Oh yeah, you'll go far in engineering.
Say Muddy, (mind if I call you Muddy?) considering you're so obsessed with having good genetics and your little fan-made Skyrim race chart, wouldn't by virtue of having a deformed skull, that make you a potatid?
I don't have a deformed skull. I have a very slightly deformed maxilla, which is caused by environmental factors.
@Amud, I'm curious as to why you and other Loveshy/Sluthate guys seem to take umbrage with us. Let me explain:
You, like many other LS guys, seem to buy into the old "alpha male" stereotype as the ideal male. Strength, masculine appearance, aggressive tendencies, these are all things you seem to hold in high esteem. You also assert that the greatest men in society have these traits. You have then come onto a forum where a bunch of guys (and girls) mocked you, belittled you, and asserted dominance over you, both intellectually and otherwise. Many of us are in relationships and none of us are Loveshies. So why the disdain? We have a much easier time romantically than you. By your own assertions, this would mean we are the superior individuals, the alphas laughing at the weak, ineffective betas. So why the disrespect? If anything, you should listen to us, as your superiors.
Or, perhaps, you realize that for all of your skull analysis bullshit, the only thing holding you back is your own failings?
I'm legitimately curious. Every Loveshy or Sluthater who comes here gets absolutely humiliated, so if this is the natural way of things, why are you upset?
I don't feel humiliated at all. Quite on the contrary, I feel that I have completely dominated this forum. A few people have asked some good questions and provided some good arguments that really got me thinking. I actually appreciate that, because some adversity is helpful in strengthening one's own theories and debating ability. The vast majority of posts have been nothing but insulting me, asking stupid trolling questions, and accusing me of racism/sexism/Nazism/pedophilia/autism/retardation/etc. All of these have done nothing to humiliate or dominate me. I have largely been ignoring them. In fact, they serve to further reinforce my arguments by making everyone else look immature.
Assignment: try hunting down a rabbit and try raising a plate of bean sprouts. Report to me in one week about the respective "efficiency". Show photographs.
- We didn't evolve to be carnivores either.
- Believe it or not, humans still keep evolving.
- You believe what is now called "paleo diet" is really what was consumed tens of thousands years ago?!
- I can get behind that modern diet is responsible for the obesity epidemic, and you can reasonably make a case that humans have not yet evolved to deal with a diet high in refined carbohydrates, saturated fat and calories. But.... what does retruded maxillae have to do with it?!
Meat is all right for vit B; what is lacks completely is vit C. Carnivorous animals can synthesize vit C by themselves, but unfortunately primates (and that include your dear Neandies) have
lost the gene somewhere down the road.
You know what your problem is? Your statements are so arbitrary defined, so imprecise, so subjective, that it is impossible to assign a truth value to them. In other words, your facial profiling belong to the "
not even wrong" category.
They like things that they can twist to fit their obsessions, and that means pseudoscience like MBTI and neurolinguistic programming.
May I ask what "bad traits" you have in mind?
Also, traits that limit reproductive fitness will not become
too prevalent, for obvious reason.
- Consumption of meat increases nitrogen load and increases the burden to the liver and kidneys. Excessive protein breaks down to carbohydrate and fat. Hence lean meat, too, is fattening.
- Soy does not decrease testosterone level or sperm count, and is a good source of protein.
- Where did you get the idea that farmers are round faced and low in virility?
- Type II Diabetes is a complicated disease whose cause is still under investigation, but the notion that carbohydrates "cause" diabetes is at best extremely simplistic and equivocal. Indeed, a high intake of total and saturated fat (ahem, meat) appears to be more predictive of Type II DM.
Stress sigh...
You know what? One of the obsessions of sluthate.com is hitting the gym. If lifestyle choices had nothing to do with your appearance, then why bother?
Well, you can get vitamin C (and vitamin A) from meat, you just have to eat organ meats to do it. That was partially what I was getting at when I asked what his average diet was like. I would be willing to bet he doesn't eat offal. My other question - how often he eats vegetables, which are also a major component of a paleo diet - has also been answered. So it's pretty safe to come to the conclusion that he is massively doing it wrong.
