Evolution - Reality and Misconceptions
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Humans have evolved to find kindness sexually attractive. A lioness couldn't give two hoots is a lion is a nice bloke, so long as he's the fittest strongest lion on offer. Humans have evolved to value other traits, which is how come I get laid. I wouldn't get a sniff of action if I had to rely of physical prowess.
We find people who care about society as a whole and who want to help people that would be left to die if they were a weak lion in a pride of lions, sexually attractive. So you could argue that the concern you raise is in fact evolution at work.
Dunno really, just a talking point.
Interesting point. Humans haven’t evolved to find kindness sexually attractive. Society has evolved to make it attractive. If it were an evolved trait in man then that would require the notion of attractiveness to be passed on from one generation to the next via genes and hardwired into our brains.We find people who care about society as a whole and who want to help people that would be left to die if they were a weak lion in a pride of lions, sexually attractive. So you could argue that the concern you raise is in fact evolution at work.
Dunno really, just a talking point.
V8LM said:
that would require the notion of attractiveness to be passed on from one generation to the next via genes and hardwired into our brains.
Why is that so difficult to believe. It happens in animals. Different breeds find instinctively find things attractive within their own breed (whether it be colouration, a dance, a song etc).
I believe at a fundamental level we too are hard wired to recognise traits in potential mates that would make them an attractive prospect to mate with, whether these are physical characteristics, behaviour etc.
Of course humans do have the ability to override their instincts more than most other animals - and society does play a part in what is considered 'attractive' as fashions change.
V8LM said:
Interesting point. Humans haven’t evolved to find kindness sexually attractive. Society has evolved to make it attractive. If it were an evolved trait in man then that would require the notion of attractiveness to be passed on from one generation to the next via genes and hardwired into our brains.
Surely the notion of attractiveness must be passed on.Once someone has a trait seen as attractive and accordingly has more offspring, the next generation will not only have more people with that trait, but also more people who find that trait attractive.
I wouldn't use the phrase 'kindness sexually attractive', but the core idea is solid in evolution and it is baked in by natural selection.
There are two aspect to it.
Sexual selection is a part of evolution and includes what are known as true indicators. These are certain characteristics, such as symmetrical faces and bodies, clear complexions, pear and hourglass figures in women, broad shoulders in men. These true indicators are accurate reflections of fertility and survival chances. Clear complexions & symmetry reflect general good health, wide hips or nursing in women, etc. These are universal, people like them because their ancestors liked them and reproduced successfully. Yes some social and cultural norms can exist on top and in the modern world some of these can be fooled, make up, surgery, steroids, etc. That is why faking true indicators is big business, but a few decades of these cannot override millenia of success.
The second part is we are a social species, our survival depended on cooperation. Individually we are vulnerable to other apex predators, a lion or sabre tooth would likely kill a single hunter even if armed with a sturdy spear. A cooperative hunting party is far more likely to survive and the larger the party and the more cooperative the lower the risk is. The same goes for better weapons, having some people experts in flint knapping or forging metal weapons, making bows, protecting the young and women. Cooperation, communication and smarts are core to our survival strategy, these evolved through a myriad steps, were a trait helped people survive to breed, where it didn't they died. So we could label some of that cooperation as a genetic attraction to kindness. We could see it entirely rationally as keeping elderly safe, with survival knowledge, herbal, migration trails, or just that looking after our elders was instinctively right.
Imagine you are walking down the street, you subconscious draw your attention to a physically beautiful women, you double take, you can't help it, perhaps even do it if your wife girlfriend is next to you, that is instinctive sexual attraction at work.
You get to know that physically beautiful women, but there is no chemistry, no sexual attraction, you can't put your finger on it, it's just not there, but her less physically attractive friend is compassionate, funny, vivacious, smart or whatever. You can't help it you, you a get stirring, you get horny. We don't make that choice in coldly entirely rational way. That is also baked-in evolutionary sexual selection at work.
There are two aspect to it.
