#evolutionary physiology

[er-cryptid]

Precapillary Sphincter

Patreon

[ytvideoseo]

Explore the fascinating parallels between human structure and stimulation, and their intriguing connection with our canine companions in this captivating YouTube video. Discover how the intricate workings of the human body mirror aspects of canine physiology, shedding light on our shared evolutionary journey. From neural responses to sensory experiences, delve into the captivating realm where humans and dogs intersect, offering insights into the profound bond between species. Join us on a journey of discovery and appreciation for the wonders of human and canine biology. If you want to know more about this, Click here 

#credentialedcoachtraining #credentialedcoach #coachingtraining #coachingskills #coachtrainingprogram #coachtraininginstitute #accreditedcoachtraining #humanstructure #caninecompanions #parallels #stimulation #dogs #connection #physiology #neuralresponses #sensoryexperiences #intersect #fascinating #intricateworkings #sharedtraits #understanding #relationship #neuroscience #evolutionarybiology #neurobiology #humananimalbond #comparativephysiology #appreciation #coaching #discoveries

[catsandcataclysms]

Oooh so I don't know much about real-life science, but science fiction science-- especially regarding other species-- is always SUPER fun for me. Here's some of my thoughts on some of your theories!!!

If they're precocial and basically able to survive on their own right away

We know, via book #19 and Aftran, that Yeerks are split from their parents:

"Three Yeerks [...] literally join together, with three bodies becoming one. Then that one body begins to fragment [...] into smaller pieces, grubs[...] The body disintegrates, and each grub that falls away becomes another Yeerk."

I suppose it's true that we don't know much about Yeerk Grubs, but caterpillar grubs tend to immediately start eating. Of course, social insects like wasps, bees, ants, etc are tended to by The Hive, but this is usually in a specialized location. From what we know of Yeerk culture and society (which is admittedly very little), I believe the implication here is that the grubs are in fact able to survive on their own, at least to a certain degree as you mentioned with baby deer.

Is taking a host a key stage of yeerk development, one that changes how the yeerk sees the world?

Aftran in #19 again:

"Oh, you can’t imagine! You can’t imagine the first time you enter a Gedd brain and seize control and suddenly, you are seeing! Seeing! Colors! Shapes! It’s a miracle. To be blind and then to see! [...] Do you see those flowers? Do you see the sunlight? Do you see the birds flying? You hate me for wanting that? You hate me because I won’t spend my life blind? You hate me because I won’t spend my life swimming endlessly in a sea of sludge, while humans like you live in a world of indescribable beauty?”

Which has my vote for "yes". But one Yeerk's experience does not a scientific conclusion make, so I'm going to pull from a lesser-remembered (or at least lesser-discussed) scene here-- that of Esplin 9466 himself, from The Hork-Bajir Chronicles.

But there were no host bodies available, not on this spacecraft. So we lived in our pool. As simple Yeerks must. And I would have lived happily enough. [...] I waited [to enter a host] impatiently, afraid. I admit it: afraid. You hear stories about what it’s like. About the hallucinatory sensory input. About the strange sensation of having another mind under your control. About the extension of your own body through unfamiliar limbs. But you don’t know till you do it. [...] Only someone who has done it can understand. It was … it was beyond description. Suddenly, I was not just myself, I was something much larger. Where my body ended, a second body began, so that very soon I forgot my own body entirely. [...] Oh! How can I explain it? The power! The joy! The feeling that I had suddenly grown huge, vast, powerful.

Which certainly seems to make it a key developmental stage! If nothing else, it lends credibility to the idea that a yeerk could be persuaded to think themselves human under the right circumstances.

However, directly after that scene, we have this:

Afterward I communicated with my friends and siblings. Many of them found the whole experience terrifying. Sickening. Awful. Not me. From that moment on, I swore that I would do whatever it took, pay any price, to have eyes again.

So I feel regardless of whether the experience is positive or negative, it is absolutely a fundamental developmental stage, imo. But it also heavily shows the bias-- the yeerks we most often see are the yeerks with hosts. Yeerks who prefer to live without hosts seem to be of... a larger majority than one might think due to, again, bias by only seeing the ones who do have hosts.

I don't have a direct conclusion or anything, but I think this honestly says so much about Yeerk culture and their development. There's just so much we can extrapolate from teeny tiny little tidbits... I love this series.

what if a yeerk didn't know/realize it was a yeerk? What if it thought it was a human kid?

I'm trying to figure out how this would happen, and imagination is failing me. There is some evidence we've successfully convinced nonhumans that they're humans — Nim Chimpsky would sort photos of himself among photos of humans, putting photos of chimps in a different pile. But Nim was a chimpanzee, sharing 99% of humans' genes. And he was taken from his mother when he was 10 days old to be raised exclusively by humans: sleeping in a bed, wearing clothes, eating with utensils, peeing in a toilet. He'd never met another chimp at the time of that study.

By our best guess, dogs don't think they're human, nor do most pets. Dogs easily learn to prefer humans (or sheep, cows, etc.) over other dogs, but the way they act around fellow dogs is completely different from how they act around other mammals of similar size/shape. This is both because dogs mostly spend their first weeks among their parents and siblings (if not they tend to die, so even shitty breeders rarely take bottle babies), and because dogs have obvious physical differences from humans. Being dogs, they probably care less that we lack fur or use language than that we smell like omnivores who rub themselves with soap, and that we move very differently from quadrupeds. Cats are harder to pin down, but they famously don't meow at each other, only at the dumb apes whose affection or tuna sandwiches they want to demand. I don't think anyone's investigated hamsters or goldfish, but I'm guessing the odds are against one mistaking a giant hand that comes from the sky to dispense pellets for being one's sibling.

So the issue with this hypothetical yeerk is threefold: 1) yeerks don't resemble humans, 2) yeerks need to see each other to feed, and 3) yeerks can't interact with humans without using a human host. Let's suppose that the yeerk is taken into a human home immediately after spawning, that the yeerk shows infantile amnesia (who knows), and that the yeerk grows up only feeding from a private pool that contains no other yeerks. Let's even suppose that we give the yeerk a Stephenie Meyer—style human host who is completely brain dead. Even under those circumstances, would the yeerk think "I'm human"? or would the yeerk think "all so-called humans are greenish slugs operating ape bodies like mech suits; we just don't mention this fact out loud"? And is that the same thing as thinking oneself human?

For that matter, did Nim Chimpsky really think he was human, or do his two piles of pictures simply mean "apes who wear clothes" and "apes who don't"? If he assumed all apes have a life stage of being hairy and good at climbing before metamorphosing into a hairless form good at running, is that the same thing as thinking himself human? Was there a different categorization in his head, and if so was it comparable to the boundaries that humans draw around the concept "human" — e.g. "like-mes" and "beasts"? He never actually learned a human language, because evidence would suggests apes cannot, so we'll never know his exact thought process.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Hi! Could make some writing notes regarding what happens to the human body when making out? Like the temperature increase and dopamine release, stuff like that? Or maybe just how the body reacts when you're nearby/interact to/with a loved one. I hope you're doing well! I love your posts!

Writing Notes: The Physiology of Love

Love can be distilled into 3 categories: lust, attraction, and attachment.

Though there are overlaps and subtleties to each, each type is characterized by its own set of hormones:

Testosterone and estrogen - drive lust

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin - create attraction

Oxytocin and vasopressin - mediate attachment

When we are falling in love, chemicals associated with the reward circuit flood our brain, produce a variety of physical and emotional responses:

Racing hearts

Sweaty palms

Flushed cheeks

Feelings of passion

Anxiety

Two decades of research shows that when it comes to early-stage intense romantic love—the kind we often think of when we talk about being lovestruck—a very primitive part of the brain’s reward system, located in the midbrain, is activated first.

Some Physiological Reactions to a Kiss

Pulse and blood pressure increase

Pupils dilate

Breathing deepens

Rational thought retreats, as desire suppresses both prudence and self-consciousness

Lust

Driven by the desire for sexual gratification.

The evolutionary basis for this stems from our need to reproduce, a need shared among all living things.

The hypothalamus of the brain plays a big role in this, stimulating the production of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen from the testes and ovaries. While these chemicals are often stereotyped as being “male” and “female,” respectively, both play a role in men and women.

As it turns out, testosterone increases libido in just about everyone. The effects are less pronounced with estrogen, but some women report being more sexually motivated around the time they ovulate, when estrogen levels are highest.

