/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12654350
>Why are women smaller and less muscular compared to men?
neoteny.

Men select for youthful features in women because those same features make women appear younger than they actually are. Youth is positively correlated with fecundity, men will therefore prefer young women over older ones.
>They were vulnerable in giving birth so wouldnt a muscular fit woman be better able to fight off a predator?
Muscles may impede the ability of women to give birth to a child. The strain exerted by the baby on the vagina may cause abdominal muscles to snap.
>and would not muscle help carry that big baby around for 9 months?
A baby weights three kilograms +- 1 kg at the end of pregnancy. Additional tissue and fluid will add one or two additional kg. Gaining 5 kg in weight does not call for a rapid increase of muscle volume.

>>12654376
>neotony
not valid as per hyenas having bigger females
i guess it makes sense to protect an egg in a body with bodies rather than have the egg in a person protect itself

>>12654386
>not valid as per hyenas having bigger females
An counter example does not disprove general trends. Especially if the animal in question is only very distantly related to humans. And the preference for humans for young women, especially those with child-like features, is a well-studied and accepted topic.

>>12654399
my metaphor to an egg based reproduction system helps explain it except the egg just stays inside
as for why one gender has to give birth is another question m8

>>12654376
I think you are applying 21st century reasoning to something that was completely different millions of years ago. noone cared if a mate looked 9 years old they cared if their mate could fight off the saber tooth tiger

>>12654350
anisogamy and bateman's principle

>>12654386
And the females have higher test and dominate the males, just like humans. What’s the problem?

>>12654350
>Why are women smaller and less muscular compared to men?
some species sexually mature early (<3yrs) and spit out litters.

other species like humans & whales delay this process (>10yrs) so as to raise their young in family environments.

Its the "culture" of the species that is being made of central-importance, thus a species new means of survival.

mothers are repurposed to nurture and raise children without ripping them apart in lower-brain animalistic rage.

Females are evolving weakness to learn empathy.
She must develop a longer-term bond with her offspring to teach them "culture" with includes all things from ancestral-tales, civilization to modern-science.

>Why are women smaller and less muscular compared to men?
Some species sexually mature early (<3yrs) and spit out litters.

Other species like humans & whales delay this process (>10yrs) so as to raise their young in family environments.
Its the "culture" of the species that is being made of central-importance, thus a species new means of survival via teaching more relying less on instinctive programming in DNA which takes longer.
Mothers are repurposed to nurture and raise children without ripping them apart in lower-brain animalistic rage.

Females are evolving weakness to learn empathy.
She must develop a longer-term bond with her offspring to teach them "culture" which includes all things from ancestral-tales, civilization and modern-science.
I'd say evolution has hit a sweet-spot.
https://ideas.ted.com/how-do-animals-learn-how-to-be-well-animals-through-a-shared-culture/

>>12654350
Because this is the principle of femininity at the foundation of creation.

>>12655887
wut?
"He shall rule over her"?
that was only relevant to sons-of-Adam made by YHWH in Genesis chapter 2, not all the sons-of-man as in sons-of-elohim made in Genesis chapter 1.

Only desperate christians think Jesus is a son-of-Adam.
Fark, how far behind /x/ is /sci/?

>>12655924
Jesus is the Logos who designed all these principles. He also fully incarnated, yes.
Clarifications were made in the Ecumenical Synods if you're into formally following it up.

>>12655932
>Jesus is the Logos is the word.
>YHWH is oracle of the LORD.
>Elohim "said".
Jesus usurped the previous creation-story of YHWH whom usurped the previous creation-story of Elohim
wheels-within-wheels

Jesus is a 2nd-rate catch-up wanna-be!!
The House-of-Geradama don't need your pansy faggot savior!!

Stockholm-syndrome much?

>>12655947
Man you should read some scholarship on this stuff. Also I suggest going into the 2nd Temple worldview, and see how people read a text in the Hellenized world.
But given what you said, you might've already parsed some literature, but in a very modernist sense.

Two things matter here, beyond the editorial aspects and obvious modern scholarship on these things: how a text was read in the ancient world when the revelation came (Jesus) and how people preserved those texts that call Scriptures and how they continued to read them.