Sexual selection is a part of evolution and includes what are known as true indicators. These are certain characteristics, such as symmetrical faces and bodies, clear complexions, pear and hourglass figures in women, broad shoulders in men. These true indicators are accurate reflections of fertility and survival chances. Clear complexions & symmetry reflect general good health, wide hips or nursing in women, etc. These are universal, people like them because their ancestors liked them and reproduced successfully. Yes some social and cultural norms can exist on top and in the modern world some of these can be fooled, make up, surgery, steroids, etc. That is why faking true indicators is big business, but a few decades of these cannot override millenia of success.
The second part is we are a social species, our survival depended on cooperation. Individually we are vulnerable to other apex predators, a lion or sabre tooth would likely kill a single hunter even if armed with a sturdy spear. A cooperative hunting party is far more likely to survive and the larger the party and the more cooperative the lower the risk is. The same goes for better weapons, having some people experts in flint knapping or forging metal weapons, making bows, protecting the young and women. Cooperation, communication and smarts are core to our survival strategy, these evolved through a myriad steps, were a trait helped people survive to breed, where it didn't they died. So we could label some of that cooperation as a genetic attraction to kindness. We could see it entirely rationally as keeping elderly safe, with survival knowledge, herbal, migration trails, or just that looking after our elders was instinctively right.
Imagine you are walking down the street, you subconscious draw your attention to a physically beautiful women, you double take, you can't help it, perhaps even do it if your wife girlfriend is next to you, that is instinctive sexual attraction at work.
You get to know that physically beautiful women, but there is no chemistry, no sexual attraction, you can't put your finger on it, it's just not there, but her less physically attractive friend is compassionate, funny, vivacious, smart or whatever. You can't help it you, you a get stirring, you get horny. We don't make that choice in coldly entirely rational way. That is also baked-in evolutionary sexual selection at work.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Sunday 19th August 18:03
Evolution is at work all the time so if indeed we are encouraging the feckless to breed then evolution is at work. If it is a trait that increases our likelihood to survive then the trait is a positive. We don't know at the moment, but we will later.
Intelligence is a much vaunted asset. How could it be anything but a positive in the survival stakes? Yet over the years, and before Clem Atlee, the intelligence level of the human race as a whole has been dropping some scientists suggest.
Again, we won't know but will later when we all are scientists or are living in trees.
Some of the greatest minds, geniuses by any measure, have been really weird. Not just odd but loopy.
One thing that's always floored me is why I find certain types of beauty so moving; like a vista of hills in the morning. It could be a flower, or some music. I find poetry can generate all sorts of emotion. What earthly good is that? Yet most of us seem to have something of it. How is that going to help us survive?
What has stunned me, to the extent that I can't even begin to get a handle on it, is learned inheritance. Something the mother does or is done to her, or the father before he does his business, is inherited by the child. This is as weird as Newton's dalliances. I believe there's evidence for it, but it doesn't seem right to me.
There was a nutty evangelical preacher, a self-appointed defender of his god, on TV suggesting that he would prove Darwin wrong. The odd thing was that I was reading a book called 'Almost Like a Whale' that could have been retitled: Where Darwin Went Wrong. It went through 'The Origin . . . ' almost chapter by chapter and was something of a homage to the bloke.
The conclusion of the book was more or less that Darwin was a genius as he got so much right.
A few years ago there was a biggish dispute between scientists as to the causes of evolution, particularly speciation. It was good to see the ideas floating around. I forget which 'side' I was on, but I bet it was the right one.
Intelligence is a much vaunted asset. How could it be anything but a positive in the survival stakes? Yet over the years, and before Clem Atlee, the intelligence level of the human race as a whole has been dropping some scientists suggest.
Again, we won't know but will later when we all are scientists or are living in trees.
Some of the greatest minds, geniuses by any measure, have been really weird. Not just odd but loopy.
One thing that's always floored me is why I find certain types of beauty so moving; like a vista of hills in the morning. It could be a flower, or some music. I find poetry can generate all sorts of emotion. What earthly good is that? Yet most of us seem to have something of it. How is that going to help us survive?