Lust and attraction shut off the prefrontal cortex (includes rational behavior).

Attraction

Dopamine

Produced by the hypothalamus, is a particularly well-publicized player in the brain’s reward pathway – it’s released when we do things that feel good to us:

E.g., Spending time with loved ones and having sex.

High levels of dopamine and a related hormone, norepinephrine, are released during attraction. These chemicals make us:

giddy,

energetic, and

euphoric, even leading to decreased appetite and insomnia – which means you actually can be so “in love” that you can’t eat and can’t sleep.

Norepinephrine, also known as noradrenalin, may sound familiar because it plays a large role in the fight or flight response, which kicks into high gear when we’re stressed and keeps us alert:

Released more often at the beginning of a couple's relationship when many unknowns are present, putting the brain in a ‘proceed with caution’ mode.

Early in a relationship, there is heightened adrenalin, which causes feelings like butterflies in the stomach and a faster heart rate. There is also reduced activity in the parts of the brain that help us to make judgements, which is why you may be 'blinded' to another person’s faults in early love or infatuation,

Brain scans of people in love have actually shown that the primary “reward” centers of the brain, including the ventral tegmental area and the caudate nucleus, fire like crazy when people are shown a photo of someone they are intensely attracted to, compared to when they are shown someone they feel neutral towards (like an old high school acquaintance).

Attraction seems to lead to a reduction in serotonin:

It is a hormone that’s known to be involved in appetite and mood.

Interestingly, people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also have low levels of serotonin, leading scientists to speculate that this is what underlies the overpowering infatuation that characterizes the beginning stages of love.

This explains why people in the early stages of love can become obsessed with small details, spending hours debating about a text to or from their beloved.

Attachment

The predominant factor in long-term relationships.

While lust and attraction are pretty much exclusive to romantic entanglements, attachment mediates friendships, parent-infant bonding, social cordiality, and many other intimacies as well.

The two primary hormones here appear to be oxytocin and vasopressin.

Oxytocin

Often nicknamed “cuddle hormone” or “hormone of love”.

Produced by the hypothalamus.

Released in large quantities during sex, breastfeeding, and childbirth.

This may seem like a very strange assortment of activities – not all of which are necessarily enjoyable – but the common factor here is that all of these events are precursors to bonding.

It also makes it pretty clear why having separate areas for attachment, lust, and attraction is important: we are attached to our immediate family, but those other emotions have no business there (and let’s just say people who have muddled this up don’t have the best track record).

The Brain During a Kiss

The brain goes into overdrive during the all-important kiss.

It dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to the sensation of the lips in comparison to much larger body parts.

During a kiss, this lip sensitivity causes our brain to create a chemical cocktail that can give us a natural high.

This cocktail is made up of three chemicals, all designed to make us feel good and crave more: dopamine, oxytocin, and serotonin.

Like any cocktail, this one has an array of side-effects.

The combination of these three chemicals work by lighting up the 'pleasure centres' in our brain.

The dopamine released during a kiss can stimulate the same area of the brain activated by heroin and cocaine. As a result, we experience feelings of euphoria and addictive behaviour.

Oxytocin fosters feelings of affection and attachment. This is the same hormone that is released during childbirth and breastfeeding.

Finally, the levels of serotonin present in the brain whilst kissing look a lot like those of someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

No wonder the memory of a good kiss can stay with us for years.

Love happens less in the heart and more in the brain, where hormonal releases and brain chemicals are triggered.

Dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin are some of the key neurotransmitters that help you feel pleasure and satisfaction.

So, your body often approaches love as a cycle.

It feels good to be with that person, so your brain says, "Do that again."

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ⚜ Notes & References ⚜ Love ⚜ Kinds of Love

Thanks so much for your kind words. Hope you're doing well yourself! Would love to read your writing if these notes inspire you.

[typhlonectes]

Synergistic innovations enabled the radiation of anglerfishes in the deep open ocean

Chase D. Brownstein, Katerina L. Zapfe, Spencer Lott, Richard C. Harrington, Ava Ghezelayagh, Alex Dornburg, Thomas J. Near

Summary

Major ecological transitions are thought to fuel diversification, but whether they are contingent on the evolution of certain traits called key innovations is unclear. Key innovations are routinely invoked to explain how lineages rapidly exploit new ecological opportunities. However, investigations of key innovations often focus on single traits rather than considering trait combinations that collectively produce effects of interest.  Here, we investigate the evolution of synergistic trait interactions in anglerfishes, which include one of the most species-rich vertebrate clades in the bathypelagic, or “midnight,” zone of the deep sea: Ceratioidea.  Ceratioids are the only vertebrates that possess sexual parasitism, wherein males temporarily attach or permanently fuse to females to mate. We show that the rapid transition of ancestrally benthic anglerfishes into pelagic habitats occurred during a period of major global warming 50–35 million years ago. This transition coincided with the origins of sexual parasitism, which is thought to increase the probability of successful reproduction once a mate is found in the midnight zone, Earth’s largest habitat. Our reconstruction of the evolutionary history of anglerfishes and the loss of immune genes support that permanently fusing clades have convergently degenerated their adaptive immunity. We find that degenerate adaptive immune genes and sexual body size dimorphism, both variably present in anglerfishes outside the ceratioid radiation, likely promoted their transition into the bathypelagic zone. These results show how traits from separate physiological, morphological, and reproductive systems can interact synergistically to drive major transitions and subsequent diversification in novel environments.

Read the paper here: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(24)00576-1

(behind a paywall, unfortunately)

You may be able to contact the authors for a copy if you wish. (here)

[probablyasocialecologist]

There is a growing body of physiological, anatomical, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence to suggest that not only did women hunt in our evolutionary past, but they may well have been better suited for such an endurance-dependent activity. We are both biological anthropologists. I (co-author Cara) specialize in the physiology of humans who live in extreme conditions, using my research to reconstruct how our ancestors may have adapted to different climates. And I (co-author Sarah) study Neanderthal and early modern human health. I also excavate at their archaeological sites. It’s not uncommon for scientists like us—who attempt to include the contributions of all individuals, regardless of sex and gender, in reconstructions of our evolutionary past—to be accused of rewriting the past to fulfill a politically correct, woke agenda. The actual evidence speaks for itself, though: Gendered labor roles did not exist in the Paleolithic era, which lasted from 3.3 million years ago until 12,000 years ago. The story is written in human bodies, now and in the past.

[...]

Our Neanderthal cousins, a group of humans who lived across Western and Central Eurasia approximately 250,000 to 40,000 years ago, formed small, highly nomadic bands. Fossil evidence shows females and males experienced the same bony traumas across their bodies—a signature of a hard life hunting deer, aurochs, and woolly mammoths. Tooth wear that results from using the front teeth as a third hand, likely in tasks like tanning hides, is equally evident across females and males. This nongendered picture should not be surprising when you imagine small-group living. Everyone needs to contribute to the tasks necessary for group survival—chiefly, producing food and shelter, and raising children. Individual mothers are not solely responsible for their children; in forager communities, the whole group contributes to child care. You might imagine this unified labor strategy then changed in early modern humans, but archaeological and anatomical evidence shows it did not. Upper Paleolithic modern humans leaving Africa and entering Europe and Asia show very few sexed differences in trauma and repetitive motion wear. One difference is more evidence of “thrower’s elbow” in males than females, though some females shared these pathologies. And this was also the time when people were innovating with hunting technologies like atlatls (spear throwers), fishing hooks and nets, and bow and arrows—alleviating some of the wear and tear hunting would take on their bodies. A recent archaeological experiment found that using atlatls decreased sex differences in the speed of spears thrown by contemporary men and women. Even in death, there are no sexed differences in how Neanderthals or modern humans buried their dead or the goods affiliated with their graves. These indicators of differential gendered social status do not arrive until agriculture, with its stratified economic system and monopolizable resources. All this evidence suggests Paleolithic women and men did not occupy differing roles or social realms.

[beazt]

I just made a fuck ton of tags and I realized I want them in this main reblog but I can’t copy and paste them on mobile. can someone add them in a reblog (as text so it’s screenreader friendly please)

Trying to get people to realize birds are full on actual no holds barred dinosaurs on the internet is like playing a constant game of whack-a-mole

The game never ends there's just another mole to whack

whack whack whack

[she-is-ovarit]

Advantages to being female ("AFAB").

Biological differences in being female are often discussed negatively in order to indicate our disadvantages and where and how we are exploited within patriarchal societies.

On Ovarit, there was a thread in which users shared some biological differences to being female that illuminated our strengths. While of course biological differences in males vs. females is directly rooted in reproductive evolutionary strategy (whether someone develops down a reproductive pathway geared towards an overall reproductive system that supports gestating life and creating larger ova vs. not) I thought I would share some examples of advantages not directly connected to childbirth and childbearing. This is not an exhaustive list.

We are more flexible than male people.

We have better stamina and endurance in some extreme long-distance sports in comparison to male people (such as in ultra-marathons).

Some animals (especially other mammals such as wolves, horses, cats, etc.) are instinctively threatened by males, even if they have never been harmed by them. This is not the case with women.

We have better immune systems and survive viruses better than male people.

We survive famines and epidemics overall better than male people.

We survive variations in temperature overall better than male people.

We have better sense of smell than men.

Our chromosomes provide us with extra protection against certain genetic diseases like hemophilia, and we have more genetic diversity.

We have better balance due to our center of gravity being lower, in our pelvis's, while males have their center of gravity in their torsos. This makes us naturally better at sports like rock-climbing, gymnastics, certain martial arts, etc.

"The male fetus is at greater risk of death or damage from almost all the obstetric catastrophes that can happen before birth.2 Perinatal brain damage,3 cerebral palsy,4 congenital deformities of the genitalia and limbs, premature birth, and stillbirth are commoner in boys,5 and by the time a boy is born he is on average developmentally some weeks behind his sister: “A newborn girl is the physiological equivalent of a 4 to 6 week old boy.”

Women and girls have better color perception than males.

Multiple orgasms.

We're biologically better suited to being astronauts and living in space (note: and this was discovered 15 years ago yet this work was never published)

Some articles (debatable on credibility) suggest that we are better able to withstand complete sensory deprivation for several hours in comparison to men, who were able to withstand complete sensory deprivation for minutes.

For unknown reasons, we do not experience the same percentage of macular degeneration that men do in space.

We have a different adrenaline response. Our hormone systems work differently and so we do not lose as much decision making ability and fine motor control as men do in a crisis, making us better snipers and pilots thanks to our reaction time.

We have better life expectancy overall.

[mindblowingscience]

Prehistoric men hunted; prehistoric women gathered. At least this is the standard narrative written by and about men to the exclusion of women. The idea of "Man the Hunter" runs deep within anthropology, convincing people that hunting made us human, only men did the hunting, and therefore evolutionary forces must only have acted upon men. Such depictions are found not only in media, but in museums and introductory anthropology textbooks, too. A common argument is that a sexual division of labor and unequal division of power exists today; therefore, it must have existed in our evolutionary past as well. But this is a just-so story without sufficient evidentiary support, despite its pervasiveness in disciplines like evolutionary psychology. There is a growing body of physiological, anatomical, ethnographic and archaeological evidence to suggest that not only did women hunt in our evolutionary past, but they may well have been better suited for such an endurance-dependent activity.

Continue Reading.

[er-cryptid]

Action Potentials and Refractory Periods - Diagram

Patreon

[ytvideoseo]

Human Structure and Stimulation, & Dogs

Explore the fascinating parallels between human structure and stimulation, and their intriguing connection with our canine companions in this captivating YouTube video. Discover how the intricate workings of the human body mirror aspects of canine physiology, shedding light on our shared evolutionary journey. From neural responses to sensory experiences, delve into the captivating realm where…

[sttudnobright]

Planet of the Apes: Singing and Speaking (Updated: 08/02/2025)

Before Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes came out, I was hooked by the trailer and in response I binged watched the Caesar trilogy and read all the novelisations including the ones that covered the time after Rise and Dawn.

My favourite excerpt out of all of the books was a small excerpt from War for the Planet of the Apes: Revelations where an orang-utan named Ray hears humans singing for the first time.

I really loved how Ray was trying to find things he had heard so far in his life to try and compare it to. It was a tiny part of the story and wasn't part of the plot but it was a sweet little interlude.

Now after seeing Kingdom and learning how important song is to Eagle Clan in order to bond with their eagles, I can't help but be anxious and hope that they hear humans sing too.

Singing and music has been integral to humans regardless of culture throughout our history in order to express joy, hope and excitement to anger and grief.

I don't think apes in the reboot are capable of singing in the same way as humans yet, as the actor of Proximus Caesar, Kevin Durand mentioned in response to a question at the London premiere that his character might keep some humans around to sing him songs. Seen below:

1:00 onwards, Kevin describes making Proximus' voice and from 1:51 is when he mentions Proximus keeping humans to sing.

Considering Proximus has a love/hate relationship with humans, I don't think he'd keep one around to sing if apes were capable of singing in the same way.

Either way I hope there is an opportunity in future films for this to happen. (Not a musical of course :D lol )

Speaking: Apes vs Humans

There can be a scientific reason the franchise could use as to why apes are slowly getting better at speaking and perhaps one day singing. It turns out there's slightly different morphological differences in the larynx (voice box) between apes and humans.

According to this article:

The main difference is that apes have 'small ribbon-like extensions of the vocal cords... called a vocal membrane' and 'ballon-like laryngeal structures called air sacs' . According to the article these structures help some apes and monkeys produce those loud and resonant calls and also helped prevent hyperventilation, while vocal membranes '"...allow other primates to make louder, higher pitched calls than humans - but they make voice breaks and noisy vocal irregularity more common," said evolutionary biologist... W Tecumseh Fitch of the University of Vienna.'

This could explain in part how most of the apes in the Caesar trilogy relied heavily on sign language because despite ALZ-113 affecting their intelligence, it didn't appear to do much for their vocal structures. The exception of course being Caesar, Koba and Bad Ape.

The argument can be made that Koba and Bad Ape learned to speak through sheer effort and strain albeit for different reasons. Despite their efforts however they still had to use shorter words either because they didn't have/know them or they couldn't continue the sound long enough to say them. As a result where a human could speak in longer sentences without pausing, they had to break their sentences up as they couldn't vocalise the longer words and sustain the sentence.

Caesar could be a slight exception. It was shown in War that he can speak in longer sentences with fewer pauses and could probably handle longer words. This may be because he was exposed to ALZ-112 while in utero and any slight physiological changes could have happened to his development before his birth.

Fast forward 300 years to Kingdom's timeline and most apes are speaking similar to how Caesar was in War. Though there are slight differences depending on characters. For Eagle Clan, the apes there do speak clearly and to the point. Only using the words they need to make themselves understood, however there are still pauses in the sentence and there's no noticeably long words. They don't seem to use any words longer than two syllables and if they do use words longer than that, it was uncommon.

While with Proximus, he's trying to walk a line between ape and human, so he's training himself to speak for longer and learning more complicated words though there are rare instances where he still needs to pause now and then while speaking them. For example, while he had no audible problem saying words like 'advancement', 'familiar', 'dangerous' or 'wonderful'. He did sound out the word 'evolution', breaking it down into syllables (this might have been because it was a new one he had recently learned), and when he accused Mae of being 'duplicitous' he had to pause before speaking it out loud (though he was getting quite agitated when he said this and it could have just been emotion).

This could signal that with every generation of apes (at least in this part of the world), their vocal membranes and air sacs (if they have them) are being used less and less and will run the risk of them becoming redundant and likely phased out of their physiology altogether.

The researchers stated in the article above that the loss of these tissues and our larynx evolving to be situated lower in the windpipe than in other primates. were vital to the ability of speech in humans. their loss enabled us to have 'excellent pitch control with long and stable speech sounds,' giving us '... the ability to express thoughts and feelings using articulate sounds.'

In summary it appears that our simplified voice box has allowed us to have more range to not just speak but sing as well.

In the Planet of the Apes franchise it appears with every new film that the apes may be slowly gaining this simplified structure too or at least their version of it. So who knows, maybe if there's another trilogy after Noa and Mae's story arc, apes may have evolved enough where they have the same vocal range as humans do/had.

[maryflorlovyblog]

After all, are there black flowers?

