:
Originally posted by Lampion
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.
|
Okay, put it this way. Evolution changes species by selecting those individuals that are most likely to be able to pass on their genes, and in this way, species change slowly over time, yes? Therefore, if a mutation does not make certain individuals more likely to pass on their genes than others, then it does not count as Evolution.
:
|
Besides, I'm not so sure that the changes in humans fisiology I cited above dind't bring any advantage to us.
|
Well, I suppose in terms of less pointless muscle mass, I suppose... Okay, you're right, I was wrong... (Although my reasons for believing I was right still stand...
)
:
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 (?) )
|
I read an article on that one. These scientists had produced an image of a woman that was meant to be perfectly symmetrical, and therefore supposedly perfectly beautiful. She was okay, I suppose...
:
|
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).
|
Hmm. Well, Erik and Jenni both thought I was a woman. There go my chances with the ladies...
:
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.
|
Sounds reasonable. Your typing skills have gone to pot today though, Serv, are you okay?
:
Originally posted by Jacob
So...let me get this right. Your saying, that women fancy (As it were) men who looked masculine. Thats wrong, as most women do have a tendency to fancy Gay Guyz and we all know some gay guyz arn't exactly masculine looking. Thats that theory out of the window.
|
Are you saying that Gay men look different to Straight men? I disagree. Remember, we're not talking about facial expressions, hairstyles, or behaviour, but about bone structures (mainly). Besides, the gay men that women
do fancy tend to be the more masculine ones anyway...
:
|
Example...Sophie Ellis Bexter, and no offense to her but...Eww...NOT attractive what-so-ever. Most men think that.
|
So? What's your point? Maybe her face isn't symmetrical...
:
|
Again, most men dont want big 'Butts' as you put it. Men prefare smaller backends and pert tight ones. Not big ones.
|
Bad choice of words from Serv there. He should have said "wide hips" rather than "big butts"...
