Replies

It is true that men tend to pursue women they perceive as attractive. It is equally true that women tend to pursue men they perceive as successful. This was going on long before there was ever a "theory of evolution".

Of course, but in the absence of evolution, it is widely (not universally but widely) understood -- as is true -- that WHICH WOMEN A MAN FINDS ATRACTIVE is a matter of PERSONAL TASTE, so that there can be someone for everyone.

But the theory of evolution changes this to the idea that certain women are BETTER than others, and certain women (as Carr obviously felt) are evolutionary TRASH, to be tossed out with the garbage.

I am attracted to a certain type of woman, in various physical characteristics and personality traits that are *ATYPICAL* of the type of women most other men pursue. Women that other men salivate over, I couldn't care less about. I may acknowledge that, like a well-painted masterpiece painting or an excellent luxury car, a woman is objectively beautiful YET have NO personal interest in or desire for that (admittedly beautiful) woman whatsoever. Moreover, the fact that other men are attracted to a woman means absolutely nothing to me -- couldn't care less.

On the other hand, women who make my socks sweat and make my heart turn into a puddle of jello are typically NOT sought after by most other men, to my total bewilderment. A woman I would kill to get (so to speak), whom to me is the most perfect woman ever to live, other men aren't even trying to get.

If God INTENTIONALLY created many different types of men and women and painstakingly PROVIDED for each person someone "right" for them, then no one is better or worse than anyone else. And God did not forget anyone or leave anyone out. (Of course, we can, I believe, screw up God's plans. If we fail to cure our temper or learn about relationships, if we get fat or cause all kinds of conflict or problems in our lives, the man or woman God intended for us may have significant doubts about the wisdom of being with us. But even though we may screw up God's plans, God planned for everyone to have someone who cares about them.)

But evolution suggests that only one type of woman is superior, and all others are evolutionary trash destined for the junk heap of history. Only one type of woman leads to improvement of the human species, and all others are "BAD" for humanity.

Perhaps the evolution that YOU were taught by ignorant creationist sources suggests such things.

To those who actually know and understand evolutionary theory - genetic diversity is generally understood to be a healthier trait in a species than there being only one “superior” variation.

Humans are stronger as a species for there being human populations adapted to equatorial climates and there being human populations adapted to polar climates.

There is not just one variation of human skin color that is “GOOD” and all others that are “BAD”.

That is based upon a total lack of understanding of the actual theory. Which is all too typical of creationists.

Doesn't hold up. If it was purely a matter of "personal taste" you'd be able to show that prior to the teaching of ToE, and currently anywhere it isn't taught you would not be able to find any kind of agreement about whether a particular woman was attractive or not.

I'll wager that among the people who profess not to believe in evolution I could show them a picture of Janet Reno and get nearly universl agreement that she is not someone they would describe as an attractive woman.