Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yahoo - Why Do Men Exist? Science (Finally) Gives Us an Answer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yahoo - Why Do Men Exist? Science (Finally) Gives Us an Answer

    (Is there any doubt that Yahoo is suffering from a huge Feminist infestation these days??)

    For your reading pleasure....

    Why Do Men Exist? Science (Finally) Gives Us an Answer

    Why Do Men Exist? Science (Finally) Gives Us an Answer

    Since in many species, sperm is males’ only contribution to reproduction, biologists have long puzzled about why evolutionary selection, known for its ruthless efficiency, allows them to exist.

    Now British scientists have an explanation: Males are required for a process known as “sexual selection” which helps species to ward off disease and avoid extinction.
    A system where all offspring are produced without sex – as in all-female asexual populations — would be far more efficient at reproducing greater numbers of offspring, the scientists said.
    But in research published in the journal Nature on Monday, they found that sexual selection, in which males compete to be chose by females for reproduction, improves the gene pool and boosts population health, helping explain why males are important.
    An absence of selection — when there is no sex, or no need to compete for it — leaves populations weaker genetically, making them more vulnerable to dying out.
    “Competition among males for reproduction provides a really important benefit, because it improves the genetic health of populations,” said professor Matt Gage, who led the work atBritain’s University of East Anglia.
    “Sexual selection achieves this by acting as a filter to remove harmful genetic mutations, helping populations to flourish and avoid extinction in the long-term.”
    Almost all multi-cellular species reproduce using sex, but its existence is not easy to explain biologically, Gage said, because sex has big downsides – including that only half of the offspring, the daughters, will produce offspring themselves.
    “Why should any species waste all that effort on sons?” he said.
    In their study, Gage’s team evolved Tribolium flour beetles over 10 years under controlled laboratory conditions, where the only difference between populations was the intensity of sexual selection during each adult reproductive stage.

    The strength of sexual selection ranged from intense competition — where 90 males competed for only 10 females — through to the complete absence of sexual selection, with monogamous pairings in which females had no choice and males no competition.
    After seven years of reproduction, representing about 50 generations, the scientists found that populations where there had been strong sexual selection were fitter and more resilient to extinction in the face of inbreeding.
    But populations with weak or non-existent sexual selection showed more rapid declines in health under inbreeding, and all went extinct by the tenth generation.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.
    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  • #2
    Now British scientists have an explanation: Males are required for a process known as “sexual selection” which helps species to ward off disease and avoid extinction.
    Then, you'd also have to say that hypergamy and all the women seeking sex from just 20% of the men is females doing what is best for the species and that monogamy is bad for a society and polygyny is good for our genetic future.

    Which I agree with. And I think polygyny is the next thing after Gay Marriage becomes normalized. Once the Roman/Greek/Christian family model is not the only legal sexual union, polygamy is next, except it is going to be polygyny about 100 times more often than it will be polyandry or group marriages, because that is the natural way.
    Liberty, Equality, Humanity

    Comment


    • #3
      After seven years of reproduction, representing about 50 generations, the scientists found that populations where there had been strong sexual selection were fitter and more resilient to extinction in the face of inbreeding.
      But populations with weak or non-existent sexual selection showed more rapid declines in health under inbreeding, and all went extinct by the tenth generation.
      Yes. Well, all of the feminists didn't breed, and therefore didn't contaminate the gene pool.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Patriarch View Post
        [FONT=Georgia]

        Then, you'd also have to say that hypergamy and all the women seeking sex from just 20% of the men is females doing what is best for the species and that monogamy is bad for a society and polygyny is good for our genetic future.

        Which I agree with. And I think polygyny is the next thing after Gay Marriage becomes normalized. Once the Roman/Greek/Christian family model is not the only legal sexual union, polygamy is next, except it is going to be polygyny about 100 times more often than it will be polyandry or group marriages, because that is the natural way.
        There are definitely social structures that include marriage between a man and a woman -- and then both of them practice homosexuality as birth control.