I actually like the paleo diet, it's mostly how I eat, with some modifications - dairy, for example, if I can digest it perfectly fine then there's no reason not to consume it (plus I get this local non-homogenized grass-fed-cow milk that's motherfucking delicious). This guy's got a nearly complete lack of understanding for the concept. For example, grains aren't bad because "Durr hurr meat is better." Most people probably eat too much grains because it's converted to sugar. Hyperglycemia can be dangerous, so the pancreas releases insulin to bring it down. If that happens too often, they can become insulin resistant. And any energy (sugar, carbohydrates) that isn't used gets converted to fat and stored. It doesn't mean grains are inherently bad, or "inferior" - just that most people probably eat too much of them.
The thing about humans, though, is we can exist and thrive on a huge variety of diets. Being able to digest nearly anything remotely edible is probably one of the reasons we're as successful a species as we are. But we can also be colossal failures at a huge variety of diets. The fattest person I've ever known was a vegan, because she considered potato chips fried in vegetable oil to be vegan and ate shitloads of that type of thing. Amud is doing approximately the same thing with paleo.
Who is this "we?" Descendants from populations that have traditionally practiced cattle domestication typically maintain the ability to digest milk and other dairy products into adulthood. Lactase persistence varies by population and has arisen in multiple places, at different times, and via several mechanisms over the course of human evolution.
Some of us have evolved to consume dairy, while others of us have not.
I'll even
cite the paper.
All of the above posts are essentially pointing out that people evolve to adapt to changing diets. This is true, but just because we can process something doesn't make it good for us. The proliferation and fixing of one gene (lactose tolerance, for instance) does not reprogram our entire digestive system so that something that was bad for us suddenly becomes our ideal food source. It simply lets us adapt and tolerate it, for better or worse. Think about alcohol. Europeans traditionally drank alcohol, so we evolved to produce lots of alcohol dehydrogenase in our liver. Native Americans did not evolve this gene. This means that we Europeans are less likely to get sick r die if we drink alcohol, compared to Native Americans. You can't turn that round and tell me that it suddenly makes alcohol good for us or the ideal thing for us to drink.
Maxillary retrusion is caused by eating soft foods (ie. things other than tough meats).
@Amud
Stop trying to change your face. You're lying to your potential mates, it's unethical and very bankerish. Why do you want to act like a banker?
My maxillary twisting is caused by environmental factors, so it has nothing to do with my genetic value.
Then why study the flesh when you already know of the root source? Why not study that instead?
What other types of hominids are you thinking of when you're relating to Race anyway? Like H. erectus, H. heidelburgensis? H. antecessor? I'm curious on this.
And these very same things can also affect wildlife populations as well last I checked.
Cattle cultivating populations developed Lactase persistance quite quickly however, so some things do indeed seem to change quickly as you say.
1. The root source is genetics. I can't go taking blood samples from people and sequencing them, can I?
2. Yeah. My most recent hypothesis is that Homo heidelbergensis split into several types, which can basically be summed up by two categories.
CATEGORY 1: OLD AND NEW NEANDERTHALS
This includes very old Neanderthals (Saccopastore) and very new ones (Saint Cesaire). Modern Caucasoids are predominantly related to this type.
The defining traits are long, large, projecting noses.
Subcategory: CLASSIC NEANDERTHALS
The harsh climate of Europe, and possibly inbreeding, led the first type to take an evolutionary detour into the classic Neanderthal forms we are familiar with.
The defining traits are maxillary prognathism and exaggeratedly deep eye sockets.
CATEGORY 2: HOMO ERECTUS DERIVATIVES
These types are inspired by Eurasian Homo erectus. Early Homo sapiens had some traits in common with Homo erectus, and even some of those in Europe did too (the Red Lady of Paviland). They seem to have more in common with the eastern races, as well as Sub-Saharan Africans. Denisovans might be part of this group.
The defining traits are short noses and alveolar prognathism.
That hypothesis is very simplified and tentative. I just came up with it today and it is very much subject to change when I learn new information.