article: Why Doesn't Evolution Get Rid of Ugly People?

[navyseal2101]

I saw another article saying in the future eventually as ugly/ugly and hot/hot mate, the human speciaes will split into 2 subspecies's. One being short hunched ugly people and the others being the fit "hot" type. I'll try to find it.
EDIT: Found it, link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

 

[Caesar20]

huh, you have to know, that there will always be a desperate man, so even an ugly or fat woman will be in the market (for kids). or she just have THAT much of a charisma.
as for ugly men, good looking people are not always the best providers, take engineers for example.

 

[Obsidian]

well if you read the bottom.. it says female beauty and MALE ALPHA-MALE ness..

You're kinda missing my point:

Ugly men can still be attractive and have children ----> ugly humans carry on

Moreover, beautiful yet non-alpha women can certainly have children ----> non-confident humans carry on

Furthermore, genes that look good for a man might turn up in that man's daughter, making her look excessively masculine (read: ugly). And vice versa. Genes that promote confidence/recklessness also might turn up in a daughter (instead of a son), aiding her devolution into a hor.

I therefore don't see any reason why evolution would weed out ugly people. Ugly girls were just born unlucky, and AFC males were simply corrupted by our feminized society. Ugly males, meanwhile, can still become men (and in so doing, become attractive).

 

[dietzcoi]

The instinct to reproduce is so strong (especially in women) that even the ugliest women and men will have kids. You have all seen it, extremely ugly/fat parents with ugly kids.

You would think the parents would want to spare thier kids being ugly... didn't they experience pain as ugly children? But they STILL crank them out.. ugly and STUPID!

Same goes for poor, uneducated, etc. You would think they would not want to put thier kids though what pain they went through being poor, ugly, stupid, etc.... but they still have the kids!!

Ugliness will never go away (short of a "Brave New World" type of authortiarian government)

Dietzcoi

 

[Holland]

Who cares?

Just make sure you're alpha. Without ugly there'd be no pretty.

 

[PeterNorthisawesome]

the concept is ..if we all want 'high fitness mates' good looking partners..how come ugly hasnt been weeded out yet.

Because modern medicine, plastic surgery, food pre-packed, money and no competition all lead to evolution being abolished.

 

[PureFlow]

Evolution, these days, is not only Natural Selection anymore, and this notion that only the "strong will survive" seems very nazi-like to me.

Natural Selection (selection of fitness)
Neutral Theory (neutral mutations)
Genetic Drift (chance)
Sexual Selection (possibly incompatible with NS)
Epigenetic Inheritance (still uncertain and controversial I think)

Overall, I think the Theory of Evolution is on very shaky ground these days, and it might even be replaced this century.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Evolution has nothing to do with strength, chance, or fitness. Evolutionary "success" is based on an organism's ability to adapt to it's environment. Gigantic, fabulously strong, dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago, not because they lacked strength, but because they lacked the ability to adapt to an environment that radically changed on them. A genetically 'superior' species is dependent upon it's ability to thrive in a specific environment.

This is why ugly people can still breed, because humans are the most adaptable organism on the planet.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Again because ugly people reproduce with ugly people since generally speaking they can not get attractive, fit partners.

EXACTLY!

Its not a hard concept to grasp...unless you have a low IQ.

speaking of which, why hasnt evolution weeded out dumb people who cant grasp such simple concepts? NOW THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

maybe because beauty isn't integral to male attractiveness *gasp*

*gasp*, all evidence (scientific evidence included) points to it being integral to male attractiveness. *gasp* OMG!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Although there are proportions that have been researched, there is no such definite form of beauty. If enough people were asked, there would always be a handful of people who, for some reason of another, not find the subject attractive.
I see your point however, and concur that in an everyday realistic definition, there is such thing as a beauty which a high percentage of people would agree on.

its part subjective, part objective. Think of objective/subjective as a continuum, attractiveness is somewhere in the middle of this continuum.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

I'm just talking about statistical significance (which, by definition, is measured objectively). Of course, there will be outliers and deviation from the norms, but your "bell curve" is most people.

That being the case, if this is what drove the train, then there should be a gradual progression towards more beauty because the "majority vote" would cause genetic drift towards "beauty". But as has been pointed out, its a little more complicated than that.