What has stunned me, to the extent that I can't even begin to get a handle on it, is learned inheritance. Something the mother does or is done to her, or the father before he does his business, is inherited by the child. This is as weird as Newton's dalliances. I believe there's evidence for it, but it doesn't seem right to me.
There was a nutty evangelical preacher, a self-appointed defender of his god, on TV suggesting that he would prove Darwin wrong. The odd thing was that I was reading a book called 'Almost Like a Whale' that could have been retitled: Where Darwin Went Wrong. It went through 'The Origin . . . ' almost chapter by chapter and was something of a homage to the bloke.
The conclusion of the book was more or less that Darwin was a genius as he got so much right.
A few years ago there was a biggish dispute between scientists as to the causes of evolution, particularly speciation. It was good to see the ideas floating around. I forget which 'side' I was on, but I bet it was the right one.
4x4Tyke said:
I wouldn't use the phrase 'kindness sexually attractive', but the core idea is solid in evolution and it is baked in by evolution.
There are two aspect to it.
Sexual selection is a part of evolution and includes what are known as true indicators. These are certain characteristics, such as symmetrical faces and bodies, clear complexions, pear and hourglass figures in women, broad shoulders in men. These true indicators are accurate reflection of fertility and survival chances. Clear complexions & symmetry reflect general good health, or wide hips or nursing in women, etc. These are universal, people like them because their ancestors liked them and reproduced successfully. Yes some social and cultural norms can exist on top and in the modern world some of these can be fooled, make up, surgery, steroids, etc That is why faking true indicators is big business, but a few decades of these cannot override millenia of success.
The second part is we are a social species, survival depended on cooperation. Individually we are vulnerable to other apex predators, a lion or sabre tooth would likely kill a single hunter even if armed with a sturdy spear. A cooperative Hunting party is far more likely to survive and the larger the party the less the risk. The same goes for better weapons, protecting the young and women. Cooperation, communication and smarts are core to our survival strategy, these evolved through a myriad steps, were a trait helped people survived to breed, where it didn't they died. So we could label some of that cooperation attraction to kindness.
Imagine you are walking down the street, you subconscious draw your attention to a physically beautiful women, you double take, you can't help it, perhaps even do it if your wife girlfriend is next to you, that is instinctive sexual attraction at work.
You get to know a physically beautiful women, but there is no chemistry, no attraction, you can't put your finger on it, it's just not there, but her less physically attractive friend is compassionate, funny, vivacious, smart, whatever and you can't help it you get stirring, you get horny. That is also sexual selection at work.
And herein lies the problem. Which gene contains the information to recognise the true indicators? How are these indicators encoded?There are two aspect to it.
Sexual selection is a part of evolution and includes what are known as true indicators. These are certain characteristics, such as symmetrical faces and bodies, clear complexions, pear and hourglass figures in women, broad shoulders in men. These true indicators are accurate reflection of fertility and survival chances. Clear complexions & symmetry reflect general good health, or wide hips or nursing in women, etc. These are universal, people like them because their ancestors liked them and reproduced successfully. Yes some social and cultural norms can exist on top and in the modern world some of these can be fooled, make up, surgery, steroids, etc That is why faking true indicators is big business, but a few decades of these cannot override millenia of success.
The second part is we are a social species, survival depended on cooperation. Individually we are vulnerable to other apex predators, a lion or sabre tooth would likely kill a single hunter even if armed with a sturdy spear. A cooperative Hunting party is far more likely to survive and the larger the party the less the risk. The same goes for better weapons, protecting the young and women. Cooperation, communication and smarts are core to our survival strategy, these evolved through a myriad steps, were a trait helped people survived to breed, where it didn't they died. So we could label some of that cooperation attraction to kindness.
Imagine you are walking down the street, you subconscious draw your attention to a physically beautiful women, you double take, you can't help it, perhaps even do it if your wife girlfriend is next to you, that is instinctive sexual attraction at work.
