Comments on: Hey good looking, what you got cooking, in those genes?

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:14:12 +0000

The problem with looking at the offspring of “cute” couples is, who decides that they’re cute? Different cultures, even different parts of the same society, can have quite different perceptions of beauty, even across the same society fashions for what is considered beautiful vary widely. During the Victorian era, ladies emphasised the size of their behinds, while during the 1920s, a “flat” chest was considered (publicly at least) the prominent beauty feature to strive for. Whereas today, the Western focus seems to be on almost unnaturally enlarged breasts. And, from the other side six-packs are the major concern of health and fitness magazines for men, whereas during the Charles Atlas a big chest was more important.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:16:03 +0000

If you have 10 men and 10 women, and 3 cute couples pair off, the other 14 men and women will still want a mate too. They will produce children who look like them, and who will go on to continue the cycle. The proportion of attractive to less attractive should stay the same. This of course disregards the effects beauty products, breast implants, cultural biases and advertising have on your perception of beauty.

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:42:49 +0000

I do think that we women choose the most attractive men and that the more and more cute that we choose them that they continue to be cute but then since we have ancestors the genes we may carry from them are continued to pass on and so then maybe another type of looking men will come along within the centuries!!

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:44:39 +0000

As I understand it, this theory suggests that those individuals that have a propensity to produce mutated offspring will be more likely to reproduce under a sexual selection regime because they are the ones most likely to have traits that enhance their fitness at that particular time. As a consequence they are also more likely to produce unfit offspring due to the same genetic mutability.

However simply because damaged DNA usually leads to an unviable organisms I would expect these individuals to produce fewer offspring that go on to reproduce themselves, and even fewer given those that are viable may not be sexually selected due to lacking attractive features.

So while this is an interesting idea, I’ll be interested to see just how powerful this effect turns out to be.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:48:35 +0000

There is also the effect, even if an attractive muscular man successfully mates with an attractive female to yield a girl. That girl has a relatively high probability of adopting the male’s characteristics, which would make her unattractive (depending on your tastes, of course :p ).

Mitch