Discussion:
Women run differently from Men, dont they? And flowers...
(too old to reply)
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
2012-02-28 07:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(Oops, seems I should have published in this group some other threads
but could not memory retrieve due to the .bio. infix :)

Women run differently from Men for the simple reason of Evolution in
Beaches! It was women who foraged for fish in water bodies, it is them
who had to run fleeing in the sand, it is their running what still
shows the kind of balance needed to not fall on a soft surface, it may
be be WHY they have soft curves actually! (Among other reasons).

While Men were foraging in the floweries and picking nuts and flowers
and seeds and other such small foraging items while having to escape
from other kind of predators, it is their running that still shows the
kind of balance needed to speed on hard(er) surfaces.

Make an average of both trends and find the equilibrium point: Male vs
Female bodies, sexual dimorphism. Then place in a long, long trend to
exchange roles...

**And now can you please give the girl those flowers to munch and see
if the thing does not fall dead or spasmed because the colors were not
food after all?** Thank you.

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-02-28 07:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fabrizio J Bonsignore
(Oops, seems I should have published in this group some other threads
Double oops! sci.bio.evolution is moderated, but if the man does not
want to post, I lose my post in other groups too? I am still looking
for some sci.econ.research posts... Hope it is published quickly, it
is the best group for this post and continuation of previous thread.)

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
2012-03-13 15:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fabrizio J Bonsignore
**And now can you please give the girl those flowers to munch and see
if the thing does not fall dead or spasmed because the colors were not
food after all?**
Umm, and the smell at the beach... unbearable after eating. What if...
I think we can link choral bleaching during Human evolution with an
increase in water critter smell in beaches at the fringe of water
bodies. The more chorals bleached, the more species would try foraging
in beaches, the more they would tide on the surface, the easier to
**fish** prey for Humans, but _also_ the more need to flee the stench
after eating. The more you eat, the less you can (or even want by
then) stand the stench. And this dynamic would determine two events:
from the water body fringes _back_ to the next fringed environment, to
avoid the seafood stench, and the progressive loss of the sense of
smell. Of course, also the more successful as fish foragers the more
waste would be accumulated by early Humans near water bodies, the more
the stench would accumulate and the more there would be a real
pressure to move away from the ground.

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
2012-03-20 00:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In fact, the full evolution model happens to match the known geography
of Pangea and also match the consequent trajectory of Human-Anthropoid
expansion along the known continent drift til merging with what can be
inferred from known (and mythical, etc.) History.

(A mess, but the bio group is moderated and somehow none of this
material goes through...)

Danilo J Bonsignore
p***@my-deja.com
2012-03-20 02:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fabrizio J Bonsignore
In fact, the full evolution model happens to match the known geography
of Pangea and also match the consequent trajectory of Human-Anthropoid
expansion along the known continent drift til merging with what can be
inferred from known (and mythical, etc.) History.
(A mess, but the bio group is moderated and somehow none of this
material goes through...)
Danilo J Bonsignore
so praise the Lord you can post the excreta of your brain here.

PPJ.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-04-23 13:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Didnt you infringe a copyright in your nickname?

I ll post it here.

It is a rather direct selection mechanism. When individuals get dirty,
their best strategy is to isolate themselves from the group. If being
dirty they try to copulate, they risk aggressive behaviour and death
(where a lession is more important than being dirty). Aggressive
behaviour against dirt is a socially desirable behaviour expressed by
the individual. A social group that did NOT go aggressive against the
dirty individual contracted diseases and reduced its survivability,
were the dirty indvidual risks extinction even if copulating
successfully _if_ the group goes extinct due to disease, while the
individuals who showed aggressivity remained (possibly) healthy and
had better chances of propagating their genes to the next generation
to form a clean group. So aggressive behaviour against nearby dirty
individuals has a good selective chance of being incorporated in
behaviour.

But if instead the dirty individual chooses to remain aloof
(isolated), it increases its survivability chances and that of its
genes of propagating if it waits to get clean before approaching the
group or another individual. It will have better chances to propagate
its genes and create more offspring by isolating, cleaning then
approaching, than by forcing copulation while dirty. This mechanism
points in HUMANS to the reason why individuals bathe individually,
while communal water sharing is not for cleaning up but for
entertainment. The entertainment value comes from implicitly
expressing the fact that each one is already clean, therefore can
approach the group.

