Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (118057)	4/12/2016 2:40:40 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 220183

I see why you believe in Global Warming: <When females are choosing males, they choose the alpha male. And when they are young, the alpha male is the strongest male, not the smartest male. The animal brain is not wired for cognitive excellence, it is wired for adaptation. And strong and stupid takes precedent over smart and weak. The animal brain does not even recognize cognitive excellence. So there is no choosing for brains, just brawn. The evolution you're talking about happened over millions of years, there were many branches of hominids that filled many niches.> If you observe actual reality [as I have been saying is a good thing instead of credulously believing "Settled Science"] you will see that all the fathers in your neighbourhood and wherever you travel, anywhere in the world, are not the local alpha male. Women are not totally stupid, so they know that if they are going to get a bun in the oven, they'd better have a bloke who is going to stick around and look after them. Ducks are totally stupid but they know that too. You'll see pair bonds and not all ducks married to the alpha drake. But to the extent that your argument is true, you have just proven my theory about rapid evolution as women select for brains. You say they go for the alpha male. I say that's true but they are happy to make do with one that's good enough and who will do the job for them. They will NOT accept the bottom of the barrel. The bottom of the barrel is removed from the gene pool each generation. That is what evolution is. Removal of The Wrong Stuff, leaving The Right Stuff to go on to the next generation and try again. If you ask women what characteristics they want in a man, intelligence is way up there. If you ignore their words and see who they choose, they are not opting for the least smart as being a great deal. You say they choose strength over brains. That's not true. If the big strong man has the intelligence and sense of humour of a frog, and is the least intelligent man in the city, they ladies will not go with a bun in the oven from him. A normal strength bloke with a power-brain, work ethic, prospects, sense of humour, fun, and kindness will win every time. Once again, test your theory by personal observation instead of believing Settled Science. Look at what actually happens. There's lots of it around happening around you. Men are bigger and stronger than women, but not phenomenally. Men have had genocidal wars constantly so there has been considerable selection for strength, but mostly blokes have to get on with the job of producing the goods and services for the family. Women don't gather around an alpha male in mass mating. Yes, harems exist, and some men have 4 wives, but they certainly don't have 1000. Mostly, all around the world, women have one bloke to themselves and men for the most part have one woman. The evolution I'm talking about happened over only 30,000 years for men and 90,000 years for women. You need to go back only that far to find the man [30,000 years] and woman [90,000 years] who left Africa and replaced all humans who were living outside Africa. Evolution is fast. It's now supersonic speed due to 7 billion people being involved instead of hundreds of thousands back in the day of the hominids, and about to go warp speed with genetic engineering and scientific selection. You can test your intelligence by thinking why it is that the male left only 30,000 years ago but the woman 90,000 years ago, rather than the Adam and Eve simultaneous migration idea. For the billions of non-African men to be sired by that one bloke only 30,000 years ago shows the rate of selection. That was pretty quick. Women were not so fast. Mqurice

To: koan who wrote (118057)	4/12/2016 5:44:18 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220183

As a bonus observation you can make, look at non-Africans and sub-Saharans. There is a large difference which you can probably see without scientific instruments. You don't even have to do chemistry to see it. That happened in only 90,000 years. That's how fast selection and evolution happen in the seething realm of humans. The pace of selection and mutation is now stupendous with 7 billion at it, being born, being selected, or not, breeding, and dying. 20 billion deaths per century is a phenomenal rate of evolution. 30,000 years ago when my ancestor left Africa, the number per century was minuscule [by comparison]. There are some Australian natives, Melanesians and whatnot who went under the radar due to geographical separation and hundreds of metres of sea level rise. They are irrelevant. That's the sort of sea level change that matters, not 20cm in a century. Mqurice