smaller brains were simply more efficiently connected and could afford to be smaller? Regardless, people like Einstein and Anatole were exceptions to the rule and it's likely that their brains were wired/developed differently and more efficiently. But for the rest of us, our mental abilities can only improve proportionally with size.

You mentioned the advent of farming/civilization made our brains smaller, but civilization has been a relatively recent development in our history compared to the almost 40,000 years of brain regression, so I had to consider other forces being at play, the most likely one was that it simply wasn't being selected for. Ironically farming should have allowed us to have bigger brains because nutrition should have been less of an issue. I still could be wrong though.

5. I have to disagree on height because there was a reason why the human species spent the majority of its existence being comparatively small. Other animal species can grow big/tall despite having a comparatively poorer diet than humans and I'm being led to believe that humans were intentionally genetically small until recently. Being tall has been a modern development that happened barely a few centuries ago and I made the argument that if being tall didn't affect our survival chances back when it mattered the most tens of thousands of years ago, it certainly doesn't/shouldn't matter today, since we literally have weapons (like guns) that negates any height advantages a human being has. In fact gunpowder even predates (13th century) the records of when we started having this 'growth spurt' of a species, which made me conclude that this preference was at least artificially/socially forced.

6. Masculine traits are actually a good thing, I think I made the mistake of not putting that on the table in my OP. What I did go by was that females now are selecting hypermasculine traits that are maladaptive. This largely seems true because it's well known that even well adjusted masculine men like army husbands, still get regularly cheated on by their wives with even more masculine men who tend to be those who possess the dark triad. I understand what some women say they prefer a more balanced male, but that's only when they lack the option to be with a hypermasculine male or if they are single mothers.
 
Last edited:
B

BlackPill Scholar

Sagittalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Posts
6,514
Online
111d 50m
Thanks for taking the time to read it. I'll try to explain my thought process:

1. Thanks for the wiki link on the fisherian runaway effect. I had a hard time coming up with a good term for what I was describing.
No problem, I originally discovered it from another member of this forum.

2. The argument that billions of species existed which proves that sexual selection on some level might be beneficial, but I also considered that even though we have a billion species alive today, multiple billions of other species are also extinct. We have more extinct species than alive ones in existence. When 90% of the iterations are failures, then sexual selection is a poor, wasteful and risky tool for selection. A lot of enduring species we see alive today tend to have comparatively low sexual dimorphism.
My point was that most of these species went extinct due to factors not relating to sexual selection. The one asteroid that took out all of those species of dinosaurs was a singular event completely unrelated to mate selection mechanisms. Quite frankly though, I'm not educated at all on this specific topic and I'm just half-guessing based on what seems logical. There are however, alot of species which display huge amounts of sexual dimorphism, the peacock for example. Most people think their feathers serve no evolutionary purpose, but they do. It's to show the females that the genetics they posess allowed them to gather enough food to survive and to display the wonderful set of feathers they developed.

3. There's evidence that at least 20% of Neanderthal DNA survives in the human genome that suggests that we interbred with Neanderthals. We are in many ways related to them, which is why I thought it would be relevant to include them. (There's also a presiding theory that we simply interbred the Neanderthals into extinction, but I'm not sure if that's relevant to the post.)
You're correct. But I'm pretty sure most experts say that humans didn't have nearly enough DNA from Neanderthals to permit that we completely interbred, but some certainly occurred.

4. Your point of brain size is a valid one. Perhaps smaller brains were simply more efficiently connected and could afford to be smaller? Regardless, people like Einstein and Anatole were exceptions to the rule and it's likely that their brains were wired/developed differently and more efficiently. But for the rest of us, our mental abilities can only improve proportionally with size.

You mentioned the advent of farming/civilization made our brains smaller, but civilization has been a relatively recent development in our history compared to the almost 40,000 years of brain regression, so I had to consider other forces being at play, the most likely one was that it simply wasn't being selected for. Ironically farming should have allowed us to have bigger brains because nutrition should have been less of an issue. I still could be wrong though.

5. I have to disagree on height because there was a reason why the human species spent the majority of its existence being comparatively small. Other animal species can grow big/tall despite having a comparatively poorer diet than humans and I'm being led to believe that humans were intentionally genetically small until recently. Being tall has been a modern development that happened barely a few centuries ago and I made the argument that if being tall didn't affect our survival chances back when it mattered the most tens of thousands of years ago, it certainly doesn't/shouldn't matter today, since we literally have weapons (like guns) that negates any height advantages a human being has. In fact gunpowder even predates (13th century) the records of when we started having this 'growth spurt' of a species, which made me conclude that this preference was at least artificially/socially forced.
I remember reading an article about the structure of Einsteins brain and some of the researchers found no difference between his and normal brains. They mentioned that differences occur in the bias of analysis in some studies, that is to say, they look for differences that don't exist. Many studies have found differences so I'm not sure.

Also I would add that intelligence, although beneficial is not hyper-selected for. In a simple environment of hunting and warding off predators, only a base level of intelligence is needed. I don't think it was actively selected against, just not selected for.

This is where I can form a connection between two of your points. At the advent of civilisation, nutrition in humans actually decreased and we got shorter and smaller. At the Industrial revolution we grew back up to our real genetic heights. You cannot surpass a genetic trait from changes in diet but you can fall short of it. The average northern European height before agriculture was around 5'11 to 6'0 tall. This sounds confusing, but in essence: hunter-gatheres ate alot more meat and protein and live in smaller social groups which allowed food to be shared around more. Upon the advent of agriculture, food became scarce as tight-knit communities had to share around the small amount of (often) non-nutritious crops they could grow.

6. Masculine traits are actually a good thing, I think I made the mistake of not putting that on the table in my OP. What I did go by was that females now are selecting hypermasculine traits that are maladaptive. This largely seems true because it's well known that even well adjusted masculine men like army husbands, still get regularly cheated on by their wives with even more masculine men who tend to be those who possess the dark triad. I understand what some women say they prefer a more balanced male, but that's only when they lack the option to be with a hypermasculine male or if they are single mothers.
Some womens preferences can vary depending on her ovarian cycle. When her estrogen is highest, the preference shifts away from the slightly feminine provider of resources and care to the more masculine provider of the 'good genes'. This is also why women prefer more masculine men for one night stands.
 
Irredeemable

Irredeemable

Recruit
-
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Posts
10,623
Online
218d 14h 31m
JFL when the entire human species is doomed because of foid behaviour.
 
D

Deleted member 24081

Self-banned
-
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Posts
10,568
Online
49d 16h 24m
Excellent post, well structured. Will read later.
 
