Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Explains Explains Why We're Not All Beautiful
Live Science ^ | 3-28-2007 | Andrea Thompson

Posted on 04/04/2007 1:06:34 PM PDT by blam

Study Explains Why We're Not All Beautiful

By Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 28 March 2007
09:47 am ET

A new study explains why we aren't all born with Brad Pitt’s perfectly chiseled features or Angelina Jolie’s pouty lips.

A long-standing thorn in the side of biologists has been the difficulty in accounting for the enormous variation between individuals when sexual selection by females for the most attractive mates should quickly spread the “best” genes through a population.

“It is a major problem for evolutionary biology,” said study team leader Marion Petrie of Newcastle University.

The lek paradox

For some species, females select the most attractive males to mate with: female peacocks will choose males with the longest tail feathers—the peacock version of George Clooney. These more attractive features usually indicate some other level of genetic fitness, such as disease resistance, that the female’s offspring will then also inherit.

According to this method of sexual selection, if females only bred with the most attractive males, then all males should be equally attractive and sexual selection could not take place. (In the peacocks’ case, all males would have similarly long tails.) But clearly this isn’t the case: for every Johnny Depp out there, there’s a George Costanza—in humans, birds and other animals alike.

This so-called “lek paradox” (a lek is a group of males congregated for mating) has plagued evolutionary biologists for decades.

“If you had no variation at all, you wouldn’t get evolution,” Petrie told LiveScience.

But a group of British scientists think they have found the answer to the paradox in the human body’s “DNA repair kits.”

DNA repair kits

A cell’s DNA repair kit is not really a kit but a set of molecular processes that routinely repair the damage

(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beauty; evolution; lek; paradox; selection; sex; study
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 next last
To: OldPossum
Now, you tell me that evolution calls for the female to seek out the best looking male. The only explanation in this case would be if this doll of a woman were blind, and she wasn't. The evolution theory in this case is wrong, dead wrong.

Evolution calls for evolutionarily successful women to have made the choices that guarantee social and biological success the most- and this is usually linked to intelligence, wealth, power and/or beauty, not necessarily together.

You assumed that the woman in question, who, in your words, was beautiful, wouldn't make a dumb choice. Evolution doesn't guarantee that. What evolution would have decided is whether her progeny with that man is wanted enough by the prevailing conditions at the time of their biological maturity, to be allowed to mate successfully.

To sum it all, evolution is blind to just beauty.

121 posted on 04/04/2007 2:14:37 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: upier

ping


122 posted on 04/04/2007 2:15:28 PM PDT by upier ("Usted no es agradable en America" "Ahora deporte Illegals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: greenthumbedislndr
Reminds me of an old Abbott and Costello skit
Costello: When I get married, I'm marrying an ugly girl

Abbott: Why?

C: A pretty girl might leave me

A: An ugly girl might leave you too

C: Yeah, but who cares?


123 posted on 04/04/2007 2:16:42 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Never try to teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and it annoys the pig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: blam

btt


124 posted on 04/04/2007 2:17:55 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnny7

that is exactly who I thought of! LMAO!


125 posted on 04/04/2007 2:19:35 PM PDT by RDTF (They should have put down Barbarella instead of Barbaro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
Perhaps, but they have been enhanced/re-plumped to what they are today with fat injections.

I don't agree. Just google her name + "young" on google and look at the images. She be having big lips for a long time:)

126 posted on 04/04/2007 2:25:32 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (Hey mister, can you spare a carbon credit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: johnny7

Henry Waxman and Helen Thomas do not require any explanation under evolutionary biology because they are most certainly not of human origins........ whatever processes create hideous alien creatures, if they even have a gene pool, must be different than what creates human beings.


127 posted on 04/04/2007 2:33:04 PM PDT by Enchante (Liefong, Fitzfong, Earlefong, Schumfong, Waxfong, Pelosifong.... see a pattern here?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johnny7

Did you spell “spits” correctly?

;<)


128 posted on 04/04/2007 2:34:36 PM PDT by Eaker (Free The Texas 3 - Ramos, Compean and Hernandez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
They don't mate... they separate
129 posted on 04/04/2007 2:35:47 PM PDT by johnny7 ("Issue in Doubt." -Col. David Monroe Shoup, USMC 1943)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: dead

Her nose looks like the head of a penis.

130 posted on 04/04/2007 2:44:00 PM PDT by jslade (The beatings well cease when morale improves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
"I don’t see any sign of evolution in modern man."
I see quite a lot of it. Some haven't evolved at all, while others have, to varying extent.
131 posted on 04/04/2007 2:47:11 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

That’s certainly an impressive pair of Jane Russell Terriers.


132 posted on 04/04/2007 3:15:01 PM PDT by Erasmus (This tagline on sabbatical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
> These are otherwise perfectly straight chicks who become borderline lesbiotic when you bring up Angelina. "Oh Jeff! She's is SO BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!" I'm sorry. Anna Kournakova is beautiful. Julia Louis Dreyfuss is beautiful. Jolie ain't.

Another subject of this behavior is Princess Di. She had a nice smile, nice clothes and was against land mines. But that's it.

Give me Anna K any day :)


133 posted on 04/04/2007 3:18:23 PM PDT by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
You say that as a joke, but there really is a correlation between crossed eyes and large breasts in females, [...]

Not so hard to figure. They tug on the ocular muscles.

< }B^)

134 posted on 04/04/2007 3:30:40 PM PDT by Erasmus (This tagline on sabbatical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
And the absolute hell of it was, she was the one with the money!

(--from an old Playboy cartoon)

135 posted on 04/04/2007 3:33:05 PM PDT by Erasmus (This tagline on sabbatical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: All
Soon, there will be even fewer beautiful and sexy people because aliens are coming to abduct all the good looking people.

You will be safe.

I just wanted to say good bye.

:)
136 posted on 04/04/2007 3:41:42 PM PDT by MaryFromMichigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
humans are NOT animals, just look how many women go willingly with very ugly men, which there are plenty of, just because they are rich/powerful.....

rich and powerful is okay, since rich and powerful means your offspring will be taken care in reguards to food, shelter, clothing, etc...its a biologically based drive......

IMO....men that are handsome actually probably have a good dose of feminine characteristics....that is not necessarily good because maybe they also don't have as much testosterone as the the uglier men.....

but its a trade off......you marry an ugly or very plain man, you might also have one with a lot of masculine features, and who might have a good dose of testosterone as well....

or you marry a pretty man, and God only knows if he'll come thru in the pinch....providing for you, facing down death for you, etc etc...

137 posted on 04/04/2007 4:11:32 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

You won the ugly post on this thread! Ewwwww!


138 posted on 04/04/2007 4:20:04 PM PDT by wjcsux ("You leave out God, and you substitute the devil."- Winston Curchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: blam

Females don’t pick the best males, unfortunately. The females of the animal kingdom do a much better job of male picking than we do.
Well, at least a great deal of us.

And Angelina Jolie’s lips are gross.


139 posted on 04/04/2007 4:24:12 PM PDT by greccogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

The beautiful Miss Russell.


140 posted on 04/04/2007 4:26:43 PM PDT by greccogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson