Wheres the Darwinism here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

So according to that post humans are part of the K selection strategy, which means we focus on fewer offspring that are strong and likely to make it to adulthood if I followed that correctly.

But how does that explain wanted to have sex with someone who is not fit?

Is it that a lot of people these days are unhealthy so we familiarise with that and forget the ideal healthy mate?

Or is it just that we can get aroused by most things human so we can fuck anything and continue the human race?

On another note that same could be said for homosexuals, how is that part of Darwinism?

(Just want to stress I got nothing against homosexuality, I'm just interested on a scientific stand point)

>>8973326
homosexuality is abnormal behavior, mental illness if you will

>>8973302
Human sexuality is extremely complicated and not driven by what you're calling Darwinism, which sounds a lot like social Darwinism. I don't think liking big titties is hard wired in to our brains.

Evolution is caused by selective pressures which cause some members of the species to die or fail to reproduce. That means that the organisms that are more appropriate for their circumstances will be more successful. The only criteria for success is survival and reproduction, not not being fat or making money or whatever. So the dude who can scrap by on a fast food job and have some kids is equal to a high-earning lawyer or engineer or world leader who does the same.

Sexuality has super weird and socially constructed causes. In the modern world this gives us furries, but in the past it probably allowed those ancient peoples to adapt sexually to the kinds of people they were around.

>faggot OP has a bunch of degenerate fetishes
>chocks it up to darwinism being wrong

Neck yourself.

>>8973311
No empirical evidence

>>8973353
I didn't say Darwinism was wrong, I just wanted to talk about it as all.
>>8973351
Thats a good answer man, thanks.

1922 called they want their outdated synthesis back.
>>8973302
>Darwinism
Wew lad
>>8973311
Wew lad, what's next using theremodynamic equilibrium has a hueristic to describe ecosystem dynamics?
>>8973320
This has to be the product of high school biology in a fly over state.
>>8973353
Darwinism is wrong and that has been uncontroversial withen evolutionary science for 60 years at least. Even the neodarwinist Dawkinites where BTFO by evo devo and niche construction like 20 years ago. Natural selection is a secondary but still critical driver of evolution. Organismal behavior is the primary driver of change.

>>8973302
A good chunk of human sexual response is socially learned.

Maybe these guys like bbw because their own mothers were fat, creating a maternal connection, or they had many positive sexual experiences with obese woman, reinforcing their desire.

>>8973853
>Maybe these guys like bbw because their own mothers were fat, creating a maternal connection, or they had many positive sexual experiences with obese woman, reinforcing their desire.
How shallow and unscientific. Sigmund Freud?
Also the context you used social learning came out ass a steaming pile of pomo poopie. I know what you really meant, you mean imprinting.

>>8973326
Homosexuality was repressed for a long time (still are in many places), so homosexuals were pushed into heterosexual relationships and procreated and passed on their homosexual genes

That's at least my theory

File: Campione! - 09 (BD 1280x720 AVC AACx2).mp4_snapshot_13.38_[2014.06.22_20.31.04].jpg (66KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1280x720px

>>8973302
It may be for the sake of diversity. If we had no diversity, we would be basically clones of each other and any reproduction would be selfcest.
Also why do you think fat is something bad? It's an indication of access to abundant nutrition, which was very important a couple millennia ago.

>>8973899
Diversity is the cure against mono culture which would have meant that one disease would kill all (ref. the banana plagues that wipe out one type at a time, across the entire world)

Fat can in exceptional cases be beneficial, like survival on extreme journeys. Like certain Pacific islanders are the descendants of the massively overweight that survived the vast distances sailing. Problem is, these people tend to get fat easily and are often pear shaped.

>>8973326
The vast majority of homosexual behaviour is in individuals who are not exclusively homosexual.

>>8973341
And it is far too common to be classified as an abnormal behaviour.

>>8973326
Homosexuality is a statistical aberration.

File: HNNNG.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>8973302
I think it's just the tits.

File: 1436972562.png (406KB, 684x2439px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 684x2439px

>>8973302
read pic related, what you're talking about has to do with populations more than individuals

It's possible that there's some sort of benefit to liking the traits you're concerned with, or that there's some benefit of having just a few members of the populace who're oddities so that the populace as a whole doesn't all share the same weaknesses, but the more enlightening point to make here would be to point out that not every trait which makes it through evolution is necessarily good.

There's no reason to bother with examples like gayness or anything when you could just cut to the chase and say "if evolution is a thing, then why do people get tay-sachs disease?" or to just go all the way and say "if evolution works, why am I not god?" etc. And quite obviously, the simple answer to that question is "because that's not how it fucking works". It's not just little pieces of your personality/physical body that are being selected for, but also the actual chunks of genetic information. Take the aforementioned recessive disease for example. It has literally no upsides, but the tay-sachs itself has a great "survival" rate since it can mind it's own business and lie dormant as a recessive gene in enough people to not vanish from society.

You also have to bear in mind that, when talking about humans, you're talking about a species that went from being under intense selective pressure to virtually no selective pressure in the blink of an eye. Take a psychological habit like picking scabs for instance. Pretty much every doctor and parent is going to tell their patients and offspring that picking scabs is a bad idea, but people still do it in spite of the fact that there's no real biological advantage or motivation instilled into them which would make them want to. So why would the habit be there? Well, maybe pre-civilization the habit was able to compel people to peel leeches off their skin, and it only recently became a (very small) net loss.

Now give me the sauce

>>8975171
>end my life
where is this from?

File: Untitled.png (125KB, 652x409px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 652x409px

>>8973302
Search, "Hand Expression" on youtube.

File: VZk8Jgl.jpg (32KB, 539x377px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 539x377px

>>8973302
>It might also be worth noting that I feel better after jacking it to a hottie (like Hitomi Tanaka) than a bbw

>>8975239
Sorry, I dont know the sauce, thanks for that though, it made sense.

>>8973341
Homosexuality is not a mental illness. It's a genetic disease, or at least a developmental disorder. Look at gay animals. They do not consciously choose homosexuality. They follow simple instincts. So if some e.g. pinguin Steve choose to mate with his neighbor Chad, they do it because their brain is wired the wrong way. The key point is, that it is not a conscious decision. It all depends on the chemistry in their bodies. At some point in their lives, something went wrong and their brains didn't develop as they should. Steve and Chad became gay. The same thing is with humans. It's a development disorder or genetic illness and it's most likely driven by some hormones deficiency during the prenatal development.

>>8973302
it's called classical conditioning and mind control through classified psychological and neural science, anon.

Do try to keep up.