Untitled

haha, hoho, aren't we superior

meanwhile conservatives literally outbreed proglodytes by almost a child per family and will replace them eventually - and thats a good thing and its beautiful. The commie gene will get flushed out of the gene pool.

Then you get cities like Groningen and Amsterdam

Where everyone is either 1) not born there on 2) a shitskin.

Praise big shaman

Attached: 1531481854758.png (485x443, 28K)

It might not be a gene but a defect like homosexuality. There is zero evolutionary purpose for triggered lbqwqtwd snowflakes.

>Horsey

Attached: 1450202318104.jpg (400x400, 23K)

You can't know that actually.
Thinking you can judge a priori of the evolutionnary purpose of a genetic trait means you didn't get what the evolutionnary theory was about.

i want to shoot kids inside that woman

Not "a priori". These people really don't reproduce much. Often they also mutilate their genitals and take the hormones of another gender making themselves unable to reproduce normally.

>These people really don't reproduce much
Isn't it a good behaviour in an environment with overpopulation issues?
If they exist, it's because the world that surrounds them let them live.
Maybe they just are the next evolutionnary step of homo sapiens

Oh yeah, American cities are such gems, losing all those local artisan kombucha cafes would be a tragic loss.

lol Salty brainlet, he's speculating in the context of actual observable difference in demography.

>Isn't it a good behaviour in an environment with overpopulation issues?

Gee both mad and moron at the same time? The actual "overpopulation" in the 1st World is restricted to affecting the planet's ecology too much with current primitive tech - that does not provide any stimuli that result in this behavior. Instead its a permanent fixture independent of the conditions.

Trying to argue for intrinsic suppression of reproduction as an evolutionary boon, peak soy delusion. Soylusion?

>Maybe they just are the next evolutionnary step of homo sapiens

more like social pressure finally eased off and allows them to fizzle out within the next couple centuries.

>i was just pretending to be retarded guys I swear

Calling it now.

>Belle fourche Rodeo
?

>higher intelligence is a defect

Attached: d2a.png (502x446, 88K)

Why would you dedicate an entire wall of text to such utter brainletism? You're basically parading your own stupidity

^this cuck has admitted Swedish heritage

>It might not be a gene but a defect like homosexuality.

Or like Finnish autism.

Attached: Filtered_expression.png (227x224, 31K)

>more like social pressure finally eased off and allows them to fizzle out within the next couple centuries.
Yeah, this is a clear environmental change, itself allowed by changes in the system of production of 1st world countries.
I am not saying that all the SJW/trans/genderflex behaviours are per se a trait fit for the environment, I was just stating that the fitness of a trait cannot be judged a priori.
If in two centuries 90% of the population are semimale aromantic polyamourous androgynes with low birth rates, it will mean that this mentality was a fit trait.
Try not getting too mad next time.

>he's speculating in the context of actual observable difference in demography

Evolution and preservation of species in more complex lifeforms extends beyond simply pumping out armies of progeny. Appropriate mating candidate and prospects for a better child-rearing becomes more vital for species with extended lifespans and massive requirement for nutrition.

Then there is the fact that human civilization made it possible for a plethora of anomalies to become useful. Ever heard of "Positive disintegration" by Kazimierz Dąbrowski? Even disorders can push forward the developement of human species as a whole a lot better than simply a collection of 'normals'.

Attached: 1492967690649.jpg (250x241, 17K)

So you're saying Finns would be normal if not born in Finland?

Hold right there, no one is saying that.

No.
What I meant is that your kind, by your definition of human evolutionary traits, is born defective by default regardless of place, time and country's name.

It means Americans descendant from Europeans

You have to take the whole population into account. Then they might serve a purpose.

rednecks in the heartland?

You're the product of Germans raping Jews.
Genes are selfish by nature. This kind of esoteric gene-altruism is like astrology. If you lose, others win and your gene gets marginalized. That is the reality, this is no game where losers can ever win.

>You're the product of Germans raping Jews.

That doesn't sound so bad.

>If in two centuries 90% of the population are semimale aromantic polyamourous androgynes with low birth rates, it will mean that this mentality was a fit trait.

That does not follow logically at all. The entirety of humanity could be taken in by the idea of becoming an androgynous soyster, but them being 100% of the population doesn't mean such a mentality is a "fit trait". You have to remember both that humanity exists in a wider natural context, and that the possibility of the human population dwindling and eventually going extinct is also a possibility.