You get to know a physically beautiful women, but there is no chemistry, no attraction, you can't put your finger on it, it's just not there, but her less physically attractive friend is compassionate, funny, vivacious, smart, whatever and you can't help it you get stirring, you get horny. That is also sexual selection at work.
gothatway said:
From an evolutionary perspective, is it good, neutral or bad (if those terms have any meaning in this context) that we now intervene to enable infertile couples to breed ?
It’s business as usual. Humans have evolved to be good with tools. A modern fertility clinic is just a more complex tool than a sharpened flint.ash73 said:
You may have noticed there are still ugly people. Sexual selection doesn't result in exclusively beautiful people, it generally just dictates who gets to breed with whom; the rest make do.
But it does tend to spread the genes of those regarded as attractive rather more. That's how Peacocks got those ludicrous tails.gothatway said:
From an evolutionary perspective, is it good, neutral or bad (if those terms have any meaning in this context) that we now intervene to enable infertile couples to breed ?
How many people who don't need fertility treatment to reproduce wouldn't be reproducing anyway, if "hardcore evolution" is the benchmark.Anyone who gets glasses in childhood or teens, they wouldn't survive in the wild. Many everyday childhood illnesses would have finished people off without medicine, vaccinations etc. Any broken bone etc.
Most of us probably aren't truly fit to reproduce.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
gothatway said:
From an evolutionary perspective, is it good, neutral or bad (if those terms have any meaning in this context) that we now intervene to enable infertile couples to breed ?
How many people who don't need fertility treatment to reproduce wouldn't be reproducing anyway, if "hardcore evolution" is the benchmark.Anyone who gets glasses in childhood or teens, they wouldn't survive in the wild. Many everyday childhood illnesses would have finished people off without medicine, vaccinations etc. Any broken bone etc.
Most of us probably aren't truly fit to reproduce.
ash73 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Once someone has a trait seen as attractive and accordingly has more offspring, the next generation will not only have more people with that trait, but also more people who find that trait attractive.
You may have noticed there are still ugly people. Sexual selection doesn't result in exclusively beautiful people, it generally just dictates who gets to breed with whom; the rest make do.I'm sure we all known/met/heard of women that are unattractive and perhaps dim but have rather remarkable strong instinctive mothering skills; others that are unattractive but 'easy', there will always be some feckless guy prepared to impregnate them. I'm sure we've all heard aphorisms, about 'paper baggers' or a 'five/six pinter' and similar. These stick because there is an element of truth in them. These persist because natural selection finds them effective strategies for selfish genes.
One of oldest friends from childhood in rather dim and a long way from the ideal male specimen. He is also one of the kindest people I know and extremely hardworking. He is married to a woman I actually find physically repulsive and calling her a 2/3 would be generous. They have two children. In contrast I'm very sapiosexual, that means I find smart women attractive, so much so that it overrides most standards of physical beauty, a smart 5 would easily trump a dim 10s for me. Natural selection at work.
gothatway said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
gothatway said:
From an evolutionary perspective, is it good, neutral or bad (if those terms have any meaning in this context) that we now intervene to enable infertile couples to breed ?
How many people who don't need fertility treatment to reproduce wouldn't be reproducing anyway, if "hardcore evolution" is the benchmark.Anyone who gets glasses in childhood or teens, they wouldn't survive in the wild. Many everyday childhood illnesses would have finished people off without medicine, vaccinations etc. Any broken bone etc.
Most of us probably aren't truly fit to reproduce.
- Fertile female with infertile male - Today this is medically solved by a sperm donor, in history it was probably solved by adultery. A selective pressure on genes for women more prepared to cheat. Another truish aphorism is the hunky gardener/gamekeeper seeing to the lady of the house. Cuckolding at work, genetic statistics put this at a few percent in modern Britain. Cheating is natural selection at work.
- Infertile female/fertile male - Solved today with egg donation or surrogacy, in history it was probably solved by cheating or trading up to a younger, more likely fertile woman. Not doing that brings your line to an end, again cheating genes is natural selection at work.
