@whiic Err no, the Cuck is the new husband who invariably gets suckered into sacrificing his time and resources to provide and care for a child that isn't his own biological offspring.

The "old husband" is not the cuck in that scenario because he already got to breed with the woman and produced offspring which he himself does not have to invest much time or effort in caring for, since his former wife and her new partner cares for his child. Basically, the old husband has achieved success in the biological competition between the sexes since his genes are not only passed along, but have their chances of survival increased on account of effectively having THREE adults caring for and nurturing his offspring (most children will have to settle for two adults at the most).

Sexual dimporphism in humans create this sexual competition between men and women. Men can produce millions of sperm cells every day, and they can do this up to very old age. Therefore their biological imperative is to impregnate as many women as possible, in order to ensure the survival of their own genes by a kind of "shotgun approach" (impregnate many women, and some offspring might die, but the chances increase that some of the offspring survives to adulthood and manage to breed on their own)

Women on the other hand have almost directly opposite circumstances and biological goals. A woman can only produce a finite amount of eggs during her lifetime, and the period in which she's fertile is much shorter on average than that of the average man. Therefore the woman has a biological imperative to be much more selective of the man being allowed to fertilize her eggs. And since children are very weak and defenseless for a long period of time right after birth, and the woman herself is in a physically fragile state while pregnant, the woman has an imperative to both find a man with good genes, likely to produce strong offspring, but also a man capable of caring for her and protecting her and their mutual child during pregnancy and the early childhood of their offspring.

That offers the womans genes the best chances of survival. But seeing as how male specimens who are both possessing good genes AND behave as loyal caregivers are quite rare on the meatmarket, many women settle for being impregnated by an attractive man with good genes in order to create strong offspring, but they ensnare a more desperate, less attractive man exhibiting more loyal characteristics to be the caregiver of her and her offspring.

It's a behavioural adaptation of promiscuity to solve a problem which the sexual competition and sexual dimorphism cause for women.

> English people are retarded and don't have a control of their tongue.
👌 🆗 💯 👍 👍 👌

@Seven Proxies

> This went on for generations and so will ultimately be responsible for racial differences exhibited between human populations today.

I don't think it was long enough to make any massive changes, past some small changes in appearance related DNA [1], evidenced by the fact we can still inter-breed without issue. Our brains are essentially the same [2]. Assuming there are differences though, as long as somebody from another race exhibits an understanding and agreement of the same cultural and ideological fundamentals, what difference does it make?

> It is completely illogical to simply dismiss the racial differences and the rational self-interest in having allegiance to ones own race, when the prehistoric isolation between human groups have clearly had such an huge impact on the genetic psyche of them.

If these differences are so evident in the brain, please link the Scientific articles. You can find small differences in brain structure of course [3], but show me something that indicates a fundamental difference that is the result of nature rather than nurture, which changes the race's processing of certain information.

My point is, as long as somebody from a different race shares my fundamental beliefs (the beliefs I am am unwilling to compromise on), such as culture and ideology, what difference does it really make? Personally, I value my culture and ideology over the colour of my skin.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Homo_sapiens
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

Anyway, fathering adopted children is only "being a cuck" if it isn't advantageous to your genes or your culture somehow. And by "your genes" I mean the larger pool of people in some way related to you. If someone (in Slovenia) told me they were adopting Ukrainan orphans, fine, not a cuck, they're fellow Slavic people, similar customs, similar religion, ... If they adopted subsaharans ... Extreme Cuckoldry

I would point out that behavior patterns can be inherited, these can be passed on through generations

> I would point out that behavior patterns can be inherited, these can be passed on through generations

Citation needed

I'm willing to concede if you can prove it

Aggression has been bred out of several species, domestication of animals, no need to cite a source, just like water is wet

Humans are no different

No, humans are quite different

Come on, I asked for a citation

More cognitive, but we aren't from another planet

Surely it's massively researched

No, its not

So, you're saying you don't have evidence...

Animal domestication is much more different from behavioural patterns

Why would there be, can you find a study on human behavior that isn't circumstantial

Aggression was bred out of them

Hence, aggressive behavior can be passed on in one form or another

As can passivity

Also, knowledge, in some species

I think if you say "citation needed" for eveything, you are being a bit closed minded

These things are extremely complex

Indeed

@B[] Unless you've got the genome completely mapped out, you can't say for certain that the differences would only be "some small changes in appearance related DNA". Also, it doesn't make much sense that only appearance would've been affected since there is really only one enviromental factor in prehistoric times leading up to today where appearance might've granted a survival edge, and that would be the relative sunlight exposure (black skin protects better against high sun exposure, white skin allows for more absorption of sunlight in places that have fewer hours of sunlight of the year).

But there were so many more factors to take into account which has influenced the survival strategies and ways of thinking with prehistoric tribes than just sunlight.

The fact that we can interbreed "without issue" (disputed claim, but I'll go with it for the moment) doesn't prove anything, since humans could interbreed with far more removed variants of hominids, like the fact that white people are a result of hybridization between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis, while black people have no genetic trace markers from homo neanderthalensis at all.

Neanderthals where further genetically removed from homo sapiens, in pre historic times than white people are today from black people, yet they could still interbreed.

Domestication is something completely different

There are literally genetic markers in some animals that control aggression (hence floppy ears)

Its behavior being changed through generations, if behavior couldn't be passed on, aggressive species would stay that way

Sharing knowledge is a completely different thing again

Not entirely, there will be mechanisms for it that we know nothing of

Recent research also suggest that behaviour and even memories are inherited https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancestors-genetic-memories-passed-on-14-generations/

If you make a flatworm learn a maze, grind it up, feed it to another flatworm it will complete the maze as if learned, they manage to process memory by digestion

so its not out of the question

"This particular study looked at C. elegans nematodes, types of roundworms with very short lifespans. The researchers genetically engineered them to carry a glowing gene, a protein that fluoresced, so they could track it under UV light.

They then placed the worms in a cold environment and watched as the gene glowed, but dimly. Moving them to a warm environment, they saw the gene glow far more brightly. When they were moved back to the cold room, the gene continued to glow, which suggested the “memory” of the warm environment was maintained.

Incredibly, when these worms reproduced, this memory, via this glowing gene, was passed on through an unprecedented 14 generations, no matter whether they received it via eggs or sperm. This means that their offspring would be “aware” of the warm environment even without having experienced it themselves."

That's cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Global_variation_of_IQ_scores

I don't like cross correlations between race and intelligence

Its too complex a thing

@Seven Proxies

> Unless you've got the genome completely mapped out, you can't say for certain that the differences would only be "some small changes in appearance related DNA". Also, it doesn't make much sense that only appearance would've been affected since there is really only one enviromental factor in prehistoric times leading up to today where appearance might've granted a survival edge, and that would be the relative sunlight exposure (black skin protects better against high sun exposure, white skin allows for more absorption of sunlight in places that have fewer hours of sunlight of the year).

I obviously don't have the human genome mapped out, and of course if I did, I wouldn't have the ability to comprehend it in a meaningful way. But, what I can do is look at how long it took for other features to develop and hypothesise about how long it would take to make significant changes to the brain.

From an evolutionary perspective, all races pretty much faced the same types of hunter/gatherer survival scenarios where they had come down from their trees and began to make tools. There's not much reason for them to have massively changed.

> The fact that we can interbreed "without issue" (disputed claim

Disputed by who? I'm talking strictly from a "does a valid baby get made" perspective, not any social issues you may or may not have.

> doesn't prove anything, since humans could interbreed with far more removed variants of hominids, like the fact that white people are a result of hybridization between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis, while black people have no genetic trace markers from homo neanderthalensis at all.

They were still quite close.

> Neanderthals where further genetically removed from homo sapiens, in pre historic times than white people are today from black people, yet they could still interbreed.

It's because they weren't massively different. If you can still breed with another race/species, then your genetic markers haven't changed too much.