Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ugly Kids and Natural Selection, Darwinism at work?
The Redstate Rant ^ | 4/03/05 | Hoss

Posted on 05/03/2005 8:27:09 AM PDT by LW McMurray

Canadian researchers have made a startling assertion: parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones.

But late in the article comes this quote from Dr. Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University:

"The question," he said, "is whether ugly people have fewer offspring than handsome people. I doubt it very much. If the number of offspring are the same for these two categories, there's absolutely no evolutionary reason for parents to invest less in ugly kids."......this is the where evoltionary argument is going.....

(Excerpt) Read more at redstaterant.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Miscellaneous; Reference; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: bogusstudy; darwinism; engineering

1 posted on 05/03/2005 8:27:10 AM PDT by LW McMurray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LW McMurray
Many previous studies have demonstrated that human beings view the most absolutely average people as being the most attractive.

Give a normal curve and you'll always have ugly people with which to contend.

2 posted on 05/03/2005 8:35:15 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LW McMurray
"The question," he said, "is whether ugly people have fewer offspring than handsome people. I doubt it very much. If the number of offspring are the same for these two categories, there's absolutely no evolutionary reason for parents to invest less in ugly kids."......this is the where evoltionary argument is going.....

Whether or not evolution is true (and I don't believe it is), why does he doubt that ugly people have fewer offspring than handsome people? Statistically, it's probably a given that in today's society ugly people have difficulty finding mates and getting married. This should, in the long run, translate into fewer offspring...
3 posted on 05/03/2005 9:11:01 AM PDT by Old_Mil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

Whatever happened to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?


4 posted on 05/03/2005 9:21:19 AM PDT by VoodooEconomics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LW McMurray

Maybe ugly parents are less attentive parents.


5 posted on 05/03/2005 10:50:32 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VoodooEconomics

It became "beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder"...


6 posted on 05/03/2005 10:52:14 AM PDT by ILurkedIRegisteredIPosted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LW McMurray

They say that the children were "ugly" and then they blame the child's ugliness for the parental lack of affection? Seems to me that the parents are far uglier than any of these poor little children.


7 posted on 05/03/2005 11:36:29 AM PDT by dandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

However, these days marriage seems to have little to do with producing offspring!


8 posted on 05/03/2005 1:49:46 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ILurkedIRegisteredIPosted

MORE BEER!


9 posted on 05/05/2005 1:31:04 PM PDT by VoodooEconomics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson