It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Survival of the Fattest: Man Is Still Evolving

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

In modern life, evolution comes down to a question of fertility, not fitness.

Evolution was once translated directly as "survival of the fittest," meaning those creatures best adapted to live longer were more likely to pass on their genes. Modern humans don't face the same threats our ancestors once did, however; we're all able to live long enough to reproduce.

Yet we're still evolving.

According to a study by Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns, contemporary evolution is based on the genetic traits surrounding fertility.


Link

I have noticed that alot of slim women do have more children, My sister-in-law is slim but has 3 kids. I'm wondering what everyone elses take on this is.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Alien Mind]




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The difference of being fat before & now is that now the fat stores/accumulates all the toxic chemicals, and a fat toxic woman becomes less fertile. Plus, modern society says it's unnattractive, although i'm sure even a fat woman today can find a man, because many men have no standards.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Well, no matter how fat or thin, a human is still a human.

It's more like adaptation than evolution realistically.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
The source provided says that stout, slightly plump women have more children. "Women with low body fat don't ovulate."

Bettermakings - Are you suggesting that overweight women are unable to find a good honest man because only a man with no standards would date them? That would imply that overweight have no self respect or standards for themselves if they're only able to attract the lowest bottom feeders.
That's an innappropriate suggestion to make and a very hurtful stigma that you're trying to pin on these women.

I think the majority of men in America aren't as shallow and vile as the MSM makes us out to be.

S&F for the OP.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Bettermankings sounds harsh but I do have the same thoughts. Well, I never exactly had an overweight girlfriend in my life but that's just me. Everyone's different and some may sound harsh but people should be more honest every now and then.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
...although i'm sure even a fat woman today can find a man, because many men have no standards.


Oh so it's not that a man could actually be interested in a woman for her personality?

Of course not, society says that's wrong, it has to be cause the guy has no standards...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Calm down. My main point was about the accumulation of toxins in modern fat. It is unhealthy. No time EVER in history were there so many toxins!! These accumulate in FAT, which is why fat is worse today than ever before.

But I will defend the point, although "harsh", that most men today would choose a thinner woman over an obese woman. Sure, a good personality might make a fat/obese woman more attractive, just like a thin woman with a bad personality becomes less attractive.

Men think with 2 heads, so the fat/obese woman must have a REALLY good personality to make up for her looks if she is to attract an honest good-looking man. Even then, a thinner woman with a similar personality might steal him away.

It's the truth. Sorry if it's offensive.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 



Men think with 2 heads, so the fat/obese woman must have a REALLY good personality to make up for her looks if she is to attract an honest good-looking man. Even then, a thinner woman with a similar personality might steal him away.

It's the truth. Sorry if it's offensive


I assume you met every single on this planet to stand there and say all men think with 2 heads? Until you met every guy on this planet then i don't think you have the right to say that. People like you is the reason why hate exist.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 


In the majority of cases, it might scare you to know, that women put on weight AFTER marriage and AFTER having kids.
That skinny/thin/slim girlfriend/wife who you have now, may well be overweight when she's in her 30s.40s, or 50s.
What are you going to do, divorce her?
Some people here should watch Shallow Hal and learn a few lessons.

Also, not ALL overweight females are single and out looking for a bloke.
They are married with kids and married to men who remember them from their slim and therefore, in your opinion, beautiful days.

Are these men bottom feeders? No, they are wonderful men who stand by their women and love them regardless.

By the way, there is a thread here on ATS about a woman who is obese who is having 6 CHILDREN, including a NEWBORN BABY, taken away from her because she's obese.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I guess that shoots down the OBESE WOMEN AREN'T FERTILE nonsense.

If people are going to DENY IGNORANCE it might help if they quit the stereotypes and educate themselves.

In fact, if you look around with an open mind, you'll find there aren't too many single overweight women around. Most that I know are either married or in long term relationships.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
Men think with 2 heads, so the fat/obese woman must have a REALLY good personality to make up for her looks if she is to attract an honest good-looking man. Even then, a thinner woman with a similar personality might steal him away.

It's the truth. Sorry if it's offensive.


I would appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to lump me in with your opinion about how men really are.

It's comments like this, along with the MSM, that turn women into self loathing diet nazis that wind doing more harm to themselves trying to fit into your "Slim is beautiful" mold.

