Physical Attractiveness and What it Means

[write4u]

[quote=“coffee, post:38, topic:10638”] I am very well versed with natural selection. This is not that.
Edit to add: [It’s complicated]
(Are humans still evolving? - PMC)
[/quote]

From your link:

The modern theory of evolution—built on a vast array of supporting evidence from diverse scientific fields—is now widely accepted. However, it has been far more controversial in a social context, particularly when it is applied to our own species.

Science and evolution

Abstract
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution.

At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation.

Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet.

Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.

The evolutionary complication arises from man’s ability to cheat nature and natural selection by artificial means, such as medicine.

And this is also responsible for the exponential human population growth which is no longer subject to natural selection but to artificial selection.

But Natural Selection is not restricted to living organisms only. Evolution via natural selection applies to all dynamic systems.
In Nature, natural selection is the “controlling dynamic” that has resulted in the evolution of natural beautiful patterns on Earth, but everywhere in the entire universe!

[lausten]

I think it was this piece that coffee was referring to. He was not disputing the theory of evolution. It’s what he quoted, so I’m pretty sure of that.

@write4u

Learn from Natural Selection. The natural world is beautiful because in nature survival depends on “individual selection” and as with any “choice”, the individual will always select for “symmetry” and “ability”, i.e. exterior evidence of strength, fitness, physical skills .

Nature selects for these assets and therefore it can be used as proof of evolution toward “durable excellence”.

Where in the theory is it said that survival depends on “individual selection”. Also, what evidence is there that individuals always select for the traits you listed? I see people making all sorts of choices every day that are the opposite of those, but somehow they survive. Natural selection is about odds of survival, so you could say those are “bad” choices, but sometimes, actually often, good things happen to bad people.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

The evolutionary complication arises from man’s ability to cheat nature and natural selection by artificial means, such as medicine.

Which is simply another form of selection.

On the cell stage it’s argued evolution happens constantly. Every time you inhale a new substance, your system needs to evolve counter measures.

Evolution is why flu vaccines must constantly be changed.

Drug resistance, that’s evolution. Seems to me Evolution is fundamentally Change Over Time, it’s tough for any living organism to get around that.

But wait, there’s more, David Wilson does a good job of telling that story.

Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin’s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives Paperback – December 26, 2007

by David Sloan Wilson (Author)

Animal Life and the Birth of the Mind

By: Peter Godfrey-Smith - 11-10-20

David Sloan Wilson - Human Ecology and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Apr 21, 2016
www.coa.edu

Wilson presents his controversial views on evolution and its connection to social change at College of the Atlantic’s Human Ecology Forum on Friday, Feb. 19. The talk, entitled The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis as a New Foundation for Human Ecology, takes place in Gates Community Center.

[write4u]

[quote=“lausten, post:42, topic:10638”] Where in the theory is it said that survival depends on “individual selection”.

Sorry, that was misleading. It should read “survival depends on natural selection of individuals with better survival skills”.

Here:

Natural selection
Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.** Wikipedia

Also, what evidence is there that individuals always select for the traits you listed?

Human choices have nothing to do with stochastic natural selection.

I see people making all sorts of choices every day that are the opposite of those, but somehow they survive. Natural selection is about odds of survival, so you could say those are “bad” choices, but sometimes, actually often, good things happen to bad people.

Yes, natural selection has nothing to do with making choices. Natural selection is about “last man standing” in the struggle to stay alive and procreate.

[quote=“lausten, post:42, topic:10638, full:true”] I think it was this piece that coffee was referring to. He was not disputing the theory of evolution. It’s what he quoted, so I’m pretty sure of that.

Yes and I was not debating the issue.
When I agree , I often try to support the proposition with additional information for other readers.

Hence:
*"Learn from Natural Selection. The natural world is beautiful because in nature individual survival depends on selection of “attractors”.
Note: Beauty (attraction) is in the eye of the beholder. To a beetle a bottle may be the most beautiful thing in the world.

Attraction does not necessarily mean attractiveness in human terms.

The most awesome flower in nature “Victoria Regia”, smells like rotting flesh, because it depends on beetles for pollination and survival of the species.

Ecology
Each plant continues to produce flowers for a full growing season, and they have co-evolved a mutualistic relationship with a species of scarab beetle of the genus Cyclocephala as a pollinator.[19] All the buds in a single patch will begin to open at the same time and as they do, they give off a fruity smell.[12]

At this point the flower petals are white, and the beetles are attracted both to the colour and the smell of the flower.

At nightfall the flower stops producing the odor, and it closes, trapping the beetles inside its carpellary appendages.[12] Here, the stamens are protected by the paracarpels and for the next day the flower continues to remain closed. The cavity in which the beetle is trapped is composed of a spongy, starchy tissue that provides nourishment for the beetle. During this time, anthocyanins start to be released by the plant, which in turn changes the petals from white to a reddish pink colour, a sign that the flower will have been pollinated.[12] As the beetle munches away inside the flower, the stamens fall inward and the anthers, which have already fallen, drop pollen on the stamens.[12]

During the evening of the second day, the flowers will have opened enough to release the beetle, and as it pushes its way through the stamens it becomes covered in pollen.[12] These insects will then go on to find a newly opened water lily and pollinate with the pollen they are carrying from the previous flower. This process was described in detail by Sir Ghillean Prance and Jorge Arius.[12][20]

It is not the individual who does the selecting. It is Nature that “passively” selects individual fitness for survival and his/her contribution to the gene pool.
This process is morally neutral and only selects for ability to survive, not for moral “goodness”.

