[TheWhiteWolf]

I was wondering if natural selection and survival of the fittest only applied to Males. Considering that throughout history 80% of females have reproduced well only 40% of Males reproduced. Back in prehistoric day a man had to be Alpha just to ensure his lenience would survive. This ensured only the best male genes got passed along. However this raises the question on how nature deals with females who are unfit to breed. While they do not carry as many genetic mutations as man they can still pass on defective genes to their offspring. Does nature wait until that female passes her broken genes on to a male son before removing it from the gene pool. I would like to hear the forums the opinion on this.

[Paracelsus]

Childbirth until the advent of modern medicine was something of a crapshoot for women. There's one natural selection aspect. Also explains why big-hipped women aren't as prevalent anymore: because if your pelvis is too fucking small to shit out a kid, there's always Caesarean section.

There's a reason child and mother mortality rates are high on certain continents which shall remain unnamed for fear of turning this into a race thread.

[Sextus Empiricus]

You also have to remember that sexual selection exists as well. Your genes aren't getting passed on if nobody wants to have sex with you in the first place. In the past, there were many women who didn't live up to the sexual standards of a group and thus would have their genes selected out

[brokinetic]

(11-21-2016 11:46 PM)TheWhiteWolf Wrote:  

I was wondering if natural selection and survival of the fittest only applied to Males. Considering that throughout history 80% of females have reproduced well only 40% of Males reproduced. Back in prehistoric day a man had to be Alpha just to ensure his lenience would survive. This ensured only the best male genes got passed along. However this raises the question on how nature deals with females who are unfit to breed. While they do not carry as many genetic mutations as man they can still pass on defective genes to their offspring. Does nature wait until that female passes her broken genes on to a male son before removing it from the gene pool. I would like to hear the forums the opinion on this.

"A wise man said once, never have sex with a fat obese woman".

They fall into that 20% as long as no desperate guy bangs them and give them a child

[Kid Twist]

Remember also that most of human history it was pretty hard to be fat, especially at ages 14-20.

[Mufasa]

She's unnattactive and can't find a mate for reproduction
She finds a superior mate for reproduction but her fucks and chucks her
She becomes a careerist and has a kid post 30 years old when chance of birth defects is higher
She has a kid and he dipsets leaving her to provide by her own means

You've got to remember that its all about the survival of the species. There are a lot of dumb things she can do to make sure her genes don't get passed on or she ruins the chances of her offsprings genes getting passed on (and by extension her own). It most definitely works both ways.

[Meat Head]

@Paracelsus. I am genuinely curious about what contintent you are talking about. Is it Africa? But African women have big thighs. Is it Asia because they have small thighs?

[RatInTheWoods]

There was evolutionary pressure on women as well as men. I say "was" because modern society now has almost no evolutionary pressure (everyone has entitlement to feed, breed, medical and sexual access)

Some examples of evolutionary pressures relevant for human females:

Broad hips to survive childbirth.
Verbal, empathy, appeasement and social skills to navigate, survive and thrive in close knit gathering packs.
Better color vision (ripeness/ posin during gathering)
Indicators of sexual readiness and fitness (breasts, hair, aesthetic beauty)
Smaller body to reduce calorie requirements to help survive tough times.

Mate selection preferences A strong, confident, aggressive provider male preference.

[brokinetic]

(11-21-2016 11:46 PM)TheWhiteWolf Wrote:  

Does nature wait until that female passes her broken genes on to a male son before removing it from the gene pool.

Possible if the male produced is uncapable of mating or findina a mate

(11-23-2016 03:46 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Remember also that most of human history it was pretty hard to be fat, especially at ages 14-20.

True, I went out of topic talking about modern civilization.

It is hard to get fat in the past when people were living in tribes catering only to their basic needs. Influx of modern technology, believes, culture, politics and geographical structure has changed many things. I just came back to Malaysia, and I see ever increasing obesity rates here. Lots of young girls( age 18-25) who are in their prime are fucking fat. Reason, Malaysians love food and bad junk food are cheap here.