As incredible as it may seem, the answer is no. What do exist are darker flowers, but none have been found to date with a truly black tone. According to Professor Enio Luiz Pedrotti, PhD in plant physiology from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), the reason is evolutionary. This is because the black flower does not attract pollinators. 🥀🌸💐🌻

—Source: Google

[the-most-humble-blog]

Female Hypergamy 101: Why Women Go for the “Misogynists” They Claim to Despise

It’s not misogyny if she’s into it.

Modern feminism has a huge problem—and it’s not misogynists.

It’s the women who secretly (or blatantly) want them.

For all the outrage, pearl-clutching, and Twitter thread dissertations about men like Andrew Tate being “dangerous,” women keep proving, time and time again, that they want exactly this type of man.

And not just want. Chase. Obsess over. Fight for.

Because here’s the truth they don’t want to admit:

👉 Hypergamy runs the show.

👉 Women date up, not down.

👉 And they don’t give a fuck if that "up" comes wrapped in a leather jacket of blatant, unapologetic misogyny.

📌 The Hypergamy Effect: Women Date Up, Not Down

First, let’s define hypergamy for the chronically uneducated.

💡 Hypergamy is the biological and social tendency of women to seek men who outrank them in status, power, and resources.

It’s not a choice. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s evolution.

📊 David Buss, a leading evolutionary psychologist, found in his 2019 study that across all cultures, women overwhelmingly prefer men with: ✔ More money ✔ More social dominance ✔ More ambition ✔ More physical presence

Not "equal." More.

Sound familiar?

Why do you think women flood Tate’s DMs despite his reputation?

Why do you think feminists cry about him online while secretly watching his videos in the dark like it’s porn?

It’s because hypergamy doesn’t give a fuck about ideology.

It only cares about status.

📌 The Data: Women Are Attracted to “High-Status” Men—Even If They Hate Them

If hypergamy wasn’t real, we wouldn’t have study after study proving it.

📊 A 2012 study by Fieder & Huber analyzed the dating preferences of thousands of women and found that:

✔ Women consistently rated men with high status, wealth, and dominance as more attractive—even if their personalities were “problematic.” ✔ They found high-status "assholes" more desirable than low-status "nice guys." ✔ Women repeatedly rejected men who had lower incomes or weaker social positions.

Translation? They can call it misogyny all they want. Their biology doesn’t care.

Even better? They are sexually aroused by it.

🧠 A 2008 study by Rupp & Wallen found that when exposed to dominant, "socially aggressive" men, women experienced higher physiological arousal than when exposed to "kind, nurturing" men.

You read that right.

They get turned on by the men they claim to despise.

📌 Tate’s DMs: The Leaked Receipts of Female Hypergamy

Still skeptical? Let’s talk about the actual receipts.

📂 Leaked screenshots from Tate’s personal messages—while he was actively being accused of misogyny and human trafficking—showed women flooding his inbox begging for attention.

Not just fans. Not just “lost, brainwashed” women.

We’re talking: ✔ Self-proclaimed feminists asking for his approval. ✔ "Anti-Tate" women secretly flirting with him. ✔ Women offering themselves up, unprompted, despite “hating” him.

So tell me again how “no woman wants a misogynist?”

Because Tate’s inbox tells a different story.

📌 Why Women Love What They “Hate”

💡 Women don’t actually want equality in dating.

They want status, power, and the thrill of dominance.

✔ They call Tate misogynistic, yet can’t stop talking about him. ✔ They say they want a “nice, emotionally available man” while chasing the very men they complain about. ✔ They "despise" male arrogance while drooling over men who treat them like an afterthought.

Hypergamy is undefeated.

And every outraged feminist tweet about Tate? Every think-piece about why he’s "problematic?"

It’s just free advertising for the exact type of man they can’t resist.

📌 Final Thought: The Lie of "Nice Guys Finish First"

Feminists say they want a world where men are gentle, kind, and respectful.

Yet they date the opposite.

They hate the men they want.

They date the men they claim to hate.

And when the receipts come out? They scramble for excuses.

Because no woman wants to admit that biology will always outrank ideology.

💀 REBLOG if the truth burns. 🔥 LIKE if you see hypergamy play out in real life. 💬 COMMENT if you’ve watched women contradict themselves like Olympic-level gymnasts. 🚀 FOLLOW for brutal, fact-driven breakdowns that hurt the weak.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of human needs has profoundly influenced the behavioral sciences, becoming a seminal concept in understanding human motivation.