- Both infertile, Today this can be solved with egg & sperm donation, donor or surrogacy with sperm donor, these infertile lines come to an end.
- All above: Adoption, evolutionary fit orphans are more likely to survive; once again natural selection at work. Historically intra-family adoptions was quite the norm. This is a slight selective pressure towards related genes and selects towards our social species status. Families that don't follow this strategy have slightly lower chance of perpetuating their genes.
There are other examples of edge case genes. Sickle cell anemia is one and this is slightly simplified for purposes of clarity. A single copy of the gene give protection against malaria, two copies results in a fatal condition. It is a regressive gene, so two carriers only have 1 in 4 chance of their children being doomed, but a 3 in 4 chance of their offspring being protected from malaria. An evolutionary win for the Sickle cell gene.
otolith said:
The evolutionary psychology of sexual attraction is always good for a forum argument!
Yep, it's brilliant, one of the best debates on PH in a long time.Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 21st August 09:08
V8LM said:
And herein lies the problem. Which gene contains the information to recognise the true indicators? How are these indicators encoded?
You could ask that of any instinctive behaviour.What gene encodes for the information whereby a certain species of butterfly know which flowers to feed from. What gene encodes for the knowledge that a puffer fish has about how to build their characteristic circular sand structures to attract a mate?
There are countless examples of animals which display complex behaviour that cannot have been learnt and so must be encoded into their genome. We might not know how or where this information is encoded (yet), but the fact that we observe such behaviour even in species where the young are completely isolated from the adults means that it must be.
Of course, the information may not actually coded per-se (e.g. there may be no "how to build a nest" gene) - it's possible the behaviour is emergent based on the interactions of a number of genetic factors in much the same way as a complex fractal image is an emergent property of a simple mathematical equation.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 22 August 07:27
4x4Tyke said:
Infertility and modern treatment is an interesting one, so let's consider some of the different scenarios.
- Fertile female with infertile male - Today this is medically solved by a sperm donor, in history it was probably solved by adultery. A selective pressure on genes for women more prepared to cheat. Another truish aphorism is the hunky gardener/gamekeeper seeing to the lady of the house. Cuckolding at work, genetic statistics put this at a few percent in modern Britain. Cheating is natural selection at work.
- Infertile female/fertile male - Solved today with egg donation or surrogacy, in history it was probably solved by cheating or trading up to a younger, more likely fertile woman. Not doing that brings your line to an end, again cheating genes is natural selection at work.
- Both infertile, Today this can be solved with egg & sperm donation, donor or surrogacy with sperm donor, these infertile lines come to an end.
- All above: Adoption, evolutionary fit orphans are more likely to survive; once again natural selection at work. Historically intra-family adoptions was quite the norm. This is a slight selective pressure towards related genes and selects towards our social species status. Families that don't follow this strategy have slightly lower chance of perpetuating their genes.
Fertile Female/infertile male: Likely to be cause by low sperm count or low motility sperm or viscous semen. Easily addressed by IVF or ICSI using the infertile males actual sperm. Hence the issue can be passed to future generations of males.
Infertile Female/ fertile male. Likely to be caused by a blockage issue rather than an egg issue. Damaged fallopian tubes, endometriosis. Easily solved by IVF, using the woman's own eggs, again passing the issue to future generations of females.
Both Infertile: If due to both of the above, again solvable using the actual couples own sperm and eggs, passing the issue on to future generations.
Donor eggs and sperm make up only a small part of infertility treatment.
It's nice to see a thread develop with genuine knowledge at its core. I don't have a huge amount of knowledge in this area but I have read lots of books on the history of life on earth (stemming from a life long interest in dinosaurs).
Has anybody read the books written by the late Jay Gould? I always found them interesting.
Has anybody read the books written by the late Jay Gould? I always found them interesting.
I think the current must read book for the latest on evolution is The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. And for those who dislike Dawkins, it's written in his capacity as one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists as opposed to one of the world's leading atheists.
It's a really great book.
It's a really great book.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff