Why did evolution design it so that weak female genes are kept in the gene pool, but weak male genes are supposed to get bred out?

Mrs_Drgree · 2020-05-07T14:34:10+00:00

You realize that 99.99% of genes are both male and female genes? It's not like, a whole different set of DNA.

TheKarmicWoosh2 · 2020-05-07T14:37:31+00:00

Because you don't understand evolution. "Weak" or "Strong" genes only make sense in the context of survival in a given environment. Allele frequency will increase in a population as long as they can keep getting passed on.

If a population of Humans in 100000BC had 300IQs but never had many children due to the same set of genes affecting fertility they just aren't passing on those genes, no matter how useful their ingelligence could be in the natural world.

RepresentativeSwan1 · 2020-05-07T14:43:11+00:00

Because the male that mates with all the hot women and all the ugly women has a greater chance of genetic propagation than the male that only mates with the hot women.

The same is not true for women, for whom mating is very costly. For them, mating opportunities must be saved for more promising genetic prospects.

The goal of an organism (if you want to call it a 'goal'), is maximal gene propagation. Not 'breeding out weak genes'.

BumblingBeta · 2020-05-07T14:48:00+00:00

[deleted]

wtknight · 2020-05-07T14:43:53+00:00

The less attractive women are going to have less sex, so they won't be having as many children, so their genes are still being bred out somewhat. The system is designed to prevent population bottlenecks, like what happened to humans long in the past, at the same time that it's designed to weed out bad genes. The female ability to give birth to a child is much more valuable than the male ability to provide sperm, hence even unattractive women can have some sex.

Unfortunately, unattractive men are the ones who suffer from this system, so men need to do whatever it takes to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.

Asbelowsoaboveme · 2020-05-07T14:49:11+00:00

XX is more stable than XY, so males with bad genes are more likely to express those genes than females. A male is also much more capable of spreading his genes through the population than his female equivalent. Wtknight has the best comment so far in this thread, refer to that

BumblingBeta · 2020-05-07T14:33:07+00:00

"evolution" "design"

Ssimpthrrroway · 2020-05-07T14:35:22+00:00

Im pretty sure a woman with "bad genes" have better genes than her brother.

DangZagnut · 2020-05-07T14:37:43+00:00

The same reason women are more submissive.

The strong ones who fought back didn't have as many children and the submissive ones who couldn't escape.

So women are "weaker" because those are the ones who couldn't get away fast enough, so strength was bred out of them.

AutoModerator · 2020-05-07T14:32:26+00:00

Attention!

IT'S PUUUUUUURGE WEEEEEEEEEK

Booyah.

Once in a while there are no rules.

(Well, there are still reddit wide rules. No Breaking THEM or the admins will fuck us up.)

Otherwise go nuts.

For a limited time THERE ARE NO RULES HERE

Explanation of Purge Week

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

VadJag · 2020-05-07T14:39:39+00:00

Everything you said is wrong but you are too locked into your "wow is me" world view to bother explaining how. You WANT to be like this.

GrievenLeague · 2020-05-07T14:41:40+00:00

If you start thinking that being able to get pregnant is somehow a weak gene, please take a chair and break it over your head like 10 times at least.

Westerners are fucking retarded.

Ham51am · 2020-05-07T14:49:55+00:00

I think you answered your own question with society being the enforcement model. Liberalism has caused a reversal of evolutionary progress. This forced monogamy weeds out some genes, but only the very weakest ones. Probably <3% or something of people would be incapable of finding a companion in such a society.

Also, what guy with a decent set of genes is fucking landwales? Chad isn't going to them.

Saladin19 · 2020-05-07T15:00:33+00:00

That's completely untrue

Zippo-Cat · 2020-05-07T15:02:56+00:00

Because if both males and females are selective, you risk into running of not having enough offspring to propagate the species. Imagine if only (top) 20% of women had children. That's fucking terrible, each woman would need TEN kids to survive to adolescence just to break even.

And if neither males nor females are selective, that's terrible for gene retention(good genes don't propagate, bad genes aren't outbred - because everyone is just fucking everyone randomly)

Non-selective males and selective females is a happy middle ground between the two. Well, happy for evolutionary and survival mechanisms.

NiceGuyNumber4 · 2020-05-07T16:00:08+00:00

Sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive. There's also more variation on the Y chromosome.

rubbooyuri · 2020-05-07T17:46:55+00:00

It takes many generations of consistent selection/pressure or one catastrophic event to effect real genetic change, no?

HellenicLady · 2020-05-07T14:50:40+00:00

"Evolution" is not a rational thing with a plan. Whoever survives and breeds wins. Nothing else matters.

Title	Why did evolution design it so that weak female genes are kept in the gene pool, but weak male genes are supposed to get bred out?
Author	BumblingBeta
Upvotes	1
Comments	56
Date	May 7, 2020 2:32 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gf7mqp/why_did_evolution_design_it_so_that_weak_female/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-did-evolution-design-it-so-that-weak-female.662095 https://theredarchive.com/post/662095

Comments