natural selection

sure, you could be all altruistic about that. or you could note that nobody's really being weeded out at this point in our evolution, so everybody gets to pass on their genes. wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

0 Replies

Down, boy.

Does the gf know that you're on a gene-passing kick?

0 Replies

(no -- and let's keep that wraps on that, shall we? ;-) )

0 Replies

Several non-PG rated responses come to mind. I have typed and backspaced over all of them. Still thinking them.

0 Replies

Guys, I wasn't suggesting there is anything wrong with "ugly" genes or that ugly people should not marry, but I would hazard a guess that attractive people tend to, over the centuries, product more children than those who are not attractive (statictically). This would result in a population that would be considered more attractive over the centuries. recesive genes for unattractiveness (???) would gradually be eliminated. An answer might be that women tend to repoduce with men that they are attracted for reasons other than physical reasons, like success, commandding personalities, etc. This may incourage the repoduction of unattractive people. May it's just me.

0 Replies

would be really interesting if we could quantify/measure ugliness. i'm betting that in modern society the ugly are the more fecund in production of offspring.

0 Replies

One of the things that I once read, and have noticed, is that people tend to marry people of similar attractiveness. When you see a gorgeous woman with an ugly man, you can bet that he has some attribute that overrides his ugliness......money, power, influence, etc.

Therefore, people whom our society considers "ugly" will tend to marry one another, providing society with more ugly offspring.

0 Replies

Human males posess the largest penises of all the primates. The largest gorilla penis is no more than 3 inches. Natural selection perhaps? Very Happy

Some worms are hermaphrodites. In their society, when you say "Go f--- yourself" they just say "Umm, ok."

0 Replies

Yup, still 10. Wink

I think Phoenix makes the best point here.

0 Replies

Heh heh, 10 till I die, hopefully....and Phoenix is dead on for facts.

0 Replies

I do wonder, however, how much we can attribute what we consider 'ugly' to our genetic predispositions to certain traits, and how much is socialization? It is interesting to note that obsessions with being thin have revolved around our millennium dates....and look at the paintings of Reubens....'Zaftig' was considered highly desirable. I am reminded of a song: "My Ever Changing Moods." Wink

0 Replies

Yeah, standards of beauty most definitely change. The things that seem to have held true throughout are:

-Symmetry -- this evidently has to do with physical fitness, and is why athletes tend to be considered good looking (facially as well as well-toned or whatever)

-In women, the 36-24-36 ratio, which can also be expressed as 3X-2X-3X or 45-30-45 or whatever. (Zaftig maidens still tended to have a waist.)

-General health (duh).

-Whatever indicates a life of leisure and plenty in that period. Tan, or alabaster skin, or bound feet, or soft skin, or...

There are myriad exceptions and variations in specific time frames. Moles, unhealthy thinness, unhealthy zaftigness, etc., etc.

0 Replies

I say stats be damned...shouldn't we be beyond this? Please tell me we have evolved... Shocked

sozobe, sounds like you are drawing on an anthropological model for your claims. While anthropolgy is a helpful tool in understanding our nature, what I don't like is that it is entirely behavioural in its approach. It does not acknowledge the capacity of the human mind to evolve beyond it's animal instincts, which makes for cool reading (Helen Fisher's 'The Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery and Divorce' comes to mind), but bad science. Personally, I really don't want to be told that I am a slave to my instincts... :wink: Obviously, general health, athleticism, etc, are attractive on a physical level, but what motivates a healthy person to take care of a dying spouse? That, I think, is something on a higher level.

0 Replies

P.S. Mrs. cav thinks she is Zaftig, but she is a nicely waisted waif to me Very Happy

0 Replies

Small waisted, large hipped women tended to produce offspring more easily. (Here we go, being anthropological again!). Therefore, that sort of woman was considered more desirable by early man. Women with narrow distances between their pelvic bones often had difficulty in childbirth. I would assume, that before Caesarean sections, many of these women died in childbirth.

0 Replies

Heh heh...point taken Laughing

0 Replies

well....
Generally the law of natural selection is true. But the problem with assioating higher and lower creatures to that law is the lack of consideration for thought and choice. Ultimatily we are so differant because we made the right choices. And for that matter drugs helped mold those choices. we are what we are because we think

Speak Free :wink:

0 Replies

I'm just going to answer some of the questions you guys brought up...

Quote:

What's a phenotype New Haven?

He didn't give a very good definition. It's just the physical expression of a gene. Whereas the genotype is what the genes actually are.

Quote:

But a big nose -- how does that effect survival?

It originally helped us to dissipate heat from the body (the same reason that certain animals have big ears) so that we could travel farther in the desert without overheating.

Quote:

Why humans became almost hairless?

So that they could sweat easier and get rid of body heat, like the nose.

Quote:

Why each hand has five fingers (in the usual cases)?

Simply because most people have five fingers...the dominant trait is six fingers but so many people have five that it can't be spread (except in a certain town in ohio or utah...).

Quote:

what are your thoughts on the biological functions or origins of homosexuality?

It makes it so not everyone in a tribe is reproducing, allowing for more people to make work instead of babies and lowers the birthrate so less food can go farther.

Quote:

The appendix no longer serves a function, but it is still there.

It does serve a function, to attract certain bacteria and viruses away from the more vital organs...we have many such "useless" organs in our bodies and not all were meant to attract disease but that's what they do.

Quote:

Why is it that there are so many ugly people in the world?

Because what you see as ugly may not be in other parts of the world, where airplanes have allowed people to travel and mix so many genes that very few are attractive. For example, people in cold areas tend to like heavier mates; whereas in the US, there is no need for that and so we look to whatever society thinks is pretty at the time. Many countries are ditching their instinct on what is attractive because certain traits don't matter anymore.

Quote:

but what motivates a healthy person to take care of a dying spouse?

There is this subject that many people have researched time and time again. I believe it's called love.

Even with all of that evolution going around, Americans function solely on super-ego power.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Small waisted, large hipped women tended to produce offspring more easily. (Here we go, being anthropological again!). Therefore, that sort of woman was considered more desirable by early man. Women with narrow distances between their pelvic bones often had difficulty in childbirth. I would assume, that before Caesarean sections, many of these women died in childbirth.

Too damn right they did P-nix. So, what is the most important quality at this point for a male? Do I go with the looker or do I stick with the ugly one who makes healthy babies? I am gonna need some offspring to look after me in my old age, and it doesn't matter if my mate looks like Slappy's sister at that point.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
what are your thoughts on the biological functions or origins of homosexuality?

It makes it so not everyone in a tribe is reproducing, allowing for more people to make work instead of babies and lowers the birthrate so less food can go farther.

Hmmm. I don't buy it. I doubt it has any biological function whatsoever. Not everything is honed to perform as well as it possibly can.

Quote:

Quote:
The appendix no longer serves a function, but it is still there.

It does serve a function, to attract certain bacteria and viruses away from the more vital organs...we have many such "useless" organs in our bodies and not all were meant to attract disease but that's what they do.

The appendix is what remains of the cecum, where roughage is fermented with microbial assistance in non-ruminant herbivores (i.e., rabbits, not cows). At some point in our evolution, we, too, were predominantly herbivorous, as is also evidenced by our teeth.

Quote:

Quote:
Why is it that there are so many ugly people in the world?

Because what you see as ugly may not be in other parts of the world, where airplanes have allowed people to travel and mix so many genes that very few are attractive. For example, people in cold areas tend to like heavier mates; whereas in the US, there is no need for that and so we look to whatever society thinks is pretty at the time. Many countries are ditching their instinct on what is attractive because certain traits don't matter anymore.

That's one of the most bizarre statements I've seen in a while. I think I see what you're getting at, but mankind has been global for a lot longer than we've had airplanes. And I'm not sure how you jump from miscegenation (and that term I am hesitant to use) to "unattractive."

0 Replies

natural selection

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know