Idealized Beauty

[ecnarf]

There isn't much natural selection in Western society. Unless you have a serious genetic disease, you can still bear children if you are ugly, disabled, prone to heart disease, have diabetes, severe allergies, whatever. If you're too ugly, just liquor somebody up. Deformed? In vitro fertilization. Et cetera. The only major exception I can think of are Ashkenazim Jews, who are advised to undergo genetic counselling to find the risks for having infants with fatal genetic disorders (which are especially high among them).

 

There are people who are genetically immune to AIDS and heart disease. Theoretically, those people would be able to propagate their genes much better, but selective pressure against it is extremely low.

 

In Africa, on the other hand, the rate of people being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia is high. Why? It prevents them from being infected with a mosquito with malaria bites them. Only 4% of individuals actually have sickle-cell anemia, and heterozygotes only show signs of the disease when pushed to low-oxygen high-altitude conditions. THAT is natural selection. Good luck finding similar examples in the West.

Edited May 22, 2007 by ecnarf

[Prometheon]

to say taht there's no natural selection is to say that there's no evolution. and I don't think you're one of those people

 

That's the fundamental assumption that is incorrect. Natural and sexual selection are often seen as seperate forces.

 

Edit: Also, I think you're operating on a flawed definition of evolution. It's merely a change in genotype ratios/allele frequencies among generations of a population.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Prometheon

[Lauren]

i think scarlett johanson is hot..

[Crusader]

this thread got pretty boring.

[ecnarf]

i think scarlett johanson is hot..

And there I was, enjoying our discussion on biology...

 

Actually, I do enjoy science debates. You're either right or wrong (or that rare third class, "speaking out of your ass") and there's an easy to way settle who is what.

[Lauren]

[ecnarf]

You cut that out.

[Lauren]

i google imaged my name and a picture of my art teacher came up.. eek. better try to fix that.

 

 

aaaand its on my sisters myspace page.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Lauren

[heyrabbit]

That's the fundamental assumption that is incorrect. Natural and sexual selection are often seen as seperate forces.

 

Edit: Also, I think you're operating on a flawed definition of evolution. It's merely a change in genotype ratios/allele frequencies among generations of a population.

I really don't think it's flawed. but that's just my conviction, aswell as dawkins'

 

evolution is natural selection. evolution is non-random survival of randomly varying components. the definition goes something like that. precisely what makes it non-random is natural selection.

 

every organism on earth has been naturally selected

[ecnarf]

I really don't think it's flawed. but that's just my conviction, aswell as dawkins'

 

evolution is natural selection. evolution is non-random survival of randomly varying components. the definition goes something like that. precisely what makes it non-random is natural selection.

 

every organism on earth has been naturally selected

I think I can say with some certainty that both Owen and I have taken introductory biology courses and were familiar with evolution before we knew who Dawkins was.

 

Sexual selection isn't quite the same as natural selection; it's artificial. The features being chosen for don't necessarily have to do directly with biological fitness. In natural selection, environmental pressures put certain phenotypes at an advantage and others at a disadvantage. Sexual and artificial selection select for phenotypes based on things like how aesthetically pleasing they are. It's a rather important distinction; breeds of modern dogs came about by artificial selection. Peacock's tails attract predators and put them at risk of not being alive enough to pass on their genes, yet without a large tail they won't get any tail (if you know what I mean). Again, Dawkins frequently speaks at length about the distinction between natural and artificial selection.

[heyrabbit]

I don't mind you patronizing me in order to validate your identity as a science enthusiast - I honestly don't - although if that's you're motive, you'll probably want to quit demonstrating a lack of understanding of what evolution is.

 

just a bit of info:right now I'm actually upgrading my high-school credits and I happen to be taking grade 10 science. for all intents and purposes, I'm at a grade 10 level in science LOL. so nobody is challenging your authority as bored science-intellectual. in fact, at some point I may call upon your assistance0 if I may do so.

 

I never said anything about sexual selection.

Edited May 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Crusader]

honestly, this was potentially a sexy thread.

[shade]

you're boring if anything

[Azalroth]

this thread got pretty boring.

I couldn't even bring myself to read the whole thing....this whole thing is about stereotyping...one of my pet peeves, albeit I'm guilty once and a while of being a Hypocrite.

 

To me the ideally beautiful person is someone who is comfortable with him/herself and is not afraid of what others think about them....And of course our genetics are responsible for our chemistry between each other. What each of us think is beautiful is different from the other person next to us sometimes.

 

I'm sure without even having to read this bishopx would have the same view as me in this...and has likely already expressed said opinion

[Shiri]

most girls like to eat. if it seems we don't, either we have a disorder of some kind, or we're hiding it to not seem like pigs.

I never understood why girls would want to hide the fact they love to eat. I love girls who like to eat, it's so frustrating when they never want to eat when we go out or all they order is a salad

[Azalroth]

So on bored with you on that one Shiri...I like a girl with a little bit of meat on their bones. That way when we have sex I"m not afraid of breaking her...being 200lbs that I am...heh

[bishopx]

I totally agree with you Az. We all have our preferences. Weighing in at 215, I also prefer a little meat(Not a lot Adam!!!)

 

Confidence and strong self-image are very attractive qualities. Believe in yourself ladies, we do, but it only matters when you do too.

[Lauren]

sometimes you just feel like a salad...

it's different when you go out to eat because you don't want to make that person spend more money on you than they spent on themselves. if i'm making food at home i have no problem pigging out but then i feel all full and gross and then i feel less attractive. which means my self-confidance will go down and it's just a slippery slope.

[shade]

ITS ALL A GAME!!!!!!!111111

[ecnarf]

Chuck fucks fatties!

[shade]

let the chirp fest begin

[ecnarf]

Me and heyrabbit and prometheon have been scientifically chirping each other for several pages. How did you miss it?

[bishopx]

Adam, what did I say about calling me Chuck. It's really simple, curvy, tall women, just don't come in the 105lb package. The girl is 6ft tall, and is around 150lbs, and is probably in 10 times better shape than you Adam. The little, petite girls were fun in High School and College, but tastes change. Hungry, boney chicks don't do anything for me. Adam, no booze, no sex, is making you bitter...

 

It's simple ladies, and I say this as a cook...if you're hungry eat. If I cook a meal, I take it personally when people don't eat.

Edited May 22, 2007 by bishopx

[shade]

I was out and about.

 

 

Edit: also, I have no idea what this shit is about anymore

Edited May 22, 2007 by shade

[bishopx]

Right now it's about Adam displacing is sexual preferences on others...and soon it'll be about the cantelope he was intimate with.