Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/06/21 in all areas

  1. 3 points
  2. Your argument was that basically that because many species are promiscuous, one selected one (humans) must therefore also be promiscuous. This is not a logical conclusion, as you said yourself that there are apparently differences in promiscuity in nature ("most" does not equal "all"). In other words, you would first have to figure out why certain species are more or less promiscuous in order to establish whether it likely (or not) applies to humans. If nature was based on majority rule, we all would still be bacteria and just reproduce asexually. Likewise, you cannot dismiss whether our society makes promiscuity more or less likely, as you have not established conditions that are associated with promiscuity that we could discuss. I am going make an analogous argument to yours to demonstrate why your original argument does not hold water: Most animals are arthropods (well above 80%). Therefore animals are evolutionary primed to live like insects. What we can discuss, which is somewhat outside biology is about human society and how that influences partner structure. But again, doing sweeping positive correlations and then somehow invoke evolution is just bad science (and which is why evolutionary psychology as a discipline is in deep trouble). But even using somewhat shaky arguments in that area, it is very weird that you focus on female promiscuity. Assuming big fitness arguments (and again, research has shown that it is actually far more complex than these simple narratives), in most mammals, including humans, males benefit more from being promiscuous than females. The reason is fairly intuitive, because a) in most species females invest more into the offspring and b) extra-pair copulation for the female does not automatically result in more offspring as for males. Now, this view has been challenged to various degrees, mostly using insect models, again highlighting my above argument, if you will. In observational studies In birds, reproductive success seem to increase for both, male and female partners in a number of partners. However, the advantage for males is still more obvious than females (and the latter is trickier to study). If we focus on humans, there is of course the issue of social norms- in many societies it is more permissive for men to be promiscuous than women. As such, it is not surprising that most surveys indicate higher promiscuity in men, but this again is challenged with changing gender roles. So again, another societal, rather than evolutionary factor. I suspect that what you tried to say that serial monogamy is in polygyny (succession of female partners, as the reverse does not make sense) but why not polyandry? This is not to say that the area of research is not fascinating, but I think the way you start off is far too narrow and biased toward a certain narrative that it actually runs counter to existing research. To kick off such a discussion with a focus on human species you may want to look at a few accessible papers such as Schacht and Kramer (Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019) for a general review. The paper does actually discuss (and refutes) some of the common popsci narratives.
    1 point
  3. Link to survey does not seem to work. In nature you can find every single strategy in partner search. Using the majority argument to try to apply it to a specific species is silly, of course. Every species has their particular constraint and is more or less likely to have a specific reproductive strategy. Note that in humans many potential constraints are changed due to e.g. availability of reproductive control, but also things like easy availability of food or water (for most) and other technological and social elements. Finally, few things are that hardwired to begin with. We have learned to live in a highly artificial environment. None of us are hardwired to move faster than running speed, yet we can drive cars, for example.
    1 point
  4. Quantum uncertainty to me suggests determinism is at best an approximation of reality. Your view seems purely deterministic. That is why I can’t accept it as valid.
    1 point
  5. Quite often it is the perception of an opinion, or event, that politicise that opinion, not the intent of the people offering the opinion.. This might have more to do with a perceived inequality of opinions/articles, by you, where none actually exists; IOW,look in the mirror. As for the origins of SARS-COV2, by all means, it needs to be investgated; It is certanly fair to criticise the Chinese government for their actions ( excessive secrecy, human rights violations, predatory economic policies, 'bullying of other nations in SE Asia, etc ), but not of Chinese people.
    1 point
  6. The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes. The duration of the total phase of the lunar eclipse is 108 minutes. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. Therefore, the diameter of the Moon is 12 742 * (7.5 / 108) = 885 km. Additional evidence. The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs The coincidence of the angular sizes of the Sun and the Moon indicates that their sizes are proportional to the distances relative to the Earth. In addition, the Sun and the Moon have the same axial rotation periods - 27 days. In the earth's mantle there are two huge diametrically opposite formations (one is larger, the other is smaller), both are displaced to the east. On the surface of the Earth there are two huge diametrically opposite tracks (one larger, the other smaller), both shifted to the east. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is approximately 3 to 1.
    -1 points
  7. you are not making sense my friend, what is the argument that you are making? Because if you observe something, and then you simply summarize your observations, if the summary you made is still complying to reality, it is a theory. If that is not a theory to you, and you use a different meaning, when you read theory, theory means a summary of observation about reality... any more arguments from you? As opposed to an experiment conducted in your imagination, genius... an axiom is not a system, fair enough, an argument from you is still not present here, sweetheart... try to make sense and if you do, don't worry you will be surprised how apologetic I will be to you if you make sense in the end. So, how about you try to make some sense in what you write down, and not waste our time and effort here... ...even I want to see myself get proved wrong by one of you I am not doing this to pretend to strangers on the internet that I am smart, I don't exactly care if I am smart or not sweetheart ...the only thing I care about is what seems to be happening in reality, because it seems to me that something else than anything I imagine is happening in reality...however funny enough it also seems to me that the same thing is happening to the rest of you, and simply some of you have no idea about it. And for the last ones, the one who don't know that reality is something else than anything you can imagine, and the thing that something they imagine is reality, here's a question to all of you? you think you are funny? Because reality is something else than anything you can imagine, and therefore reality seems funnier than all of you, doesn't it? Excellent someone is looking around at least...any comments from you as well welcome...I am waiting for all of your comments. hit me baby one more time Is there anyone from you geniuses here worth my time? Prove it to me geniuses...I am waiting...and don't waste our time and effort with sorry-ass excuses for arguments. Read and think, I don't worry I will actually thank you if you prove me wrong. All honest efforts are welcome, but don't waste my time with smartass answers...
    -5 points
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.