M

Monk of Failure

Runaway Azkabanian.
-
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Posts
9,911
Online
111d 12h 33m
Sexual falls under natural selection. As far as female selecting mate goes, it depends upon how the costly and honest the signals of signaller are and how much direct and indirect benefits she gets from them. For example, tall height is a costly honest signal because you can't fake it since you are born with it and not everyone has it. It is impossible or hard for low quality man to fake costly signal. Sharp jawline, prominent brow ridge and other facial traits are also costly signals and they indicate good genetics too since if you have sharp jawline and prominent brow ridge it is a result of testosterones.


Now, choosing man of this signal like tall height, the direct benefit female gets is she would feel protected under tall man as other shorter man would be a bit scared to fight against him and the indirect benefit she'd get is her offspring will inherit his father genes giving him costly signal assuring his chances of getting partner for reproduction and eventually, increasing his reproductive success as well as fitness.

 
Last edited:
Norton

Norton

A dignified face should not be a luxury for some
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
442
Online
14d 8h 46m
I will discount some questionable passages in favor of the overall idea.

So female selection can be detrimental.
OK.
That does not change that it happens.
In evolution the "why" does not matter, all that matters is that it "works" and the selected genes are being passed on over the generations.
Perhaps there will be a plateau and a species may die out in the end, but nobody will be able to say that for sure while the species is still successful in procreating.

For example, perhaps in another environment Gay Alien Skull with big brain would be the only phenotype to survive and eventually females spontaneously start "liking" certain traits in males that indicate that big brain size.
It's very much arbitrary, much like the peacocks tail.
Over time, the females that prefer traits like big muscles will pass on their genes with those males, but in the end the females that made that decision will have children that die out.
On the other hand, the females that prefer Gay Alien Skull with big brain will have children that survive and pass on their genes, leading to a feedback loop in the next generation of preferring Gay Alien Skull...
And in that environment it's adaptive (it works).
BUT same thing can happen to big brain species that happens to big antlers elks, there may be an environmental obstacle (e.g. another species with big muscles, and brains are not enough to beat them) and Gay Alien Skull dies.

Currently, there is already a feedback loop in place (Face and LMS), and tbh you cannot deny that it works in passing on genes.

But in the end of it is very much arbitrary and in the end, it just is.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
14,909
Online
192d 2h 11m
But in the end of it is very much arbitrary and in the end, it just is.

That's kind of OP's central point, though. It's this arbitrary selection with no seemingly logical, environmental advantage that has proven to be detrimental to the continued survival of the species, as a whole.

After giving this some more thought, I personally think that it's actually a lot simpler than we're all making it out to be. I think that in actuality the females' sexual selection actually IS natural selection. They're one and the same.

The way the propagation of the genes happen is through the selfish interest of the individual. Each individual biological female operates entirely selfishly and selects mates based on the advantages conferred to her by her choice of mates in the given environment. These environmental advantages would then increase the probability of survival and the subsequent passing of genes by her children. Each environment has its own alphas with the characteristics to thrive in that environment (hypergamy and 80/20 are law). Collectively, the sexual selections of each individual female sum the totality of the species' natural selection.

In our current social and cultural environment having, for example, celebrity status, and to a lesser extent, social media fame (kek) is an advantage. The female seeks to benefit from this environment and thus seeks mates with traits that are able to maximize utility and gain from this environment.

When WW3 happens and the internet goes down from the cyber ops being conducted these social media stars will be nothing, and many Hollywood celebrities even will probably lose a ton of societal status. Nobody is going to give a fuck about an actor when the environment is going to demand builders and engineers to rebuild civilization. They'll lose their status and any advantages they had, due to the dramatic change in the environment. Female selection will now adjust.

The Fisherian runaway might in fact be a false and a non-existent phenomenon. Fisher was seeing something that just might not have been there.
 
Last edited:
Norton

Norton

A dignified face should not be a luxury for some
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
442
Online
14d 8h 46m
@based_meme What I mean by "it's arbitrary" is not a value statement.
I do not see how good looks are detrimental to the species at this point in time.
Being able to successfully procreate, and actually do it = evolutionary win. The more successful, the better. That's it.
Good looks help with that. Good looks are somewhat arbitrary, but they are actually the traits that used to be useful and that's why they are to female taste.
Even so, it just is what it is. We can talk about it all day long, but that's just how things are. I don't see the point. It will not change society.

And I don't think that sexual "tastes" change fast enough for good-looking people to lose status or desireability in a world where they suddenly do not otherwise benefit from their good looks.
Even if a world exists where only ugly super-geniuses survive, it's not like women are attracted to them initially. It takes time and chance for these real preferences to develop.
 
Billowel

Billowel

Ed junior
★★★★★
Joined
May 28, 2019
Posts
6,827
Online
112d 11h 21m
>there is nothing logical guiding evolution
>bro why is this illogical thing happening

man atheists change their mind every two seconds.just please turn your heart to god and go investigate.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
14,909
Online
192d 2h 11m
>there is nothing logical guiding evolution
>bro why is this illogical thing happening

man atheists change their mind every two seconds.just please turn your heart to god and go investigate.

To be fair in OP's defence, he didn't say the bolded at all.

In fact it's a dumb thing to say that a process like evolution and its mechanisms are illogical. Everything follows some logic, good or bad. Behaviors explained by evolution follow the logic of maximizing indivudual fitness survival, which in turn maximizes the probability of reproductive success, which ultimately helps extend the continued survival of the species.

It's one of the easier, more straightforward and less complex logics you can follow.
 
B

BlackPill Scholar

Sagittalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Posts
6,514
Online
111d 50m
I want to revisit this, because I feel my arguments do not do my point justice. You have to forgive my inexperience with this topic though, when I wrote my first couple responses I had just turned 17, and am still 17. Being so young I have not been exposed to many ideas with which to back up an argument and this is even more magnified by my incredibly recent interest in the topic.


Firstly, natural selection does not favour the species. I recommend reading the book the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins. He makes very good points for why genes only role is to increase the ability to replicate themselves. He argues against group selection (which admittedly I have been a proponent of in the past) and for kin selection. Genes don't care about the other members of their species beyond which members are likely to share their own genetics.


You focused a lot on the Irish elk, but no one actually knows why it went extinct.


'Historically, the extinction of the elk has been attributed to the encumbering size of the antlers, a "maladaptation" making fleeing through forests especially difficult for males while being chased by human hunters, or being too taxing nutritionally when the vegetation makeup shifted. In these scenarios, sexual selection by does for stags with large antlers would have contributed to decline.

However, antler size decreases through the Late Pleistocene and into the Holocene, and so may not have been the primary cause of extinction.'

