/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3993638]

Look at this fuck. His arms are as wide around as my fucking wrist. Her arms are bigger.

I would break him in half and steal his woman if we were living on the savanna. How is this natural selection?

[Anonymous No.3993641]

he can hire someone to break your nuts

[Anonymous No.3993651]

The same reason bears don't rule the world.

Intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3993663]

>>3993651

>implying I'm not more intelligent as well
>implying intelligence isn't counterproductive in sexual selection past a certain point

BECAUSE IM SURE YOU FUCKS GET LAID ALL THE TIME WITH YOUR SEXY SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.3993682]

jealousy general? you have a shitty personality OP.

[Anonymous No.3993685]

>>3993663
fuck you nigger

>>>/soc/

[Anonymous No.3993688]

>>3993682

>Pointing out disparities in scientific theory
>Shitty personality

[Anonymous No.3993689]

Why you mad tho?

(pic related, me and mah gf for 3 years in january)

[Anonymous No.3993693]

>mfw my arms are thinner

[TN5 !/sci/TN5.. No.3993694]

>>3993663
Don't you think that natural selection should reward intelligence if intelligence is good for the species as a whole, even if it's not good for the couple?

Assuming something very stupid, just for the example:
- Clever people are the worst possible lovers,
- Clever people are the most important people for the development of the species.
Then natural selection, in a slightly more meta way than usual, should reward species whose members choose, for some reason, lovers that are clever, even though they're not personally rewarding.

I don't believe that clever persons are not attractive and cannot be good lovers or anything, of course, I'm just trying to show to OP that natural selection is far from incompatible with his image.

[Anonymous No.3993695]

>>3993685

>saging on /sci/

You know it doesn't work, right?

[Anonymous No.3993703]

>>3993663

Yup.

Enjoy landing a couple dumbass chicks and having a dozen dumbass children as we continue making money off your worthless "skills" which will lose all meaningful application in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.3993715]

He's having sex and you're not. That's how it's natural selection.

To be more specific, the social skills and things that enable him to get laid would also enable his children to get laid. This has resulted in something of an evolutionary arms race within our own species to be more intelligent, both to actually be socially skilled in the typically described sense, and for political plotting to gain status and therefore get laid more. It's one of the hypotheses for the origin of human intelligence.

As for you? Well, large muscles take more calories to feed and more protein to develop, so physical fitness doesn't necessarily correlate with genetic fitness in times of scarcity.

[Anonymous No.3993722]

If woman are attracted to science, why are most of us here single?

[Anonymous No.3993730]

>>3993638
Survival of the least butthurt

[Anonymous No.3993731]

>>3993638

Just because he hasn't visibly developed certain traits (e.g. large muscles) doesn't mean his genes don't code for them.

That being said, you do realize we're NOT running around the savanna anymore, right?

[Anonymous No.3993733]

>>3993722

[Anonymous No.3993738]

>group selection
Lol. If that were true, there would be way more females for every male, a guy can knock up 10 chicks in a week but a woman can only get pregnant once every nine months. This isn't the case because whenever that happens, a parent who tends to have more males passes on much more of their genetic code, so it balances out.

[Anonymous No.3993743]

>>3993722
Scientists with girlfriends will be more likely to spend time with them, rather than post here. Selection bias at its finest.

[Anonymous No.3993748]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iterated_prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.2
7s_dilemma
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tit_for_tat

tl;dr: the development of morals and cooperation makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as opposed to the "every man for himself" mentality

[Anonymous No.3993751]

>>3993722

>if women are attracted to science
>attracted to science
>women

[Anonymous No.3993753]

Social status and ability is a better predictor of success than physical fitness, both today and for most of human history. A tribe leader might not be the best at hunting, but he gets the most sex because of his political acumen. The same is true today, with successful businessmen needing good skills and being able to provide well for their families.

[Anonymous No.3993785]

>>3993751
nope.avi

gtfo.

[Anonymous No.3993789]

HERE OP WATCH THIS VIDEO IT WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE WOMENS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QFwo57WKwg&list=FLeLInAO85MhAb0C21gX6QfQ&feature=mh_lolz

[Anonymous No.3993795]

can this kind of guy even have sex? i bet if he released the amature porn video chimpantzees will be facepalming then loughing then vomiting then taking oaths to not have sex ever again

[Anonymous No.3993797]

>>3993785

>denial

I bet you fap to shota.

[Anonymous No.3993805]

>>3993651

Thinking what could have been makes me sad.

[Anonymous No.3993807]

>>3993789

Oh god not this shitto agen.

[Anonymous No.3993809]

>>3993805

One day... be patient. Our day will come.

[Anonymous No.3993872]

>>3993797

I do. But there is no point to your assumption.


Anyways, sometimes I wonder why it isn't still like that, though I agree it's the intelligence part that distinguishes us from the rest. We live in a world where we house the old in homes waiting for them to die, a world where we mate with creatures despite scents or even willingness [children, animals]. We even have expressive feelings that no other creature on Earth has. So why would anyone expect for us to do things the primal way, all of the time, 100%?

>tl;dr, it's not a part of current society.

[Anonymous No.3993943]

>>3993872

Everything we do is primal in a sense-- technically, cars, space ships, and To Catch a Predator are natural since we are part of the natural world. It's impossible to tell what is "primal" or permanent since we can't observe humanity over thousands of generations

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993947]

He might have a higher IQ than you, which confers a much greater survival advantage than large bones.

[Anonymous No.3993961]

Because ethics (unwillingness to kill him and fill his woman with your seed by force) are causing people like you to be selected against.

[Anonymous No.3993975]

It's not natural selection OP, it's sexual selection. Before the emergence of heterogametic species the only shaping factor on the development of organisms was natural selection. Today in animals with dimorphic genders that reproduce through syngamy, intersexual and intrasexual competition makes it a little more complicated than who has bigger arms. Truth is, hard as it is for you to comprehend, he's a superior animal sexually according to her judgement. Females of mammal species tend to be more choosy in selecting their pairings while males are more ardent maters.

[Anonymous No.3993984]

>>3993975
Disgusting
>>>/d/

[Anonymous No.3993985]

>>3993975
sexual selection is a part of natural selection

use ecological selection if that is what you mean

[Anonymous No.3993990]

>implying they didn't break up a month after that picture was shot.

[Anonymous No.3993994]

His face is probably attractive.

[Anonymous No.3994023]

>>3993663
>implying i didn't used to get laid all the time just by being the quiet, brooding genius type
>implying i'm not now happily engaged
>implying my fiance doesn't think my sexy science is sexy

[Anonymous No.3994029]

your angst isn't science, at least your analysis isn't

[Anonymous No.3994068]

>>3993985

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. Or put differently the environment. The environment is the most common thing thought of when it comes to an organism being able to survive and evolve over time. When an animal is capable of reproducing asexually, there is no other restriction on the continuation of their genetic line besides their ability to survive in their environment.

In animals that mate however, this is not the case. The animals mating habits may be influenced by the environment, and mating habits that make it unable to exist in its environment are cross-overs with natural selection. However the behaviours and system that allow the animal to survive the environment, or to successfully procreate with a mates, are different. An animal might be able to like some apes use tools to aquire food, but may be a low ranking male not allowed the oppurtunity to mate, could have some sort of genetic abnormality that makes females unreceptive.

I think the two are separate.