        Meanwhile, I believe the incidence of closeted bisexuality is higher than we realize. Men who are sex partners in some way can actually cooperate with each other and find better female mates, if they put their heads together and help each other out. As a result, there is less individual competition between men and more competition between differing groups of men. The ability of men to cooperate and form really good and well functioning "old boys clubs" helps them attract women. And this may be because we live in a complex economy involving trade -- and men who cooperate with other men will end up being more reliable providers, given how if they have a problem that makes them unable to provide for their children, they have this whole network of male friends they know who can chip in when the going gets tough. Natural selection favors male cooperation. But not so much female cooperation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Heard on the radio that most birds mate for life. Nor is it unknown elsewhere.
          Polygyny and polygamy have a sort of flat earth reasonableness to them, like evolution theory itself, which is largely built on visual similarities. However, Monogamy represents the best method, not just for survival, but for your offspring to thrive and succeed. Its a proven fact that kids with intact, stable traditional families far outpace the ones that breed like pez dispensers and let their kids go feral.
          Your prediction will come true Patricarch, initially. But in a societal collapse short of Armageddon, it will be the nuclear families that rise from the ashes.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't see this as being overly feminist. Men's rights groups have long talked about men being the disposable sex, especially so after Warren Farrell's book. Life is hard for men. It is reflected even in our hunting laws. You can always kill way more males of a species while preserving the females. Are hunters misandrist because of this, or are they simply honoring the natural order of things.

            Something special happened in our history that allowed civilization to happen. That something included marriage for life, often enforced by religion. All the creative energy of what would have been killed off beta males was harnessed to create everything we now have. It will be interesting to see where the degeneration of that leads us.
            I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

            It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

            Comment


            • #7
              @dmschlom:
              There are definitely social structures that include marriage between a man and a woman -- and then both of them practice homosexuality as birth control.

              Meanwhile, I believe the incidence of closeted bisexuality is higher than we realize. Men who are sex partners in some way can actually cooperate with each other and find better female mates, if they put their heads together and help each other out. As a result, there is less individual competition between men and more competition between differing groups of men. The ability of men to cooperate and form really good and well functioning "old boys clubs" helps them attract women. And this may be because we live in a complex economy involving trade -- and men who cooperate with other men will end up being more reliable providers, given how if they have a problem that makes them unable to provide for their children, they have this whole network of male friends they know who can chip in when the going gets tough. Natural selection favors male cooperation. But not so much female cooperation.
              I hadn't viewed this from a Gay/Bi perspective. Interesting. It makes sense, everyone wants to place copies of their genes in the next generation. A polyamorous marriage would be a good model for Gay/Bi men to have families and live with their children's mothers.'

              I'm Libertarian, so it wouldn't bother me. I see the biggest problem is division of assets and custody of children if someone decides to divorce the family, or if factions develop and it splits into two families. More than two person marriages are going to be a new legal frontier.
              Liberty, Equality, Humanity

              Comment


              • #8
                @Crumblock:
                Heard on the radio that most birds mate for life. Nor is it unknown elsewhere.
                Polygyny and polygamy have a sort of flat earth reasonableness to them, like evolution theory itself, which is largely built on visual similarities. However, Monogamy represents the best method, not just for survival, but for your offspring to thrive and succeed. Its a proven fact that kids with intact, stable traditional families far outpace the ones that breed like pez dispensers and let their kids go feral.
                Your prediction will come true Patricarch, initially. But in a societal collapse short of Armageddon, it will be the nuclear families that rise from the ashes.
                Polygyny was a regular practice since before written history and was present in the many of the nations and empires that came before the Greeks and Romans. It in no way precludes children from having having stable homes or a proper upbringing. The only difference is the child would have more mothers and siblings. And it is highly likely that women would gravitate to wealthy men, so the women and children would be better off as part of a large prosperous family than a poor nuclear family.

                I see no problems there. If multiple hard working, well behaved people decide to get married and raise children together, where's the problem? For that mater, if two men or two women want to create a family, the outcome of the children will have much more to do with the diligence, expectations, and behavior of the parents than their gender. I have seen many examples of standard hetero families that were horror shows and produced children who will never be good citizens.
                Last edited by Patriarch; 05-19-2015, 09:57 PM.
                Liberty, Equality, Humanity

                Comment


                • #9
                  Something special happened in our history that allowed civilization to happen. That something included marriage for life, often enforced by religion. All the creative energy of what would have been killed off beta males was harnessed to create everything we now have. It will be interesting to see where the degeneration of that leads us.
                  If you read Herodotus, you will find all sorts of not nuclear family structures in the various nations he describes, and civilization was well advanced by 550 BC. Right now in our culture some sizable fraction of males go without M/F sex, while other men have defacto harems. Many great nations had polygynous marriage, including the Jews. I forget if it was David or Solomon who had many wives and a large herd of concubines.

                  If a good man and a good woman can raise good children, what precludes a good man and several good women, or in dmschlom's example, multiple people of both sexes and multiple orientations from doing the same? The basic moral rule of don't hurt people and don't steal or vandalize their stuff is true however your family is configured.
                  Liberty, Equality, Humanity

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The problem is going to be all of the beta men who no longer get minimal lack-luster beta sex. They will now be horny incels. Some incels can handle that gracefully. Others can not. We could end up with Eliot Rogers on a grand scale.