Even if extinction was caused purely by sexual selection, it is likely that it worked in the present until human overhunting, changing environment and food shortages occurred, genes can only adapt to the environment of the past, and adjust accordingly for the future based on predictions made from the past. Like I said before, the dinosaurs couldn't predict an asteroid years in advance and evolve to the new environment of earth it would cause. If sexual selection makes no sense, as it cannot predict the future, then neither does natural selection.


As for brain size decreasing, I think I answered that relatively well before but you offered no explanation for why this decrease is a result of sexual selection, as if no other factors affect human evolution. You can't just lump that down to the extinction of another species, it's simply a correlation you haven't proved occurred. What if women only preferred bigger brains to the point of maladaptation, would we be doomed to the *supposed* way of the Irish elk? Would the lump of fat inside our skulls grow ever bigger, using more and more energy, impeding our ability to hunt, getting toppled over like bobble heads as our necks could no longer support the sheer weight of fatty tissue? Okay, I'm going off on a tangent, but even women today like large skulls, it's a chad trait. One would have to look no further than the big brain meme that has become so popular to find that humans like big brains. A lot of our brain doesn't even think, grey matter is distributed mostly on the surface of our brain, the ventricles filled with fluid, blood volume. It would make more sense for the meme to be wrinkled brain, opposed to big brain, as that's how are brain increases surface area for grey matter.

The only way they can measure the brain size of humans that died tens of thousands of years ago is by intracranial capacity, not only is that a biased sample as you can only find a limited amount of skeletons, but it's not 100% indicative of overall brain size anyway, at least not the thinking parts. But I won't include this little paragraph as an argument, due to it's obvious limitations.


'Human females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species.'
How are these irrelevant? You have provided no reason for why these do not convey a benefit beyond just saying so.
'Here we show that women’s perception of the attractiveness and assertiveness of men’s dancing, correlates with male handgrip strength (as a measure of muscular strength) after controlling for body weight. We conclude that men’s dances – in addition to faces and bodies – may be another proxy for male competitiveness, and could thus be used by women to evaluate male quality.'

'In the current year women seem to be driven by societal pressure to select men whom are over 6'0 tall. This is in spite of the fact that for the large majority of human history, the average human height was less than 5'4. Even up to as recently as the 1800's the average human height barely broke 5'10.' I mentioned this before, but only for the majority of human agricultural history, did we have such an average height. There may be a contrast between female preferences in our pre-agricultural days as opposed to the many short men who exist today due to the food shortages imposed during population explosions and bad crop yields in the beginnings of human society.

'For the vast majority of human existence height was the least important determining factor of survival. Being tall, meant you had a larger body frame, lost more heat, required more consumption of the already scarce resources, moved more slowly, and had more difficulty stealthily hunting. Being someone 6'0 tall over someone who was 5'2 (being that tall was pretty much nonexistent back then) was a completely pointless trait when facing off a mammoth for food. What mattered the most was whomever made the better spears and whomever had the better hunting technique to track and kill animals that were 4x their size. i.e. bigger brains.
Being 6'0 tall is meaningless in terms of survival, but however is only selected today because of artificial societal norms and women's illogical need to feel safe in an age where devices like guns exist.'
Height has obvious physical benefits, it also has disadvantages, like the ones you posited. Weight classes in sports exist for a reason. The current world record holder for javelin is Jan Železný who is 6'1". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Železný

Height could be an example of the signalling theory, which suggests that certain traits are exaggerated to show the opposite sex how good the signallers genes are. The peacocks tail impedes it's own survival, but it shows just how good the peacock is at surviving, despite being handicapped. It can afford to squander a resource in growing a trait that other members cannot and signals to the opposite sex the quality of the individual with the extravagant tail.
But I would not be quick to label an average height as a costly signal, perhaps an exaggerated height.


Your points about aggressiveness (and this can also be applied to height) are just based upon the assumption that the negatives outweigh the positives. In reality, to prove whether or not being attracted to a trait is maladaptive, one would have to tally up all possible benefits and all possible downsides, adjust for how important each benefit or downside is, and do this all in relation to the exact environment the preference evolved in. In reality here, all you are doing is cherry picking. Listing all the positives of the traits that women aren't supposedly attracted too, and all the negatives of what they are attracted too. Ridiculously flawed, and something you are peddling to make sense of your poorly founded beliefs.

I must add though, that when I am explaining why women are attracted to certain traits, in no way am I justifying their behaviour. I think that goes without saying.


Also I would add that intelligence, although beneficial is not hyper-selected for. In a simple environment of hunting and warding off predators, only a base level of intelligence is needed. I don't think it was actively selected against, just not selected for.
Genuinely retard-tier post here coming from me. I agree with everything else I said but this is just plain wrong. Obviously the evidence that it was selected for is that we are very intelligent today. Natural or sexual selection, something must have favoured it. I think what I was trying to say was, Stephen Hawking would be in a very poor position if he lived 50,000 years ago. You can't effectively use your intelligence unless you meet a certain level of functionality.

What I find troubling however, is the isolated example. And even if the point about scientists finding thousands of examples was true, its still nothing compared to the billions of species that have existed.
Yet another retard-tier paragraph coming from me, I did not provide a reference and discounted the volume of species that have gone extinct.

Edit: Perhaps I meant that out of the species that existed, only a small proportion went extinct due to sexual selection?

2. The argument that billions of species existed which proves that sexual selection on some level might be beneficial, but I also considered that even though we have a billion species alive today, multiple billions of other species are also extinct. We have more extinct species than alive ones in existence. When 90% of the iterations are failures, then sexual selection is a poor, wasteful and risky tool for selection. A lot of enduring species we see alive today tend to have comparatively low sexual dimorphism.
Not every species that has gone extinct has even used sexual selection, at least to the extent we are describing it, and assuming that every species has gone extinct due to sexual selection is just ridiculous.

'A lot of enduring species we see alive today tend to have comparatively low sexual dimorphism.' Low comparative to what species? Sexual dimorphism is not itself an indicator of a species sexual selection, natural selection can itself influence the sexual dimorphism of the sexes.

Comparatively low like elephant seals?
'male elephant seals weighing up to 10 times more than females'. They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves, being listed as 'low concern' despite massive overhunting by humans in the past. Many animals exhibit sexual dimorphism, the majority of mammals, especially large mammals tend to have a good deal of sexual dimorphism.

I was quite tired when I typed this out so please excuse any grammer errors, I only proofread it once.


After giving this some more thought, I personally think that it's actually a lot simpler than we're all making it out to be. I think that in actuality the females' sexual selection actually IS natural selection. They're one and the same.
How would you explain the large amount of maladaptive traits relative to environment? I just don't see how a peacocks tail helps it survive. In the future perhaps an ethologist will find an exact use, but logically I can only see the fisherian runaway describing a real effect, and the signalling theory seems to be a perfect explanation for why the fisherian runaway effect is logical and makes sense in the framework of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Neggr

Neggr

Kebabcel in western europe, it never began.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Posts
11,070
Online
29d 8h 55m
ur right, thats why the male is supposed to control the foid.
 
B

BlackPill Scholar

Sagittalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Posts
6,514
Online
111d 50m
In reality here, all you are doing is cherry picking. Listing all the positives of the traits that women aren't supposedly attracted too, and all the negatives of what they are attracted too.
*to. x2
Giphy
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,977
Online
161d 7h 52m
Why human sexual selection makes no sense

Human females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species

It actually makes perfect sense, you pointed out exactly why its confusing for you, its confusing for you because:

WOMEN WERE NEVER DOING THE SELECTING BEFORE NOW

It was never WOMEN CHOSE THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN

It was THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN KILLED OFF ALL THE WEAKER MEN AND CLAIMED WOMEN FOR HAREMS

People need to stop spreading this myth of women having any power or choosing anything, THEY DID NOT GET TO CHOOSE SHIT

THEY WERE TAKEN BY FORCE BY THE VICTORS


The reason why it makes no sense to you IS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING OFF OF THE FALSE PREMISE THAT WOMEN DID ANY SELECTING TO BEGIN WITH

ITS ONLY IN MODERN TIMES THAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO SELECT


In other words HUMANS ARE GOING AGAINST NATURE (BY LETTING WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, OWN PROPERTY, WORK, SELECT MATES, ETC) AND IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS



AT THIS STAGE IN HISTORY ITS MEN WHO SHOULD BE CHOOSING WHO THEIR DAUGHTERS MARRY, AND MEN WOULD CHOOSE BASED ON TRAITS THAT PUSH THE SPECIES FORWARD (INTELLIGENCE, VALUES, ETC)

BUT SINCE WERE LETTING WOMEN SELECT WERE GOING TO DEVOLVE AS A SPECIES (FISHERIAN RUNAWAY)
 
SlayerSlayer

SlayerSlayer

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Posts
13,733
Online
116d 7h 12m
sorry buddy, you just can't cope with your obvious genetic inferiority that women actively seek to avoid
 
Shin no Shi

Shin no Shi

What is the Devil if not a Avatar of God
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Posts
3,677
Online
41d 23h 56m
View attachment 194750

Intro

This post will focus specifically on the human race while using animal studies as a base reference. Anthropologists, social scientists, normies and PUAs can justify describing human behavior in terms of their 'primitive animal brain' then it is only fair that this thread be allowed to do the same.
Sexual selection is the selection of mates (overwhelmingly done by females), to select the 'best' male to propagate with. This selection process is entirely based on the whims and wants of the female species. As a contrast, this is entirely different from natural selection where the best candidates for survival/propagation are determined by the environment.

With this being said, it should be noted that the argument of women selecting the best genes because of natural selection is a wholly incorrect statement. Women select purely on sexual selection and this selection process likely does not benefit to the human race as a whole, and may even impede the human race to survive.

Main

View attachment 194751
The image above is the skeleton of the Irish Elk, featuring it's impressively sized antlers. They were one of the largest deer species to have ever lived and successfully populated almost half the globe from Ireland to Eastern China. Unfortunately they went extinct more than 7000 years ago and to a large part due to sexual selection. With the females of their species being their undoing.

It's a well known fact in biology that there is a doctrine of 'use it or lose it'. Genetically for humans and for most life forms on Earth, our bodies value energy the most, and will aggressively attempt to save energy in the form of fat storage, or by reabsorbing body structures that consume excess metabolic energy (like large muscles that are being underutilized if those structures are not used regularly). This can be easily seen in astronauts, who are supposedly in peak human condition, return to earth disheveled and suffering from muscular atrophy from disuse in long term micro gravity exposure. This is actually an extremely useful adaptive feature which allows organisms to survive long periods of food shortages and to generally survive longer.

In the case of the Irish Elk, this base need to efficiently conserve energy was counteracted by the excessive sexual selection of it's females, that always demanded larger and larger antlers to decide on attractive mates. These antlers are a big deal, and are a massive metabolic commitment (and also completely pointless). Unfortunately for the species, this irrelevant requirement for the survival of the species is what caused its extinction. Either by the males' reaching the limit of what can be possible for antler size (and females no longer being impressed and no longer mating) or by the fact that the antlers were so large that it interfered with its ability to adapt to its environment. Either way, their extinction was purely because the females demanding things that were completely irrelevant to their survival (like being good at finding food, or caring for their young). Their bodies no longer able to support itself with the massive metabolic cost of keeping antlers around.


"Playing the role of orthogenesis is the relentless power of sexual selection. The antlers got bigger and bigger as the Irish elk stags advertised their quality. Each year they lost these monstrous growths and regenerated them the following year. As the shrubby woodlands in which the Irish elk lived began to shrink at the end of the last Ice Age, the animals could no longer get enough food to fuel those giant antlers, and they died. Sexually selected suicide, in other words. " - Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (17 Jul 1992) by Stephen Jay Gould


The Irish Elk has not been an isolated issue either. A study from 2003 focusing on birds indicated "mean population fitness of species with high intensities of post-mating sexual selection may be especially low if costs associated with multiple mating are high or if the selection load imposed by post-mating selection is higher relative to that of pre-mating sexual selection." - University of Sussex and university of Windsor (October 2003)

Studies as recent as 2018 has indicated that sexual selection has been a major determining factor in the majority of extinctions in the Earth's history: "By analyzing thousands of fossilized ancient crustaceans, a team of scientists found that devoting a lot of energy to the competition for mates may compromise species' resilience to change and increase their risk of extinction. " - Smithsonian (April 11, 2018 )

The human species
View attachment 194754
Anthropological studies have indicated that modern humans have significantly smaller brains compared to our ancient counterparts, which included the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals. What made the human race unique in the animal kingdom was our disproportionately large brains to our body mass. While it may seem that we are still more intelligent than our predecessors, it's mainly due to readily available information being provided to us by technology that offsets this. Ancient humans however had to rely heavily on creativity, tool making, navigation and determination which necessitate increased brain mass.
People may argue that "if our ancient cousins were so intelligent, then why did they go extinct?", and the answer is simple; it's evident that females did not value intelligence or cranial size. They simply selected on qualities that were completely irrelevant to their survival (likely because they never were involved in hunting parties and never could appreciate the importance of intelligence over something comparatively less important like height or muscle mass). Eventually the Neanderthals and other hominids went extinct, ironically leaving the smaller, weaker (and arguably dumber) Homo Sapien male counterparts to inherit what's left. The loss had been so severe that we still have people in Africa who can't figure out how to farm.


