“...best male DNA donor, *and* a male who will be best at providing for her offspring. And when there are more than a minimum number of men, these are usually not the same two men.”
Does that suggest that good DNA and success in providing for offspring are unrelated? It appears to be a contradiction. The best overall indicator for potential success in our culture is IQ, and there is most certainly a genetic component.
Biology hasn’t kept up with technology. Biologically both men and women are still programmed for the physical world of hunting, gathering, enduring, ie self-sufficiency in the wild.
Things are a lot more complex than that, or else men with high IQs would have women crawling all over them. Different women have different biological responses and different opinions about what is sexually attractive in potential mates. And often the two are in conflict.
Instead, “superior DNA” is very subtle. In some cases, women take cues from other women as to who the most desirable males are. Some are totally oriented to the wealth of potential mates. Some physical attractiveness and physique.
Importantly, while it *almost* seems random, it is anything but random. Science knows there are patterns, but has a very hard time figuring them out.