Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution

Well, there is some of that, but a good portion of what constitutes beauty is not hereditary. Some of it is likely diet, exercise, surgery, makeup, and maybe even extensions and some Photoshop. The video seems to illustrate that quite well.I suspect that applies to Miss World as well.

Not necessarily. The combination of traits in one person may simply be rare, or perhaps the supposed video ideal is simply exaggerated in some way from something we would actually find extremely pleasing and more common.When I read comic books, the women all had impossibly thin waists, breast bigger than their heads, and cartoony long-slender legs. The pictures suggested beauty without actually looking human at all.And the woman in the video doesn't look anything like what I would consider ideal. I'm not saying that some of the enhancements aren't an improvement over the original. But the models eyes, legs and body shape were okay the way they were. And who the heck thinks lightened skin is ideal in any way? Someone from the 50s?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We've discussed member size before. I'm not convinced, 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?

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.

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. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is certainly an inherited instinct to procreate and to propagate whatever genes you have (as you yourself have said). Not much to doubt there.But as to whether there is some inherited instinct to augment ones appearance, I do have doubts. 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.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.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.

I'm not sure that's true for humans. There are of course people who prefer exaggerations, but that does not make those exaggerations ideal. I've explained why I don't find animal behavior great evidence for human behavior.And the question is not whether or not men find a particular asset attractive. The question is whether there is some gene that would cause a woman to modify that attribute. I'm suggesting that motivation to attract a mate is enough impetus for a women to make a conscious decision to groom herself.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.

It's possible to agree with much of this and still not reach all of the conclusions you do. One might also point out that bonobos are certainly sexual apes so perhaps the distinction is not as clean as you suggest.

What the heck does that mean RAZD? In what sense is my opinion invalid? You can question it all you want. But I am not saying that evolution does not apply to humans. Not even close. I am saying instead that humans can develop behavior patterns in ways other than developing instincts and are more likely to do so than most other animals. In fact, humans are able to develop such behaviors in far shorter than evolutionary times. Humans have no need for 'want my breasts enhanced' gene because they have plenty of societal cues that tell them that men like big boobs. And I'm not avoiding the comparison with animals. I'm simply not persuaded by it, primarily because of the different roles instinct plays in humans. And not every disagreement with your opinion is based on some kind of mental malfunction. Perhaps a better strategy for convincing me would be to show me the deficiencies in my position rather than impugning my motives.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.