It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:15 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Life in the Universe 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 4004
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Cymru am byth wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
One slight complication in all that. The eggs are defined by the health of the mother giving birth to the daughter. So in fact when a child is born it's its Grand Mother's life style that impacts mostly.

Your mother can be a saint but if your Nanna was a tart your stuffed sorta thing :D


But your mother is unlikely to be a saint if your grandmother was a tart.


Which ever way around it is, the better off (the guy who gets the choice) will always have a survival advantage over the struggling family and get more dibs in the gene pool, so what they favour gets pushed ahead. So called survival of the fittest ( that is no the ones that spend more time in the Gym, but the ones who get a better slice of the pie)

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:28 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6927
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
Cymru am byth wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
One slight complication in all that. The eggs are defined by the health of the mother giving birth to the daughter. So in fact when a child is born it's its Grand Mother's life style that impacts mostly.

Your mother can be a saint but if your Nanna was a tart your stuffed sorta thing :D


But your mother is unlikely to be a saint if your grandmother was a tart.


Which ever way around it is, the better off (the guy who gets the choice) will always have a survival advantage over the struggling family and get more dibs in the gene pool, so what they favour gets pushed ahead. So called survival of the fittest ( that is no the ones that spend more time in the Gym, but the ones who get a better slice of the pie)


What size pie though?


Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:49 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 4004
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Cymru am byth wrote:
soap wrote:
Cymru am byth wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
One slight complication in all that. The eggs are defined by the health of the mother giving birth to the daughter. So in fact when a child is born it's its Grand Mother's life style that impacts mostly.

Your mother can be a saint but if your Nanna was a tart your stuffed sorta thing :D


But your mother is unlikely to be a saint if your grandmother was a tart.


Which ever way around it is, the better off (the guy who gets the choice) will always have a survival advantage over the struggling family and get more dibs in the gene pool, so what they favour gets pushed ahead. So called survival of the fittest ( that is no the ones that spend more time in the Gym, but the ones who get a better slice of the pie)


What size pie though?


3.1415 :alien:

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:50 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4868
Post Re: Life in the Universe
9?


Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:23 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 4004
Post Re: Life in the Universe
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
9?


Mice try

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:32 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4868
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
9?


Mice try


that is so cheasy Margarita! :D 26 Bells to Bethlehem.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:13 am
Profile E-mail
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 930
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:


Its nothing to do with eggs, its just the ones that get fertilised with the best chance of passing on the most to following generations.
For the large majority of cases older men are pretty much invisible to young women. Either you're young and so haven't picked this up or you're not particularly observant. The reason for this is that older men's sperm is inferior compared with that of young men. This is not just my theory, read up about the issue.

Extreme example, hairy girl does not look too hot, marries a labour. They have 4 kids, 2 die (well within what it was until recently) 2 kids marry get 2 surviving kids each. 4 in the gene pool in 50 years.
The mistake you are making is assuming that less hairy women are the natural ideal when you have no evidence to support that assumption. Following this no evidence principle of yours then what's the problem in theorizing that men are hairier because women choose hairier men because they think they're hot.

Attractive girl (sans moustache and sidebirns) maries well off guy and had 4 kids, all survive as they have better everything. 4 marry and have 4 kids each 16 in the gene pool in 50 years

You don't appear to really understand natural selection/evolution properly and you're making similar mistakes to many others particularly political "scientists" and economists.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:09 pm
Profile E-mail
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 930
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
Which ever way around it is, the better off (the guy who gets the choice) will always have a survival advantage over the struggling family and get more dibs in the gene pool, so what they favour gets pushed ahead. So called survival of the fittest ( that is no the ones that spend more time in the Gym, but the ones who get a better slice of the pie)


"well off" only became a consideration for the small fraction of humanity's existence since agriculture was established and we were able because of a settled life to gather possessions. For the vast majority of generations it was physical, mental, empathetic, communicative and creative prowess that attracted a female to a male and vice versa.

And you are now talking the same kind of pseudoscientific *b@ll@cks* typically spouted by agenda driven right wingers.
If you care to look in the real world, at any period in time it is the poorer who are most likely to have more surviving offspring that reproduce rather than the richer.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:24 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4868
Post Re: Life in the Universe
You sure have an attitude Eog.

I can't see what is pissing you off so much on this thread.

My own view is that young gals and poor folks making babies is essential.

That posh folks stigmatise them is f'k'n abhorrent.

This is our and 'their' world.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:04 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 4004
Post Re: Life in the Universe
eog wrote:
soap wrote:


Its nothing to do with eggs, its just the ones that get fertilised with the best chance of passing on the most to following generations.
For the large majority of cases older men are pretty much invisible to young women. Either you're young and so haven't picked this up or you're not particularly observant. The reason for this is that older men's sperm is inferior compared with that of young men. This is not just my theory, read up about the issue.

Extreme example, hairy girl does not look too hot, marries a labour. They have 4 kids, 2 die (well within what it was until recently) 2 kids marry get 2 surviving kids each. 4 in the gene pool in 50 years.
The mistake you are making is assuming that less hairy women are the natural ideal when you have no evidence to support that assumption. Following this no evidence principle of yours then what's the problem in theorizing that men are hairier because women choose hairier men because they think they're hot.

Attractive girl (sans moustache and sidebirns) maries well off guy and had 4 kids, all survive as they have better everything. 4 marry and have 4 kids each 16 in the gene pool in 50 years

You don't appear to really understand natural selection/evolution properly and you're making similar mistakes to many others particularly political "scientists" and economists.



There is only one natural selection. Whoever produces most prodigy becomes the norm. Those most attractive to a mate breed most, those who do best in their environment survive more.

This is natural selection pre genetics or family care. The rules are the same now as when the first life happened.

