Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

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

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 11:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Washington Washington
    Location
    Yelm
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Polity capitated per constituent
    Religion
    a priori dialectic thelema/odal
    Posts
    285
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff View Post
    In fact, I have a theory about Negroes. My theory is that Negroes actually believe they are ugly
    Was it J. P. Rushton's work on human r-K selection theory which had statistical findings showing that Negros had higher self-esteem and body image opinions of theirselves than other groups?

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 @ 10:46 AM
    Age
    35
    Posts
    20
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I think the scientists miss two important factors. The most important is that women have never and will never be under the same competetive pressure as men. It's not difficult for an ugly woman to get impregnated by a man. Intelligent but also powerful men have also in all times been able to spread their genes regardless of their appearance.

    I also agree that extreme beauty is caused by so many factors that it becomes a lottery with few winning tickets.

  3. #23
    Senior Member SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 06:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Suetonius View Post
    I think the scientists miss two important factors. The most important is that women have never and will never be under the same competetive pressure as men. It's not difficult for an ugly woman to get impregnated by a man. Intelligent but also powerful men have also in all times been able to spread their genes regardless of their appearance.

    I also agree that extreme beauty is caused by so many factors that it becomes a lottery with few winning tickets.
    Well it's actually theorized that the situation has reversed in humans - that females have become significantly more sexually competitive (at least according to Dr Dawkins and others who agree with him.) He said this might explain why females pay such massive attention to their appearances. Of course, so do males nowadays.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 @ 10:46 AM
    Age
    35
    Posts
    20
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SineNomine View Post
    Well it's actually theorized that the situation has reversed in humans - that females have become significantly more sexually competitive (at least according to Dr Dawkins and others who agree with him.) He said this might explain why females pay such massive attention to their appearances. Of course, so do males nowadays.
    It's true that they compete about the alpha males but the least pretty or intelligent females will still be able to get impregnated. The most ugly or least succesful men will be without children, if they don't get a bride from a poor country that is. But that will only result in that the least succesful guys in that country will be without children.

    I know that there are many more mtdna haplogroups (mother grouplines with defining mutations) in existence than y-dna haplogroups (father lines). Perhaps a lot of primitive genes giving as both stupidity and ugliness is carried by some of those surviving motherlines? Regardless I am a preservationist so I care for the survival of all haplogroups.

  5. #25
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, September 3rd, 2007 @ 03:09 PM
    Age
    39
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Compared to people with down-syndrome, or people with atavistic conditions that cause excess hair growth etc we are all attractive and intelligent. Sure you can take the most attractive examples of humanity and compare them to the ugliest and wonder why the ugly don't measure up. But compare the most attractive to the most intelligent and I think you'll find the reason why we're not all smart and attractive.

  6. #26
    Member Krabat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, November 19th, 2018 @ 01:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swiss
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    Fraidenker
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    148
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aegir View Post
    You really want to know why there are still ugly people, why evolution has not taken care of them. Well it’s rather simple…because of Beer and Hard Liquor, as long as you put the beer glasses on there will always be ugly people getting sex…and reproducing!

    I know I am being a bit glib, and your point is interesting.
    There are also ugly people that cant find a mate so they get realy desperate and setle for somebodie who is as ugly and as desperate as they are and more often than not their ofspring will cary on in much the same patern. There are also ugly people that could potentualy look pretier if they took more care of themselves like loosing exess weight for instance.
    Dummheit kennt keine Grenzen

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 11:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Europid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Washington Washington
    Location
    Yelm
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Polity capitated per constituent
    Religion
    a priori dialectic thelema/odal
    Posts
    285
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Suetonius View Post
    Regardless I am a preservationist so I care for the survival of all haplogroups.
    I don't mean to offend your sentiment on the retention of genetic variation, but I believe the preservation of "all haplogroups" is an impossibility just statistically; one will always win out, with its descendants being the foundation of a new genetic pool. At least with "haplogroups".