Women are supposed to be soft, supple, and curvy. They're not suppose to have the body of a 16 yr old jock that's stuck in the gym 7 days a week.

Hell, give me Thickness over Sickness ANY DAY!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 


Yeah sry but you're being very bias against men, but having said that you're probably right to a point. I personally don't like fat, not fat people, but fat.
I also know lots of women who have the same bias against skinny men, of which I am one, as well as fat men. So it goes both ways, but because the media focuses on the weight problem (because it's a HUGE financial market), and the standards of males, no one pays attention the other side of the coin. There's no money to be made off of skinny people. Women are just as biased about body size as men are, in fact I'd say more so, because as you said men have no standards...

If I could find a hotty blond with no standards I'd be happy...


BTW is there some kind of rule that says I have to like anybody?

[edit on 10/28/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Everyone is biased.

And obese women were once considered the most beautiful. Look at the Venus goddess statues from the Stone Age, then see how it slowly thinned down to plump beauty of Ancient Art, and now we have anorexic/bulemic models. . . I suppose it's cultural. Maybe it is slowly changing to plump again.

Sorry if my opinion offended anyone. Maybe I'm the "pig" that gives men a bad name.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Mind
 


I thought evolving meant from one specy to another, I still haven't seen that. I would love to see humans orchestrate evolution. Concious evolution between species is what I'm after, not natural selection which from my understand only works within species. Hence black humans and white humans.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Alien Mind
 


I thought evolving meant from one specy to another, I still haven't seen that. I would love to see humans orchestrate evolution. Concious evolution between species is what I'm after, not natural selection which from my understand only works within species. Hence black humans and white humans.


Its not like what you see in the movies, you don't wake up one day looking completely different.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Mind

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Alien Mind
 


I thought evolving meant from one specy to another, I still haven't seen that. I would love to see humans orchestrate evolution. Concious evolution between species is what I'm after, not natural selection which from my understand only works within species. Hence black humans and white humans.


Its not like what you see in the movies, you don't wake up one day looking completely different.

No but there is something called reverse engineering, we know how evolution works so why can't we reproduce the results?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Because evolution takes billions of years?

Having said that though biologists can demonstrate evolution, and the historical evidence is overwhelming, but no one can give you an exact mechanism for evolution. But you need to learn what evolution is, in scientific terms, and what is still theory and what is facts.


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15


Can't you except that evolution does not contradict the Bible? That there could have been an original creator who's creation then adapted and changed over time? C'mon the historical evidence is overwhelming. Just look at dinosaurs. BTW why would a god create dinosaurs, what would the point be in that? And why do people take a 2000 year old book written by men at face value, and literally, yet they refuse to listen to modern educated scientists, with 2000 years of knowledge over the Bible writers? Black and white thinking is ignorant and dangerous.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

I thought evolving meant from one specy to another


No, its the change over time from one generation to another of the same specie, which over time can evolve into another new specie (with common traits to the old specie) . Similarity between species suggests that all known species came from a common ancestor.


Not to be rude, but really when you want to argue a point you should know both side of the argument, not assumptions and misunderstandings.
How can you honestly have a valid point if you are ignorant of the subject you are arguing about? What makes someone create a strong biased opinion without even knowing all the facts? Stop listening to what other people tell you is truth and go learn for yourself. Study both sides of the argument so you understand what you're saying, don't just repeat others biased garbage opinions.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
The difference of being fat before & now is that now the fat stores/accumulates all the toxic chemicals, and a fat toxic woman becomes less fertile. Plus, modern society says it's unnattractive, although i'm sure even a fat woman today can find a man, because many men have no standards.


i will just presume you spoke poorly and avoid the flame war.


I married a very thin woman when i was in my early 20's. 6' tall, about 120 lbs. Huge boobs. She was a harlot and i got rid of her quick. Since then, she has been married 3 other times, continued to be highly promiscuous, and still has no children.

My current wife of 15 years is pretty overweight. Sexy as you can imagine, too. I would never even consider a skinny woman again.

Not having standards means that you marry the prostitute, or the psycho. It has nothing to do with physical appearance. That is chalked more up to "some men have different tastes".

If you dont' think tastes vary, consider curry seasoning. Or Kim-chee.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join