|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3639 days) Posts: 22 From: Miraflores, Lima, Peru Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sometimes its important to point out how inconsistent your sides ideas are; and just asking simple questions is often enough to do just that. Long facial hair is not a factor in evolution. Given the advent of culture, such as fire and stone tools, its not a problem at all. That you think it is is just another example of you grasping at straws. But let me turn this around. How do apes and monkeys deal with long facial hair so that it is not a problem?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Razd,
Are you ever able to see, however subtly, how much your side needs to spin every problem in evolution, so that somehow it makes sense to your theory? Your premise now is that there were these apes selecting females out there, one day long ago, and some had beards and some, through an odd mutation didn't and the ones who didn't have beards looked so much younger, so that the males felt they must simply be much younger apes, so I prefer having sex with these child-like woman-apes. There is just so much need to believe so many ludicrous propositions, all in one small idea: -This doesn't happen in other ape populations -Would a childlike looking ape be better to have a child with. -How would the male ape know that selecting a childlike ape would be a better choice. Because the ones who chose the less childlike looking ape was less successful at mating? -Why would the male apes who chose the ones that had more facial hair be less successful. -For a while in the development of humans there were much more heavily bearded woman, and less bearded woman, and the beardless ones won out. -Most ape lie creatures we see today don't have anything close to a moustache-beard kind of combination that men have. Do we need to create a story that says the chimpanzees decided to sexually select both males and females that look more like newborns? -Does the type of straight, long hair, which grows way down the backs of many Europeans and Asians have an resemblance at all to an ape like creatures way of growing hair? -Many Asian men have almost no facial hair, were they successful because they looked more childlike? If you are in Asia, its better to look childlike as a man, but if you are in Greece its much better to look like an old grizzly bear? Couldn't you really just make up any story at all RAZD, and anytime there were inconsistencies in the story, just add another just so story into the mix to make it somehow look rational. Looking youthful is good for reproduction, looking old is good for reproduction, less hair is a sign of virility, more hair is a sign of virility, if you look short and fat it means you have better genes, if you look tall and thin it means you have better genes, beauty means you are more healthy, if a population survives by definition that is beautiful. Why are there ugly people, well because not all phenotypes are selected out. Are all traits that survive indications of fitness? Well yes, of course...except when they are not indications of fitness mind you. . ...it never ends RAZD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
quote: They don't because they don't have this coyote. I guess you were too busy looking at piles of old bones to look up and notice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Petrophysics.
petrophysics writes: Case1, Blue Jay is taken to the Miss America pagent and told he can have sex with any of the 50 girls, just pick one. He takes the one with the biggest Boobs and widest hips. Thereby proving the theory of sexual selection. Case 2, Blue Jay is living in the woods and hasn't seen another human in 3 months. That was a guy, women and 2 kids. Blue Jay has never had sex. In his hunting he comes upon a frumpy short female with small boobs and narrow hips. Now according to the theory of sexual selection Blue Jay does not fuck her because she doesn't look "fit" enough. (yeh, right!) Do I have This theory correct? What do you think is more like reality case1 or case 2? Since you made it personal by inserting my name into your examples, I am obligated to state that neither case is very much like reality, because, in reality, Blue Jay is in a happy and monogamous relationship with a beautiful woman, and would not have sex with any of the women you described in your silly examples. Okay, now that the silliness is aside, let's examine the scenario. Both cases are, in principle, the same: you allowed a subject to choose from a range of potential mates, and the subject selected the "best" of the options presented. As such, I think they both match reality equally well. You might understand it better if you treated the females in your examples as active participants, rather than objects to be selected. You see, for a female, the investment into reproduction is typically higher than for males, so the consequences of poor choices are also higher. That means there is more reason for sexual selection to favor choosy females than to favor choosy males.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: They don't because they don't have this coyote. I guess you were too busy looking at piles of old bones to look up and notice. I'm aware of that. My question was what is known as a Rhetorical Question. (By the way, I took a seminar dealing with living primates--apes and monkeys--in grad school, so I have some familiarity with the subject.)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
-How would the male ape know that selecting a childlike ape would be a better choice. Because the ones who chose the less childlike looking ape was less successful at mating? They don't and it isn't necessarily so -- they make the more childlike female be more fit by mating with her in preference over other females, that is how sexual selection operates. The fact that this selection process is still going on is an indicator that it has been around for a while. Sexual desire for more childlike → young looking models in adsSexual desire for less hair → female body shaving Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Sometimes its important to point out how inconsistent your sides ideas are; and just asking simple questions is often enough to do just that. I like the tactic. In fact, I'm applying the tactic to you right now. But your current execution of it fails. You are well aware that there is a consistent answer for your question; an answer that none of us need to invent ad hoc. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
RAZD, Come on, have you thought this through any?
You are suggesting there was a time when all the females must have had significant facial hair, just like the men. Do you think this was when they were humans or when they were still some previous ape? Then some females got a mutation that lead to much less facial hair-which looks like a child (purely un-evidenced conjecture, but ok, let's go with your story). This can't be some kind of chimpanzee creature because basically none of them have facial hair. It also needs to be beard like hair that only occurs after adolescence, because otherwise the ones with the hairless face mutations wouldn't really seem childlike, they would seem sickly. And since you are suggesting that males prefer childlike mates, you must not believe males prefer large breasts and wide hips. Or do you have another story? Let's be honest here, huh, can't any story work? Strong woman, they are good for collecting firewood. Weak, they are more loyal. Big fat noses, they can smell poisons better. Small little noses, less risk of snoring and enticing lions....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Sometimes its important to point out how inconsistent your sides ideas are; and just asking simple questions is often enough to do just that. I like the tactic. In fact, I'm applying the tactic to you right now. But your current execution of it fails. You are well aware that there is a consistent answer for your question; an answer that none of us need to invent ad hoc. If you are asking a question, I can only assume you are doing it through some kind of remote thought channeling. So I have projected an answer back to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If you are asking a question, I can only assume you are doing it through some kind of remote thought channeling. So I have projected an answer back to you. You have no answer. You are asking questions that make you look foolish. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Bolder-dash writes: You are suggesting there was a time when all the females must have had significant facial hair, just like the men... ...This can't be some kind of chimpanzee creature because basically none of them have facial hair. Reality check. Here are "profile" pages for four female chimpanzees at a sanctuary in Uganda:
Cindy Becky Katie Megan Notice anything relevant to this conversation in those photos?
Hint: Beards. And moustaches. -----
Bolder-dash writes: Let's be honest here, huh, can't any story work? Strong woman, they are good for collecting firewood. Weak, they are more loyal. Big fat noses, they can smell poisons better. Small little noses, less risk of snoring and enticing lions.... Any story that fits the available evidence would serve as a good hypothesis, yes. So, if men routinely preferred beefy women with big noses over dainty women with little noses, then you could very well hypothesize that sexual selection has favored beefiness and big noses. But, since that's not the case, you probably shouldn't hypothesize that. In the same vein, if peahens preferred to mate with males who had their feather-trains cut, then you could hypothesize that sexual selection does not explain why males have big feather-trains. But, since that's clearly not the case, I'm uncertain why you would hypothesize that.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... have you thought this through any? Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution So, yes, just a bit -- along with evidence supporting the thesis.
You are suggesting there was a time when all the females must have had significant facial hair, just like the men. Do you think this was when they were humans or when they were still some previous ape? If you look at chimpanzee hair patterns, and note that there is a general trend to lower density the larger a species is, then a line extends from monkeys to apes to elephants ... and human hair density falls on that line. Male chimps have beards (usually white?). We do not have less hair, we just overall have less noticeable hair. Personally I think the selection for apparent hairlessness is what drove the speciation split from chimpanzees ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Notice anything relevant to this conversation in those photos? Why yes I do Blue Jay. Not one of them has anything close to the type of facial hair humans have. I can't even see a hint of a moustache in fact. Certainly not compared to what a human looks like if they haven't shaved for 15 years.
So, if men routinely preferred beefy women with big noses over dainty women with little noses, then you could very well hypothesize that sexual selection has favored beefiness and big noses. But, since that's not the case, you probably shouldn't hypothesize that. You need to get out more. There are entire countries with big beefy woman and big fat noses. Or maybe you were just trying to point out to me the obvious contradiction that even though it would seem men prefer dainty woman with small noses, woman exist in all sizes roughly the same anyway, so natural selection doesn't work? You are finally starting to get it! I knew one day you would see the light. Congratulations!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I started to read a little about your sexual selection thesis. Here is my favorite part:
This is cursory and a little simplified (no distinction between intra- and inter- sex selection) on purpose to keep it short (??) and to the point. scroll... scroll... scroll... Admin: Way too long for an OP! RAZD: I want another admin. Funny stuff. But now, despite your parody on your lack of brevity. I can't see anywhere (despite wearing out my scrolling finger) that you have ever tried to actually describe how it would work in detail. Like, first you have this population with all bearded faces -Next, you get one individual with a mutation that makes their face look hairless. -She is female, and she is so popular amongst the guys because she looks like a sexy child, or someone with alopecia. -She passes on the facial alopecia to her children, and they are also popular, and suddenly the male apes say "once you have tried skin, the bearded ones can't win."{note} She also passed on the alopecia faces to her male kids but they all died because apparently woman hate strange looking mutants less than men do. -This goes on for one million years, male apes looking for mutant childlike apes, woman ignoring mutant male child like apes. -The mutant childlike alopecia faced males apes all form a union and move to Asia. -Finally the selection process is almost complete. Now the woman start choosing men who don't have big floppy chests, and the men choose woman who do. Wait another million years. -Now the woman start selecting men whose hair falls out when they turn 40. Actually they choose men who they think will have their hair fall out when they turn 40, but the men never choose these kind of woman-fortunately for us! -Wait another million years, forget about the face thing, now woman start selecting men who can sing, and men select ones who either can or can not sing, but who have fat hips, but still look child-like. AND THIS is how the book, 'Women are From Venus, Men are From Mars' came into being!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
balderdash writes:
I don't think this is what was described. Like, first you have this population with all bearded faces -Next, you get one individual with a mutation that makes their face look hairless. What was described was that, after genetic isolation, more and more of the male population started preferring females with faces appearing to have less-and-less hair, because females with less hair started looking more attractive. Those less-hair-is-better-faces-for-females genes were spread this way in the population. It's like those people born with tails today. They don't look too attractive to the opposite sex; therefore those genes won't be spread too extensively. Although, nowadays, those tails can be cut-off, safely.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024