(January 30, 2018 at 6:24 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 6:16 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

---

Alternatively, she don't needs lots of muscles to make me a sammich.

...and to get us a beer to help wash down the sammich. And while they're at it, they can hand us the TV remote too.

<singing softly>






A woman's work ... never done!

(January 30, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species.

What's that function?

(January 30, 2018 at 6:29 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 6:24 pm)A Theist Wrote: ...and to get us a beer to help wash down the sammich. And while they're at it, they can hand us the TV remote too.

<singing softly>

Put another log on the fire
Cook me up some bacon and some beans
And go out to the car and change the tire
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans
Come on baby you can fill my pipe and then go fetch my slippers
And boil me up another pot of tea
Then put another log on the fire babe
And come and tell me why you're leaving me

A woman's work ... never done!

Yup. Yes indeed. It's been that way since prehistoric times...

(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species.

What's that function?

I'd tell you, but it's not an honest question. If you were interested in actually knowing how evolution works and why, you'd read a book. Also, could you respond to the rest of my response to you or are you ignoring it because you don't have a rebuttal?

alpha male Wrote:

Shell B Wrote:Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species.

What's that function?

How they came to be what they are.

(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species.

What's that function?

It's not a function. It's a process.

And i'm not going to waste time responding to your comment beta . Your dishonesty makes it a waste of time.

---

(January 30, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote: What's that function?

It's not a function. It's a process.

Thou i will point out it could be both

(January 30, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote: What's that function?

It's not a function. It's a process.

Evolution is a process that has a function. I was referring to the function, not the process of evolution in my interaction with beta, which is what he was referring to. I'd really rather if you didn't get involved in my part of the discussion if it means this thread will devolve as others have. It forces me to respond when I have to correct a statement, which I don't mind if things won't get stupid.

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

Industrial Lad Wrote:Yeah very few people have ever argued that we should base our morals off of evolution. Evolution is not the atheist's god.

I could point to hundreds of posts on AF showing just the opposite...keyword "empathy".

Point to hundreds (or, say, one) committing the naturalistic fallacy of declaring 'because it evolved, therefore it is good'. Evolution is why we do have empathy, not why we should have empathy. It's hard to be moral without empathy, but it's also hard to be moral with jealously, another trait for which we have evolution to thank. It's almost like we're using some other standard than 'anything that evolution results in must be good' to evaluate morality. Odd, since presumably by arguing against 'evolution is not the atheist's god', you're implying it is. We're awfully disobedient to this supposed god you claim we figuratively worship.

You don't usually strike me as so thick, maybe you're having a bad day?

Women, as in homo sapien females, did not “evolve” to become weaker.   This is total bullshit.

To see what the encolutionary trend is, one should start with where females were when the genus homo first arose and began its march towards both science and superstition.   The genus homo arose from austolopithicines 2 million years ago.   Our ancesters the Australopithecines bequeathed to the fist homo a sexual dimorphism vastly greater than in our modern Homo sapiens.   The typical male austrolopithicus is 50% taller and weigh 3-4 times as much as the female.   To put that in perspective, if that kind of sexual dimorphism is evolutionarily beneficial to our way of life and therefore preserved to our present day, then our alpha male friend would daily face male competitors typically 8 feet tall and weigh 500 lbs, and who would rip alpha male limb from limb as easily as alpha male might pulls the wings off of a butterfly, in order to lay their foot long hands on what our alpha male friend presume to be his female.  He would be quite the omega, rather than alpha, male.

Yet in our genus’ 2 million years, sexual dimorphism has progressively become less.  Homo sapiens have amongst the most minimal sexual dimorphism seen in primates.  The typical homo sapien male is only 15% taller and maybe 30% heavier than the typical female.  The trend towards diminution in sexual dimorphism was almost continuous from the austrolopithicine to Homo sapiens.

It seems to me human females are evolving not to be weaker, but stronger, compared to human males.  Our female ancesters started from a position of vast disadvantage in size and body mass 2-3 million years ago.  They’ve almost fully made up the gap.  From a position of being 50% smaller, and 25% the body mass, they are now almost equal, being only 15% smaller, and perhaps 70% the body mass.   So what does that say?

It seem to me this says the opposite of what alpha male claimed, that for the life style and social and ecological environment the homo genus occupied over the last 2 million years, there is persistent evolutionary advantage to the next generation for the women to be larger and stronger.

Alpha male really ought to take a breath of relief because had that not been the case, and his mother weighed 30 lbs when she gave him birth, his own pre-natal development might have been so circumscribed he may even now have a brain the size of that of an austrolopithicus.  

But then again, that may not seem to be a disadvantage to him.