Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS

12-11-2012 , 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiper
crowd did a pretty good job of not completely losing their **** there. no ****ing way i'm not insta-high fiving the guy.

well done.
Pretty awesome. Happened at a coffee shop not too far from where I live.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-11-2012 , 11:04 PM
You have the older children help raise the younger ones ldo.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-11-2012 , 11:05 PM
i feel like i'm obliged to tell you guys how old you are/sound here.

although you're obviously correct with this theorem.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-11-2012 , 11:34 PM
I disagree (in part). I think wealth/intelligence is becoming even more important in today's world.

Intelligence does not equal fancy degrees. It does include emotional management and other aspects. A reasonably intelligent somewhat well-off parent will be able to exponentially better manage children's learning, emotional temperament, diet, etc. with today's technology than a similar parent in the 50s - 90s.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-11-2012 , 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu_22
In the past, intelligence was a trait that actually helped you to survive which is the reason it evolved. But in today's society, you don't have to be intelligent to survive and reproduce, and coupled with the fact that the dumber individuals seem to have a greater reproductive fitness (they're winning!) i can see the average intelligence of the human race decreasing over the centuries. At least until we come up with an effective and accessible way to genetically supplement our offspring which would artificially give human intelligence a boost.
I don't really buy this. I mean, yes, it's true, but it's also true that probably most people who've survived for this long have the natural intelligence to survive in primitive society. I also think that while intelligence is selected for, so is physical strength, etc., and certainly that's not being selected for in the same way.

Quote:
Related, the female pelvic opening size was ldo highly selected for due to the fact that if they baby's head couldn't fit through there, you and your baby died. Now we have C-sections so that selective pressure is effectively removed and women's hips will be getting smaller over the centuries, and a "regular" birth will be almost unheard of in the future. (I think this is basically the case in some breeds of dogs too but im not sure.) Just a theory slash random musings that I just had
AFAIK, breeds of dogs are heavily inbred and these are the kinds of things that happen when you do that. Humanity is the opposite.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu_22
In the past, intelligence was a trait that actually helped you to survive which is the reason it evolved. But in today's society, you don't have to be intelligent to survive and reproduce, and coupled with the fact that the dumber individuals seem to have a greater reproductive fitness (they're winning!) i can see the average intelligence of the human race decreasing over the centuries. At least until we come up with an effective and accessible way to genetically supplement our offspring which would artificially give human intelligence a boost.

Related, the female pelvic opening size was ldo highly selected for due to the fact that if they baby's head couldn't fit through there, you and your baby died. Now we have C-sections so that selective pressure is effectively removed and women's hips will be getting smaller over the centuries, and a "regular" birth will be almost unheard of in the future. (I think this is basically the case in some breeds of dogs too but im not sure.) Just a theory slash random musings that I just had
I really, really ****ing doubt this last paragraph is true. Evolution works on long time scales, and c-sections have not been common for long. The first one was in 1880s, and far from that prevalent a few decades back.

Also, your first paragraph is demonstrably wrong. Societal evolution wrt to education is responsible for massive intelligence gains in the human race and will move faster than any biological evolution.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:03 AM
Dumber people tend to have more children so intelligence is gonna get pretty diluted in the gene pool soon
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:11 AM
Is it more ignorance or intelligence? Think it has more to do with frying their childs brain with Honey Boo Boo over stressing education.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:20 AM
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
I really, really ****ing doubt this last paragraph is true. Evolution works on long time scales, and c-sections have not been common for long. The first one was in 1880s, and far from that prevalent a few decades back.

Also, your first paragraph is demonstrably wrong. Societal evolution wrt to education is responsible for massive intelligence gains in the human race and will move faster than any biological evolution.
That's why I said over centuries worth of time scales, bro

To your second paragraph: yes. But imagine how great we could be if that societal evolution was applied to a genetically superior version of the human race
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu_22
Related, the female pelvic opening size was ldo highly selected for due to the fact that if they baby's head couldn't fit through there, you and your baby died. Now we have C-sections so that selective pressure is effectively removed and women's hips will be getting smaller over the centuries, and a "regular" birth will be almost unheard of in the future. (I think this is basically the case in some breeds of dogs too but im not sure.) Just a theory slash random musings that I just had
Yeah I don't know about this. I thought there were studies that showed that the #1 thing a guy looks for in a mate is hips:waist ratio (women look for height - if nothing else is known).

