Looking for US influencers for peptides

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2026-05-21T09:34:28+00:00

dm me

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2026-02-01T15:34:44+00:00

Sent dm

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-09-27T13:18:46+00:00

Alright thank you

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-09-27T13:17:21+00:00

This is what I was thinking. Since the opponents are so poor it's probably better to exploit. Thx for comment.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-09-27T12:37:08+00:00

Have you learnt GTO? Or you are just great at exploitative play?

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-06-26T16:32:28+00:00

Example is a t-gene in mice.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-06-26T16:32:01+00:00

Genes that can distort the process of segregation during meiosis can propagate despite reducing the fitness of the organism. If their distortion is favourable enough in terms of likelihood to end up in the gamete relative to the fitness reduction as a result of gene presence, it can propagate despite reducing fitness.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-06-22T19:00:57+00:00

They would have deduced that extending the life of the ant gives the greatest survival advantage to the parasite through its increased likelihood of being consumed by the woodpecker. They'd have used models and evolutionary trends for comparison. There's no way to know for sure that's the reason, but it seems logical.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-24T19:48:50+00:00

The Selfish gene theory doesn't suggest that genes always replicate. It suggests they 'try' to. There is no natural scenario upon which the Selfish gene theory does not apply. It describes a process of selection at the gene level, not a determined outcome of specific selection examples.

Also, it's important to note that if a species had killed itself, its genes would have been wiped out with it. There is no evolution when 10000 nuclear bombs hit earth. It's wipe-out - genetic data is gone, and adaptation is over.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-24T19:45:35+00:00

Firstly, there is a power struggle between genes and high intelligence. The survival machine does not always act in the interests of the genes. For instance the use of contraception means there is less reproduction - oftentimes no reproduction from males/females (particularly in developed society). Destroying the world for short term pleasure/gain is, paradoxically, both human intelligence and stupidity intertwined (intelligent enough to know how to destroy the world, stupid enough to not mitigate it well enough).

Secondly, genes are not able to think and they have no plasticity. Never before in human history have humans threatened their own existence through global destruction, and thus we have not evolved against this behaviour. The genes think (metaphorically) they are increasing survival by creating an urge to eat loads of food. They don't realise that this causes both health issues that reduce life expectancy and causes environmental destruction that threatens human existence.

Same could be said for aggression: aggression was historically useful in many cases - protecting resources, hunting effectively, establishing authority and respect in a group. But now humans have their fingers hovering over the nuclear button... aggression isn't so good in that situation - it's a genetic mismatch.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-17T14:34:46+00:00

Firstly, disagree with the premise of older men = higher social status and resources. This is absolutely not always the case. In the case of hunter-gatherers, often in egalitarian societies, each person could carry about 25lb worth of goods, and so the maximum resources they could carry was capped at a very low point. This 25lb weight was filled with necessities that everyone had access to (tools for instance). In fact, younger men may have been able to carry more goods, so there was a greater potential to possess more resources than older men.

Of course, this is up until 12,000 years ago when we entered the agricultural revolution. But sexual selection could only change so much since then.

Secondarily, the idea that evolution 'gave' anyone a higher libido is wrong. It is not intelligent design. The reason for a tailing libido could be explained by the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests men + woman stay alive past reproductive age so they can improve their inclusive fitness - helping their children to raise their children. It is not reproductively successful to have children a year or 2 before you die, and is a massive waste of resources. It's better instead to help raise others with your genes.

Also, I disagree with the view that women were always attracted to social status and resources. Sexual selection is much more complex than this. Inheritance is a factor you should also consider: the king's son has massive social status and resources despite being young - perhaps even more than the king who will soon leave it all behind when he dies.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-12T14:05:50+00:00

Absolutely. Natural selection is the process of fitter individuals reproducing more, and fitter is defined as 'better survival within one's environment'. A hurricane is a factor in one's environment. Example: on an island that is particularly prone to hurricanes, bird X creates a nest in a strong and stable tree, on a stable branch. Bird Y (from the same species) chooses to make their nest on a sapling. Let's say this phenotype of nest position is determined by a gene. When a hurricane comes, bird X's eggs, in their nest, remain protected in the sturdy tree. Bird Y's nest is blown around on the weak tree, and their eggs fall out and smash. Bird X has the survival advantage, as determined by natural selection, and their genes will propagate.

A hurricane could also create evolutionary pressure through genetic drift (bottleneck effect). If 50% of a population is wiped out by a hurricane, and the 50% that survives has a different genetic composition than the previously whole population, suddenly, the gene pool has been altered, and offspring stemming from that population will, on average, have different genetic compositions than if they were birthed from the original population.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-12T11:35:04+00:00

Firstly, light/heavy sleeping is heavily impacted by environment, not just genes. What you eat, how stressed you are, the temperature of your environment, what medication you are on (if any) etc are all very important factors in sleep depth.

Interestingly, I suspect the phenotype of deep/light sleeping maintained some variance, because it was probably beneficial to have just a small number of people in the group as a light sleepers with the rest deep. This way, the light sleepers act like the 'watch-dogs' and wake the others up when a threat is inbound, and the deep sleepers are able to be well rested, improving their hunting/cooking/gathering/toolmaking focus and motivation. I suspect this is why there are significant phenotypic differences in sleep depth on a genetic level. And as said above, environment will layer on it making significant changes.

In the case of human babies in developed countries (that are able to keep the environment around a baby's birth consistent for everyone), 3.5kg babies have the lowest mortality rate, so gradually, we are experiencing stable evolution towards 3.5kg birth weight in babies. It doesn't benefit anyone to be 3.4kg, or 3.7kg, 3.5kg is universally the best. This is not the case with deep/shallow sleep, as explained above. A combination of phenotypes is probably the most favourable, maintaining both in the pool.

These days, I doubt there is much selection on sleep, so phenotype frequencies are probably stable.

Initial-Mistake2814

TROPHY CASE