Note that the Hindi festival of washing en masse in the Ganges is an
expression of this mechanism, but not along its entertainment value
but around the expression of cleanliness! In such festival individuals
DO bathe communally in a river and that is the meaning and _purpose_
of the festival. It is understandable since it is next to impossible
to assess by sight if their skin is actually clean or not, so mass
participation in a festival delivers the message of **already clean**
visibly and verifiably.

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-04-30 15:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Have you noticed the squatting...? Squatting is a normal position to
assume, anywhere, sometimes peremptorily and that is the message. As
if it was not strainful on the calves... But it is readily
explainable: if the biologicity of the Chinese species is that fish,
the next morphological step is that of batraceous, FROGS. Both frog
and fish are biological metaphors representing Chinese, as Penguins
(also very popular in games and cartoons), represent Japanese.

Frogs approach both sides of the function, as the next step for fish
and the previous step to becoming fish. If the biologicity is that of
fish, then expressing frog means **more advanced**. Similarly, if the
morphology is that of Human, turning into batraceous frog is a step on
the right direction toward expressing morphologically the biologicity
of fish. What we can observe among several subtle, not so subtle and
general evidences, is that of the preference of squatting over other
postrures among Orientals.

I found a way to insult Africans. I have the object of study so nearby
that I missed it altogether. Oops! I just forgot! Naw, it cannot be
the food, nor wasting my progression of ideas thinking were can I
write without attracting too much hostility by some employee or
other...

But anyway, one way is to feel LOVE. Not love for Africans but LOVE,
to feel in love, to feel love for someone else. All those vicissitudes
by lovers have to be explained... and this is the explanation. It
derives from the contradictions and paradoxes of being the color of
its own excrement and its biological meaning, as I expressed in other
threads, and the effects they cause in others through schizophrenia
and telepathy. A real goal: if they manage to **call** all women who
would fall in love with carrying field (normal person) X, they achieve
the goal of not feeling that **bad** feeling in _them_ when a Human
feels LOVE.

**What s love got to do with it if it is a second hand emotion?** See
the point?

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-04-30 16:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The argument was long and delicate, it got lost in these
vicissitudes... It is very easy to force Humans to live primitive
jungle conditions pretending it is a Humane society. As if nothing
such as Reason nor Emotion had occurred...

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-12 19:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OH! Would WOMEN sacrifice WOMEN in underwater environments in
evolutionary times? Just like Chinese do today... We can think of this
scenario. The woman is half gone and unsconsious. She is floating
freely in a water boldy, MAYBE attached to some buoy setup. THEN...
sea-water beings would begin octoppussing to the body. Ventoses,
opposums... Then the body is retrieved. And voila! Lots of easy catch
prey. THe woman body may even be saved and returned not as a fish
hunter but as a... some kind of feeble minded more-body-maker body.
Eons ago the evidence is... KISSING! We kiss women while in bliss to
make them feel they are attracting ventoses... From a survival
advantage point of view it makes sense. Women who would feel _SOME_
pleasure from being ventosed would **sacrifice** to attrach ventose
beings.... and produce more prey and survival advantages to the group,
therefore spreading her genotype since she survived. Women not feeling
it would not participate or would actually be sacrificed in the
environment. Women who like it would act consciously instead of
consciousless. The effect would be CURRENT, EVERYDAY, OBSERVATIONS:
most HUMAN BODY SIZE fish and body dwellers are extinguished.
Evolution under an intelligent predator became bifurcated. So we find
small sized octopuses who would no longer stick with ventoses to Human
sized bodies... and the BIG monsters of Lore who would be steadily
erradicated since they are truly predating Humans. But KISSING would
remain...

This framework is general. We OBSERVE a loss of +/- Human sized being
in water environments, compared to other environments, but we OBSERVE
lost of very small beings being USED while a few VERY BIG predators or
unintended victimizers, remain.

WHY do you thibk CATS USE LITTER (and not soil like some dogs pretend
to make us believe), to hide their excreta? Because THEY TOO evolved
along with us in BEACHES!

Think of very long ago beaches, sand was not _exactly_ sand as we
understand it TODAY, it was more like litter... Basically we have to
add a whole distribution of probabilities for sand density and
granularity because Evolution does not happen in HISTORICAL times, but
over a long span of time.

(HEY! THAT IS A LONG THESIS!!! Very mathematizable... do you want a
description?)

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-22 20:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An evident example for Humans is the dichotomy Red-Orange. When
confronted to the distinction or choosing of red vs orange, we are
prone to say **it does not matter**. We DO see a difference... but in
the end **it does not matter**. This is particularly true for several
hue-saturation combinations: effectively it will not matter and even
distinguishing (naming) a difference will be hard. Then we tend to use
very saturated (strong) and distinct shades of red and orange, so that
the choice is evident. Though you ll notice, for instance, that strong
red (basic red), is more common in clothes than strong orange
(**basic** orange).

This can be explained very easily from an evolutionary time point of
view by noting that FIRE is hard to name as a color, it IS both orange
and red, but yet it will burn you the same! For effects of survival
advantages there is little incentive to distinguish (discretize or
quantize) neatly between orange and red; both will mean hot, fire,
danger, burnt, even death, but it is important to react fast and
strongly to such wavelength. This is the more important as the second
reason we do not care much is the possibility that during evolutionary
times plant life was more color oriented toward purple and orange than
toward green (alternative photochemicals to chlorophyl)! In fact, in
terms of mimesis, a background vegetation the hue of red-purple-orange
would have been instrumental in selecting for redish-pink-orange skins
as protection against predators pryor to further selection to softer
tones by evolution on beaches. This non green background does explain
the existence of red haired people (as opposed, say, to magenta haired
people as would indicate selection in an anemone world), and points to
red haired people as porting some of the earliest purely Human gene
sequencies, or in other words, as representing the very first
selection batch in Human evolution...

(Similar but less important is the argument with respect to blood s
coloring. It is less important since blood DOES mean death when on a
Human body (victim) but it ALSO means life when on a dead prey! Blood
color ambiguates. Though here the quantization is not between red and
orange but rather between red and purple, a color combination easier
to distinguish)

Then it is not difficult to understand than in Excrement Color
Anthropoids the distinction between green and blue is equally or even
more strongly blurred, ,though without the strong reactions because of
the widespread presence of blue in the environment.

There was very little survival advantages in distinguishing between
vegetation and open sky (considering their descent is posterior to
evolution on beaches, or at least contemporary to learning the use of
fire), particularly since approach to treewas also a de-evolutionary
selective pressure. It makes sense: vegetation changing color from red-
purple prevalence to the moderm green-brown combination; mixed
advantages in brown-approaching trees for mimetic protection and going-
back-to-the-tree selection; blurred distinction between blue sky-green
plant (and also cyan or green-blue water) to maintain distance from
brown-approaching trees. Rather than looking like a cozy environment
to develop (evolve), hide and thrive, a featureless vegetation-sky
blend with rather bare looking brown columns makes it easier to remain
aloof on ground. This is in comparison to Human neat distinction
between blue and green and the impossibility to confuse with trees (or
going back up the tree), which determines the distinct Human approach
to woods and other selective survival advantage pressures of life-
going-back-away-from-the-beach.

These effects can still be seen in modern day populations. For
instance, despite being a benigningly flat surface for Humans, the
Kalahari plains are home to Excrement Color Anthropoids, not to Humans
(at least before the times of mechanical transportation). Excrement
Color Anthropoids are still known to clear woods and jungles in bulk
by fire (reproducing some evolutionary time conditions), rather than
by more rational micromethods. Also, children are quite attracted to
tree houses! We find tree houses and tree cities and other tree
dwellings in fairy tales and videogames as a matter of fantasy course,
because children still in the development and training of their
neocortexes are open to very primitive pulsions and will exhibit
periods of attraction to tree life (proto hominid times, and also post-
beach life), as is symbolically expressed of fantasy beings as being
more primitive and child-like than true Humans. More mature people do
think it better before dreaming of spending vacations going up and
down a tree house... no doubt.

(Incidentally, some big felides are quite attracted and suited to
resting on trees! This fact can be variously linked to the different
anthropoid relations to trees during evolutionary times and our
relation to big felides.)

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-22 21:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(computer latency...)

