"William Morse"  wrote in message
news:bvv5fh$1r74$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> lamoran{at}bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in
> news:bvjhhu$1b75$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:52:40 +0000 (UTC),
> > William Morse  wrote:
> >> lamoran{at}bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in
> >> news:bv23as$25ct$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org:
>
> > In order for beauty to be selected you have to have
certain alleles
> > segregating within the population. There have to be
alleles that
> > control beauty and alleles that control our reponse to
this beauty.
> > Furthermore, the hypothesis has to do far more than just
explain
> > why we think something is beautiful. It has to explain
why this
> > might have an effect on the ability to reproduce. So
far, I haven't
> > seen any data to suggest that there's a serious
difference in the
> > ability of beautiful men and women to reproduce. I also
haven't
> > seen any serious attempt by the hypothesis to describe
this. (In
> > fainess, it's probably assumed to be obvious that only
people
> > with beautiful faces will get a mate. The fact that's
there's no
> > data to support this assumption seems to be ignored ...
as is the
> > common sense observation that most men and women have
children
> > eve if they aren't beautiful.)
>
> As has been pointed out, there do not have to be alleles
that control
> beauty if what we perceive as beautiful is based on
features (symmetry,
> averageness) that are surrogates for good health. There
only have to be
> alleles that control our response to the beauty . And, as
I think you are
> well aware, the hypothesis does _not_ have to explain a
difference in
> "ability" to reproduce. It only has to explain a  long
term higher
> reproductive success  in those who choose to reproduce
with attractive
> people than in those who choose to reproduce with
unattractive people. In
> a reasonably large population with significant mixing
(where drift is, of
> course, irrelevant) a relatively small difference in
reproductive success
> will result in an appreciation for beauty being selected.
>
>
>
> > I prefer explanations based almost exclusively on
cultural (societal)
> > patterns of behavior and what we learn when we are
growing up. To
> > me, this explains the wide variety of different
perceptions of
> > beauty in different cultures and the change in this
perception
> > within a single culture over time. In other words, this
behavior
> > doesn't have a direct genetic component and doesn't have
anything much
> > to do with evolution, in my opinion.
>
> I am glad that you prefer such explanations. But there is
not in fact a
> "wide" variety of perceptions of beauty. Faces considered
attractive in
> one culture are also considered attractive in other
cultures, and very
> young infants will preferentially look at faces that are
considered
> attractive by adults.  So culture is not  an "exclusive"
explanation,
> although it certainly plays a role. Now there have been
explanations put
> forward for cross-cultural facial attractiveness based on
built-in bias
> in our perceptual system, and this may be the correct
explanation.
>

I agree that there is a strong global cultural factor in the
establishment of a standard of "beauty," but there is also a
"personal" standard developed as an infant or in early
childhood, namely faces and bodies which resemble parents,
close family and such who a child was close to early on.
This factor of course would would be confounded with global
cultural ones since all those in the culture would tend
somewhat to the cultural mean; the personal though would be
more specific and selective. For ex., my absolute standard
of beauty was generally set by a young girl I was attracted
to in the 2nd grade! :)

I am also not sure if it was mentioned that, as far as
purely
physical beauty is concerned, besides the health factor,
regularity and tendency to the mean also tend to rule out
mates who have had previous physical accidents/injuries,
i.e., the klutzes, accident prone (stupid), and just
generally unlucky in the gen pop. Those with superficially
noticable scars, wounds, etc. may have also had their
ability to reproduce impaired also. (e.g., someone who
previously had a tree fall on them!)       ...tonyC

>
> > I also like to compare human behavior with that of our
closest
> > evolutionary relatives in order to get a reality check
on the latest
> > evolutionary speculations about human behavior. In this
case, I don't
> > think that there's any evidence for chimps being
particularly picky
> > about their choice of mating partners. Thus, the
speculators have to
> > add one more thing to their hypothesis. Not only do they
speculate
> > about genes for beauty and genes for the perception of
beauty but now
> > they have to speculate that these genes mostly arose
within the human
> > lineage in the past 5 million years. That's asking an
awful lot for
> > a speculation that doesn't even have any evidence to
support it.
> > (I'm talking about evidence for evolution.)
>
> I also like such reality checks. Unfortunately there is a
significant
> difference in mating behavior between humans and
chimpanzees - we are
> monogamous, they are not. And there is no way to know
whether our LCA was
> picky about  choice of mating partner. If it was, then
_you_ would have
> to explain why chimps are not picky, and would similarly
have to
> speculate that those genes mostly arose within the chimp
lineage in the
> past 5 million years. Living primates exhibit almost the
entire range of
> mating behaviors, based on ecological niche rather than
cladistics, so
> comparisons to chimps are not necessarily germane. One of
the interesting
> things I found out while looking into this subject is that
in gibbons,
> many species of which  are monogamous, the females sing!
>
>
> > If there is no strong genetic component to beauty and no
strong
> > *genetic* connection between being beautiful and
preferring beautiful
> > partners, then we're not talking about evolution.
>
> Why does "genetic" have to be involved.Your own definition
of evolution
> is "heritable", not "genetic". So a memetic explanation
should be
> allowable - but that is a subject best left to another
thread. I think we
> both have serious, albeit different, reservations about
memetics.
>
>
> > A lot of people seems to making the assumption that just
because we
> > have an idealized image of (culturally derived) beauty
it means that
> > we will only marry the ideal woman or man. This isn't
the kind of
> > world that I see around me. How about you?
>
> You may be right about a lot of people. _My_ argument is
assortative
> mating. That _is_ the kind of world that I see around me -
beautiful
> women marry rich and successful men (or sometimes poor but
handsome men),
> while poor, dumb, and ugly men marry similar women. I
happen to have been
> extraordinarily lucky in that my lovely and talented wife
was willing to
> marry me :-)
>
>
>
> > This is just one part of the speculation. The idea being
challenged
> > above is that selection for beauty can be explained by a
correlation
> > between beauty and health. I'm going further. I'm
challenging the
> > entire idea that beauty is being selected in human
populations for
> > whatever reason.
>
> Is your argument that:
>
> 1) there is no such thing as a cross-cultural standard for
beauty, so it
> can not be selected?
>
> 2) beauty is adaptive, but selection for it is overwhelmed
by drift?
>
> 3) beauty exists, but it is not genetic?
>
> 4) Some other that I am missing?
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Bill Morse
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 2/6/04 3:07:10 PM