I haven't had a chance to click on that article, whatever it shows.

You point is good, everything you say here is correct.

 

[mahon83050]

Not really. (Human) beauty has been researched using proper scientific methods, and actually there is considerable statistical consistency in what most people consider as a beautiful/attractive human. The two main things I recall from this research are that "average" (size, dimensions, etc of bodily structures, i.e. an average shaped nose) is beautiful, and symmetry is beautiful. In short, if you have a face with average features and near-perfect symmetry, then most people will consider you "beautiful/handsome".

You are absolutely correct, it all has to do with facial balance. Most people are UNAWARE of the HUGE role your upper and lower jaws play in facial aesthetics. MOST unattractive people probably have upper/lower jaws that are either too big/small for the face or not positioned correctly. However, this problem is fixable with surgery called Orthoganthic Surgery. Look what it did for this ugly lady.

http://www.drbart.nl/www/text.php?id=46&rid=25

 

[PeterNorthisawesome]

Evolution, these days, is not only Natural Selection anymore, and this notion that only the "strong will survive" seems very nazi-like to me.

Natural Selection (selection of fitness)
Neutral Theory (neutral mutations)
Genetic Drift (chance)
Sexual Selection (possibly incompatible with NS)
Epigenetic Inheritance (still uncertain and controversial I think)

Overall, I think the Theory of Evolution is on very shaky ground these days, and it might even be replaced this century.

Shaky... ground... wtf you smoking? The theory is the base of almost every biological science. So unless you can prove GOD's existance it's impossible to disprove it.

 

[lildevil]

didnt read the article.....but getting rid of ugly will be impossible.....beutiful people are lended amazing lookz....ugly people are sometimes lended with the best personalities....and ur lended this world to see how u can make the best of Yourself...

That article is probably full of bull ****...

 

[PureFlow]

Shaky... ground... wtf you smoking? The theory is the base of almost every biological science. So unless you can prove GOD's existance it's impossible to disprove it.

I meant the Theory of Evolution as in The New Synthesis, Natural Selection combined with Mendelian Genetics; I do not mean, as you probably think, that the entire fact of evolution will be disproven. I merely think that, during the 21st century, a new Theory Of Evolution, Version 2, will be created by scientists, incorporating much of the ideas of Darwin and others into it. It's more a change of name, than a change of idea, but still it'll be an important change. And there is no need to invoke a supernatural intelligence, of course, because faith needs no proof, and science needs no god.

 

[bigjohnson]

I saw another article saying in the future eventually as ugly/ugly and hot/hot mate, the human speciaes will split into 2 subspecies's. One being short hunched ugly people and the others being the fit "hot" type. I'll try to find it.
EDIT: Found it, link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

Yeah, I think H.G. Wells wrote a similar article once.

 

[Makro2323]

In every generation of humans, there will inevitably be a portion of the population that are too ugly to breed, and will die. Therefore, in the next generation the "ugly cut-off point" will be raised, as there will still be a portion of the population who are too ugly to breed. Of course, they will be more attractive than the previous generation, but still too ugly to find a mate. So gradually the species will become better looking. The reason people don't notice this is because it happens very slowly. So yes, we are getting more attractive, in the same way that peacocks are getting bigger tails and deers are getting bigger antlers.

So, Nickbe's explanation is wrong, and Kneghtrider is correct. To say that ugly people will remain in the population because unattractive people will reproduce with each other does not work, as the trend is still leaning towards good looking people. Ugly people and goodlooking people <i>both</i> want to mate with good looking partners. To suppose that ugly people will remain in the human population is to suppose that peacocks with short tails will remain in the population because all the "ugly" peahens will be left to mate with them. Actually, the trend is towards peacocks with longer tails, and this can be seen in nature. Similarly, the trend is towards "attractive" (to the opposite sex) male humans, and this can also be seen.

By the way, the theory of evolution is not on "shaky grounds", and i'm not too sure where you heard this. On the contrary it is backed up by so much evidence in its favour that it is considered as fact by nearly all scientists.

 

[WaterTiger]

Let's face it guys...Good looking guys get drunk and stupid, ugly girls put out.


And so the circle of life continues....