    There will always be a genetic bottleneck with non-recombinant "haploid" DNA (that which is passed down one line, unchanged). Every new polymorphism in the haploid DNA which arises, whenever one does rise, needs to be passed on for this to be the case; but this implies it being the one replicated & passed on to the exclusion of any other between two individuals; which is a reduction of factors as one is lost. It's mathematically impossible when you include the growing factors of new polymorphisms arising from random genetic drift and new branches of the tree coming to be. One single haplotype in one single individual today will be the new Y-Adam or Mito-Eve of the entire human race many many generations from now.

  8. #28
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 24th, 2008 @ 03:12 PM
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    The reason there are and always will be ugly people is because we've just gotta have a few nerds and dorks amongst us. We need their brainiac withdrawal production potential. They are of the priestly caste. Plain and simple...It's an evolutionary strategy that is just as vitally important as the Barbie and Ken strain.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, April 23rd, 2010 @ 11:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    166
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I doubt positive natural selection is as great as it was in the past. Modern society appears to be the culprit.

    It appears agriculture clumped people together forming large societies. Read my other recently posted thread: Worst Mistake in History of Humans. It entails how farming oriented groups become more reduced and infantised as opposed to hunter gatherers. Positive natural selection probably decreased with more farm oriented groups which supposedly formed societies.

    Media has an effect. Some popular celebrities are outright ugly, but the general public views them as ideal in an aesthetic sense. Media has an influence and persuades others as to what’s considered beautiful as opposed to what’s naturally beautiful.

    For some odd reason, some men find tall women intimidating and would feel insecure being with one. The public generally views the idea of a female who’s taller than the male as awkward. Societies build ideologies of what’s considered normal or feminine or masculine for that matter. Personally I find taller women more developed and attractive, and there appears to be a direct correlation from my personal observances. Some of the most progressive subraces are the tallest: the Nordisch Swedes and Dutch, the Fälisch, and the Dinarisch.

    Perversions are likely to spread within societies. From a more drastic perspective, a sick pervert with a foot fetish may only be concerned with feet and nothing else. In many ways, sexual selection naturally leads to progressivism, but perversions may lead it astray.

    We’re in a process of degeneration and low biological selection. In today’s societies, some individuals prefer other traits such as intelligence and personality as opposed to mere attractiveness.

    Some say attractiveness is merely subjective. I agree to some extent but not entirely. One must ask this question: do the very primitive Australoids find progressive Nordids attractive as they have a significantly different look. I assume they would as Negrid men are fond of morbidly obese Europid women.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 @ 11:01 AM
    Ethnicity
    Lotharingian
    Ancestry
    Germany, Netherlands, France
    Subrace
    reduced brunn without freckles
    Country
    France France
    Location
    Paris Frankfurt
    Gender
    Age
    52
    Family
    since a few years already
    Occupation
    Finance
    Politics
    Racial conservative
    Religion
    Vatican II catholic
    Posts
    115
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sobriety View Post
    Perhaps because in nature, nobody is physically ugly.
    I do not share this anthropocentric point of view: Nature is not neutral with regard ugliness, and for the purpose of this topic it is important to recall that Humans are part of Nature. Hence, everything which, from an urban point of view, is considered as artificial because it has been manufactured or decided by a human being can be considered, from a more remote perspective, as an expression of Nature.

    Darwin observed many selective factors : when dealing with selection most of us think about climate. But, according to Darwin, it is “mating strategy” and not climate that is the most selective factor : from the color of a flower selected at attracting pollinating bees to the tail of the male peacock, each specie is characterized by one prevalent mating strategy and, hence, by one prevalent selective bias. The only difference with human beings is that the latter are not limited to only one mating strategy. Some reckon on their physical strength, other on very voluptuous forms and a large majority of us on their ability to financially sustain an abundant offspring.