Why human sexual selection makes no sense
View attachment 194757
Human females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species. In the current year women seem to be driven by societal pressure to select men whom are over 6'0 tall. This is in spite of the fact that for the large majority of human history, the average human height was less than 5'4. Even up to as recently as the 1800's the average human height barely broke 5'10.

For the vast majority of human existence height was the least important determining factor of survival. Being tall, meant you had a larger body frame, lost more heat, required more consumption of the already scarce resources, moved more slowly, and had more difficulty stealthily hunting. Being someone 6'0 tall over someone who was 5'2 (being that tall was pretty much nonexistent back then) was a completely pointless trait when facing off a mammoth for food. What mattered the most was whomever made the better spears and whomever had the better hunting technique to track and kill animals that were 4x their size. i.e. bigger brains.
Being 6'0 tall is meaningless in terms of survival, but however is only selected today because of artificial societal norms and women's illogical need to feel safe in an age where devices like guns exist.

View attachment 194768
There will be a time where human females will keep demanding taller and taller mating partners with smaller and smaller brains, resulting in misshapen and maladapted human beings. They will very likely call for 6'2 males and progress to call for 6'4 and so on.
We do in fact have people who are monstrously tall today and they suffer from a myriad of problems, because like the Irish Elk, the human body simply isn't equipped to handle the immense physical stress from the unrealistic proportions demanded by the female species. People who are 7'0 tall already suffer from serious ailments such as joint erosion, heart failure, osteoporosis and an overall higher mortality rate. All the product of relentless sexual selection pressure for no other reason than women like it that way.

View attachment 194772
It's also no surprise that the vast majority of the prison population are made of hyper masculine and aggressive males, because these are traits that were ultimately selected for by females. But this makes no sense in terms of natural selection because very high testosterone levels predisposes these types of males to be too aggressive; they become uncooperative and exhibit maladaptive behaviors that threaten tribal cohesion. They are less likely to care for and look after their offspring and may even kill them. They have higher drives to only procreate and spend little or not time being creative, or learning skills (if their intelligence allows them for it). They are less likely to share food and resources. They are in prison for this reason because they cannot fit into civilized society.

Yet, more than half of prison misconduct occurs between male inmates, and female prison guards.


Is there hope left?
View attachment 194776

About 80% of human males are the unattractive 'betas' because of our evolutionary heritage, and also because a few clever ancestors devised a societal system where the provisioning of partners were evenly distributed based on merit. Unfortunately that societal system has eroded over the last few hundred years and part of the reason why women are disgusted by 80% of these men were because those men 'prevented them having their fun'. Yet, despite having maladaptive hyper masculine animals in prison, women will still seek them out (and unaccounted drug dealers/gangsters/crime lords, etc.) for producing offspring. Worst case scenario is that they may even engage in degenerate behavior such fornicating with animals to satisfy their sexual needs.

View attachment 194781

Unfortunately I don't have the answers and its my personal opinion that the human race is doomed by the way of the Irish Elk, Pandas and many other species where the females prefer extinction and/or genetic regression as opposed to mating with what they deem as a 'not good enough male'.
this makes good sense OP, definitely good read. I don't know why everyone here is saying cope and the like but maybe sure there are those that are intelligent and good looking but there are also those that are intelligent and not good looking, does that mean those that are ugly should stop having children? no and it shouldn't be the case, in fact utilisation of all the intelligent males regardless of looks is rather favourable imo than the contrary, as there is a higher chance of erosion with just using one group for breeding than both groups. If those systems were to be true (never looked into it), then it only justifies a pure patriarchal society to be established as wanting creative and intelligent progress for civilisation should be of main priority than the rest. Keeping the female to have options really will do more harm than good.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
14,909
Online
192d 2h 11m
How would you explain the large amount of maladaptive traits relative to environment? I just don't see how a peacocks tail helps it survive. In the future perhaps an ethologist will find an exact use, but logically I can only see the fisherian runaway describing a real effect, and the signalling theory seems to be a perfect explanation for why the fisherian runaway effect is logical and makes sense in the framework of evolution.

The maladaptive traits may have either been overlooked in favor of the other strong genes that came part and parcel, sort of like a cost of doing business, or they might not have been noticed in the selection process initially. In a previous post I mentioned how sexual selection may be a separate mechanism as a means to probe the current environment and seek feedback from it for favorable gene selection in the future. I now think it's one and the same mechanism for natural selection, and that is what happens by default.

We know that different traits are selected when survival (of the species) is at risk than when it isn't (what Fisher observed). It may be such that the mechanism of natural selection seeks non-survival and novel genes during a time of relative safety (from extinction) in order to experiment with different combinations to look for favorable mutations. Novelty may or may noy be beneficial to the survival of the species, but the sexual selection has to test for it and push its selections against the environment it's currently in.

The peacock's tail may have served a survival function in an early environment. The shrubbery and foilage may have been different, or the visual pattern may have been beneficial against the vision of a nasty predator. It may have been so effective in a previous environment that the selection process hasn't fully discarded it. Or it may be the result of a novel trait selection during a time that was peaceful for the species (i.e., low risk of extinction) and the current environment hasn't pushed back with enough feedback to signal to the peacock that, "hey, maybe picking the biggest and flashiest tail isn't such a good idea after all."
 
Last edited:
RREEEEEEEEE

RREEEEEEEEE

unattractive.
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
37,495
Online
63d 19h 36m
Jfl, I like it when people cope with "muh evolutionary this or that" when trying to explain human behavior. :feelskek:
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,971
Online
61d 5h 7m
It actually makes perfect sense, you pointed out exactly why its confusing for you, its confusing for you because:

WOMEN WERE NEVER DOING THE SELECTING BEFORE NOW

It was never WOMEN CHOSE THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN

It was THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN KILLED OFF ALL THE WEAKER MEN AND CLAIMED WOMEN FOR HAREMS

People need to stop spreading this myth of women having any power or choosing anything, THEY DID NOT GET TO CHOOSE SHIT

THEY WERE TAKEN BY FORCE BY THE VICTORS


The reason why it makes no sense to you IS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING OFF OF THE FALSE PREMISE THAT WOMEN DID ANY SELECTING TO BEGIN WITH

ITS ONLY IN MODERN TIMES THAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO SELECT


In other words HUMANS ARE GOING AGAINST NATURE (BY LETTING WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, OWN PROPERTY, WORK, SELECT MATES, ETC) AND IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS



AT THIS STAGE IN HISTORY ITS MEN WHO SHOULD BE CHOOSING WHO THEIR DAUGHTERS MARRY, AND MEN WOULD CHOOSE BASED ON TRAITS THAT PUSH THE SPECIES FORWARD (INTELLIGENCE, VALUES, ETC)

BUT SINCE WERE LETTING WOMEN SELECT WERE GOING TO DEVOLVE AS A SPECIES (FISHERIAN RUNAWAY)
High IQ as usual
I don't know why they care about Nonsense conclusions from evolution theory and sexual selection. Since males are the strongest and they are the ones who built civilization, then they must govern femoids and put laws that are in the interest of men and not in the interest of the capitalist companies that invented feminism.
 
