Skip to comments.Study Explains Explains Why We're Not All Beautiful
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 Pitts perfectly chiseled features or Angelina Jolies 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 feathersthe peacock version of George Clooney. These more attractive features usually indicate some other level of genetic fitness, such as disease resistance, that the females 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 isnt the case: for every Johnny Depp out there, theres a George Costanzain 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 wouldnt get evolution, Petrie told LiveScience.
But a group of British scientists think they have found the answer to the paradox in the human bodys DNA repair kits.
DNA repair kits
A cells 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 ...
Actually, the penis' balls look like Barbra Streisand's boobs.
Or vice versa...
Seems of late, all I see is de-evolution
Nully's Quick FR HTML Guide:
(In all cases remove the space between the < and the following character)
Line break < br>
Paragraph break < p>
< u> underline < /u>
< i> italics < /i>
< b> bold < /b>
< font color=red> Red font < /font>
< blink> < /blink>
Posting a link:
< a href=[web address]>[title]< /a>
This: < a href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1179145/posts>Iran starts atom tests in defiance of EU deal< /a>
Posts as this:
Iran starts atom tests in defiance of EU deal
Posting an image:
< img src="[web server location">
Clarity is needed - you can't just snag a favorite picture from a desktop folder...it has to be hosted someplace to be transferrable to our posts. ~ ErnBatavia
This: < img src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_09_img0611.jpg">
Tip: control the size with "height=nnn" like so:
This: < img height= 200 src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_09_img0611.jpg">
While This: < img height= 100 src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_09_img0611.jpg">
I believe the reason I wouldn’t defend Angelina Jolie is that hse is too freakish and her recent penchant when it comes to adopting children creeps me out. I’m female, but not so blind that I would defend someone beautiful if they had a revolting personality.
The "beer goggle effect", beta, can be quantified as follows:
An = number of units of alcohol consumed
S = smokiness of the room (graded from 0-10, where 0 clear air; 10 extremely smoky)
L = luminance of 'person of interest' (candelas per square metre; typically 1 pitch black; 150 as seen in normal room lighting)
Vo = Snellen visual acuity (6/6 normal; 6/12 just meets driving standard)
d = distance from 'person of interest' (metres; 0.5 to 3 metres)
A value of less than one means virtually no effect. Values of 1000 or more would be needed to even glance in the general direction of Helen Thomas.
Just wanted to say thanks for posting that...I have made a note of it...:)
I’ll get you for this : )
Yup. It would seem so.
Her mother died very recently from cancer. There was a fairly recent photo of Angelina and her mom...even though her mom had been very ill, you could see the beauty and strong resembelance between the two.
I really do respect the Gates’ for their unaltered appearance. Really...I do. They have all of the money in the world and they could have ‘anything’ done...but they haven’t. So I kind of admire Bill’s $10.00 haircut look...it says ‘I know my hairstyle isn’t important.’
I also have to respect Bill's choice for a life mate. He could have his pick of some of the world's most gorgeous women. Instead, he used a different criteria.
I hope I live long enough to see how their progeny turn out as human beings.
this study was not taken at 2 AM closing time.
That's a pretty long carrot, but if you look around in the produce section you can find longer. Most of the time I buy baby carrots. They go better in roasts and are more tasty.
I like roasted carrots along with pot roast. Tasty.
Hurts me to say that too, because I was born in Tacoma. I think there may be something to this peacock theory. Thankfully I married a bellevue girl.
Re post 121, what you wrote makes eminent sense from the viewpoint of women seeking out successful mates who would provide them with economic security. I was just looking at this particular union from the initial post of this thread in which biologists wonder why matings do not produce good-looking progeny and they think that females would seek out attractive males. Well, at least that was my understanding of the initial post.
*Or vice versa...
None that would ever admit to it.....or who likely lived (intact or not insane)to tell the tale.