MU researcher compiles evidence in support of Darwin's theory of sexual selection

Eurekalert ^ | Tuesday, April 13, 2010 | Kelsey Jackson, University of Missouri-Columbia

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	I'd take this more seriously if the researcher would post photos of some women he's slept with. Or even some of the men. Sexual selection was discarded back at the time OoS was published, but its silly, trivial nature is as convincing as any other mid-19th century Victorian aristocratic crap that Darwin peddled. There, that should keep the wolves at bay. BTW, the actual article title seems to be "Darwin was right: MU researcher compiles evidence in support of Darwin's theory of sexual selection". Call me gutless. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[JudgemAll]

Indeterminism, Darwinism and nihilism, meet your new pimps of irresponsibility or of irresponsible societies living in “randomisms”. It’s a science without a science.

[libh8er]

More BS from the evolution crowd.

[nmh]

It's no wonder the U.S. sinks LOWER and LOWER in Science and Math each year. Evolution has become a RELIGION.

I'm waiting for the day when evolutionists explain away altruism. They can't because it defies the “survival of the fittest” nonsense. Every now and then, altruism makes the headlines with animals. Today, many animals have more compassion for fellow animals than human beings.

Human beings have become worse than animals when it comes to caring or allowing their young to live and thrive.
I'll never forget the story when a mother cat, methoicallt removed ALL her kitten from a burning house. I believe her name was Scarlett. She nearly died doing it. Or when a cat, raises baby mice as her own. OTOH humans abuse adopted kids or even their own. It's becoming more and more common in the news to read this.

We now insult animals when we compare how humans care for their young and animals care for their young - whether it is their own flesh and blood or adopting another animal without a mother, into their family. These people are sick that promote evolution and all the lies that surround it.

[nmh]

Yes ... and gloBULL warming is another offshoot of the RELIGION of these people. Again, everything ELSE is more important than human life. Heck, females will have an abortion to make sure another “carbon footprint” doesn't exist to “save the earth”. It's ridiculous and pathetis. It's no wonder our kids are becoming dumber than cat pooh.

[nmh]

“Indeterminism, Darwinism and nihilism, meet your new pimps of irresponsibility or of irresponsible societies living in “randomisms”. It’s a science without a science.”

YES!

[colorado tanker]

other mid-19th century Victorian aristocratic crap that Darwin peddled

You noticed that stuff too? :-))

[gleeaikin]

Actually, altruism is recognized by evolutionists as an important survival strategy among families an communal groups. “Survival of the fittest” doesn’t pertain only to individuals, but also to social groups and their group behavior.

Regarding sexual selection, in European culture blonds, with slender wrists and full hips are regarded as particularly sexy. Woman with these characteristics are more likely to be able to bear young successfully. Prior to knowledge of Vitamin D, these were natural signs of the fair woman who could absorb the vitamin better, the wrists indicated a lack of rickets, and the hips were better for bearing live young.

[D_Idaho]

Perhaps one day we’ll get around to determining the reason there is sexuality at all. What do you think?

[allmendream]

Did someone say sexual selection? LOL!

[Reeses]

Prior to knowledge of Vitamin D, these were natural signs of the fair woman who could absorb the vitamin better, the wrists indicated a lack of rickets, and the hips were better for bearing live young.

Blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin are cosmetic traits cultivated by mothers favoring them in their children, not primarily from mate selection. Although men prefer blondes, they will mate with just about any female, so this was not the primary driver. White babies are commonly born with blue eyes and blond hair, although most completely lose these traits once the child has successfully bonded with the mother. The vitamin D theory isn't plausible because these cosmetic traits appeared too rapidly. Natural selection is too slow to have been the driver of white skin.

[allmendream]

Getting rickets from living too far north with skin that is too dark for proper synthesis of vitamin D at that latitude is a STRONG driver for natural selection of light skin.

By what criteria do you suppose natural selection is “too slow” to accomplish this change? Was selection “too slow” for humans to change a wolf into every dog from a Great Dane to a teacup Chihuahua?

[Reeses]

Was selection “too slow” for humans to change a wolf into every dog from a Great Dane to a teacup Chihuahua?

That wasn't natural selection. Our pets and very little of the food we like to eat is from natural selection. Most human evolution is driven by tribal warfare which is man-made, not natural, and most cosmetic traits were cultivated by women in their children. The reason we walk upright and have stress lubricated armpits is for carrying weapons and making extended war on a battlefield. Killing for food is usually a quick ambush and doesn't require lubricated armpits or advanced intelligence. Can you name any other animal that has these traits? Natural selection is a much slower process and results in many variations of a theme. Modern humans have killed off all other competitive variations of humans.

[allmendream]

It was a selective process with stringent selective criteria, and the mechanism of such stringent selection was not “too slow” by any means to effect great change in the population.

Similarly, getting rickets is a stringent survival selection criteria, just as stringent or more so than most selective breeding programs.

So why was a selective process “too slow” in the case of humans getting rickets from not making enough vitamin D, but not “too slow” to make every type of dog from a wolf population?

[Reeses]

The vitamin D theory of white skin is popular but it doesn’t add up because white skin developed unnaturally fast, and humans were outdoors so much they got plenty of vitamin D no matter their skin color. Evolution is a two step process: 1) someone is born with a variation, 2) someone else must die. Are you saying outdoor people in the north died off in large numbers before breeding age because they lacked enough vitamin D? Not all northern people have white skin. As humans evolved from tribal warfare they migrated away from the equator to escape more savage areas. A few pockets of northern mothers had a beauty contest going on for several thousand years favoring lighter skin, blond hair, and blue eyes in their babies. There was some influence of vitamin D but the primary driver was women cultivating cosmetic traits in their children. This is selection but it’s not natural selection. Wild natural selection occurs slowly over hundreds of thousands of years and results in many variations of a theme. Monkeys alive today have many variations. Unlike humans their evolution was slow and mostly natural.

[allmendream]

No, dark people in northern latitudes DEFINITELY are more susceptible to rickets from low vitamin D.

Your “women cultivating cosmetic traits in their children” model has one severe drawback.

How many women are willing to kill their child because they perceive it to be not as cosmetically desirable?

How many mothers, no matter how ugly their baby is, don't insist that it is the most beautiful thing in the world?

Your ideas are less than half baked.

[Reeses]

How many women are willing to kill their child because they perceive it to be not as cosmetically desirable?

To this day women kill their babies, but in modern times most killings are before birth. Before the invention of marriage, laws, charity/welfare, and civilization as we know it, postpartum depression was a deadly time for an ugly baby. Mothers did kill a few and still do. But the main selection process was by playing favorites. We've only had food security for about the last 50 years. There were many times mothers had to choose which children to feed and keep warm. If a mother had 6 children and one had lighter skin, golden blond hair, and blue eyes, and boosted the mother's social standing, that child would have a higher survival rate. Many mothers do play favorites and for most of our existence we've had limited resources that forced decision making. These ideas are not pretty so will not find easy acceptance especially given our modern life experience, however at least I don't believe everything I've been spoon fed by modern academia. The vitamin D theory is particularly unsound.

[allmendream]

Your less than half baked musing about women killing their own children as a main driver of human evolution is particularly unsound.

The observation that lighter skin is necessary for sufficient vitamin D synthesis for human populations living in northern latitudes is well founded.

Moreover there is not some natural tendency to perceive light skin as cosmetically desirable over black skin.

Mammals usually recognize aesthetic beauty by projecting the images of their opposite sex family members as the ideal.

It is a cultural artifact particular to our own times and histories that many dark skinned populations, raised among a predominant white population; idealize the traits that their own population does not possess.

[Reeses]

Your less than half baked musing about women killing their own children as a main driver of human evolution is particularly unsound.

I didn't write anything close to that. My main point is that human cosmetic traits are mostly cultivated by mothers, not by mate selection. Most men are not that selective about who they will have sex with so that is not a significant driver. Women are more selective but they cultivate beauty in their children, not their men, else most men would be pretty, not hairy and balding on top. Whiter skin is not a natural preference, but it is a common man-made preference in many independent populations. A brown Mexican girl once told me she found black skin to look dirty, so that may be the reasoning behind a common preference for lighter skin. Some cosmetic traits are driven by mate selection, but most are actually from favored child selection. I'm not saying mothers kill their ugly children, just that their favored children have a higher survival rate, especially before we had reliable food security.