nostr:npub18q24kaxv95cp6h9ercw3s33xcfgjq90d5ufj4mxra5hmsrfzpklsfygnkg nostr:npub1lnzm7z9lye2k22rlsy8hh9j426dl4kd54wh0endygjgax9q6nx9qusk8dk
I've presented more backing for anything I've said here than you, without attempting to psychologize you.
You cannot make a "natural selection" based argument without opening yourself up to literature on "natural selection."
Charles Darwin is one of if not the leading figure on natural selection since he wrote the book titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
The basic premise is that the more viable offspring you have (offspring that can survive to reproduce again) the fitter you are.
nostr:npub18q24kaxv95cp6h9ercw3s33xcfgjq90d5ufj4mxra5hmsrfzpklsfygnkg nostr:npub1lnzm7z9lye2k22rlsy8hh9j426dl4kd54wh0endygjgax9q6nx9qusk8dk
You're understanding of fitness is very flawed and operates on a series of unexamined assumptions.
Lets unpack them:
1. fitness is only about production of offspring - K types are less fit and whites are inferior to niggers per this axiom
2. female selection correlates 1:1 with fitness - empirically no, it only selects for things women find attractive, not necessarily what makes an animal more fit. You may have a point when women add a spatial reasoning filter to hinge
3. natural selection is the same as sexual selection - breeding and attracting a mate are only 1 portion of the natural selection process. The optimum man for modern combat is not optimal for sexual selection by women, however neither of these 'pressures' is more or less valid than the other
4. female sexual selection is primarily valid as means of selection for fitness - demonstrably false, primarily through the phenomenon of fischerian runaway