When someone had to go out and catch food, the hairy young guy won out. Male pattern baldness is a modern phenomena, heary hunters are no longer the chosen mate .

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:28 pm
Profile E-mail
Online
thread ruining clique
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:26 pm
Posts: 17807
Location: Dinbych
Post Re: Life in the Universe
eog wrote:
soap wrote:
Which ever way around it is, the better off (the guy who gets the choice) will always have a survival advantage over the struggling family and get more dibs in the gene pool, so what they favour gets pushed ahead. So called survival of the fittest ( that is no the ones that spend more time in the Gym, but the ones who get a better slice of the pie)


"well off" only became a consideration for the small fraction of humanity's existence since agriculture was established and we were able because of a settled life to gather possessions. For the vast majority of generations it was physical, mental, empathetic, communicative and creative prowess that attracted a female to a male and vice versa.

And you are now talking the same kind of pseudoscientific *b@ll@cks* typically spouted by agenda driven right wingers.
If you care to look in the real world, at any period in time it is the poorer who are most likely to have more surviving offspring that reproduce rather than the richer.

I'm quite clever and handsome, and have a grit big house. So how come I can't attract a mate? Alright, so I admit, I'm old and I smell of piss, and I never go out. But why aren't the honeys queuing up at the door for a piece of my good loving?

_________________
With all the will in the world,
Diving for dear life, when we could be diving for pearls.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:29 pm
Profile
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 5:40 pm
Posts: 57799
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Post Re: Life in the Universe
spinbreath wrote:
eog wrote:
soap wrote:
Which ever way around it is, the better off (the guy who gets the choice) will always have a survival advantage over the struggling family and get more dibs in the gene pool, so what they favour gets pushed ahead. So called survival of the fittest ( that is no the ones that spend more time in the Gym, but the ones who get a better slice of the pie)


"well off" only became a consideration for the small fraction of humanity's existence since agriculture was established and we were able because of a settled life to gather possessions. For the vast majority of generations it was physical, mental, empathetic, communicative and creative prowess that attracted a female to a male and vice versa.

And you are now talking the same kind of pseudoscientific *b@ll@cks* typically spouted by agenda driven right wingers.
If you care to look in the real world, at any period in time it is the poorer who are most likely to have more surviving offspring that reproduce rather than the richer.

I'm quite clever and handsome, and have a grit big house. So how come I can't attract a mate? Alright, so I admit, I'm old and I smell of piss, and I never go out. But why aren't the honeys queuing up at the door for a piece of my good loving?



How much time have you got for an explanation? :P :D

_________________
We are all in the gutter but me and my mam are looking at the stars!


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:35 pm
Profile
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 930
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
There is only one natural selection. Whoever produces most prodigy becomes the norm. Those most attractive to a mate breed most, those who do best in their environment survive more. Attractive as in showing indications that their offspring will do well in the environment ie better chance of survival and passing on their parents genes. Not "attractive" in the sense you are using it. - she's what I think is hot.
Sexual selection is the mechanism that is used to explain why for example a male bird has dangerously obvious (to predators) and physically handicapping plumage. We don't need to fall back on sexual selection in the case of less hairy women as natural selection can explain the absence of facial and body hair(compared to males). As already mentioned in a previous post

This is natural selection pre genetics "pre genetics" what are you on about genetics is just the term for the study of genes. genes were around a very long time before they were studied has been there since before there were single celled organisms or family care. The rules are the same now as when the first life happened. But what you write indicates that you don't really understand "the rules".

When someone had to go out and catch food, the hairy young guy won out. Male pattern baldness is a modern phenomena Really perhaps you would provide a link to a reputable scientific website that can elaborate on that. Make sure it's not one of those commercial - how we can cure your baldness - type sites. , heary hunters are no longer the chosen mate .

I've seen it reported that it's estimated that at any one time about 10% of the population have a different biological father to the one they think is their father. Whether it is or not common sense points to the % being significant and common sense also points to that % being higher if a young woman marries an old man irrespective of how much hair there is on his head.

Like you the Eagles didn't understand too much about genetics. When they sang "You can't hide your lyin' eyes" they were wrong.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:39 pm
Profile E-mail
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 930
Post Re: Life in the Universe
spinbreath wrote:
I'm quite clever and handsome, and have a grit big house. So how come I can't attract a mate? Alright, so I admit, I'm old and I smell of piss, and I never go out. But why aren't the honeys queuing up at the door for a piece of my good loving?


First wash your underpants.
Second get out (a lot).
A small percentage of the honeys out there will be not be bothered that your sperm is crap.
This percentage will rise the bigger your house is.
If all else fails remember personality goes a long way.
All the best
Dr Ruth


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:54 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 4004
Post Re: Life in the Universe
eog wrote:
spinbreath wrote:
I'm quite clever and handsome, and have a grit big house. So how come I can't attract a mate? Alright, so I admit, I'm old and I smell of piss, and I never go out. But why aren't the honeys queuing up at the door for a piece of my good loving?


First wash your underpants.
Second get out (a lot).
A small percentage of the honeys out there will be not be bothered that your sperm is crap.
This percentage will rise the bigger your house is.
If all else fails remember personality goes a long way.
All the best
Dr Ruth



Either you mis read or miss understood what I wrote.

The man, what ever his description or age is only relevant in that he enables the best possible conditions for the woman. It does not even matter if it is his sperm or a passing young stranger with a thong, it is all about the woman.

The important part is that a particular type of woman is attractive to a man who can provide for her to rise the prodigy in the best survival conditions. That the man is short fat and bald is not relevant at all, the relevant part is that the woman lacks facial hair, and is more likely to be chosen than a woman with a handlebar moustache.

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:23 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: