Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 131 (710655)
11-08-2013 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by NoNukes
11-04-2013 11:20 PM


beauty standards
Aren't most of the contestants "augmented", on funky diets, and made up? Do most women look like that naturally? Surely not. So yes, probably too rare for a world wide beauty contest.
And, in real life I don't think a woman with an abdomen so small she could not possibly have internal organs, yet with breasts bigger than her head would be attractive. At least not now that I'm not 14.
And yet that still seems to be the "idealized" standard of beauty, what shows up in adverts as well as fantasy:
Mannequins Give Shape to a Venezuelan Fantasy - The New York Times
quote:
VALENCIA, Venezuela Frustrated with the modest sales at his small mannequin factory, Eliezer lvarez made a simple observation: Venezuelan women were increasingly using plastic surgery to transform their bodies, yet the mannequins in clothing stores did not reflect these new, often extreme proportions.
So he went back to his workshop and created the kind of woman he thought the public wanted one with a bulging bosom and cantilevered buttocks, a wasp waist and long legs, a fiberglass fantasy, Venezuelan style.
The shape was augmented, and so were sales. Now his mannequins, and others like them, have become the standard in stores across Venezuela, ...
When plastic surgery is used then it is not natural, but an extreme unnatural standard that still pushes evolution. The "desired" form is at one extreme end of the spectrum of the gene pool, if not "off the chart" at that end ... and that is a marker of runaway sexual selection.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2013 11:20 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2013 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 131 (710656)
11-08-2013 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by NoNukes
11-04-2013 11:41 PM


Re: Runaway Sexual Selection
... but I find the brain size argument even less convincing. What makes you think the brain is any larger than required to give man a functional, non sexual selection advantage. If women actually found big heads attractive, would the heads need to be filled with big brains?
You're making the mistake of thinking that brain size is what is being sexually selected, rather than the product of a larger brain ... creativity (the ability to attract mates through creative actions, singing, dancing, art, etc). Brain size comes along for the ride.
What is clear is that more women and children die in childbirth than in all other ape species and that this is mostly due to large head size. There is a limit to how large a head can be to pass through the birth canal, and once again we see that this limit is pushed in the distribution within the population, it is at a skewed end of the distribution.
That is what tells me that we are dealing with runaway selection rather than simple sexual selection: a skewed distribution.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2013 11:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2013 8:57 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 131 (710681)
11-08-2013 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by NoNukes
11-08-2013 8:52 AM


Re: beauty standards
In order to drive evolution, a trait must be inheritable. Plastic surgery created traits, hair weaves, and food starved bodies are not inheritable, so any attraction for those things does not push evolution.
What it demonstrates is that Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection is in operation, driving sexual selection of women at this extreme edge of the breeding population. Any choice between two women will tend to be towards that perceived "ideal" ...
The fact that humans are capable of making alterations to the phenotype does not mean that this altered phenotype is not being selected or that women that have some if not all of the "ideal" traits will not be preferred over those that don't.
With breast implants and facial plastic surgery we are seeing "memes" replacing "genes" in the selection process, but we are still seeing selection of the phenotype, and that is part of evolution.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2013 8:52 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 10-26-2014 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 131 (710682)
11-08-2013 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by NoNukes
11-08-2013 8:57 AM


Re: Runaway Sexual Selection
No. I'm not making that mistake. I'm asking you why it could not be the case that the guys with little heads had the disadvantage of being more easily caught by saber tooth tigers, or being the one more often caught under the mastodon's foot during a hunting expedition, or of eating the wrong plants, etc.
I'm suggesting that part of the issue is that the dumb humans may have been the ones who too often went hunting with the short spear.
You are making the mistake of attributing, without evidence, everything to sexual selection and nothing to other selection forces.
First off, the evidence is clear (to me) that head size has "maxed out" in the human population, that further head size increase will be accompanied by increased mortality or injury to mother and/or child. The only way to accommodate further increase is through Cesarean Section births -- as artificial as beauty enhancements, yes?
Second, in normal selection the traits under selection are observed to be in a normal distribution about an average value: with no outside survival pressure one way or the other, this average value will generally be selected, and the result will be stasis in the population. Only when you have selection pressure one way or the other will you have pressure to move away from that average towards a new population average centered on the new selection average ... until that stasis is restored around the new average in a normal distribution.
If survival selection drives a population towards - or off - the end of the available distribution, then the population would tend to extinction. Personally I don't see "more easily caught by saber tooth tigers, or being the one more often caught under the mastodon's foot" creating that extreme level of selection -- that's as likely to be stochastic as it is to be selection, and certainly not as persistent and dominant as sexual selection. Certainly once the selection pressure was eased the population would tend towards a normal distribution once again. I do not see any continued survival selection pressure on the human population, while I DO see continued selection for increased head size.
Thirdly, I DO see sexual selection for creativity being a persistent, dominant -- and ongoing -- selection process, operating on every generation, and still in effect today (while mastodons and saber-tooth tigers have become extinct).
Back in the '70's there was a scientific study of stickle-back minnows that found that the longer a male stickle-back went without mating the more likely he was to attempt mating with something looking less and less like a female stickle-back, to the point of trying to mate with a stick. In other words he had an "ideal" mate, but was willing to accept less than ideal when it came to actual mating activity.
In Runaway Sexual Selection you have an "ideal" to search for, but still will find acceptable mates that are the closest available to that ideal. If the "ideal" is not an average value in the population then it will tend to push the population to one end of the available distribution.
The evidence is there in the population distribution and in the selection process that are still underway.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2013 8:57 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 131 (739587)
10-25-2014 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-30-2005 9:49 PM


Re: last addendum - male facial hair
Just a note that facial hair patterns in monkeys and apes have a wide range of displays that would have very low survival advantage but high sexual selection advantage:
Emperor tamarin - Wikipedia
quote:
The fur of the emperor tamarin is predominantly grey colored, with yellowish speckles on its chest. The hands and feet are black and the tail is brown. Outstanding is its long, white mustache, which extends to both sides beyond the shoulders. The animal reaches a length of 23—26 centimetres (9—10 in), plus a 35—41.5 cm (13.8—16.3 in) long tail.[4] It weighs approximately 500 grams (18 oz).[1]

Cute fella eh? Looks like a bit of a beard as well as the moustache.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2005 9:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 131 (739661)
10-26-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jon
10-26-2014 11:49 AM


Re: beauty standards
Just in general, though, not many women get plastic surgery, etc. A preference for a plastic-surgery-esque body will favor women in the general population who inherently possess traits more toward that end of the continuum.
And continued selection toward that end of the continuum demonstrates that this runaway sexual selection is alive and well and is operating robustly in modern society.
Are you aware how many breast implants are done a year? It is an industry, not an occasional operation.
How many women shave? How big an industry for shaving is involved?
How many women dye their hair? How big an industry for hair dying is involved?
The purpose is not to pass on genes for those traits but to pass on the genes you have ... which incidentally include the genes for wanting to alter your appearance to better fit the desired icon appearance and the genes for selecting that appearance ... maintaining and reinforcing the runaway sexual selection process.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 10-26-2014 11:49 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 10-27-2014 7:45 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2014 12:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 131 (739709)
10-27-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jon
10-27-2014 7:45 AM


Re: beauty standards
That assumes that the desire to alter one's physical appearance by shaving, dying one's hair, and augmenting one's breast size with artificial implants is genetically encoded.
Let me rephrase that for you:
That assumes that the desire to be attractive to the other sex is genetically encoded.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 10-27-2014 7:45 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Jon, posted 10-27-2014 8:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 111 of 131 (739767)
10-27-2014 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Jon
10-27-2014 8:30 AM