J

joe_incel123

Officer
★★
Joined
Jul 30, 2020
Posts
667
Online
5d 5h 52m
Well, humans are able to make decisions based on their individual thoughts. Thoughts tho can be bullshit sometimes. So thinking about things on the one hand is good when it's good decisions we make, but can also suck if we make bad decision.

Feminism is not the first bullshit decision. Just think of the inbreeding of all the great European Emperors. They inbred because they thought they have to "keep the good blood". Today we all know that this was bullshit. Some Emperor families in the end were too degenerated to lead their Empires. Best example: Ferdinand I of Austria. He was so mentally disfunctional that other people in the background had to make decisions for him. He looked like shit, and the paintings are still showing him looking "better" than he actually was.

So, my conclusion is: Being able to make arbitrarily decision sometimes MUST lead to bad decision, bad enough to actually destroy working systems. We will see, might be that in a few hundred years we are all ruled by totally brainless Chads and Stacies. Social Media society is a precursor of this process.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,977
Online
161d 7h 52m
In reality here, all you are doing is cherry picking. Listing all the positives of the traits that women aren't supposedly attracted too, and all the negatives of what they are attracted too

First off women were never doing the select, your arguments are always going to be flawed once you start off on a false premise:
It was never WOMEN CHOSE THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN

It was THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN KILLED OFF ALL THE WEAKER MEN AND CLAIMED WOMEN FOR HAREMS

People need to stop spreading this myth of women having any power or choosing anything, THEY DID NOT GET TO CHOOSE SHIT

THEY WERE TAKEN BY FORCE BY THE VICTORS

@Alfredenuman @BlackPill Scholar
Women didn't choose taller stronger men, taller stronger men beat all the other men and took women by force, you guys have it backwards, I don't understand for the life of my how you guys hold such contradictory beliefs, you'll be going on and on in other threads that men are physically stronger, have a stronger bone density, etc, but all of a sudden thousands of years ago men were just letting women choose who they fuck and not forcing themselves on them?. Consensuality is a rather new concept to humanity, lets stop pretending like men were getting down on one knee and giving bitches flowers in the age of dinosaurs, its really ridiculous what you guys are arguing, you're both wrong

LASTLY @BlackPill Scholar to add further to my point that men were the ones really selecting the traits (by virtue of natural selection (survival & conquest) rather than women just choosing who they fuck via attraction) IT ACTUALLY FITS THE PROGRESSION OF THE SPECIES

Men selecting traits (well natural selection selecting via male conquest) leads to us adapting to our times, we favored strength in the harsh past so those were the traits that survived and as time progressed we began to favor intelligence as males who had those traits brought more value to the human collective, so males who helped a community survive via innovation and creation were allowed to lead and breed, in modern times we favored intelligence also as men up till recently were still choosing who their daughters married and reproduced with

IF WHAT YOU GUYS WERE SAYING WAS TRUE AND WOMEN WERE DOING THE SELECTING FROM THE START, WHY THE FUCK ARE WE EVEN INTELLIGENT?

WE SHOULD ALL BE TALL DUMB BRUTES


Unless you are now going to argue that the species was ALL GENIUSES and our default intelligence actually DEGRADED TO THIS POINT?

IT IS ONLY NOW (LAST FEW DECADES) THAT WOMEN ARE BEING ALLOWED TO SELECT AND WOMEN DON'T SELECT BASED ON TRAITS THAT ADVANCE THE SPECIES BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAD TO, THAT WAS NEVER THEIR ROLE

Please understand how ridiculous it is to argue as if Cave Men were letting women choose, like a woman would just walk up to a guy and say - "I'm going to join your harem" and he would put a shiny rock on her finger lol, NATURAL SELECTION CHOSE NOT WOMEN (MEN CLAIMED WOMEN BY FORCE)
 
Last edited:
B

BlackPill Scholar

Sagittalcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Posts
6,514
Online
111d 50m
It actually makes perfect sense, you pointed out exactly why its confusing for you, its confusing for you because:

WOMEN WERE NEVER DOING THE SELECTING BEFORE NOW

It was never WOMEN CHOSE THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN

It was THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN KILLED OFF ALL THE WEAKER MEN AND CLAIMED WOMEN FOR HAREMS

People need to stop spreading this myth of women having any power or choosing anything, THEY DID NOT GET TO CHOOSE SHIT

THEY WERE TAKEN BY FORCE BY THE VICTORS

The reason why it makes no sense to you IS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING OFF OF THE FALSE PREMISE THAT WOMEN DID ANY SELECTING TO BEGIN WITH

ITS ONLY IN MODERN TIMES THAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO SELECT

In other words HUMANS ARE GOING AGAINST NATURE (BY LETTING WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, OWN PROPERTY, WORK, SELECT MATES, ETC) AND IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS

AT THIS STAGE IN HISTORY ITS MEN WHO SHOULD BE CHOOSING WHO THEIR DAUGHTERS MARRY, AND MEN WOULD CHOOSE BASED ON TRAITS THAT PUSH THE SPECIES FORWARD (INTELLIGENCE, VALUES, ETC)

BUT SINCE WERE LETTING WOMEN SELECT WERE GOING TO DEVOLVE AS A SPECIES (FISHERIAN RUNAWAY)

Perhaps at the formation of societies, but that's not where most sexual selection feedback loops developed. If men could have all controlled women, why throughout evolutionary history have women had more children?

You can't write that off with more males dying before they reached sexual maturity either, fisher's sex principle shows that an ESS for most species like ours is a 1:1 sex ratio. And the more aggressive or risk taking behaviour in young males is accounted for by a slightly higher likelihood of having a male child.

If you want to say humans had harems, like chimpanzees, these harems must have occurred through the selective choice of females. Otherwise no feedback loop could develop between the selection of a physical trait and higher likelihood of offspring surviving. What you are describing sounds much alike to that of chimpanzees, who's females exert no selective choice and will mate with 'beta' male chimps if given the chance, it's just that the 'alpha' chimps chase away the subordinate ones.

