Posted on 05/12/2004 4:08:11 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Today's handsome hunks may owe their good looks to a sexual power shift towards the fair sex during primate evolution.
As our ancestors evolved, the ability to attract a female mate through good looks became may have become more important in the mating stakes than the ability to fight off male rivals, suggests a new study.
By analysing the shapes and sizes of facial features in chimps, gorillas and other primates, researchers in Germany and the University of Cambridge, UK, found evidence suggesting that our ancestors may have gradually sacrificed fighting for wooing.
"Our research suggests that in early humans, a face that was attractive as opposed to aggressive conferred an advantage," says Eleanor Weston at the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, a member of the team.
She says that changes were probably driven by choosy females who began to demand handsomeness, not brute force.
Receding canines
Prominent canine teeth which still signify a male's dominance and fighting ability in many primates like baboons and gorillas, may have been replaced by less aggressive teeth and looks.
Broader faces with prominent cheekbones, not unlike those of contemporary movie stars including Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen, were picked preferentially by females.
Weston drew her conclusions after initially studying facial features of chimps and gorillas. In most primates, males have much longer canines than females, a trait that often reflects which males are dominant. This difference was much less prominent in the chimps.
Sexual selection was starting to be driven by the attractiveness of a male's face in the chimps, believes Weston, and this tallied with development of broader faces with more prominent cheekbones, plus receding canines.
The same pattern emerged when Weston unearthed facial data on other primates. Wherever males had broader faces, their canines were closer in size to those of females. The opposite was true in males with more elongated faces.
"At one end of the spectrum were humans and chimps, where mate choice may have been more important," says Weston. "At the other end where you had baboons and gorillas, competition between males may have been more important."
Weston, adds she has further, unpublished data on human faces which supports her conclusions.
Right, but the people don't have to know that the decision they're making is more likely to perpetuate their genes. In fact, I reckon that in most cases they don't.
So from an evolutionary perspective, men like women with big breasts because they believe, on a subconscious level, that those women will be better able to provide nourishment for young children,
See, I don't believe that. I believe that men like women with big breasts, because it's built into men to like women with big breasts. I don't think this preference has anything to do with men believing, consciously or subconsciously, that such women will better provide nourishment to young children. (I don't even think a man looking for a mate *cares* about the nourishing-young-children issue, while he's looking for a mate. He's thinking about... other things ;) That is (or, may be..) a consequence of their preference, and indeed probably explains the original appearance and flourishing of that preference, but it's possible (and indeed I believe) that the preference itself, just is.
It's for the same reason that you can claim women like taller rather than shorter men--because on a subconscious level they feel that those men are more likely to protect them, and will thus enable them to reproduce.
I'd say it this way. A long time ago, some women preferred tall men (or some physical trait correlated with tallness), while others didn't. The ones that did, were protected more/better (because tallness correlated with better protective ability), thus were more likely to pass along their genes, thus the tall man preference flourished while the tall man indifference did not.
Again, I think I fundamentally disagree with you that the preference is "known", even subconsciously. The preference just is, and is a result of evolution.
So that's what I'm saying about this article--there had to be some actual reason that men with the less aggressive look were judged to be better mates.
I don't think there does. It could *always* have been built into women to prefer some amount of "good-lookingness" and the "actual reason" for that preference to start flourishing could have been nothing more than a change in economics which somehow favored smaller families (as opposed to "harems" run by one big brute). Evolution could have taken care of the rest if the offspring of those women who preferred the gentle survived at a higher rate than the offspring of other women.
And, from an evolutionary perspective, it had to be something that made the females think that they would be better suited to continue the gene pool.
Again, I think this is wrong. An evolutionary change that survives and flourishes doesn't have to make the females "think" anything, as long as it, in fact, endows their offspring with an advantage over the offspring of others. What females actually "think", consciously or subconsciously, need not enter into it.
One hypothesis could be that aggressive males were more likely to kill their own children,
Bingo!
and the females correctly concluded that their genes would not be passed along if the males they selected were killing the children they helped produce.
But don't you see? Females don't even have to "conclude" that for their genes to be passed on if they select gentler mates. All they have to do is select gentler mates (because their hormones/gut feelings tell them to). Their genes will then be passed on at a higher rate (because their children are not getting killed as much), and eventually, a preference for gentleness becomes the norm.
I simply disagree with you that a change providing evolutionary advantage needs to be "known about" by the people doing the mating.
Heh. You're right, of course. "Good-looking" in general is subjective. However in the article they use a somewhat more objective definition (=not fierce-looking) so everything I said really applies to fierce-lookingness vs. non fierce-lookingness, I guess.
For social animals, I think it can get a little more complicated. Are children born associating desirable traits with certain physical characteristics, or is it something they learn by observing other individuals?
Not my wife's preference. (But I'm not telling...)
A+. Excellent examples - out of these two women, there is only one descendent.
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.