Is losing it ever your best bet?

[Dalek Prime]

One's best bet would be a winning bet, not a losing bet.

Also, there's never a bad time to picnic, but don't lose it to the ants or a bear. And don't twirl after the picnic, or you will lose your lunch.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The existence of a trait is not evidence that it has selective advantage.
I knew a Jack Russell that used to freeze up. It was really shocking and potentially life threatening.
When animals freeze whilst being hunted is actually due to complete nervous shock and exhaustion. It's not nice.
Scientists can tend to see all traits through the lens of natural selection and this has often led to many stupid interpretations, such as the risible idea that giraffe's long necks has something to so with getting food from trees. This has been shown to be wrong from the simple observation that giraffe's get most of their food by grazing from the ground (in a most uncomfortable way.) , and rarely get food from trees being grass eaters.
It turns out that the long necks of giraffe's do in fact have a used - and when you see males compete for females by using their heads as mallets against each other you suddenly understand why short necked giraffe's never pass on their genes.

But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The existence of a trait is not evidence that it has selective advantage.
I knew a Jack Russell that used to freeze up. It was really shocking and potentially life threatening.
When animals freeze whilst being hunted is actually due to complete nervous shock and exhaustion. It's not nice.
Scientists can tend to see all traits through the lens of natural selection and this has often led to many stupid interpretations, such as the risible idea that giraffe's long necks has something to so with getting food from trees. This has been shown to be wrong from the simple observation that giraffe's get most of their food by grazing from the ground (in a most uncomfortable way.) , and rarely get food from trees being grass eaters.
It turns out that the long necks of giraffe's do in fact have a used - and when you see males compete for females by using their heads as mallets against each other you suddenly understand why short necked giraffe's never pass on their genes.

But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.

The ladies don't give a tickers cuss.
It's what the guys do fighting for females. But the examples shows that assuming a function without the empirical observation can lead to nonsense interpretations. Zebra stripes are also the recipient of false interpretations. Fact is that they do not need them as similar herbivores do just as well without them.
I'm all in favour of evolution by natural selection. I'm just against the obsessive and overwrought application of it. Just because a theory is true does not mean you can apply it to everything.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The existence of a trait is not evidence that it has selective advantage.
I knew a Jack Russell that used to freeze up. It was really shocking and potentially life threatening.
When animals freeze whilst being hunted is actually due to complete nervous shock and exhaustion. It's not nice.
Scientists can tend to see all traits through the lens of natural selection and this has often led to many stupid interpretations, such as the risible idea that giraffe's long necks has something to so with getting food from trees. This has been shown to be wrong from the simple observation that giraffe's get most of their food by grazing from the ground (in a most uncomfortable way.) , and rarely get food from trees being grass eaters.
It turns out that the long necks of giraffe's do in fact have a used - and when you see males compete for females by using their heads as mallets against each other you suddenly understand why short necked giraffe's never pass on their genes.

But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.

The ladies don't give a tickers cuss.
It's what the guys do fighting for females. But the examples shows that assuming a function without the empirical observation can lead to nonsense interpretations. Zebra stripes are also the recipient of false interpretations. Fact is that they do not need them as similar herbivores do just as well without them.
I'm all in favour of evolution by natural selection. I'm just against the obsessive and overwrought application of it. Just because a theory is true does not mean you can apply it to everything.

The fact is that no one really knows, in the case of giraffes. There are probably several factors, with sexual selection being one of them. The ladies do prefer longer necks.

[Hobbes' Choice]

But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.

The ladies don't give a tickers cuss.
It's what the guys do fighting for females. But the examples shows that assuming a function without the empirical observation can lead to nonsense interpretations. Zebra stripes are also the recipient of false interpretations. Fact is that they do not need them as similar herbivores do just as well without them.
I'm all in favour of evolution by natural selection. I'm just against the obsessive and overwrought application of it. Just because a theory is true does not mean you can apply it to everything.

The fact is that no one really knows, in the case of giraffes. There are probably several factors, with sexual selection being one of them.

Ignore the grating american accent and their commentary the image says it all- I could not find the Attenborough clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDhNutbXpFE
Sexual selection is at the very cutting edge of natural selection. This is how it has come to pass that species in which males compete to fight for females tend to produce ridiculously large males such as the sad condition of lone elephant males whose life is pretty sad.
It's interesting to note that for centuries evolutionary theorists have been "brushing their teeth" on this without asking why.

[Hobbes' Choice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI

I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.

[Hobbes' Choice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI

I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.

What's beautiful is also socially constructed. That means that Americans must find that NOISE attractive.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI

I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.

What's beautiful is also socially constructed. That means that Americans must find that NOISE attractive.

You mean the cross between a duck and a foghorn? Admittedly the men don't sound so bad although too high-pitched and unmanly-sounding, but some of the women would make your eardrums bleed.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.

What's beautiful is also socially constructed. That means that Americans must find that NOISE attractive.

You mean the cross between a duck and a foghorn? Admittedly the men don't sound so bad although too high-pitched and unmanly-sounding, but some of the women would make your eardrums bleed.

What really grates is Hilary's tendency to say "Ahrm" all the bloody time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wul_iyB7224

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What really grates is Hilary's tendency to say "Ahrm" all the bloody time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wul_iyB7224

I, ahrm, see what you mean. Politicians do that when they are lying. It gives them more time to think of an answer. I don't know why shallow Americans make fun of her looks. She's a nice-looking woman. Perhaps they prefer Joan Rivers post her 42 facelifts. One American whose voice I really do like is Bernie Sanders. He has a very interesting accent. I like him too.

[Walker]

They say it's always best to remain calm in a crisis but most rules seem to have an exception. Are there any circumstances under which the best strategy would be to panic?

What is lost in the panic?

[sthitapragya]

They say it's always best to remain calm in a crisis but most rules seem to have an exception. Are there any circumstances under which the best strategy would be to panic?

I looked this up and it seems that if a moose or elephant attack you, playing dead might give you a chance. So if you are unable to play dead but actually panic and faint, it might save you.

[Walker]

They say it's always best to remain calm in a crisis but most rules seem to have an exception. Are there any circumstances under which the best strategy would be to panic?

I looked this up and it seems that if a moose or elephant attack you, playing dead might give you a chance. So if you are unable to play dead but actually panic and faint, it might save you.

No one loses it on government workers since they are practically perfect in every way.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/06/1 ... -Great-Job

*

I hear that today’s children have safe zones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5k6toS7i8

[Nick_A]

Sometimes losing an argument with a girl is your best bet for getting her pants off. Lose the argument, whatever it is, and say how much you have profited from her wisdom. Those pants will peel right off.