the "Friend Trap"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker


This is not the same as the peacock, or the grackle, where the display item (tail feathers) has no known purpose other than to show off to other members of the same species.

---

When peahens mate with peacocks who have larger 'eyes' on their tail feathers, the eggs turn out to be stronger, and the offspring also have the larger 'eyes' on the tailfeathers.

Fine and good.

You're a fish biologist, do crabs fall under your purview? Have you studied about the Heike crabs? It also features in Carl Sagan's "Cosmos". Some heike crabs had a formation on their carapaces that resemble the face of a samurai warrior, and in their superstitious beliefs, they would not to eat such a crab. Instead, they threw it back into the sea. Since this has been going on for a couple hundred years now, you have almost all of the Heike Crab's with a formation on their carapace.

The samurai-heike-crabs were selected and females preferred that.

What I'm trying to get at is, it does not mean that the diversity of all species arose from female preference only. Over time, different entities found different paths, they developed different appendages, different physical appearances. Out of necessity most likely, and this is what the females would further propagate in the preferential treatment they'd mete out.

In other words, it's more cyclic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
You see, to a women, there are 2 categories of men:
"potential lovers" and "just friends".

---

Take it from a guy that's been around for a while. The fact is that to a women, there are 2 categories of men: "potential husbands" and "just friends". Their priorities are quite different from men.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MartinLiss
Take it from a guy that's been around for a while. The fact is that to a women, there are 2 categories of men: "potential husbands" and "just friends". Their priorities are quite different from men.

---

There are some women who would fit into the lovers category...
The only problem is you probably won't want to be with one of them, very unreliable things. (sexist pun intended)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MartinLiss
Take it from a guy that's been around for a while. The fact is that to a women, there are 2 categories of men: "potential husbands" and "just friends". Their priorities are quite different from men.

---

Haha yea, the husband part must correlate to the amount of work a woman wants to do in her lifetime huh.

Men and women... two different species. :sick:

Well I choose women anyday. I know some of you question it sometimes but I thought I should make it clear :lol:

Its not like the old days aye Marty, when all you needed was a cave and a club :afrog:

In my exp, women do not want to get married. Even the mention of the word sends them scampering for cover.
I do see where MartinLiss is coming from though...I am sure if you date 80 yr old women, who have never been married before, then one of their high priorities will be to get married before they bite the dust.

As for much younger women, they are after three things...The three C's ;)

Woof

What Cs? I thought your girls where after E....;)....hehe...well me too...most girls on my age are not thinking about getting married before they have finished education and have a job....think things have changed the last 100 years....but they still won't to have kids before they are 20 tho'....:(

In nottingham its a hobby to have kids at 14 :lol:

Bodwad, check your PM's NOW!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
In nottingham its a hobby to have kids at 14 :lol:

---

Well over on that big island of yours most nasty things are a hobby...like cow tipping and even cow fuc*ing

200 years ago, it was considered beautiful to be fat... Now that really doesn't fit into your theory saying that what is beautiful is coded into us genetically...

I met a girl that had studyed a year in Panama...she said that men down there liked hairy girls....so girls with long curly hear on their legs and under their arms...and even a moustache was considered sexy....;)

Are you sure it was a girl and not a man. The perspective can be changed to prevent us haveing disturbed thoughts. :lol:

Yeah the girl I was talking to was this incredible nice young blond girl.....eeeeeekkkk...she was fine...:D...but she said that when she was down there she shaved her legs..:eek:

:confused:

[little kiddies look away now]

Should only worry if she shaves your legs while she's down there :lol:


[ok you can look back now ]
:D

Well I have shaved a lot in my life...but never my legs...:D

I use a hedgetrimmer.


















Wish hedges could shave themselves :lol:

Sorry, 2 C's...Car and Cash

Woof

The following 3 golden rules of women should be memorised.
they will help you out...

• Something that I am gonna refrain from posting ;)
• There are some things a personality just doesn't forgive
• There's always beer

Learn and follow those rules and you will always be safe ;)

Woof

Selective pressures come in many forms, and many are figments of our imagination. The biological term I have heard for this is:

"Invoking the ghost of competitions past"

What caused the present state of affairs is generally more complicated than we can know.

Consider those peacocks with the bigger tail eyes. If the chicks do better, what does that mean? Are the females choosing bigger tail eyes because the chicks will do better? Do the chicks do better because of bigger tail eyes?

Probably it IS true that females choose bigger tail eyes because those that do tend to produce more or better offspring, so the trait of choosing bigger tail eyes is reinforced. As for bigger tail eyes producing better eggs, that's probably a case of autocorrelation or some such. Better nutrition may produce better tail eyes, and may mean better eggs. etc. The tail eyes are nothing but a readily identifiable indicator of some other superior fitness trait.

However, if the female begins selecting for tail eyes because it is an identifiable indicator of fitness, any alteration that exagerates the indicator would be selected for, even if the underlying fitness trait was not altered. On the other hand, if the underlying fitness trait was deprecated, while the identifiable indicator was exagerated, it seems likely that selection for the indicator would eventually diminish.

My experience with complex GA's is that they will find a solution to the question asked, but they are more likely to show you the limits of your comprehension of the question rather than giving you an answer with any intrinsic value. You run the program to understand the question, not to get an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Selective pressures come in many forms, and many are figments of our imagination. The biological term I have heard for this is:

"Invoking the ghost of competitions past"

What caused the present state of affairs is generally more complicated than we can know.

---

Something like girls liking guys with broader shoulders and a better build. In our ancient past, broader shoulders may have signified better hunting skills (which are good for obvious reasons). Right?

Quote:

---

[/b]

My experience with complex GA's is that they will find a solution to the question asked, but they are more likely to show you the limits of your comprehension of the question rather than giving you an answer with any intrinsic value. You run the program to understand the question, not to get an answer. [/B]

---

Much like the meaning of life. You may get an answer, but you won't know what your question was all about! :D