/sci/ - Science & Math

because I am

>>10700386
Perspective nigga
If it was normal to be a 6'4 gigachad you would ask why you're not a 6'6 ultrachad.

>>10700386
Because of genetic recombination.

A combination of two factors - while almost all women prefer tall, muscular men, said Chads require more calories than smaller men, so they have more issues during times of war, famine & drought. Even developed countries went through a nasty bought of this as recently as WWII.

The second is that the genes needed to create a gigachad are not what you want in a fertile super-Stacey. Being tall & muscular takes a lot of calories; women are better off using all those extra resources on childbirth; likewise it is good for women to have a bit of a fat reserve in case some minor food supply issue comes up while they are pregnant or nursing.

Since there is a fair bit of distance between the traits that make for an ideal woman & ideal man, genetic recombination will make most people fall in between the two ideals.

>>10701093
>>10701019
please fuck off

Your mother was unable to find a 6'4 gigachad willing to impregnate her so she settled for your father.

>>10701103
What is your problem?

>>10700386
Because, as you are, so too were your ancestors betas

Because you're an evolutionary dead-end.

>>10700386
AWAKEN MY MASTERS

>>10701139
Depending on his race his ancestors were the Yamnaya.

>>10700386
Compared to most animals, you are.

>If evolution is real, then why I'm not a 6'4 gigachad?

>evolution fairy waves magic wand
>suddenly OP is 6'4 gigachad
>OP goes onto anonymous korean basket weaving forum to complain
>OP says "If evolution is real, then why I'm not a 9'12 omegachad?

The desirability of genetic characteristics is objective. Which is why we will never have a world where everyone is satisfied with what they have, until we evolve past genetic evolution and start editing our DNA manually.

>If evolution is real, then why I'm not a 6'4 gigachad?

>evolution fairy waves magic wand
>suddenly everyone in the world is 6'4 gigachads
>OP goes onto anonymous korean basket weaving forum to complain
>OP says "If evolution is real, then why I'm not a 9'12 omegachad?

The desirability of genetic characteristics is objective. Which is why we will never have a world where everyone is satisfied with what they have, until we evolve past genetic evolution and start editing our DNA manually.

>>10701812
you made me feel a lot better about my 5 incher. thanks pal, you are a hero.

>>10701108
I came here to post this, but I was also going to say she was fat

>>10700386
Because your ancestors were yocto-untermenschen, and thus, even after millions of years of evolution, have only JUST reached deci-untermenschen. Hopefully, soon, your descendants will FINALLY evolve into fully-fledged Homo sapiens.

>>10700443
>>10701812
How can you say this when this scenario has never been observed? I think in a world full of healthy, beautiful, intelligent people, they will at least not have the desire to kill themselves because of any major flaws.

To put it another way, do you really think it wouldn’t matter if everyone were suddenly made uglier and dumber at the same scale? Is such a world objectively no better or worse than this one?

There isn't enough evolutionary pressure for everyone to be a giga chad.

>>10701103
>anon is allergic to science
Why are you even in this board.

>>10700386
Evolution is real but don't worry about being 6'4, brother. I'm 6'4 myself (6'3.5, actually) and I've yet to reap the supposedly numerous social and sexual rewards. And it's not because I'm ugly or awkward either (at least I'm not always awkward). The value in being tall is almost entirely social in origin; there's nothing evolutionary going on.

>>10700386
Because people significantly shorter than that are usually still able to breed, and there are a hell of a lot more of them. Personally wanting a trait doesn't mean that it's being selected for in terms of evolution.
There's more that I could add, but I figured I should keep it short for you.

>>10700386
ATHE*STS DESTROYED!

>>10701095
Me on the left.

>>10702470
How much you lift? Height is like tits on women, it only ocounts for attractiveness if the person is proportional

>>10700386
It's nor "real" or "false", it's a way to explain what has been observed in nature

>>10700386
because being a chad is not the optimum form for survival in this environment.

>>10700386
>>10702937
continued...

ALSO, "Chadness" is less genetic, and more environmental, dietary, upbringing, etc...

>>10700443
This is why we need genetic engineering so we all can become ultra-gigachads.

>>10700386
Well you just need to not reproduce to not spread your genes.
So just be on your current course.

>>10702954
>This is why we need genetic engineering so we all can become ultra-gigachads.

you don't need genetic engineering to become a chad... you just need an upbringing that fosters confidence with the opposite sex.

>>10700386
Well, evolution is real but hasn't quite completed yet. You see the chads are always lacking in brains. They pay little to no attention to detail that is why if you are assigned a chad doctor, I suggest you ask for another skinny looking guy. The chad is a leftover of human evolution, back from ages when muscle mattered. Not anymore, they work for fat people with cunning brains. If you are a computer hacker by profession, or a cell biologist using CRISPR, I bet the ladies would be wetting their pants just to hear you call their name out.

>>10700386
Because despite being optimal, you can survive and pass on your genes being suboptimal, but "good enough". That's how evolution via natural selection works. If something is good enough, it'll stay in the gene pool if there isn't enough selective pressures to force it out of the gene pool. Being 5'5 is good enough, thus most humans are in the five foot range. If for some reason, there would be selective pressures that develop that require humans to be 6'4, then slowly the population would dift to being 6'4. But there isn't any pressure.

Most people think evolution 'selects' optimal traits, which is fucking stupid statement, because evolution doesn't select anything. It's either you die and don't pass on your genes, or you do pass on your genes. You can still pass on bad genes, so long as your other genes allow you to breed.

>>10702954
If his cock is to scale it would literally burst her abdomen.

>>10700386
are those men actually attractive?
I don't think they are but maybe I'm seething subconsciously

>>10700386

Even if you dont get to breed and pass on your shitty genes to the next generation, your female equivalent/looksmatch still does.
We dont have to exterminate all ugly men, only the ugly female. The pretty ones will choose chads over ugly men and thus in barely two generations everyone will be a 6'4 gigachad.

>>10702941
Don't all those factors affect your genes?

>>10703447
There will always be undesirables. Just look at Peacocks.

>>10700386
Being that tall isn't necessarily an evolutionary advantage. You need much more food just to keep up your energy. You're more likely to dislocate your spinal discs after the age of ~20.
And, if you're already born taller than average, this becomes a strong risk factor for the mother during birth.

>>10701095
tfw not even average
tfw all girls are taller than me
FUCK MY LIFE

>>10700386
There are winners and losers in evolutionary changes. You're obviously the loser in this scenario.