Ok, Danny, we seem to disagree on that and I don't know what else to say to defend my point.... I just don't consider only the good adaptations as a mechanism of evolution. I consider evolution any change that makes the species different from their ancestors. Besides, I'm not so sure that the changes in humans fisiology I cited above dind't bring any advantage to us.
On the subject of atractiveness, I saw a TV show talking about a study tah was made to determine which patterns of physical beauty was universal and which ones were cultural. The study concluded, among other things, that:
1. No matter what culture it is, the most attractive persons were those who had a higher level of simetry between their left and right sides (maybe uncounscioulsy humans think that the more simetric individuals are more perfect, therefore more likely to survive (?) )
2. No matter what culture it is, men with more developed "masculine" features were more atractive (again, women uncouscioulsy think that their offsrpings will be stronger).
3. Women with bigger illiac bones (which causes women to develop big "butts" and thin abdomens) were more atractive than women with smaller ones, probably because women with bigger illiac bones can easily bare children.
The study concluded that, despite all the cultural patterns of beauty, thater are still several mechanisms that are acting in humans subconsciuosness to define attractiveness, and those mechanisms were developed throughout the thousands of generations, via natural selection.
|