/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7527905
E.g. Some experts believe that the reason for which humans living in central Asia developed the epicanthic fold (asian eyes) a few millenia ago was for protection against harsh winds and excessive sunlight reflecting from the snow.

>>7527905
It is also known that whilst darker skin offers greater protection against extreme sunlight exposures, lighter skin, though much more vulnerable to sunburns, is more efficient at synthesizing vitamin D from the sun.

>>7527905
back to >>>/pol/

>>7527926
I don't see why this topic should be politically incorrect if it is discused respectfully.

>>7527926
This is probably the only website on the internet where you can discuss this. If you want to be shielded from other views and scientific facts you can go back to reddit.

You people complain about others denying climate change but when someone talks about evolution not being exclusive to animals you people deny that even though there is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution affects humans too.

You're much better off believing in creationism if you think this way.

>>7527905
Why is my penis 10,000% smaller than another man's who looks inferior to me in every other way?

>>7527905
what about blck cocks?

>>7527905
what about blck penis?

>>7527905
There is roughly a 100% chance that this will become a /pol/ thread. I'd also say there's about 90% chance that this has been a /pol/ thread since the first post

>as successive generations of domesticated foxes were bred, their physical features became more dog-like

>physical features don't correlate with different behaviours

>>7527905
Yeah I've always kinda wondered the advantage of Europeans having lighter hair and eye colors.

I understand lighter skin is better at Vitamin D synthesizing, but why lighter eyes?

>>7528031
>>7528211
>>7528214
OK

I had left out that particular racial trait in an effort to keep this subject serious, but since the question seems impossible to avoid now, I'll give you my theory on it (based purely on speculation).

Let's try to think about it this way: What factors could lead to larger penises to be an evolutionary advantage?

I believe the main factor would be clothing habits. As a race that developed in Central Africa, humans living there would probably not consider clothing as a means to preserve body-heat because of the warm temperatures during all year. They would be likely to wear few pieces of clothing for ornamental purposes that would leave most parts of the body uncovered, since covering more skin would be counterproductive against the heat. More skin showing on a daily basis would increase the frequency of sexual arousal and mating. This would also increase the importance on a social level of possessing sexual organs potentially more pleasing to females. Therefore, due to the greater importance of sex, larger penises would be a great advantage for males which would competitively be more likely to reproduce and create descendance that inherited this trait.

Does this seem sound or too speculative?

>>7527913
>>7527918
use an unsecure trip for multiposts

Why do people with the downs have epicanthic folds? Are all asians in fact retarded?

More seriously, it is interesting to notice that some non-asians have epicanthic folds as well. I think certain african populations regularly have it, while I believe I've seen it on europeans too, but then again they may be outliers with weird recessive traits from some other source. I mean, look at the Icelandic singer Bjork. Harder to tell now that she's all old, but she's got some pretty good folds.

>>7528248
>What factors could lead to larger penises to be an evolutionary advantage?

This may sound incredibly stupid, but I always thought big penises would mean easier fertilization because the sperm cells would have to travel less distance.

It's weird how I (a horribly pale European male) cannot be in the sun for longer than an hour before I burn up (unless I use sunscreen)
I feel like a completely failed product of evolution in that regard

>>7528271
You're simply adapted to dim northern latitudes

>>7528269

Well, since the dick sprays the stuff out rather than just depositing it, I wouldn't think length would matter. Unless you've got a serious micropenis, I suspect the semen gets about as far in there as it is going to by virtue of ejaculation.

>>7528283
When I cum, only the first 'spray' actually sprays out, the rest kind of drips out.

Luckily, being a degenerate homosexual, I know that this is not very uncommon in males. (maybe gay ones only?)

Would I be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

>>7528288
I would say homosexuals are definitely less likely to create descendance.

Though I find homosexuality is also a very interesting subject from an evolutionary point of view mostly neglected by modern researchers because of political issues.

>>7528248
By this logic Native Americans should have also had massive dicks. Isn't California one of the hottest places on earth?

>>7528266
You're right.

Björk definitely has epicanthic folds.

She almost looks half-asian, though according to wikipedia she's 100% Icelandic.

>>7528248
Could be a valued trait. If selective mating did take place, then the genotype for smaller penises would be ruled out. So artificial selection is a possible explanation for this trait.