    However, these strategies are not uniformly represented in all cultures. Each culture has favored one mating strategy among others, depending on its usefulness to the sustainability of such culture. World renowned Anthropologist Claude Levy-Strauss, after having defended on the one hand that “Races are not at the origin of cultures” (Race and Culture, Unesco 1960) claimed on the other hand that “Cultures are probably, at least partially, at the origin of modern races” (Race and History, 1970) and sought for their preservation (“I hate travellers”). While favoring one or several mating strategies, each culture contributes to the development of its own race, provided that such mating strategy is compatible with a necessary genetic isolation.

    As concerns the concept of ugliness, each culture has developed its own idea of what is ugly and whether it should be tackled or accepted. In Euro-Asiatic countries, it seems that the idea of beauty is largely confined to a feminine ideal. Even though the Greeks of the Hellenistic period also developed an idealistic male standard, beauty was much more a feminine attribute than a male one.

    Some of you may remember having read a few years ago, on Skadi, a study from a scholar (may be) from the MIT according to which the phenomena of alpinization and of nordicization of formerly robust Upper Paleolithic European prototypes was largely the result of a mating strategy. According to this study, in Europe and in Asia, the preference for pedomorphic features when choosing ones wife, gave birth subsequently to pedomorphic offsprings, be it boy or girl. The reason for such a pedomorphic mating selection may be due to the fact that, in Europe and in Asia, because of the painfulness of agricultural works in cold climates, men were the holder of economic wealth and had therefore the final word when selecting their mates. Since the normal inclination of men towards women is pedomorphism, all European and Asiatic races would have been affected by this mating strategy.

    According to the same study, the contrary might be true for black Africans. As it was rightly pointed out in this thread, it seems that most contemporaneous negroids derive from pigmies or at least from short body bantuïd prototypes. Some of them may have crossed with non negroids, but it seems that most of the African evolutionary line was internal, and that the current diversity among black Africans is prevalently due to different strategies in the sexual competition. In that respect, one prevalent cultural characteristic of Black Africa is that women are the main contributor to economic wealth. Traditional African values show a lot of disdain for men being involved in production activities. Furthermore, the concept of fatherhood and the rewards of being the head of a genealogic line are not as strong in sub-Saharian Africa. Therefore, African women are much more involved in the selection process. It is up to them to chose their partner, which they achieve through a less inhibited approach towards sex. Accordingly, African women have concretized their ideal of overgrown males as fertilizers. According to anthropologists, there is no other continent than Sub-Saharian Africa where beauty contests are organized among males, with women as selectors. Thus may the “ugly” pigmy have turned into the modern African stallion.

    Another outcome of this study (please help me to trace it back that may be worth considering for the present topic, is that stabilized cultures, as long as their intrinsic mating strategy remains unchanged, should achieve, sooner or later, a level of perfect beauty (from their relative point of view, of course). However, two factors may interfere:
    - The first interfering factor is a cultural revolution of the mating strategy that will favor individuals who previously were considered ugly. Such a revolution could be due to a change of values, such as the ones which are characteristic of the end of the twentieth century in European cultures.
    - The second interfering factor is interbreeding. When today’s liberal activists try to promote the combination of what they consider the best products of two remote cultures (i.e., oversized western African males with pedomorphic European females), the result statistically produces, aside from a small percentage of metizos considered as “acceptable” or “exotically attractive” by each parent culture, a greater percentage of individuals who will be rejected by both parent cultures as “ugly” and unacceptable (i.e. oversized prognathuous yellowish but freckled females and pedomorphic steatopigic frizzy light skinned males).

    Hence, it is not evolution which divert a race or a specy from its way to beauty, but revolution and combination.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why Doesn't America Believe in Evolution?
    By Siegfried in forum The United States
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Thursday, August 24th, 2006, 04:01 AM
  2. The People Behind the "Race Doesn't Exist" Myth
    By Stríbog in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 07:33 PM
  3. “Backward evolution” spawns ape-like people
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006, 04:54 PM
  4. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •