“Masculinity is a decorative feature that is essentially counter-productive.”

[Dexter Sinister]

As a example to help my argument that it only takes one male. The rest I have no idea where you got that from.

It's basic evolutionary biology, which shows that your argument is wrong. If in fact it took only one male in every hundred people, that's what evolution would have produced, but nowhere has it produced a gender ratio like that, in any species. There are other factors involved than just the number of offspring that can be produced.

 

[Angstrom]

It's basic evolutionary biology, which shows that your argument is wrong. If in fact it took only one male in every hundred people, that's what evolution would have produced, but nowhere has it produced a gender ratio like that, in any species. There are other factors involved than just the number of offspring that can be produced.

But that's not at all what I said. So obviously you have not understood. I mention nothing about evolution of gender ratio. I said males evolved into a gender role of risk taker as they are not the base limite of the ability of a tribe to give birth.

As in, if all but one male died while taking high risks, the tribe would struggle from this lost but could easily recover from the lost of 50% of its population.

If a tribe lost all but one women, the tribe would shrink from 100 down to how many kids this one women can have before that generation grows old and dies.

You could possibly see a decline in the tribes population.

 

[Blackleaf]

 

[Angstrom]

It's basic evolutionary biology, which shows that your argument is wrong. If in fact it took only one male in every hundred people, that's what evolution would have produced, but nowhere has it produced a gender ratio like that, in any species. There are other factors involved than just the number of offspring that can be produced.

I didn't talk about humans evolving into a gender ratio of 1:99 because reproduction is the base ability to achieving survival, but there are many risky tasks to do to help It along the way.

That's why males evolved into a gender role of risk taking, because the risk of building a house is high, but the reward of the shelter will help survival rates, and life expectancy.
It's why still today you don't see many women in construction. Their ability to make children is much more valuable. So we have evolved to naturally protect the women from risk.

If s male dies building a house, it wouldn't effect the tribes ability to birth children and grow its population.
But if a women dies building a house, the tribe has suffered a lost in its base ability to grow its population.

 

[Johnnny]

Don't know yet. Was talking to his girlfriend out on the street
and she'd just found it parked in front of her house an hour
before that. She's not sure where he found it, and thought
the SWAT team was on the block as she was pulling up.

He's going to make a camper out of it from the sounds of it.

Tell them not to forget the leather.. Sure she will really like that :lol:

 

[Ron in Regina]

Tell them not to forget the leather.. Sure she will really like that :lol:

You know my neighbours? Which one are you?

 

[Johnnny]

You know my neighbours? Which one are you?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

But that's not at all what I said. So obviously you have not understood. I mention nothing about evolution of gender ratio.

I know you didn't, I raised the matter to counter your argument and it's you who's not understanding. You're right as far as you go, but it is fundamentally wrong to argue that a 1:99 gender ratio would work. In any species that reproduces sexually, the evolutionarily stable gender ratio is 1:1, and if it's not 1:1 in a given population natural selection will shift it that way over time. That's called Fisher's Principle, it's one of the most important and celebrated results in evolutionary theory.

 

[Angstrom]

I know you didn't, I raised the matter to counter your argument and it's you who's not understanding. You're right as far as you go, but it is fundamentally wrong to argue that a 1:99 gender ratio would work. In any species that reproduces sexually, the evolutionarily stable gender ratio is 1:1, and if it's not 1:1 in a given population natural selection will shift it that way over time. That's called Fisher's Principle, it's one of the most important and celebrated results in evolutionary theory.

I only stated a tribe could easily cope with the death of all but one of its male.
And that a tribe that lost all but one of its females would have a sharp decline in population.

I never spoke of birth ratio. I only spoke of the ability to cope and survive lost of life within a tribe. And that lost of female members impact more the ability to reproduce then the lost of males.
So how can I argue against you if your not talking about what I'm talking?

I never stated a 1/99 ratio would work. I stated a 1 male / 99 women ratio would not have as much of a problem coping then a 99 male / 1 male ratio who would likely have a sharp population decline.