This applies to everything else you wrote as well. If men were always the choosers, why did female preferences evolve in the first place? And why are they more selective than men? And why are these preferences ingrained at birth?

I think the key distinction to make here, is that I'm imagining millions of years of human evolutionary history and you are imagining the last 10,000 years of the emergence of societies and male control.

The maladaptive traits may have either been overlooked in favor of the other strong genes that came part and parcel, sort of like a cost of doing business, or they might not have been noticed in the selection process initially. In a previous post I mentioned how sexual selection may be a separate mechanism as a means to probe the current environment and seek feedback from it for favorable gene selection in the future. I now think it's one and the same mechanism for natural selection, and that is what happens by default.

We know that different traits are selected when survival (of the species) is at risk than when it isn't (what Fisher observed). It may be such that the mechanism of natural selection seeks non-survival and novel genes during a time of relative safety (from extinction) in order to experiment with different combinations to look for favorable mutations. Novelty may or may noy be beneficial to the survival of the species, but the sexual selection has to test for it and push its selections against the environment it's currently in.

The peacock's tail may have served a survival function in an early environment. The shrubbery and foilage may have been different, or the visual pattern may have been beneficial against the vision of a nasty predator. It may have been so effective in a previous environment that the selection process hasn't fully discarded it. Or it may be the result of a novel trait selection during a time that was peaceful for the species (i.e., low risk of extinction) and the current environment hasn't pushed back with enough feedback to signal to the peacock that, "hey, maybe picking the biggest and flashiest tail isn't such a good idea after all."
For a sexually selective preference feedback to occur, the trait that is being selected must have had at least some survival benefit. This could have been direct, analogous to natural selection, or indirect, having or showing some other benefit. I doubt a mutation or series of mutations could arise and create the intricate, colourful patterns on peacocks tails, it must have or had some benefit to the individual who possesses it. Even if that benefit is just signalling to the opposite sex that you have good genes overall. Maybe smaller maladaptive traits could have come part and parcel of other good ones, but something as elaborate as a peacocks tail?

I also don't believe genes have the ability to directly search for novelty. The vast majority of mutations are failures, a genome would be much more likely to survive if it didn't purposely try and modify itself. If it works, it works. But I'm too ignorant to rule that point off the table.

I honestly wish your last paragraph was correct, it makes perfect sense and could really be applied to anything. Maybe that's something evolutionary biologists should try and test in the future, but I don't really know what is true at this point.


I don't know why they care about Nonsense conclusions from evolution theory and sexual selection. Since males are the strongest and they are the ones who built civilization, then they must govern femoids and put laws that are in the interest of men and not in the interest of the capitalist companies that invented feminism.
It's what seems most logical. I'm not talking about what's right for society, just trying to explain human behaviour, even if in a reductionist way.
 
Mainländer

Mainländer

Songwritercel
-
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
36,803
Online
160d 7h 15m
Evolution as a whole is fake and people who defend feminism based on "it's good that women select, the gene pool is improving" are retarded cucks.
 
T

Tenshi

Banned
-
Joined
May 21, 2020
Posts
9,531
Online
86d 7h 30m
That's why women never had (and never should have) any power when it comes to partners. That's just another bizarre aberration modernity has brought us and fucked up things even more.

Also that's a reason why most works on evolutionary psychology are basically bs, they all assume everything is related to women sexual selection when we all know there was not such a thing for the most part. Yeah most men in the past didn't get to reproduce but you're retarded if you think that's due to "mah kweens" choice, it was probably just infant mortality and warfare.
It actually makes perfect sense, you pointed out exactly why its confusing for you, its confusing for you because:

WOMEN WERE NEVER DOING THE SELECTING BEFORE NOW

It was never WOMEN CHOSE THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN

It was THE TALLEST STRONGEST MEN KILLED OFF ALL THE WEAKER MEN AND CLAIMED WOMEN FOR HAREMS

People need to stop spreading this myth of women having any power or choosing anything, THEY DID NOT GET TO CHOOSE SHIT

THEY WERE TAKEN BY FORCE BY THE VICTORS


The reason why it makes no sense to you IS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING OFF OF THE FALSE PREMISE THAT WOMEN DID ANY SELECTING TO BEGIN WITH

ITS ONLY IN MODERN TIMES THAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO SELECT


In other words HUMANS ARE GOING AGAINST NATURE (BY LETTING WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, OWN PROPERTY, WORK, SELECT MATES, ETC) AND IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS



AT THIS STAGE IN HISTORY ITS MEN WHO SHOULD BE CHOOSING WHO THEIR DAUGHTERS MARRY, AND MEN WOULD CHOOSE BASED ON TRAITS THAT PUSH THE SPECIES FORWARD (INTELLIGENCE, VALUES, ETC)

BUT SINCE WERE LETTING WOMEN SELECT WERE GOING TO DEVOLVE AS A SPECIES (FISHERIAN RUNAWAY)
THIS

tenor.gif
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
14,909
Online
192d 2h 11m
For a sexually selective preference feedback to occur, the trait that is being selected must have had at least some survival benefit. This could have been direct, analogous to natural selection, or indirect, having or showing some other benefit. I doubt a mutation or series of mutations could arise and create the intricate, colourful patterns on peacocks tails, it must have or had some benefit to the individual who possesses it. Even if that benefit is just signalling to the opposite sex that you have good genes overall. Maybe smaller maladaptive traits could have come part and parcel of other good ones, but something as elaborate as a peacocks tail?

I've touched upon the survival benefit of sexually selected traits briefly. The environment necessarily dictates which traits are beneficial for survival in that given environment. Those traits may be generalizable to other environments, or they may be highly specific to that particular one. If a certain set of traits are beneficial in a given environment (e.g., tall, lanky pretty boys in NYC who get modeling contracts and gain status + resources as a result), then it necessarily follows that those traits have survival benefit in NYC. You could then try and generalize that to other large urban metropolises and see if it holds true. Whether or not those traits are generalizable to different environments like the rural Bible belt areas of the US is arguable (I don't think so, but that's just my opinion).

You could define and categorize sexual selection as a specialized subset of natural selection, instead of a separate kind of selection. In that regard it fits perfectly with what we observe in the modern day with humans, as well as with what Fisher observed with animals.

Who knows what led to the peacock's tail? I don't know personally enough about peacocks to speculate about the color patterns of its tail and what it means. I only spoke generally earlier in regards to possible reasons for why selection for that feature may have happened.

I also don't believe genes have the ability to directly search for novelty. The vast majority of mutations are failures, a genome would be much more likely to survive if it didn't purposely try and modify itself. If it works, it works. But I'm too ignorant to rule that point off the table.