But “attraction” is a natural phenomenon. and does not necessarily have to be “pretty”.

attractor, noun
Physics.
a state or behavior toward which a dynamic system tends to evolve, represented as a >point or orbit in the system’s phase space.
ATTRACTOR Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com

Carrion Flower

Rafflesia Flowers of plants in the genus Rafflesia (family Rafflesiaceae) emit an odor similar to that of decaying meat. This odor attracts the flies that pollinate the plant.

The world’s largest single bloom is R. arnoldii. This rare flower is found in the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra.

(Carrion flower - Wikipedia)

[write4u]

@citizenschallengev4

Which is simply another form of selection

Yes, ultimately it is all natural, but human selection for specific traits is active, not passive as in nature.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

Yes, ultimately it is all natural, but human selection for specific traits is active, not passive as in nature.

Careful there, human are also driving an awful lot of unintended selection.

[coffee]

@lausten

It’s nature selecting for survival based on brutal, mindless laws. Nature doesn’t decide to enforce gravity one day and not another. Whatever it is, it is not the type of selection humans think of when they are choosing a breakfast cereal.

Right. Natural selection is a specific type of selection. Natural selection can lead to speciation. It comes from environmental pressures. Given the length of a human life, evolution takes thousands to millions of years. Once we fail to handle climate change, natural selection might kick in again for us. And such pressures might be occurring in some isolated area where people live in the wild and face various environmental pressures that we in the western world don’t.

But since the industrial revolution, we have thought that we can change the environment rather than the environment changing us. And we have been somewhat successful. Malthus was not wrong so much as he was naive to how humans could manipulate chemistry to increase food production that buys us some time. But time will catch up with us.

At any rate, our social dating scene in our environmentally controlled concrete world is not what Darwin meant by natural selection. We’re getting taller, but that’s not evolution and certainly not natural selection. This thread came from the simple observation that some people are superficial and an attempt to over generalize that fact to our entire society. That’s not natural selection as Darwin described it.

Edit to add: This thread, if significant at all, should be discussing sexual selection, not natural selection.

[lausten]

@write4u

Yes, ultimately it is all natural, but human selection for specific traits is active, not passive as in nature.

It’s an interesting line to cross. Dawkins idea of the “meme” is that language now takes part in evolution. And, right CC, definitely not always leading to some “better” outcome.

[thatoneguy]

@coffee

@thatoneguy

…the unattractive don’t demonstrate an unusual level of goodness. Nor do leftists, although they think they do.

That doesn’t make sense.
Where was it stated that unattractive people demonstrate an unusual level of goodness?

I thought you were agreeing with that idea from your comments about personality and looks.

[write4u]

@citizenschallengev4

Careful there, human are also driving an awful lot of unintended selection.

But much fewer than probabilistic natural selection. Humans operate in a much more controlled environment than in the wild. The percentage of beneficial mutations and proactive selection of beneficial traits is much greater via human interference than by natural selection which is a passive process that relies a great deal on sheer luck.

Nature tests its “children” constantly for success or failure in coping with its varied local environments and climate changes, but there are a few species that “carry their infirm or wounded” and surprisingly some insects also care for their wounded, which also cheats natural selection.

‘Paramedic’ Ants Are the First to Rescue and Heal Their Wounded Comrades

Matabele ants nurse each other back to health after battle with a surprisingly high success rate, a new study finds.

Weird and Wild

[citizenschallengev4]

I won’t dispute those details.

As for your big picture:

@write4u

… which also cheats natural selection.

That’s some anthropomorphic logic at work, evolution as contest, can you feel the melodrama.

In the natural world, saving some individuals and allowing them to live a little longer isn’t going to cheat natural selection.

Heck even humans with all their progress in being able to “cheat” death, to aid and prolong life that in a natural setting would die at birth, or be too unfit to thrive and procreate. That’s upset natural balances, but in the long run it worlds out.

Now that you got me thinking about it, if anything is cheating natural selection it’s the destruction humans are inflicting to this Earth in species/landscape destruction - and our manmade warming of this Earth’s ‘global heat and moisture distribution engine’ (read climate) has a yet to inflict upon all life forms that have adapted themselves to living on our planet for the past hundreds of thousands and looking forward to many more millennia to come.
That around ten thousand years of human runaway “progress” is well on the way to totally destroying.

Besides, following this line of thought leads to a realization that Natural Selection is dead in our day and age. The big player today is Human Selection, which is mainly destructive, and overwhelms what little good we do here and there.

But this too will pass and Natural Selection will be back to pick up the pieces and build up something new and adjusted to what we have wrought.

[lausten]

@write4u

The percentage of beneficial mutations and proactive selection of beneficial traits is much greater via human interference than by natural selection which is a passive process that relies a great deal on sheer luck.

Have you watched the news lately? All over the world humans are manipulating humans in very non beneficial ways.

[write4u]

@citizenschallengev4

That’s some anthropomorphic logic at work, evolution as contest, can you feel the melodrama.

Can you clarify your use of “anthropomorphic” in context?
I would state it a little differently. It is humans who are competing with natural selection. Nature doesn’t compete . It has ruled via natural selection since the BB and will continue to test everything .

And yes, I can feel the melodrama. This is fundamental stuff.

[write4u]

@citizenschallengev4

Heck even humans with all their progress in being able to “cheat” death, to aid and prolong life that in a natural setting would die at birth, or be too unfit to thrive and procreate. That’s upset natural balances, but in the long run it worlds out.

I agree, ultimately you cannot cheat natural selection unless you can maintain a natural balance. And that process is outside human control, as evidenced today with GW.

[citizenschallengev4]

Fair enough Write . . .