[johnfrink]

This articles fails to address an evolutionary reason for it, though. The females would not have suddenly decided that they liked some look better than others--they would have had some reason for deciding that males with that look would be more likely to reproduce than the others, and hence would have selected them. This author makes it sound like they woke up one day and thought, "hmm, the bulky aggressive look is out!"

(It's a pet peeve of mine that so few journalists who write about evolution seem to understand the way that it actually works!)

[dartuser]

All that is needed to complete the "scientific proof" that you seek is for most 'scientists' in that field to agree that its a possible explanation.

QED

[Snerfling]

Once Maslow's basic requirements were met (food, clothing & shelter), women were able to focus on more esoteric ideals in selecting a mate, such as looks. (Probably an early indicator of good health.)

Of course, this goes both ways. Women have also become much more attractive over the eons. Just who do you think were the 'old maids'? Hot chicks were picked off at 16+. (I think the marriage age is 14 in Miss with parental consent.)

You can still see this today. How many heinous women are lezzies? How many times have you seen a ugly chick and thought that's she's too unattractive to breed?

[Socratic]

"It's a pet peeve of mine that so few journalists who write about evolution seem to understand the way that it actually works!"

Given the journalist's perspective on evolution, wouldn't it be more likely that the brutish, raping males "chose" females with finer, more delicate features which translated into a more feminine beauty being passed down to males and females alike? Aren't we told that all sex is basically rape?

[Dr. Frank fan]

The females would not have suddenly decided that they liked some look better than others--they would have had some reason for deciding that males with that look would be more likely to reproduce than the others, and hence would have selected them.

I disagree. I doubt "he looks more likely to reproduce than the others" enters into mate selection in the first place. And, I don't think that's what evolution claims.

This author makes it sound like they woke up one day and thought, "hmm, the bulky aggressive look is out!"

I don't see why that can't be the case. Keeping in mind that "woke one up day and decided" really means "over a period of ten thousand years or so, their brain chemistry changed so that..."

(It's a pet peeve of mine that so few journalists who write about evolution seem to understand the way that it actually works!)

I'm not sure I understand how evolution "works" either, :-) but I do dispute the way you've presented it.

[AntiGuv]

See my post #46.