I'm fully aware of C-sections but I hate women with narrow hips and think they look terrible and love wide-hipped women.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:42 AM
Male preference evolved essentially as the result of the necessity of the trait for female reproduction. Yes sexual selection could play a part, of course, but sexual selection usually isn't as strong as selection caused by something so cut-and-dry, directly responsible for survival/reproduction or death. Now I'm not saying that women would have dude hips or anything, but over a long period of time I believe that a noticeable shrinkage, at least of the birth canal whatever it's called opening, would occur

I've got a bio degree and spent a fair bit of time studying evolution and doing some research and could go on for hours on this stuff. But human evolution is a pretty murky subject since there's so many things that you have to account for due to the fact that we are now civilized and live in a society where natural selection doesn't play much of a role anymore
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
As someone with two kids I honestly have no idea how it is possible to responsibly parent three or more children.
inb4 Riverman's 3rd child
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:51 AM
But I mean isn't visually preferring a woman with wide hips so ingrained in men that that trait still will look attractive to them (even if unnecessary?)

Women don't really need men to be tall and strong anymore (though studies show taller men typically earn more $ throughout their life). But we're not out hunting and killing people and trying to defend our family and ****. Height is pretty unnecessary but women still will be visually attracted to tall guys for centuries upon centuries I imagine. Even though they are fully aware of elevator shoes. lol
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:55 AM
Yeah, I'm sure. I just don't think that will be enough to entirely prevent change
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:56 AM
2nd paragraph is false, if there is no selection pressure hip size won't change, not decrease.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 12:57 AM
Quote:
I guess we agree to disagree. I've had multiple girls tell me flat out if there boyfriend magically overnight went from 6'1 to 5'7 that they wouldn't date them. That they are super attracted to his height for "protection" reasons and the fact that they like showing off that they date a tall guy. At 5'7 they can't show that off. "Show off" were one girls words I remember distinctly
Quote:
I have a friend that believes in playing the odds with girls and not wasting his time. He believes that no guy should waste his time talking to a girl over 5'5 if they are under 6 feet. Seems about right. 5'11 should talk to 5'5 and shorter. Maybe 5'4 and shorter if you want to start off playing better percentages and not going for Hail Marys.

5'7 and talking to 5'5 is a Hail Mary.
(these quotes are for lol but this topic currently itt is fairly interesting)

Last edited by Eltbus; 12-12-2012 at 12:59 AM. Reason: lol student life sub
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:02 AM
GIMME SEVEN OF THEM WIDE BIRTHING HIPS

Read every phb post in Jon Gruden voice now.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:03 AM
From reddit, screenshotted from a Peter King article:

Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayz
2nd paragraph is false, if there is no selection pressure hip size won't change, not decrease.
False, selective pressure (fitting the head during birth) maintained the hip size at a size that it would not have been otherwise. Without that pressure, variation will still produce women with smaller hips, but these women will not be removed from the gene pool as they would have been say 200 years ago or w/e. Drift will move the average hip size back towards being a bit narrower
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut2010
GIMME SEVEN OF THEM WIDE BIRTHING HIPS

Read every phb post in Jon Gruden voice now.
LOLLLL
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:06 AM
SPIDER 2 WIDE BANANA
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayz
From reddit, screenshotted from a Peter King article:

Couldn't believe it so I googled it. Checks out.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:08 AM
The Seahawks will buck that trend this year imo.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote
12-12-2012 , 01:09 AM
Not as lulz worthy in context.
Quote:
Low Seeds Rule. Since 2005, Super Bowl winners are 12-0 on the road in the playoffs. The last seven champs have played only seven home games in all, in addition to the 12 road games, which means the champ has come out of the pack of those teams that often end up scrambling to make the playoffs at the end.
Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS Quote

      
m