@farmerman,
I read it all and the comments.
It's psuedo-scientific woffle presumably in the service of a career. Evolution theory demands that it's in the service of something.
If he scoffs at the distinction between natural and artificial selection then he ought to look at the juxta I offered yesterday between the Willendorf and the Bernini mastrpiece. A 25,000 year transformation or metamorphosis.
If he did he might say, as he did for his chosen plants, than many "experts" might think the Venus to be more closely related to (what?) than to humans or that at the "the very fine levels of structural detail" (fine phrase) they are "nearly" indistinguishable. A cross between the genotype of the Venus and, say, Bernini himself, a speculation Cecil Rhodes offered, would yield "healthy, fertile offspring".
So the basic idea is that Modern Woman is the domesticated version of the Venus. Religion being the domesticating agent and specifically Christianity for the Modern Western Woman: a fine example of which we have been shown by Mr Apisa recently. Otherwise the two types are, to all intents and purposes, identical and Modern Western Woman is merely a highly trained circus performer. And on the paltry time-scales the writer uses, which Darwin would have pooh-poohed, she is, biologically, the farmed animal equivalent of corn prepared for men of delicate sensibilities and refined aesthetic tastes. Prettied up teosinte. Or corn.
The men who go for the "Fat Slags" being in profound disagreement tested at the most visceral level and peer reviewed seemingly endlessly. The beloved of Jung and his followers.
Were I an 18th century chevalier I would challenge Mr Matheson to a duel. But I'm not so I will content myself with a good, old-fashioned smirk.