Re: beauty standards
If a newborn from parents obsessed with their physical appearance is traded with a newborn from parents that doesn't care one hoot what they look like, do you think that the newborns will grow up to care about their appearance only and exactly as much as their biological parents?
Well seeing as I would be surprised that both newborns "will grow up to care about their appearance only and exactly as much as their biological parents" without being switched, your argument is logically flawed. (italics added for emphasis).
What I would expect, is that both would care about their appearance and their ability to attract mates and that they will both exhibit behavior that augments their perceived chances according to their ability to do so. Each will try to become as close as they can to the "icon" type.
If you don't think this is happening then you are not that observant imho of cultures here and elsewhere. Look at advertising and ask yourself why do the ads work. Look at the industries that have built up and expanded that provide means to augment your looks and ask yourself why these industries even exist. Ads and industries only provide what people are attracted to. The ads work because they portray the "icon" type to attract attention and in the process they reinforce the "icon" image, especially now as more and more models are photoshopped to extremes not found in the population. The industries grow because they facilitate the ability to become closer to the "icon" type, and because the "icon" is beyond natural ability.
Curiously I see these behaviors becoming more overt as cultural taboos are discarded.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Jon, posted 10-27-2014 8:30 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 7:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 131 (739778)
10-27-2014 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
10-27-2014 12:17 PM


Re: beauty standards and selection
But as to whether there is some inherited instinct to augment ones appearance, ...
You seem to have the same problem that Jon has with this.
... As compared to most animals, humans seemed to have few instinctive behaviors, so I don't think an argument pointing out what happens in even closely related animals is going to be very persuasive.
Do you agree that sexual selection does occur and that this explains the facial hair seen here:
quote:
Message 103: Just a note that facial hair patterns in monkeys and apes have a wide range of displays that would have very low survival advantage but high sexual selection advantage:
Emperor tamarin - Wikipedia
quote:
The fur of the emperor tamarin is predominantly grey colored, with yellowish speckles on its chest. The hands and feet are black and the tail is brown. Outstanding is its long, white mustache, which extends to both sides beyond the shoulders. The animal reaches a length of 23—26 centimetres (9—10 in), plus a 35—41.5 cm (13.8—16.3 in) long tail.[4] It weighs approximately 500 grams (18 oz).[1]

Cute fella eh? Looks like a bit of a beard as well as the moustache.
Any bets on whether the reproductive success of male emperor tamarins is linked to the display of facial hair?
In the case of humans, at least, I don't see much to indicate that anything humans do to change their appearance is not learned. Certainly the idea of what constitutes human beauty has varied between cultures. It's also true that humans have plenty of opportunity to learn what constitutes an 'ideal' appearance. Once that knowledge is obtained, the desire to propagate their own DNA is enough to drive the desire to groom, get implants, diet, etc.
The point is that runaway sexual selection means that the 'ideal' appearance does not occur in the natural population. This has been demonstrated in many studies of animals with runaway sexual selection.
The point is that sexual attraction studies using computer generated faces have been done in many cultures and they show two things: male attractiveness is based on an averaged face. female attractiveness is based on unnaturally childlike features for sexually mature women:
quote:
Message 1: ... (see babyface-ness: click), and the summary comments on this include these statements (read Summary: click for the whole summary):
quote:
(3) To sum up, our study shows clearly that the most attractive faces do not exist in reality, they are morphs, i.e. computer-created compound images you would never find in everyday live. These virtual faces showed characteristics that are unreachable for average human beings.
... a skewed {extreme individual icon} tending towards idealized younger looking sexually mature females. That this also demonstrates the same pattern of run-away sexual selection noted for breasts, buttocks and bareness is not likely to be an accident.
The point is that the 'ideal' appearance does not occur in the natural population for humans, demonstrating that runaway sexual selection is still in operation. The reason "that knowledge is obtained, the desire to propagate their own DNA is enough to drive the desire to groom, get implants, diet, etc" happens, is because of runaway sexual selection -- because it is a symptom rather than a driving cause.
In short, there is actually not much of a need for a gene to alter your appearance, and plenty of alternative explanation for why we act the way we do.
But which don't explain why the desirable icon type is outside the realm of natural variation in the species while non-runaway sexual attraction is based on a population average.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2014 12:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2014 7:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 131 (739789)
10-27-2014 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
10-27-2014 7:27 PM


Re: beauty standards
Breast implants are pretty extreme. I don't think a general desire to attract a mate fully accounts for such drastic behaviors.
Compare breast implants and the studies of birds with long tail feathers (Message 1):
quote:
Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker also discusses an experiment with a long tailed bird where the male's long tail feathers were cut and then glued back with (1) shorter (2) same length and (3) longer tail feathers and then monitored for breeding success compared to (4) unmodified (control) males. There was no difference between group (2) and (4) (ie the effect of the glue process was eliminated as a variable), but the ones with the artificially long tail feathers were selected above the others: the sexual preference was for expression of the feature to an extent not seen within the population. Natural selection prevented the males from developing the longer tails after a certain point had been reached, but female preference was still for even longer tails.
The glued on tail-feathers are analogous to breast implants in making the individual more attractive to mates.
Breast implants are pretty extreme. ...
Curiously they are becoming more frequent, and are considered an out-patient operation these days (they are the most common cosmetic surgery in US and Britain). And not just in the US (google Brazil breast implants, and for a short chuckle try French breast implants ...). There are even cases where some women have had their old implants replaced with new improved (larger) ones ...
We are particularly talking about whether an obsession to be attractive (as measured against a culturally-agreed upon ideal, I guess) is heritable.
And what you are seeing is the feedback loop that drives the "extreme" behavior.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 10-27-2014 7:27 PM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 131 (739884)
10-28-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jon
10-28-2014 7:13 AM


Re: beauty standards
Yes, cultures.
correction: across cultures. When the same behaviors is seen in different cultures then it is likely a broader cause than cultural.
I think you have not demonstrated that the amount of desire to attract a mate necessary to compel one to get plastic surgery is instinctual instead of mostly learned.
What we see is that modification behavior is limited by the availability of modification means.
Shaving is pretty available and pretty universal.
Wrinkle/age hiding creams are also fairly commonly used.
Cosmetic surgery is not as available and not as universal -- it is usually engaged in by women that have less financial hindrance and readily available surgery sources. The most common such surgery is the one with the "biggest bang for the buck" ... breast enhancement.
What is the point of these behaviors if not to attract a (better than average potluck) mate?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 7:13 AM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 131 (739885)
10-28-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jon
10-28-2014 2:27 PM


Re: beauty standards
I don't think we are evolving to a population instinctively more accepting/desiring of getting cosmetic surgery. That's the evolution of our culture and it is fueled by an innate desire to attract a mate that probably hasn't changed a whole lot in the last several thousand years.
Which is still within the time-frame of runaway sexual selection for specific traits ... the only thing that has changed is the ability to provide such services, the desire for it was there before.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 2:27 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 131 (739905)
10-29-2014 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by NoNukes
10-28-2014 7:29 PM


Re: beauty standards and selection
In short, we don't need to postulate a grooming gene or a grooming instinct. All that's necessary for a man or woman to groom himself or augment him or herself is a belief that the opposite sex requires or likes it.
The runaway sexual selection gene is shared by both sexes.
I've explained why I don't find animal behavior great evidence for human behavior.
You have, but I don't think that is a valid opinion. It's like saying that evolution doesn't apply to humans. So I am questioning it because I think you use that argument to avoid the comparison of animal runaway sexual selection to human runaway selection.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2014 7:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2014 5:38 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 131 (739907)
10-29-2014 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jon
10-28-2014 8:24 PM


Re: beauty standards
Then what is the point you are trying to make?
That runaway sexual selection has been a factor in human development for a very long time, that it is how we came to be "the hairless ape" in the first place, that it is how we cam to be sexually active on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis, that this is how we came to have females with year-round full breasts and men came to have much larger penises than all other apes ... that sex is what made us distinctively human. It may well be what set hominids apart from chimps.
What we see today is just more of same with new technology being used.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 8:24 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2014 5:19 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 10-29-2014 9:27 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2014 10:54 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 129 of 131 (742195)
11-17-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
10-29-2014 5:19 AM


Re: beauty standards
... One might also point out that bonobos are certainly sexual apes so perhaps the distinction is not as clean as you suggest.
Yet there is no evidence of run-away sexual selection, most likely because they don't appear to 'compete' over sex but share it. The female and male sexual development is virtually the same as the chimpanzee. Penis size is small, breasts only fill when lactating, facial characteristics are not childlike in adults.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2014 5:19 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024