So why are you trying to argue with me about something I didn't say?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You explicitly stated that it takes only one male in a hundred people, I can't see how that could mean anything else but that it would work. It wouldn't.

 

[Angstrom]

You explicitly stated that it takes only one male in a hundred people, I can't see how that could mean anything else but that it would work. It wouldn't.

I argued that it would work better then relatively to 99 males/1 female. As in the population ratio, not the birthing ratio. How can I argue against you when you can't even understand simple relativity and take a statement I said and remove it from its relative context?

Yes if I remove the relative context of my statement my point is no longer valid. But how is taking someone's statement out of context a valid argument against them?

 

[Curious Cdn]

I argued that it would work better then relatively to 99 males/1 female. As in the population ratio, not the birthing ratio. How can I argue against you when you can't even understand simple relativity and take a statement I said and remove it from its relative context?

Yes if I remove the relative context of my statement my point is no longer valid. But how is taking someone's statement out of context a valid argument against them?

It certainly works for big herds of ruminants.


It's the endless "nag, nag, nag" of a hundred wives, though ...

 

[Angstrom]

You explicitly stated that it takes only one male in a hundred people, I can't see how that could mean anything else but that it would work. It wouldn't.

That your arguing fisher's principal, in this situation proves to me that, you have only read the principal without truly understanding and comprehending what it really means in the real world.

Not that I'm surprised. You haven't shown very good reading comprehension in general from what I can observe. What I'm trying to say is.

Your basically a hack.

 

[Jinentonix]

Holy crap! Well at least now we know what happened to Baby Jane.

 

[Rexdale]

The whole premise of the hypothetical is flawed, it makes the presumption that the only consideration in human survival is reproduction and that a male population does not grant any advantage in real world scenarios.
In the real world, a tribe with 99 males would offer better protection, win the competition for resources and territory and probably end up with the 99 women from the other tribe. Life doesn't exist is a vacuum and physical dominance has always been a part of survival.
It also ignores the fact that genetic flaws of the individual male would be carried throughout the entire offspring and that having all of the offspring as half siblings is an extremely shallow gene pool that could percievably create a multitude of issues that could also be detrimental to the survival of the group.

 

[Angstrom]

The whole premise of the hypothetical is flawed, it makes the presumption that the only consideration in human survival is reproduction and that a male population does not grant any advantage in real world scenarios.
In the real world, a tribe with 99 males would offer better protection, win the competition for resources and territory and probably end up with the 99 women from the other tribe. Life doesn't exist is a vacuum and physical dominance has always been a part of survival.
It also ignores the fact that genetic flaws of the individual male would be carried throughout the entire offspring and that having all of the offspring as half siblings is an extremely shallow gene pool that could percievably create a multitude of issues that could also be detrimental to the survival of the group.

That's right, reality is extremely situational. But that doesn't take away the fact women are more importent in the birth processes then males. It's simple reality, How can we deny the hard proof and fact that women Are the ones pregnant for 9 months and breastfeed not males.

How can you call that hypothetical and flawed?

I'm not ignoring all the other relative situations. I'm simply stating that women are the base denominator for successful reproduction. You even make the argument for me. By saying, the 99 males would go steal the other tribes females.

Women are very valuable if you would consider stealing them to reproduce.

 

[Rexdale]

Ok, but if what you are arguing is that 1 male and 99 women would "work better", than that is only true in the short term. The reproduction rate in the short term would be higher but the survivability of the tribe in the long term would be greatly diminished.

In this scenario, it is true that the man could potentially impregnate all 99 women in a short time. The problem is all 99 offspring would share 50% of their genetic code, as would the offspring of the offspring. Any genetic flaw would stay recessive throughout the tribe.

In the 1 women scenerio. She might only be able to produce 4 female children in her lifetime but each would have access to a mate which would enrich the gene pool of the following generation. In the long term this would offer better resistance to disease, a wider range of preferable traits and would also limit the risk of an entire tribe carrying a debilitating hereditary disease.

 

[Angstrom]

Ok, but if what you are arguing is that 1 male and 99 women would "work better", than that is only true in the short term. The reproduction rate in the short term would be higher but the survivability of the tribe in the long term would be greatly diminished.