>>7527947
>>7527964
FUCK OFF SHITLORDS

FUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFF
RRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

GO BACK TO YOUR CONTAINMENT BOARD
YOU CANT SO SCIENCE NAZI FAGGOTS

GO PROMOTE GENOCIDE SOMEWHERE ELSE

>>7528271
You realize, latitudinally, you are way farther south than your ancestors ever dreamed of being

Keep in mind, England is on the same line as Quebec in North America

You have to go all the way down to the tip of Spain to even begin to be in like with the central United States

>>7528248

but people use clothing for reasons besides temperature control; there's protection from the elements (rain, wind, and sun) to consider; there's sanitary reasons for creating a barrier between yourself and your environment; there's reasons of protecting your skin, like from biting insects; there's simply cultural ornamentation.

>>7528248
>More skin showing on a daily basis would increase the frequency of sexual arousal and mating.
I disagree with that. Only in a society where you are generally covered it becomes very sexually arousing to see the other sex naked.
If you see them naked all the time it becomes normal and there is less sexual tension. No teasing. It's simply nothing special.

But in a society like this, women know your penis size and they can choose who to mate with before even having to speak with them.
That's the point where mostly the BIG BLACK COCK gene was passed on.

>>7528327
I'm glad you pointed that out.

The answer to this has to do with the different stages of human migration. Thanks to archaeological and genetic research we know that the first human settlers crossed into North America from North-East Asia some 12,000 years ago. They were people of the already existing mongoloid race, which came to be after many millennia of adapting to the colds of Central Asia.

Though these people expanded extraordinarily quickly across the whole American continent, 12,000 years is not actually a very long time on evolutionary standards. For adapting to their new environment they had time to darken their skin colour but few more changes. This is why Asians and Native Americans have several racial traits in common (straight black hair, flat noses, flat faces...) - not that long ago they were the same race.

>>7528442
You may have a point. And I have no statistics, though I would put my money on the idea that a society living in a warm environment that use less clothing does have greater mating frequency than one in the opposite case. This would explain the lesser sexual tension.

Still, we agree it would be due to clothing habits.

>>7527905
- Eye pigmentation (colour)
Not much advantage in light eyes, a little for extreme sunless environments if you need every sliver of light you could get. But maybe it's just benign altogether and managed to spread over time.
- Hair pigmentation
Same as before.
- Hair texture (curly/straight)
advantage for cold climates when straight from insulating closer to the skin, advantage for hotter climates when curly because it isn't for insulation but rather just simple protection against the sun so your brain doesn't get fried
- Shape of nose (flat/pointy)
protection from infection and simply being comfortable in different environments, just think, there's a reason you don't breathe with your mouth open (hopefully). You don't want too much of an opening for nasties to come in but you still need to breathe. Same principle, in a way.
- Thickness of lips
I don't actually know.
- Corporal hair density
same as before, I guess, cold vs hot
- General stature
surface area is better when lower in colder climates, so you get stocky people (not necessarily short) and you get more lanky people with higher surface areas in hotter climates
>>7528248
Human penis size isn't that varied when comparing ethnic/racial groups.

>>7528245
This is a hard one.

Thanks to genetic research we know that blue eyes originated from a single gene mutation some 10,000 years ago around the Black Sea region and then expanded into Northern Europe. Green and hazel eyes appeared due to subsequent mixtures.

As for the actual evolutionary benefits of lighter eyes there is little to be said. Could they be seen as somewhat more atractive and therefore more prone to creating descendance?

Does anyone have any further insight on this point?

>>7528245
>>7528571
I think eye color is a polygenic trait affected by the alleles that code for skin color. Same with hair.

Go back to /pol/, you retards

>>7528577
Yes, I understand that skin, hair and eyes kind of go together though I know next to nothing about genetics.

What's hard to figure out is why and how could these seemingly useless traits succeed on an evolutionary level.

>>7528545
I totally agree about the hair texture.

But I don't quite follow what you mean about the shape of the nose. Could you specify or give some examples?

>>7528607
They're not useless, lighter skin increases Vitamin D production as one function out of several possible ones

>>7528593
No.

This thread was posted on /sci/ because on /sci/ is where it's meant to be.

>>7528593
>le go back to le /pol/ meme
Why has it become a trend that whenever someone starts talking about race on 4chan of all places everyone tells them to go back to /pol/ even though this behavior was around on all boards years before /pol/ was even created. Go back to reddit where everyone has politically correct opinions based on emotion.