>If you lose, others win and your gene gets marginalized.

Species extend beyond a single member - after all, you don't make your genetic makeup from scratch. Therefore, sacrifice that leads to propagating the very population from which you were born still enables similar traits to come to life just as you did.

>Genes are selfish by nature.
Holy shit fucktard, you don't get anything of the evolution theory.
The genes are not selfish, nor the animals tend per se to self preservation. But obviously, the genes passed down from generation to generation are those who cause a behaviour that permits a long enough preservation for those genes to be passed down.
And on a whole population scale, particular behaviours that do not permit individual reproduction (such as homosexuality) might be a perk for the population preservation (implying for example that individuals with a male muscular structure will stay with females to protect them because they do not feel the urge to go seek females in other groups of individuals).

>If you lose, others win and your gene gets marginalized.
You're confusing evolutionary mechanics and the "me no cuck" 2010s internet culture.

>And on a whole population scale, particular behaviours that do not permit individual reproduction (such as homosexuality) might be a perk for the population preservation (implying for example that individuals with a male muscular structure will stay with females to protect them because they do not feel the urge to go seek females in other groups of individuals).

Ah yes, the gay uncle theory. The idea that this somehow makes up for having zero offspring ,to the point where "gay genes" are carried onwards through the generations continuously, is ludicrous.

Apparently gayness is mostly genetic though

'Sacrifice' can sometimes be beneficial for your population but it also causes a shift in allele frequencies making sacrifice less likely in the next generation. You can't have an equilibrium with alleles shifting only one way.

Isn't the official version that gayness appears somewhere in fetus? So you totally can't influence a child into gayness, but you also totally can't genetically screen the gayness?

According to whom? It's severely at odds with evolutionary logic

Having selflessness genes may be beneficial for you, if society has police and if you are too selfish, you are wiped.

Oh yes, you're right

The more older brothers(from the same mother) you have the more likely you are to be a fag.

Yes, it's linking to the hormonal levels that the foetus is exposed to or something.
But the fact that there is always a share of 1-5% of the population that is homosex might imply an evolutionary advantage to this hormonal exposure 'defect'.

Oh, do you have some study or stat concerning that point?
Legit interested.

Maybe evolution just does not necessarily move to perfectionism. If some gene forces you to produce offspring most of the time, then it may be good enough, and further improving it may be hard or useless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#Biological_vs._non-biological_older_brothers

Might be that too

Perfection is always contextual. You can look at reproductive "success" short-term or long-term. It's not always preferable to have more children in a given generation if, for example, resources are scarce.

Even a simpler question would be: why many children are born with impairing diseases (including diseases which kill you at early age without offspring). Why won't the genes producing such diseases weed out?

>And on a whole population scale, particular behaviours that do not permit individual reproduction (such as homosexuality) might be a perk for the population preservation (implying for example that individuals with a male muscular structure will stay with females to protect them because they do not feel the urge to go seek females in other groups of individuals).
Sure, but it might also be something caused by interactions between a fuckload of genes or environmental factors and not heavily selected against.

But that's wrong. Not many are born and them being born is a part of the process in which the genes involved in their diseases are diminished in the gene pool.
However, some diseases have beneficial properties when you carry only one copy recessively. This results in a bounded equilibrium where the genes remain at a certain frequency without going up or down.

Oh yes of course.
But my point is only that it is near to impossible to predict the evolutionary purpose of a behaviour.

>Isn't it a good behaviour in an environment with overpopulation issues?
If you have a welfare state, like we all do on this board for the most part, your country shouldn't even consider "overpopulation" in its vocabulary. You need 2.1 replacement rate to keep the welfare state solvent, because young workers support the elderly and disabled.

"Overpopulation" only applies to Africa, whose childbearing rate is an absurd 4-5 per woman in some countries.

Fucking boomer

>27 year olds are boomers now
stale meme

I like it.

Fuck, you're young, even for a boomer

boomers are the ones who didn't have enough kids, and their retirement benefits should be cut to compensate for that.

>commie gene

Attached: 1512244610823.png (538x538, 343K)

>that 27 year old boomer who thinks memes go stale

Homosexuals at leadt historically often had kids and families due to social pressure.

Indeed, a human society is a very complex environment and when a brainlet tries to apply basic evolutionary logic to it it results in a risible mess.