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-22 20:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An evident example for Humans is the dichotomy Red-Orange. When
confronted to the distinction or choosing of red vs orange, we are
prone to say **it does not matter**. We DO see a difference... but in
the end **it does not matter**. This is particularly true for several
hue-saturation combinations: effectively it will not matter and even
distinguishing (naming) a difference will be hard. Then we tend to use
very saturated (strong) and distinct shades of red and orange, so that
the choice is evident. Though you ll notice, for instance, that strong
red (basic red), is more common in clothes than strong orange
(**basic** orange).

This can be explained very easily from an evolutionary time point of
view by noting that FIRE is hard to name as a color, it IS both orange
and red, but yet it will burn you the same! For effects of survival
advantages there is little incentive to distinguish (discretize or
quantize) neatly between orange and red; both will mean hot, fire,
danger, burnt, even death, but it is important to react fast and
strongly to such wavelength. This is the more important as the second
reason we do not care much is the possibility that during evolutionary
times plant life was more color oriented toward purple and orange than
toward green (alternative photochemicals to chlorophyl)! In fact, in
terms of mimesis, a background vegetation the hue of red-purple-orange
would have been instrumental in selecting for redish-pink-orange skins
as protection against predators pryor to further selection to softer
tones by evolution on beaches. This non green background does explain
the existence of red haired people (as opposed, say, to magenta haired
people as would indicate selection in an anemone world), and points to
red haired people as porting some of the earliest purely Human gene
sequencies, or in other words, as representing the very first
selection batch in Human evolution...

(Similar but less important is the argument with respect to blood s
coloring. It is less important since blood DOES mean death when on a
Human body (victim) but it ALSO means life when on a dead prey! Blood
color ambiguates. Though here the quantization is not between red and
orange but rather between red and purple, a color combination easier
to distinguish)

Then it is not difficult to understand than in Excrement Color
Anthropoids the distinction between green and blue is equally or even
more strongly blurred, ,though without the strong reactions because of
the widespread presence of blue in the environment.

There was very little survival advantages in distinguishing between
vegetation and open sky (considering their descent is posterior to
evolution on beaches, or at least contemporary to learning the use of
fire), particularly since approach to treewas also a de-evolutionary
selective pressure. It makes sense: vegetation changing color from red-
purple prevalence to the moderm green-brown combination; mixed
advantages in brown-approaching trees for mimetic protection and going-
back-to-the-tree selection; blurred distinction between blue sky-green
plant (and also cyan or green-blue water) to maintain distance from
brown-approaching trees. Rather than looking like a cozy environment
to develop (evolve), hide and thrive, a featureless vegetation-sky
blend with rather bare looking brown columns makes it easier to remain
aloof on ground. This is in comparison to Human neat distinction
between blue and green and the impossibility to confuse with trees (or
going back up the tree), which determines the distinct Human approach
to woods and other selective survival advantage pressures of life-
going-back-away-from-the-beach.

These effects can still be seen in modern day populations. For
instance, despite being a benigningly flat surface for Humans, the
Kalahari plains are home to Excrement Color Anthropoids, not to Humans
(at least before the times of mechanical transportation). Excrement
Color Anthropoids are still known to clear woods and jungles in bulk
by fire (reproducing some evolutionary time conditions), rather than
by more rational micromethods. Also, children are quite attracted to
tree houses! We find tree houses and tree cities and other tree
dwellings in fairy tales and videogames as a matter of fantasy course,
because children still in the development and training of their
neocortexes are open to very primitive pulsions and will exhibit
periods of attraction to tree life (proto hominid times, and also post-
beach life), as is symbolically expressed of fantasy beings as being
more primitive and child-like than true Humans. More mature people do
think it better before dreaming of spending vacations going up and
down a tree house... no doubt.

(Incidentally, some big felides are quite attracted and suited to
resting on trees! This fact can be variously linked to the different
anthropoid relations to trees during evolutionary times and our
relation to big felides.)

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
2012-05-29 15:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wedding? Yeah, of course, tell the old man (for some reasons)... ...
CLAP! Clap a lot and howl. Weddings make a party to make noise to
drive away the predator, so the couple feels secure. Lots of crimes at
wedding-time too right? It is not Human pain: it is the primitives
whose primitive (brain) tells them that gathering the population and
producing food would drive in the predator, independently of any noise
the party can make. Those brains just have to act in place of the
predator and produce a **tragedy**: they cannot cope with the
expectation (of predators) and snap.

Danilo J Bonsignore

Loading...