My hypothesis is based on Motherx at every generation, where she mates with Fatherx and gives birth to a daughter. I believe that there is a bias in the evolutionary process for Miss World and I find it interesting to try to find the reason for this bias.
Then how do you account for Miss World's two ugly sisters?
Good question! Do you think this evolutionary nonsense is just pure chance in the content of Chromosomes x and y?
Quite random actually. Remember Motherx's Dad also contributes an X chromosome to Motherx and that during miosis her Dad's X and her Mom's X randomly swap pieces parts before forming the haploid daughter cells. You also have the same thing in Fatherx. The X chromosome he contributes to the eventual daughter (or next generation Motherx) is a random moosh of his mother's and his paternal grandmother's X.
Since the phenotypic traits which go into a beautiful Miss World are due to genes scattered across her entire genome, not just the X, the random mooshing of genes taking place on every chromosome in each Motherx/Fatherx generation results in a very random outcome indeed.
Our Miss World's leg length may have come from her paternal grandfather's paternal grandmother while her high cheekbones came from her maternal grandmother's paternal grandfather without the X chromosome involved in either trait.
What you get is what you get. The only evolutionary bias in the population is the combination of all the selection pressures operating on the entire population over the entire time.
I have seen references to "sexual selection" and "Fischerian runaway sexual selection " in this thread. Related?
Not just related, "sexual selection" is the name we give the selection pressures for attractiveness, aesthetics, admiration and anything else that contributes to general hornyness.
I wanted to make three points in my message:
1. Other than determining what sex you are, the X-Y chromosome thing is a relatively minor bit and has practically no value in determining attractiveness.
2. The entire genome of a person working in concert to produce the complete outward phenotype is the key to sexual selection.
3. The genotype is randomly determined.
Sexual selection pressures certainly can cull/enhance specific traits (or rather combinations of traits ie. combinations of genes) creating a "bias" for/against those traits in a population, but in the end the entire genome as a single package is what is being selected.
So what is happening is that the genotype of an individual is randomly determined but this randomness is limited to the traits available in the population and is "biased" by the prevalence of that trait in the population. The more people with blue eyes in the population the more chance for blue-eyed babies. But no baby is guaranteed the blue-eye trait.
The chance combination of all the traits that go into making what we would consider a beautiful Miss World may not, probably will not, occur in her sisters as well.