In this scenario, it is true that the man could potentially impregnate all 99 women in a short time. The problem is all 99 offspring would share 50% of their genetic code, as would the offspring of the offspring. Any genetic flaw would stay recessive throughout the tribe.

In the 1 women scenerio. She might only be able to produce 4 female children in her lifetime but each would have access to a mate which would enrich the gene pool of the following generation. In the long term this would offer better resistance to disease, a wider range of preferable traits and would also limit the risk of an entire tribe carrying a debilitating hereditary disease.

Can we not argue this is how a species can also develop into its own race, and eventually develop into its own completely new species? Even when not ideal, I'm not sure chronic old age health issues really stop a race from achieving survival.

I can observe many animals on earth everyday who don't achieve their full potential life expectancy, but still manage to birth the next generation of its kind before dieing. I argue that the long term effect are still very minor compared massive population decline.

White people are white because at one given time limited DNA reproduced and survived to the next generation.

I think you grossly overestimate the negative long term effects. We could even argue that if this one man survived he would have based on very strong survival traits. And these strong traits would greatly outweigh the negatives.

 

[taxslave]

I know you didn't, I raised the matter to counter your argument and it's you who's not understanding. You're right as far as you go, but it is fundamentally wrong to argue that a 1:99 gender ratio would work. In any species that reproduces sexually, the evolutionarily stable gender ratio is 1:1, and if it's not 1:1 in a given population natural selection will shift it that way over time. That's called Fisher's Principle, it's one of the most important and celebrated results in evolutionary theory.

You ever been out of the city?

The whole premise of the hypothetical is flawed, it makes the presumption that the only consideration in human survival is reproduction and that a male population does not grant any advantage in real world scenarios.
In the real world, a tribe with 99 males would offer better protection, win the competition for resources and territory and probably end up with the 99 women from the other tribe. Life doesn't exist is a vacuum and physical dominance has always been a part of survival.
It also ignores the fact that genetic flaws of the individual male would be carried throughout the entire offspring and that having all of the offspring as half siblings is an extremely shallow gene pool that could percievably create a multitude of issues that could also be detrimental to the survival of the group.

I see you never been out of the city either.
A good number of animal species have one Alpha male and a number of females. Basically as many as he can hang on to.This goes on until he is run off by a new ALpha male thereby guaranteeing the prime male does the majority of the breeding.

 

[Rexdale]

Can we not argue this is how a species can also develop into its own race, and eventually develop into its own completely new species? Even when not ideal, I'm not sure chronic old age health issues really stop a race from achieving survival.

Genetic mutation can sometimes have positive benifits but more often than not, the consequences are detrimental. A good example of this can be observed in the Amish communities of Pennsylvania where the population started with 200 settlers and endogamy is the common practice, the term used to describe this is genetic drift:

if individuals in the group tend to marry within it, there's a greater likelihood that the recessive genes of the founders will come together in the cells that produce offspring. Thus diseases of recessive genes, which require two copies of the gene to cause the disease, will show up more frequently than they would if the population married outside the group.

In the Amish, in fact, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome has been traced back to one couple, Samuel King and his wife, who came to the area in 1744. The mutated gene that causes the syndrome was passed along from the Kings and their offspring, and today it is many times more common in the Amish population than in the American population at large

.
Evolution: Library: Genetic Drift and the Founder Effect
In order for a genetic mutation to be beneficial it needs to provide an environmental advantage to the species being changed, because of the random nature of mutation, the odds of a genetic change conforming to the environment in a way that helps is extremely small and occurs over thousands of years, not a few generations.

I see you never been out of the city either.
A good number of animal species have one Alpha male and a number of females. Basically as many as he can hang on to.This goes on until he is run off by a new ALpha male thereby guaranteeing the prime male does the majority of the breeding.

Hmm, well it's an interesting strategy but I dont see what your point is since we are the ones at the top of the food chain. If you are saying you are capable of having sex with a relative, I cant argue. If you are saying its a good idea, I strongly disagree.