foraker Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 But it makes you stupid, and have sex with bats. Quote
Dru Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 that research was months old! i smell stale news. Quote
foraker Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 that research was months old! i smell stale news. Â yes, I can sense the editors really wanted to rush the bat genitalia story right to the front pages as soon as it came out rather than saving it for a slow news day. Or maybe it's related to the Alioto confirmation. Whatever. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 better lay-off the promiscuous bats for a couple hundred generations. Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Can anyone point me to the article on rats synthesizing vitamin C vs. ones fed vitamin C (and maybe were genetically engineered not to syntheisize it in their livers) and on their reproductive rates after successive generations? Â I'm sure I've read something about that at some point, and I'd love to read it again. Same concept -- not needing as many resources for doing X means more can be spent doing Y. Quote
Weekend_Climberz Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Can anyone point me to the article on rats synthesizing vitamin C vs. ones fed vitamin C (and maybe were genetically engineered not to syntheisize it in their livers) and on their reproductive rates after successive generations? Â I'm sure I've read something about that at some point, and I'd love to read it again. Same concept -- not needing as many resources for doing X means more can be spent doing Y. Â Zoooooommmm........That was a f'n low flying plane or what? Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I didn't understand the article. Â Let's put it into terms that you can understand. Bats who bust a nut with many other bats are well hung so they can be better at busting a nut than the other bats. Because so many resources were diverted for , they're a little lacking in the melon. The bats who bust a nut with only one other bat are gay. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I'm content doing the XX's. You are free to spend as much time as you like doing the XY's. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I didn't understand the article. Â Let's put it into terms that you can understand. Bats who bust a nut with many other bats are well hung so they can be better at busting a nut than the other bats. Because so many resources were diverted for , they're a little lacking in the melon. The bats who bust a nut with only one other bat are gay. Â Gary,,I believe he was being facetious; hence, my "laying-off promiscuous bats for a couple hundred generations" jocose suggestion. Quote
knelson Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I didn't understand the article. Â Let's put it into terms that you can understand. Bats who bust a nut with many other bats are well hung so they can be better at busting a nut than the other bats. Because so many resources were diverted for , they're a little lacking in the melon. The bats who bust a nut with only one other bat are gay. Â Gary,,I believe he was being facetious; hence, my "laying-off promiscuous bats for a couple hundred generations" jocose suggestion. Â I think Gary knew that. He was just proving to everyone that he can now use the term "bust a nut" in proper context. I, for one, say "well done". One more thing you can put on your resume when you graduate to the cruel cruel world. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I lament the obvious deducement that I was thinking with my nuts when responding to Gary. Â Are the big-balled bats gender discriminate? Quote
archenemy Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I didn't understand the article. Â Let's put it into terms that you can understand. Bats who bust a nut with many other bats are well hung so they can be better at busting a nut than the other bats. Because so many resources were diverted for , they're a little lacking in the melon. The bats who bust a nut with only one other bat are gay. Â Gary,,I believe he was being facetious; hence, my "laying-off promiscuous bats for a couple hundred generations" jocose suggestion. Â I think Gary knew that. He was just proving to everyone that he can now use the term "bust a nut" in proper context. I, for one, say "well done". One more thing you can put on your resume when you graduate to the cruel cruel world. Quote
DirtyHarry Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I didn't understand the article. Â Let's put it into terms that you can understand. Bats who bust a nut with many other bats are well hung so they can be better at busting a nut than the other bats. Because so many resources were diverted for , they're a little lacking in the melon. The bats who bust a nut with only one other bat are gay. Â Its 'cause I've got GINOURMOUS FUCKING NUTS beeeeooooootchhh!!!!!! Quote
selkirk Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I don't think I like the tone of the title. How about we change it to "Promiscuos women cause men to be morons." All women, everywhere's right to complain about men is hereby revoked. It's your own damn fault afterall :fawk: Â And is the cause of the moral and intellectual decline in our society? I'd hate to think the religous right might be right about anything. Quote
foraker Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 How about "Women are promiscuous because men are to stupid to think a woman might cheat on them?" Maybe that helps.... Quote
catbirdseat Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 "Large brains, meanwhile, are metabolically costly to develop and maintain. Pitnick's research suggested that in those bat species with promiscuous females, the male's body used more of its energy to enhance the testes — giving it the greater adaptive advantage — and lacked the energy it needed to further develop the brain." Some of us have "no-compromise bodies". This explains why some of us have to eat so much to maintain our weight. Quote
Dru Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Meanwhile, from a study reported in Scientific American today on stress and gender ratios: Â "It's better to have a female than a male in stressful times," explains statistician Ralph Catalano of the University of California Berkeley. He argues that weak males are unlikely to survive to reproductive age or, if they do, are unlikely to be able to win mates over more robust males. "If you have a daughter, [her] reproductive success is not contingent on robustness because males are not as picky," he adds. Quote
selkirk Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 You have a little one, don't you? Â are you trying driving down my brain size? Quote
EWolfe Posted January 25, 2006 Posted January 25, 2006 This could all be moot if you think with your small head. Quote
archenemy Posted January 25, 2006 Posted January 25, 2006 Meanwhile, from a study reported in Scientific American today on stress and gender ratios:Â "It's better to have a female than a male in stressful times," explains statistician Ralph Catalano of the University of California Berkeley. He argues that weak males are unlikely to survive to reproductive age or, if they do, are unlikely to be able to win mates over more robust males. "If you have a daughter, [her] reproductive success is not contingent on robustness because males are not as picky," he adds. Â Hilarious. Notice how the underlying assumption that a woman's "reproductive success" seems to only include actually getting laid. She needs not expend any effort in mate selection. Why bother when she can just be totally passive, knowing that Intelligent Design will work it's wonders? I love it. Science is cool. Quote
Dru Posted January 25, 2006 Posted January 25, 2006 Meanwhile, from a study reported in Scientific American today on stress and gender ratios:Â "It's better to have a female than a male in stressful times," explains statistician Ralph Catalano of the University of California Berkeley. He argues that weak males are unlikely to survive to reproductive age or, if they do, are unlikely to be able to win mates over more robust males. "If you have a daughter, [her] reproductive success is not contingent on robustness because males are not as picky," he adds. Â Hilarious. Notice how the underlying assumption that a woman's "reproductive success" seems to only include actually getting laid. She needs not expend any effort in mate selection. Why bother when she can just be totally passive, knowing that Intelligent Design will work it's wonders? I love it. Science is cool. Â How many weak males have YOU mated with, then? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.