I think you're trying to signal me that you have some Gnostic sympathies, but you should check the Gospel of John, David Bentley Hart has done a modern translation where the language is transparent... the world is not parsed in a total dualistic way.

>>12655951
>I only suck on Constantine cock, he tells us Jesus dick is the tastiest dick!!
Jesus is the Lying savior
Jesus is a cuckoo-bird brood-parasite ring-in.
Jesus is a False-God
Jesus is irrelevant.

>>12655975
Take your satanic club larping to /x/ fren.

>>12655951
>David Bentley Hart has done a modern translation where the language is transparent.
the Strong's Concordance is the only "accurate" translation, m8.

>>12655978
>dumb as shit slave.

wow the pharmacy closed early hu?

Christfags are such brainlets.

>>12655978
>satanic
the GLORY-BODY of YHWH has Vulture-wings.
YHWH's reflection of intelligence emanating forth has Vulture-wings.
YHWH is a scavenger of dead-mens graves.

JESUS will give you the wings of a Vulture.
the Glory-body of Christians has Vulture-wings.
the reflection-of-intelligence emanating forth from Christians has Vulture-wings.

!!YUCK!!

>>12655979
It's quite obsolete in many parts.
Check out Bauer's Lexicon and Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains by Eugene Nida and Johannes P. Louw

>>12656099
I'm assuming you're part of one of those American edgy satanic rings that started to pop out in the past few years or probably schizo... am I right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles
any of those type of groups, appendant or not - probably 100% larp, started on your own between friends. This can be the only rational exploitation outside of schizophrenia, we have a lot of schizo's on 4chan... but I give you that sometime /x/ posters write like that. Then there's also mild schizophrenia, I read about a guy who was largely functional but just saw fairies and positive stuff all over.

>>12656354
>It's quite obsolete in many parts.
>Lets fuck oFF "actual" meaning of words.
>Lets use different words to give it a more edge-lord dick suck!!
yeh, nahhhh, fuck off

>>12656364
But I'm talking about Greek.
Christians kept LXX as their Scripture, which is a translation of older Hebrew tradition entirely in Koine Greek.

You either work on that or you're not really doing anything in the direction of having a meaningful dialogue with a Christian.

If you want to subvert protestants and so on, what's the gain? They're already long gone.

I haven't followed your pictures tbqh. Because you didn't really have a point so I felt like it was not worth looking into, what do you want to discuss especially? Can you hold a coherent thought?

>>12656359
>I'm assuming....
Fark... thats a seriously fucked up brain ya got there, weirdo!!!

>>12656373
>I've no idea what my scriptures actually said this whole time
Always go for the oldest dated New-Testament Koyne-Greek
Always go for the oldest dated Old-Testament Hebrew/Aramaic.
only exception: Hebrew was changed by Jews to prove Jesus isn't the high-priest Melchizedek.

Stick strictly with the Strong's Concordance.
Never deviate from this.

you'll end up like these idiots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXeK7mz1yk
>Modern christianity
And we know the fruits of christianity
NAME it and CLAIM it.
the-holy-spirit.
*in jesus name.

>I haven't followed your pictures tbqh. Because I have no fuckn clue what is actually written in my own bible.

>>12656412
You're saying nothing new and you're confusing shit. So I'm to assume you're some sort of protestant - ok good job denomination nr. 9001

>>12656482
>NOOOOOOO!!! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!!
>I NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO TELL ME WHAT BIG WORDS MEANNNN!!!!
>I NEED TO BRAINWASHED!! I NEED TO BE TOLD!!
*you're in a cult, retard!!
>kindly fuck off<

Religion is a social technology to control behavior. Religion is useful and has a purpose.

This is what most atheists fail to understand. Religious societies out-competed nonreligious societies. If you understood religion as a tool you might find ways to make it a better tool.

>>12656527
Begone demon, Christ has earned victory over your kind, you'll never forget what happened on Caesarea Philippi, because it ravaged you.

>>12656685
>I'm mentally ill spazzoid and talk retarded sounding shit cause I'm a spastic.

>>12654350
tell that to her

>>12655887
Females are larger and stronger than males in the vast majority of animals. If anything, it's the opposite of what you're saying.

>>12654399
>An counter example does not disprove general trends.
The general trend is for females to be large.

