Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

I understand the mechanics of evolution as per the butterflies and other examples of evolution of physical characteristics that give an organism a better chance of surviving to reproduce (and rear, where relevant) offspring.

I don't " understand it to the end where it enlightens my understanding of human behaviour. "

meow, yes, groups of organisms adapt to changing conditions.

But this does not prove that, if an individual organism has a certain characteristic, that characteristic must be the product of evolution. It could also be mad-made or acquired (painted nails, for example, or the ability to recite Daffodils from memory). We have not yet established that the violence in human males that's being discussed in this thread is an evolutionary characteristic, and not one that is acquired.

Constantly repeating that you are talking about evolution, or claiming that himalaya or someone else has expressed what you were trying to say, but then seeming unable to remember what that was next time you post, is not quite cutting it.

point taken LRD, i'm not really in a position with my grammatical skills to cut it, but i'm trying.
when you say you understand evolution, you understand that single cell organismes over millions of year became people right?

but do you understand it to the end where it enlightens your understanding of human behavoir?

this is now featuring inception-style levels of insania

you may be able to explain the impact selective pressures on relative population ratios of dimorphic species, but can you snach the pebble from my hand?????

It was an exceptionally fast evolutionary change, facilitated of course by the fairly short lifespan of butterflies and the degree of natural variance already present in the colouring of said butterflies between black and grey.

How did it happen, meow? Take us half way.

I thought Himalaya was using evolutionary psychology to interpret these changes rather than evolution. They're not really interchangeable disciplines as far as I know.

Yes, I do know that. I did it in primary school.

what are the mechanics of evolution? they cannot be expressed in a post, that would take essays, volumes.
you know the butterflys that changes colour from white to black during the induistrail revolution?, if you understand how that happend your half way there.

I understand evolution.

You, unfortunately, have said very little that had to do with evolution.

Constantly repeating that you are talking about evolution, or claiming that himalaya or someone else has expressed what you were trying to say, but then seeming unable to remember what that was next time you post, is not quite cutting it.

sorry LRD but you dont get evolution, i was trying to tread carefully, but if you thought it was performance art i'm hartily flatterd .

Ooh, is it how my smartphone has a 3G signal too?

doctrine - it's how we got the third-generation porsche boxter.

I suspect it is performance, if not art, chibi, let's put it that way!

Meow, what are the mechanics of evolution?

Thanks.

*your posts are articulate and well written, but you dont understand the mechanics of evolution, your posts are evedence of this.

try not to take that the wrong way, i dont have a clue about cubism or reletivity, you cant know it all, it's ok to not get it.

your more clued up where it comes to social pressures on people.

i'm sorry if this post sounds incredibly patronising. it isnt ment that way.*

is this performance art??????

I do understand the mechanics of evolution, perfectly well.

But thanks for accepting you know you sound patronizing. That at least is a start - when you learn to stop doing it, as well as to offer half-hearted apologies, we might get somewhere.

yes LRD the nature v nurture debate will go on , endlessly
listen, LRD, i really dont want to offend you, and your clearly an inteligent woman, your posts are articulate and well written, but you dont understand the mechanics of evolution, your posts are evedence of this.

try not to take that the wrong way, i dont have a clue about cubism or reletivity, you cant know it all, it's ok to not get it.

your more clued up where it comes to social pressures on people.

i'm sorry if this post sounds incredibly patronising. it isnt ment that way.

But himalaya, evolution surely happens over a very long period of time - I don't see how you can still credit it as the motivating force beind social situations that may only have existed for a couple of thousand years? And indeed, where the motivating factors behind partner choice change from century to century?

Surely you don't mean that, because my great-great-great-great grandfather perhaps chose his daughter's husband on the basis of said husband having a field next to his, therefore ownership of fields has become an evolutionary trait over the last couple of hundred years. And if that is patently absurd, why is it not absurd to question whether arranged marriage can really be said to have perpetuated sexual selection on principles unchanged since we were primitive humans?

Surely the role of a rapidly changing society has to be taken into account?

If you look at human history, you find people who manage to reproduce despite really pretty rotten odds, because there was immense social benefit to be gained from forcing them to do so. Doesn't that skew the picture? Obviously there's a threshold below which unsuccessful matings don't produce offspring, but I think it's fairly low, isn't it, compared with the optimum?

POfPG

Re: who does the choosing in an arranged marriage type situation.

Yes you are right, it niggled me when I wrote it too.

I said 'parents' for simplicity -mothers and mother-in-laws do play a role. I don't think it implies equality though - more different pressures on males and females as potential parents and grandparents.

We all come from a long line of people who survived and who had grandchildren. Not one person in our direct lineage failed to do these two things.

So while in legal, property or status terms we might see things in terms of the "male line", in evolutionary terms we come from a long line of survivor females as well, who benefitted (in reproductive terms) both from the way their own genes were expressed but also those of the men who they had children with.

It doesn't matter who has the "final say from an evolutionary point of view -I.e. Survival has the last say.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/other_subjects/267947-evolution-and-feminism?pg=3&order=

Interesting thread from five years ago (yikes!) - unfortunately the final non-OP post was about sentences for false rape allegations.

Plus ca change, plus la mème chôse..

Yes, it'd be interesting to discuss it as science, I agree.

I think my issue is, I think a lot of this thread - unfortunately - has been more about bashing feminists and claiming science as a back up. I really like trying to understand the scientific theories behind things, but I think it's hard to discuss here because when we query or disagree with each other, it's hard to separate that from other agendas.

LRD - I agree the evolution stuff is out of place on this thread but it's a conversation I'd like to have some time. I wish there was a science section.

Yes SGM I've always understood that women's prisons are full of shoplifters and TV licence defaulters.

Clearly, wherever you look in the world, the vast majority of violence is being committed by men.