RE: Conservatives have more self-control
January 30, 2018 at 6:55 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2018 at 7:14 pm by Anomalocaris.)
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.
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.