(11-23-2016 04:05 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  

She's unnattactive and can't find a mate for reproduction
She finds a superior mate for reproduction but her fucks and chucks her
She becomes a careerist and has a kid post 30 years old when chance of birth defects is higher
She has a kid and he dipsets leaving her to provide by her own means
.

Yes, these I believe are after effects of feminism. But does not really apply to ancient civilization where women would readily submit to a male who can provide her with basic needs and protection.

(11-25-2016 11:00 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

There was evolutionary pressure on women as well as men. I say "was" because modern society now has almost no evolutionary pressure (everyone has entitlement to feed, breed, medical and sexual access)

Some examples of evolutionary pressures relevant for human females:

Broad hips to survive childbirth.
Verbal, empathy, appeasement and social skills to navigate, survive and thrive in close knit gathering packs.
Better color vision (ripeness/ posin during gathering)
Indicators of sexual readiness and fitness (breasts, hair, aesthetic beauty)
Smaller body to reduce calorie requirements to help survive tough times.

All of these come under the sexual market values for a woman which are basically beauty and aesthetics. These has been the only natural selections values for women all along the history of mankind.

However IMO, during the stone ages:

1)Infertility in a woman is one reason her genetics will disappear.
2) Dying in an accident or killed before reproducing
3) Being less attractive than her other female competitor( SMV)

All these could contribute to dissapearance of female genetics

[Bluto]

(11-26-2016 03:01 AM)brokinetic Wrote:  

However IMO, during the stone ages:

1)Infertility in a woman is one reason her genetics will disappear.
2) Dying in an accident or killed before reproducing
3) Being less attractive than her other female competitor( SMV)

All these could contribute to dissapearance of female genetics

I honestly think that these three factors were in effect until very recently. Now any woman can get pregnant due to artificial insemination. So #3 is not a factor any more. The other two are still in effect albeit less so each year thanks to modern medicine.

I would also venture to say that a woman in a lower percentile of their SMV may get pregnant but they tend to not have the best of the best as far as high quality genetics. They either got lower quality genetics from a lower quality mate, or got only the occasional attention from an alpha male.

[AlphaRN]

I think in the modern, western world, natural selection doesn't exist at all. With advances in healthcare and the expansive social safety nets, people who would have never lived to breeding age, let alone had the ability to afford to raise one child, are living long enough and using the government to support their families of five and six kids. All of their genetic issues (from asthma and poor vision, all the way to sub-70 IQs and mental illnesses) are being spread through the normal gene pool because of it.

For example, if a drug-addicted woman with mental illness has a child with another drug user with physical problems, it doesnt mean that baby will automatically have problems. However, that baby is still carrying the parents defects and can pass them on to its children. Two hundred years ago, that baby and its future offspring would have never existed.

For women, its easy to procreate. Even the most vile, disgusting excuse for a collection of DNA will be able to find some male desperate enough for sex to get pregnant with.

For men, even they can use sperm banks (though inferior specimens are usually turned away), or find the aforementioned woman to sleep with.

I believe that when humanity eventually falls, it will be because we stopped and reversed the tried and true method of evolution. We will be the first species in the history of life to breed itself into a lesser form.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

For humanity, I think natural selection operates on communities more than individuals. A tribe/clan/nation with a higher functioning culture will grow in numbers, and will expand and conquer lands around it, either through direct conquest, or by cultural dominance. A lower functioning culture will die out, or be conquered or destroyed by a stronger neighbor.

Strong cultures will have a tendency to select for strong individuals within the group, and give those individuals better opportunities to reproduce. However, a successful culture will also shield its weaker members. Those members may not rise to be elite, but they can probably work in lower class occupations, and may still be able to reproduce with lower class women.

I think that some stronger cultures will tend to raise the genetic quality of their members over generations, but for the most part, I think it's the culture that makes some groups out compete the others.