The original pyramid comprises 5 levels:

Physiological needs: Basic requirements for survival, such as food, water, shelter, and sleep

Safety needs: Security of body, employment, resources, morality, the family, health, and property

Love and belonging needs: Friendship, family, intimacy, and a sense of connection

Esteem needs: Respect, self-esteem, status, recognition, strength, and freedom

Self-Actualization: The desire to become the best that one can be

Maslow posited that our motivations arise from inherent and universal human traits, a perspective that predated and anticipated evolutionary theories in biology and psychology (Crawford & Krebs, 2008; Dunbar & Barrett, 2007).

Maslow developed his theory during the Second World War, a time of global upheaval and change, when the world was grappling with immense loss, trauma, and transformation. This context influenced Maslow’s emphasis on the individual’s potential for growth, peace, and fulfillment beyond mere survival.

It is noteworthy that Maslow did not actually create the iconic pyramid that is frequently associated with his hierarchy of needs. Researchers believe it was popularized instead by psychologist Charles McDermid, who was inspired by step-shaped model designed by management theorist Keith Davis (Kaufman, 2019).

Over the years, Maslow (1970) made revisions to his initial theory, mentioning that 3 more levels could be added:

cognitive needs,

aesthetic needs, and

transcendence needs (e.g., mystical, aesthetic, sexual experiences, etc.).

Criticisms of the Hierarchy of Needs

Criticism of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been a subject of ongoing discussion, with several key limitations identified by scholars and practitioners alike. Understanding these critiques and integrating responses to them is vital for therapists aiming to apply the hierarchy in a modernized way in their practice.

Needs are Dynamic

Critics argue that the original hierarchy does not offer an accurate depiction of human motivation as dynamic and continuously influenced by the interplay between our inner drives and the external world (Freund & Lous, 2012).

While Maslow’s early work suggested that one must fulfill lower levels in order to reach ultimate self-actualization, we now know human needs are not always clearly linear nor hierarchical.

People might experience and pursue multiple needs simultaneously or in a different order than the hierarchy suggests. After all, personal motives and environmental factors constantly interact, shaping how individuals respond to their surroundings based on their past experiences.

Cultural Bias

One of the primary criticisms is the cultural bias inherent in Maslow’s original model. While many human needs can be shared among cultures, different cultures may prioritize certain needs or goals over others (Tay & Diener, 2011).

It’s often argued that Maslow’s emphasis on self-actualization reflects a distinctly Western, individualistic perspective, which may not resonate with or accurately represent the motivational structures in more collectivist societies where community and social connectedness are prioritized.

Empirical Grounding

The hierarchy has also faced scrutiny for its lack of empirical grounding, with some suggesting that there isn’t sufficient research to support the strict ordering of needs (Kenrick et al., 2010).

In practice, this limitation can be addressed by viewing the hierarchy as a descriptive framework rather than a prescriptive one.

Source ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[typhlonectes]

BOOKS: Evolution Evolving

A new scientific view of evolution is emerging—one that challenges and expands our understanding of how evolution works. Recent research demonstrates that organisms differ greatly in how effective they are at evolving. Whether and how each organism adapts and diversifies depends critically on the mechanistic details of how that organism operates—its development, physiology, and behavior. That is because the evolutionary process itself has evolved over time, and continues to evolve. The scientific understanding of evolution is evolving too, with groundbreaking new ways of explaining evolutionary change. In this book, a group of leading biologists draw on the latest findings in evolutionary genetics and evo-devo, as well as novel insights from studies of epigenetics, symbiosis, and inheritance, to examine the central role that developmental processes play in evolution. Written in an accessible style, and illustrated with fascinating examples of natural history, the book presents recent scientific discoveries that expand evolutionary biology beyond the classical view of gene transmission guided by natural selection. Without undermining the central importance of natural selection and other Darwinian foundations, new developmental insights indicate that all organisms possess their own characteristic sets of evolutionary mechanisms. The authors argue that a consideration of developmental phenomena is needed for evolutionary biologists to generate better explanations for adaptation and biodiversity. This book provides a new vision of adaptive evolution.

Evolution Evolving provides a new vision of adaptive evolution—read a sample of this fascinating book:

https://hubs.ly/Q02VyCrz0