>>12659396
imagine her straddling your face.

>>12654350
Why do they need the muscle to fight off predators when they have men to do that for them? Stop assuming that all organisms live in a vacuum.

>>12654350

Women aren't smaller because of male selection.

Men are larger because female selection.

Males compete to mate with females, so there is selective pressure to be big and heavy.
A male lion the size of a female would still be a good hunter, but he would have no chance of beating another male in a fight for a mate.

>>12660435
Your lion analogy doesnt work because human males fight with weapons and it's already known that in the hunter gatherer state, smaller males win male-on-male competition more often because a smaller body size is better in fights with spears and bows, which is how men actually fight in "nature".

>>12655924
What are we looking at here? Please explain

>>12654376
>neoteny.
Females under age ~16ish are less reproductively fit you brainlet. They aren't fully developed yet even though they can get pregnant. It would be extremely counter intuitive to favor neoteny over more/fully developed, albeit still youthful, women.

>>12654399
>And the preference for humans for young women, especially those with child-like features
Wrong. Youthful features do not mean child-like features...you made up the part about neoteny.

>>12660483
looks like something written in the Bible new-Testament.
looks like Jesus is not a "son-of-Adam", after all.
you might have to go ask one of those christian fellas always preaching about that bible book thingy of theirs.

I'm sure they'd know, otherwise their not much of an expert after all, I guess.

>>12654350
>Why are women smaller and less muscular compared to men?
less brain mass needed to support.

>>12660485
when lifespan was 30 it was best start young

woman are born to go to the kitchen. Men are born to work and become a man.

Is there a science to making gymnastics uniforms that make my pipi tingle or is it more of a art?

>>12654350
Because humans are a social species and the childcare that's required stops women from going out to hunt. Fighting off predators is therefore done almost entirely by the males.

>>12654399
>And the preference for humans for young women, especially those with child-like features, is a well-studied and accepted topic.
spotted the pedo trying to justify his derangement, i suppose big tits and ass + wide hips are child like features now... oh wait no...

>>12654350
Because the amount of energy that is required to support the female reproductive system is far greater than what is required for the male reproductive system. So if a growing boy and girl take in the same amount of nutrients and have the same "height genes", the boy will become 3 or 4 inches taller because his body doesn't need to put so much of his calories and nutrients into developing and maintaining a uterus.
Any other answer than what I just wrote is wrong.

>>12662373
he meant the porn stars getting vaginoplasty to make them look 11 again.

>>12662385
as opposed to looking like 40?

>>12659475
yes. in the phylum, euarthropoda

>>12662405
aside from the white discharge id love a girl with huge flaps for a change

>>12662490
In every class but mammalia, and even then there are a lot of exceptions.

is because random chance made small girl human 1 mil years ago and chief randomly horny say hey com here gurl so tribe thinking skinny girl good

>>12654350
this woman looks stronger than 99% of /sci I am sure

>>12654350
they aren't. have you seen how large females are getting these days? they are just one of the guys now

>>12666916
this

how much can I make as a gymnastics leotard designer? you don't have to pay me in money I accept alternate forms of currency

>>12668041
id like to know..

>>12654399
Monogamy selects for less sexual dimorphism and more sexually dimorphic species have a much higher rate of extinction in the fossil record.

makes sense

>>12660459
>which is how men actually fight in "nature"

And is what composed the bulk of historical armies, and is efficient in moderns warfare given the importance of agility over strength. Hmm... manlets kick ass apparently?

>>12669659
Pastoral nomads were always taller and kicked ass of world altering significance.
Yamnaya, Scythian, Huns, Mongholians

>>12654350
Looks like Judge Judy

>>12662382
so if I carefully rip out the uterus of a newborn female human, she will grow to be a giantess? could she fug a castrated shota/boi?

>>12669845
only 1 way 2 find out

>>12656685
>christian /sci/ debate.
/thread

>>12669659
There will only be small males in the future.
Males will be genetically modified to be small and cute and have big dicks, women will be modified to be tall and thick with big boobs and butts.

warning.. warning.. jannies on suicide watch. I repeat. .jannies on suicide watch.

>>12654350
>reminder that women back in the days were way more muscular than even athletes.

ok