                    How will society handle this? There is no longer anything that kills off vast numbers of men and near universal monogamy is in its death throws. Even if only 1/10th of a percent of incel men go violent as a result, it won't be pretty. The state will most definitely use such occurrences to further gun control and create even more masculine punishing legislation.
                    I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

                    It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How will society handle this?
                      When is the last 10 year stretch we went without being in a war?

                      That is how it got handled in the past. There is also the possibility that women from foreign lands will migrate here to marry Incels. And there is a large fraction of guys who are not Incels, but face a rather unappetizing population of women that are available to them.

                      The current system sucks, so changes do not have to meet the test of perfection. And I do not believe we have a choice, this is going to happen next. The same logic that dictates allowing same sex marriage requires polyamorous marriage. And I believe both are the only moral way. Marriage is a solemn vow to face life together. What gives one group the right to dictate that their preferred family arrangement is the only moral one?
                      Last edited by Patriarch; 05-19-2015, 10:19 PM.
                      Liberty, Equality, Humanity

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I thought this wasn't particularly news; men are nature's testing ground. There are more mutations among men, and on a bell curve drawn of most major characteristics, there are more men at the fringes than women. Sexual selection takes the most successful new mutations and perpetuates them, leaving the less successful ones to die out, seriously accelerating the process of evolution. Asexual reproduction only produces copies. Sexual selection allows better control over which genes to pass on and which to 'fail'.
                        Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the Patriarchy. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
                        Neo: What truth?
                        Spoon boy: There is no Patriarchy.

                        Apparently, women get only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. We only have 23 cents left, but feminists insist they want the rest.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MrAndryist View Post
                          I thought this wasn't particularly news; men are nature's testing ground. There are more mutations among men, and on a bell curve drawn of most major characteristics, there are more men at the fringes than women. Sexual selection takes the most successful new mutations and perpetuates them, leaving the less successful ones to die out, seriously accelerating the process of evolution. Asexual reproduction only produces copies. Sexual selection allows better control over which genes to pass on and which to 'fail'.
                          Correct.

                          Although we [as a species] have been bending the evolution's rules for quite some time now.

                          100 years ago - the people with what we call today "minor issues" would have never had a shot at reproduction.

                          Think of asthma. Most forms of asthma are completely treatable today - but would've been lethal since childhood in 1915.
                          This created quite a large group of humans who have "inherited asthma" - at least 60 million of them worldwide (I know this because my gf has inherited asthma). My gf stood a 95% chance of survival even in 1915 because she doesn't get "code red" crises but most of her peers in the treatment group would've long been dead before reaching puberty.

                          Same can be said of more serious diseases that are now manageable (either through vaccines or treatment) - like polio, cholera... etc.
                          My IRC chat server: nonmarxism.serveirc.com

                          Or, for those who don't know how to IRC, click here: https://kiwiirc.com/client/nonmarxism.serveirc.com/avfm

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MrAndryist View Post
                            I thought this wasn't particularly news; men are nature's testing ground. There are more mutations among men, and on a bell curve drawn of most major characteristics, there are more men at the fringes than women. Sexual selection takes the most successful new mutations and perpetuates them, leaving the less successful ones to die out, seriously accelerating the process of evolution. Asexual reproduction only produces copies. Sexual selection allows better control over which genes to pass on and which to 'fail'.
                            Made that point here. It is also the reason that men aren't going anywhere if the human race is to survive.

                            Originally posted by Lucian-Valsan View Post
                            Correct.

                            Although we [as a species] have been bending the evolution's rules for quite some time now.

                            100 years ago - the people with what we call today "minor issues" would have never had a shot at reproduction.

                            Think of asthma. Most forms of asthma are completely treatable today - but would've been lethal since childhood in 1915.
                            This created quite a large group of humans who have "inherited asthma" - at least 60 million of them worldwide (I know this because my gf has inherited asthma). My gf stood a 95% chance of survival even in 1915 because she doesn't get "code red" crises but most of her peers in the treatment group would've long been dead before reaching puberty.

                            Same can be said of more serious diseases that are now manageable (either through vaccines or treatment) - like polio, cholera... etc.
                            Well, with polio and cholera, we are talking more about infectious disease, not genetic. That is what the evolutionary mutations are meant to protect us from, the infective diseases and changes in the environment.

                            Sickle cell anemia, when it is heterozygous, gives the person resistance to malaria, as the organism lives in healthy red blood cells. The homozygous disease is a killer without modern medicine.

                            Still wondering what advantage is bestowed on us by having a gene that causes diabetes.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X