>>7528593
yes, fucking deal with it. this thread isn't even offensive in any way

>>7527905
One thing I've read shortly about but alas have no sources on hand is that of bone density and muscle insertions

From what I'd seen, African descendants tend to have denser bones and the way their skeleton is designed along with their muscle insertions makes it not very advantageous to swim, but they're more suited for running.

Hence why you see very few blacks in competitive aquatic sports

I'm not racist but we should slaughter all subhumans.

>>7528758
Starting with you, right

>>7528761
I'm not a woman or a non-european, so no.

>>7528766
But fortunately your homosexuality gives you a fast pass to the front of the line

>>7528771
Don't worry honey, i'm sure you're an outlier.

>>7528777
On the other hand, we know for sure that you're an outlier

>>7528788
Faggots will soon be able to reproduce without using a woman in any step.
How does that make you feel, babybuns ?

>>7528801
Makes me feel like the extinction of males is almost here

>>7528607
I guess it's just an attractive trait for some people, therefore people reproduced with them. No biological benefit.

>>7528444
re: pacific region and those tiny fucking polynesian/micronesia/whatever islands

Were they inhabited AFTER continents split up? I can never fathom why someone would just row some tiny canoes though that much water and not turn back.

>>7528810
That's nice sweetie.

>>7528359
>Could be a valued trait.
Probably; different cultures have different opinions on penises. Romans thought large ones were comical or something.

>mfw the largest dick in the roman sculpture museum was Sleeping Hermaphroditus

>>7527926
>e of Europeans having lighter hair and eye colors.
>I understand lighter skin is better at Vitamin D

>>7529100
maybe
doesn't mean they're not all depressed as fuck from lack of sun kek

>>7529100
>northern heritage
>Australia
>freckles in all the wrong places
fuck this.

>>7528386

>>7528571
maybe infanticide played a roll

>>7530111
Why does lava look so cool? I want to run my hands through it

>>7530116
J U S T D O I T
U S T D O I T
S T D O I T
T D O I T
D O I T
O I T
I T
T

>>7529114
Fake quote

>>7530150
Fake comment

>>7529114
Darwin was a racist, yet Darwin was against slavery and for human rights. Consider that he never saw a black person that wasn't living in shit-huts or in slavery.

Newton believed life is too complex to emerge spontaneously and thus concluded that god must exist. The Theory of Evolution came 130 years after Newton's death.

Both lacked the knowledge we have nowadays. It is only human to err.

>>7527905
i'm no nigger lover but i'd say they're the ones dealt with the best physical traits.
just look at athlete statistics
though they do have a shitty culture

>>7530154
Didn't Newton think that Jesus came to earth solely to operate the levers of gravity?

>>7530111
Interesting.

You mean to say that perhaps in the specific society where the blue-eyed gene appeared infants who were not born with this trait would be set aside or put to death. Thus artificially preserving, maybe even breeding to help the blue eyes multiply.

Yes, it could be that this hypothetical society developed some beliefs that elevated the social status of blue-eyed people. Maybe even to the point of worship. Perhaps the first individuals with this trait were treated as god-like. Or perhaps this is just a fantasy speculation.

>>7530154
Totally agree. Darwin's lack of judgement to call "inferior" or "superior" races was only due to the scientific context in which he lived and developed his theories. We have a much deeper understanding of this nowadays and would he had lived today, I am sure he would acknowledge this particular mistake.

>>7528340
Maybe something with snow reflecting sunlight? Eskimo's also have epicanthic folds.

>>7528271
thinly veiled cuckposting

Well the first thing you have to understand evolution in the first place. The best part with evolution is you don't really need to do a lot of research to make calculated guesses as to why some things adapted or changed the way they did.

The reason features aren't discussed much is because there are only very very small advantages generally based on environment alone. Thickness of lips, eye pigmentation, nose shape, none of these will have a very large effect on survivor ship really. I'd like to think sexual selection played a big role in the selection of features on humans, but again, really not a lot of advantages/disadvantages.

The best answer is either sexual selection or natural selection has selected for something.

Another answer is lack of gene flow due to isolation in entirely different environments led to small variations in humans. Speciation increases if there is no gene flow. A species is defined as a population of interbreeding organisms. Gene exchange and migration is part of this. But once you cut off gene flow, speciation can occur at the populations level. Obviously the greatest flaw with that is we can clearly all reproduce viable offspring regardless of race.

So we come back to selection pressures. What made that selected trait better for its environment? Or maybe females selected for that trait sexually.