Replies

No, that is what ignorant creationists teach about evolution - it is not at all a precept of evolutionary biology that there is only ONE trait that is “Superior” and all others are “Inferior”. Some traits are selected for by the environment and/or mate selection - other traits are selected against by the environment and/or mate selection. Add to that the fact that mate selection tends to be associative - and you find that short people tend to prefer short mates - tall people tend to prefer tall mates - dark haired people tend to prefer dark haired mates, etc, etc, etc. People tend to mate associatively for incisor length as well - although I have NEVER said to myself “Have you checked out the incisors on THAT babe?”. So it is not the case that only ONE trait is perceived by potential mates to be superior in all cases. A short blond male may prefer a short blond female over a tall brunette. I am tall and dark haired and I prefer a tall brunette (in general) to a short blond. That being the case, how could one say that mate selection determined one female to be superior and the other as a candidate for removal of those characteristics from the human race?

You are veering back and forth between what is observed apart from evolution and what is supposedly required by evolution.

You are assuming your conclusion, that a person's choice of mates DOES have an evolutionary purpose, rather than simply a PERSONAL PREFERENCE. You cannot shake yourself out of that assumption.

If God created diversity, than God would create A DIVERSITY OF DESIRES so that some men would desire certain types of women, and other men would desire other types of women, so that THERE IS SOMEONE FOR EVERYONE.

But you are trapped by force of habit in your assumption that mate selection must serve a UTILITARIAN purpose -- rather than just pleasing the individual in the short term. Evolution depends upon the idea that mate selection -- natural selection -- has a utilitarian dynamic. That is an unproven assumption. But one you have adopted very deeply.

I do prefer brunettes. I have seen many beautiful blondes, some of whom I personally am attracted to, but I am more attracted to brunettes than blondes. Maybe that is just my personal taste. Maybe there is no evolutionary or utilitarian meaning to that whatsoever.

If God made some women red heads, but no one was attracted to women with red hair, and as an iron rule "[ALL] Gentlemen prefer blondes" (which isn't true), then there would be no one desiring the red haired women. All men would prefer blondes, and no one would want the red heads. On the contrary, everyone likes different things. One man might melt at the sight of a brunette, while another one would crawl on his hands and knees for the chance to marry a red head.

Again, the topic is that the teaching of evolution in a public college (you can quibble about whether it is being taught perfectly or correctly) has made this female believe she is -- as she is being taught -- inferior, and destined by the march of progress for the trash bin of human evolution. She rants about hating evolution and asking the teacher how evolution kills black people.

Yes, her emotional tirade is bad behavior and is unacceptable behavior in class. But her question - though speaking from deep emotional hurt, feeling de-valued and cornered as worthless -- is quite poignant: DOES THIS MEAN THAT EVOLUTION KILLS OFF BLACK PEOPLE, PREFERRING WHITES AS SUPERIOR CHOICES FOR MATING. If even Black males (the cliche goes) would rather mate with a White woman than mate with her as a Black woman, then DOESN'T IT FOLLOW (IN HER UNDERSTANDING) THAT THE TEACHER IS TEACHING THE EVOLUTIONARY EXTINCTION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN PREFERENCE TO WHITE PEOPLE? NO doubt she has been burned by Black men she liked dating White women instead, SO SHE TAKES IT PERSONALLY.

I am basing it on scientific data upon mate selection.

People who are mates are not as genetically distinct as two strangers.

A rat raised with a mother given a lemon scent will respond better to a female with lemon scent.

This is not conjecture - it is fact - fact which -as with most of what evolutionary theory actually is - you are completely ignorant of.

It is most likely that she heard arguments like yours which made her both ignorant and crazy when the subject of evolution was being taught in a class she signed up for.

Actual scientific arguments about human evolution would have taught her that black skin is a beneficial adaptation for equatorial climates, and that there are plenty of men out there that are going to like black women, and that on an evolutionary basis - blacks seem to be doing just fine. Lots of diversity, a growing population, and plenty of mates to select from that will appreciate her particular brand of beauty.

You make it sound like ToE is responsible for the fact that being hateful, vindictive, rude and obnoxious generally tends to make it more difficult to find someone who wants to spend their life with you.

It sounds like the men she was dating found someone else more agreeable and she's looking for someone to blame for that and you're willing to go along with it as long as she's blaming Darwin.

I do prefer brunettes. I have seen many beautiful blondes, some of whom I personally am attracted to, but I am more attracted to brunettes than blondes.

So, would you say you used to prefer blonds but now you pick blackheads? ;o) (sorry, couldn't let such an opening go to waste)