Human evolution wouldn't make sense if TRP is correct.

GayLubeOil · 2018-01-30T03:28:54+00:00

Female sexual selection isn't the only driver of evolution environment is an even bigger factor. Pea Hens prefer Peacocks with big tails so logically that should lead to bigger and bigger tails over time.

However past a certain point big tails make peacocks slow and clumsy and less likely to survive. So a middle point is reached.

Anyway hope that analogy helps.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2018-01-30T03:11:41+00:00

Are betas the pinnacle of human evolution?

betas are the current height of human DOMESTICATION with regard to the development of advanced technological civilization and urbanization, not the "pinnacle of human evolution"--evolution doesnt work that way

civilization has caused an accidental "silver fox domestication project" in humans

Electra_Cute · 2018-01-30T02:00:57+00:00

What and who is considered “Alpha” varies with such wide chasm of subjectivity that any discussion involving the terms “Alpha” or “Beta” are useless. The amount of contradictions, moralizing and subjectivity causes everyone to just talk over each other, these terms should stop being used in my opinion and people should just describe the traits they are referring to instead at this point.

You can see how you arbitrarily decided that “Alphas” have high amounts of testesorone, this automatically makes a contradiction because people who are on the autism spectrum usually have high levels of testerone, usually prenatal. What if a female participated in hormone transplant therapy, transgender males have high levels of testerone, does that make them Alpha? What if a male is taking testerone pills, is he an Alpha then?

reluctantly_red · 2018-01-30T02:55:09+00:00

OP has the driver of human evolution all wrong. Brute force isn't what makes us dangerous. Its our ability to fashion and use tools and weapons. David bested Goliath because he had a weapon and was skilled at using it. Evolution favors the fittest -- and the fittest are not always the strongest.

Whisper · 2018-01-30T12:39:44+00:00

Evolution doesn't have a pinnacle, a plan, or a direction. It chases whatever the totality of current local conditions favour.

DaphneDK42 · 2018-01-30T12:10:52+00:00

Alpha is a reproductive strategy (r) which works well for a subset of males, and especially under certain conditions - in times of societal collapse or when female sexuality is highly unconstrained.

Beta is another reproductive strategy (k) which works better when society is more civilised and both female and male sexuality are under more moral and legal restraints.

aqStorm · 2018-01-30T14:31:12+00:00

Women are attracted to alpha males not always in the physical sense bud, it's personality that draws them in, a dangerous alpha male gets women wet, it's a primitive thing.

Same reason why chicks wanna bang Ted Bundy. Cold blooded, dangerous, remorseless man, it's the raw definition of a badboy for a female and it makes them shiver.

They want a tough minded, detached , low empathic male to treat them good, that will make them feel special.

PBRScagsquad · 2018-01-30T01:54:23+00:00

Ever hear of the agricultural era and hunter gatherer societies?

polyconfused38 · 2018-01-30T02:33:52+00:00

I’ve thought this a lot myself. Amateur evolutionary theory is always dicey and hence i tend to stay away from it but here are some flaws I see in TRP thinking about “evolution”:

it discounts the possibility that different women might use a wide variety of strategy in mating instead of all simply going for the most “alpha” man they can find at the expense of all other traits.
it overemphasizes the individualistic aspect of evolution and discounts that we might have some group-oriented evolutionary traits. For example, human survival has benefitted from a society with a division of labor and roles. This requires different people with different traits, so different women may have instincts to mate with different kinds of men as a result.

concacanca · 2018-01-30T02:00:13+00:00

But RP espouses a mix of Alpha and Beta characteristics.

Plus it's possible to be Alpha and still intelligent or creative. I don't see how that really disqualifies evolution.

squidracer · 2018-01-30T03:13:38+00:00

Your forgetting about nutrition. Even if women select the most alpha male, her child's growth will partly be determined by nutrition. Several generations of poor nutrition makes for smaller people

EsauTheRed · 2018-01-30T04:37:42+00:00

You are really dumb

Eastuss · 2018-01-30T08:29:05+00:00

TRP doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand TRP.

which causes the individual to acquire "primitive" characteristics like large jaws and bones in general

Those aren't primitive characteristics. Wtf. Primitive characteristics are being STUPID, everything else is about traits more or less efficient on certain environments.

muscles and aggressiveness, all traits that slowly disappeared during our evolution.

Muscles? We still have muscles. It is clear that in the animal domain we're not the strongest mofos.

But that is because of the way we hunted. We are relentless chasers. We hunt preys on long distance, we win because of our superior cooling system (no air + sweating) and our stamina and agility (biped, ability to carry things, especially water). It makes sense that in such environment we evolve toward reduced muscle mass.

There are two types of aggressiveness. Aggressiveness as violence. Aggressiveness as ambition. Humans have always been aggressive in the way they acquire resources, territories, security, knowledges....

Since back then things were very dangerous for women, it could have something to do with that research showing that women in dangerous, rural areas are more attracted to low testosterone males?

In dangerous rural areas, women are attracted to men who have shit done and who are willing to protect them. An alpha male has more options and won't dedicate his resource and his life to a single woman, that is why. He fucks the women then he has beta men protect these women for him. In ancient rules it wasn't unusual that the lord of the area fucks the woman at her marriage before the husband.

notworthmuch20xx · 2018-01-30T01:51:20+00:00

Hunter gatherer and especially agricultural societies allowed for beta genes to flourish

madscientistlove · Tue Jan 30 2:00:29 2018 UTC

Removed for incel content. Edit the bit about incels out of your post and I will reapprove it. Please comment to let me know when you have done so.

zarmock · 2018-01-30T04:05:41+00:00

"primitive" characteristics like large jaws and bones in general, muscles and aggressiveness, all traits that slowly disappeared during our evolution.

None of these traits has disappeared. not sure where your getting this idea.

Have you been to a gym or seen a movie with a male shirtless actor lately?

disposableboyfriend · 2018-01-30T05:21:50+00:00

For a long time -- a very, very long time, up until about 10-15,000 years ago when people invented agriculture, and going back 50-200,000 years when anatomically-modern humans appeared, and probably even further back when our almost-human but not-quite-human ancestors roamed the earth -- women were faced with a choice. They could mate with alphas, and their children would have superior genes. That came at a risk, however. All women wanted alphas, so there was stiff competition. Life was dangerous, and women needed support and protection during their pregnancy, and their children likewise needed support and protection for at least the first few years of their life. The risk was that the alpha would leave her for another woman, and she and/or her children would not survive. The other option was to mate with a beta. The demand for betas was not as great, and there was a larger chance that the beta would stick around and help the woman throughout her pregnancy, and later with taking care of the young. This came at the price of less than superior genes.

Some women mated with alphas, managed to survive themselves, and managed to ensure the survival of their children. These children, possessing alpha genes, had a higher chance of passing them on to the next generation. Some women mated with alphas and died, or had their children die. Other women mated with betas. More of such women and their children survived, but their children had a smaller chance of passing on their genes. Some women, and a larger portion of men, did not mate with anybody.

There are genetic studies that show that more women contributed their DNA to the human gene pool than men. In other words, more women managed to have children than men. The numbers differ -- sometimes it's 80:20, or 60:40, or even 17:1, but the trend is the same.

In general, I imagine some kind of equilibrium arose. Alpha genes were highly sought-after, but had a slightly smaller chance of surviving. Beta genes were less sought-after, but had a higher chance of surviving. Both of them, balancing against each other, were slowly pushing out the genes of less-than-beta men, and of women with whom nobody wanted to breed.

As humans and pre-humans were doing all of this for hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer, all kinds of genes that influence mate selection spread throughout the population, in both men and women. We call such things instincts. After all, if a person's choices in selecting a mate are influenced by his or her genes, and the influence is positive, then that person is more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation, as are his or her children, and so on and so forth.

There is a reason why women generally prefer tall and muscular men – they are stronger, and in prehistoric times, they were more likely to successfully protect the woman and her children against other men, or against wild animals.

There is a reason why men prefer younger women – their children tend to be healthier, and such women have more reproductive years remaining.

There is a reason why men prefer women with a low waist-to-hip ratio – such women are less likely to already be pregnant.

There is a reason why both men and women find fatness to be unattractive. In prehistoric times, calories were difficult to acquire, and being fat was a sign of disease rather than opulence. Likewise, there is a reason both sexes find good skin and teeth to be attractive – these are signs of health.

GlibPerspective · 2018-01-30T05:28:47+00:00

all traits that slowly disappeared during our evolution.

what does this mean. your argument's not really coherent

BisquitBill · 2018-01-30T06:41:19+00:00

Are betas the pinnacle of human evolution?

Evolution doesn't care about pills.

lbspredh · 2018-01-30T11:47:14+00:00

Well balancing that strength and power against the need to run from predators and towards prey

sadomasochrist · 2018-01-30T19:00:07+00:00

Agriculture

Entropy-7 · 2018-01-31T01:51:55+00:00

Life has become progressively easier over the last few millenia and the institution of monogamous marriage has allowed beta males to pass on their genes. Plus, in the last century or so boys have been beta socialized.

1UPZ_ · 2018-02-02T10:41:00+00:00

evolution does not have a set path, its about adaption to the environment.

Poster515 · 2018-01-30T06:49:39+00:00

Studies actually show women in more turbulent areas wrought with greater incidences of violence, poverty, upheaval, war, political instability, lack of resources etc. prefer men with more masculine features. I do agree evolution points in the direction of more androgynous phenotypes though.

AutoModerator · 2018-01-30T01:50:01+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Title	Human evolution wouldn't make sense if TRP is correct.
Author	Minhoquento
Upvotes	3
Comments	43
Date	January 30, 2018 1:50 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/7txims/human_evolution_wouldnt_make_sense_if_trp_is/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/human-evolution-wouldnt-make-sense-if-trp-is.263786 https://theredarchive.com/post/263786

Comments