We're still not entirely sure how and why selection happens the way it does (or maybe we do and I'm just fucking clueless), but it does seem like evolution experiments with a given species to test what works and what doesn't, in addition to responding to environmental selection pressures. When I say novelty I don't mean new for the sake of itself. It may entirely be the case that genes need to have an established safe environment before experimenting with novelty. You're right that it's risky and that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to tangent off from what works, which is why it would need a safe environment before taking such a risk. It would be a way of fighting off stagnation and being prepared in the case of some kind of abrupt environmental change (new predator in the scene, virus etc.).

I honestly wish your last paragraph was correct, it makes perfect sense and could really be applied to anything. Maybe that's something evolutionary biologists should try and test in the future, but I don't really know what is true at this point.

Perhaps it is. All I know with absolute certainty is that systems are logical. They would break down and cease to be one, if they weren't logical. Evolution is a system. It's not always efficient, but you can follow its logic to where it starts from and where it might lead.
 
Last edited:
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,977
Online
161d 7h 52m
Perhaps at the formation of societies, but that's not where most sexual selection feedback loops developed. If men could have all controlled women, why throughout evolutionary history have women had more children?

I literally said why, men were killed off and superior males took harems for themselves, there was no reason for women to choose to get the same end result you speak of

You can't write that off with more males dying before they reached sexual maturity either, fisher's sex principle shows that an ESS for most species like ours is a 1:1 sex ratio. And the more aggressive or risk taking behaviour in young males is accounted for by a slightly higher likelihood of having a male child

That has nothing to do with women being the selectors, it has to do with men being the "disposable sex"

If you want to say humans had harems, like chimpanzees, these harems must have occurred through the selective choice of females

No, again women did not need to select, the men merely needed to be in fear of a superior male or killed off

CAN ONE OF YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT BETA MALES WERE DOING THE ENTIRE TIME

THEY WEREN'T RAPING?
THEY WEREN'T KILLING?

SO WHAT WERE THEY DOING?


You guys are literally speaking like they were neutered like men today via "laws" and couldn't just go out and steal a bitch and leave their community, there was no "amber alert" in the past, not "kidnapping notifications" either, now "news", no "rape laws" (though I'm sure they'd face punishment in the community BUT ONLY IF CAUGHT), also THERE WAS NO BIRTH CONTROL OR ABORTIONS (so a woman impregnated via rape WOULD LIKELY CARRY THE PREGNANCY TO TERM)

What you are describing sounds much alike to that of chimpanzees, who's females exert no selective choice and will mate with 'beta' male chimps if given the chance, it's just that the 'alpha' chimps chase away the subordinate ones.

Yes, that is exactly what happened, women take what they can get but they always want better

This applies to everything else you wrote as well. If men were always the choosers, why did female preferences evolve in the first place?

You are using circular logic, how the hell do you know it wasn't that FEMALE TRAIT PREFERENCES EVOLVED AROUND MALE SELECTION

You are presupposing its MALE TRAITS THAT EVOLVED AROUND FEMALE SELECTION

Which makes no sense, because if men are bigger and stronger, and there was no "consensual norms" THEN WOMEN WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SELECT ANYTHING (How can you not understand something that simple, its SELF EVIDENT)

Since taller stronger males claimed women, they evolved to be attracted to those males, because the women who resisted less and let those males have sex with them, survived and had stronger offspring

The majority of women have rape fetishes and they often experience arousal during rape (forced copulation), YOU DON'T THINK THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT?

And why are they more selective than men? And why are these preferences ingrained at birth?

Why do women initiate physical violence more than men (statistically) even though they are the weaker sex?

Why are women the cause of the majority of infanticide and child murders if they are the "caretaker sex" equipped to breast feed?

Etc, etc, etc

Are you forgetting that women's hormonal makeup and volatility makes them irrational?

It can more easily be argued that they select for the traits that they were forced to accept for years and years than they were somehow selecting all this time despite ANY MAN just being able to overpower ANY WOMAN

At the end of the day, there is no way to logically argue that all the men who didn't get to breed, just stood around with their dick in their hand, and didn't rebel, rape, murder, etc AS IF LAWS AND POLICE OFFICERS EXISTED (it literally makes no sense to argue that women did the selecting, these men that didn't reproduce WERE KILLED OFF)
 
Last edited:
grondilu

grondilu

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Posts
7,242
Online
179d 21h 19m
Sexual selection is a bit of an enigma indeed. Natural selection is conceptually easier to understand, as the organism is confronted to external factors he must overcome to survive. But sexual selection is internal to the species, so why does the species need to go in one direction or an other if it only depends on itself ? I mean there is a bit of circularity here.

completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance,...

Talking about dancing, I think courtship displays illustrate very well how puzzling sexual selection is. Look at one of the most elaborate courtship display in the animal kingdom :


View: https://youtu.be/98ceB5SPRXI


It's kind of hard to make sense of this, from an evolutionary point of view. There are several hypothesis, but none is entirely satisfying IMHO. One argument is that by exhibiting similar behaviour during courtship, the birds ensure their genetic proximity and thus the reliability of the behavioural patterns of the offspring. So it would mean the species favours endogamy. But then how do they deal with the risks of inbreeding, and more generally with the drawbacks of endogamy as opposed to exogamy ?

One thing is clear though : sexual selection is not about selecting the best genes in any absolute way, as the Fischerian runaway mentioned above in this thread shows.

I've always thought that sexual selection was only a minor factor in evolution, that natural selection was the primary force, but lately I've been questioning that. Maybe both are just as important for a species. After all, an organism has two distinct evolutionary imperatives : survival and reproduction. Both are important : you can't reproduce if you don't survive, and there is no evolutionary point in surviving without reproducing.

It seems to me that as a very crude rule of thumb, natural selection is all about survival and exploitation of the environment, while sexual selection is all about reproduction. It's clear for instance that the females of our species evolved mostly due to sexual selection pressure : their fitness mainly consists in their ability to survive childbirth, and they signal this ability with secondary sexual characteristics.

In other words, fitness is two-dimensional. This, I think, also illustrates very well females' dual mating strategy, which is actually quite common among sexually reproducing species. For instance, IIRC it was recently discovered that many of the bird species who were long thought to be exclusively monogamous are actually NOT strictly monogamous : intraspecific brood parasitism, aka cuckolding, is actually common. Females want males that have high fitness levels in each directions : one male that is good at surviving and exploiting the environment, and one male whose genotype will make babies that are easier to birth.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

slimshady
Replies
12
Views
647
nystagmuscel
nystagmuscel
T
Replies
31
Views
537
mindgoblin80085
mindgoblin80085
U
Replies
57
Views
948
uniquename21
U
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top