Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Question of the Day

9:25 AM  CARREVIEWS  30 comments

Why hasn't evolution gotten rid of the ugly and genetically dysfunctional individuals? It's survival of the fittest, right? For the past hundred thousands of years, wouldn't ugliness and genetic diseases be slowly weeded out?

M Fawlful won the 8 GB SD card. Congratulations!

Posted in:

30 comments:

Because some ideas of the theory are wrong?

Because most of it isn't genetic but rather anthropological in nature.
Not so long ago men found fat pale women beautiful because their thickness was a status symbol, it showed she didn't have to do a days work, she was wealthy enough and could afford to just sit on her ass and eat all day in the shade.
Now tan and skinny girls are considered beautiful because in a fast paced world she has the time to exercise and she can afford tanning salons/vacations.

I don't see what 'ugliness', as you put it, has to do with survival of the fittest. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you actually mean by that. The way I see it, what you are suggesting is that through evolution we would weed out the ugly peeps and be left with only non-ugly people. But then on that standard there would still be better looking people than others and those less good looking would then become the ugly and so the cycle would continue until everyone looked identical and perfect in all ways. :P I'm pretty sure I misunderstood the question.

Not in for the competition, but I can only suggest that perhaps humans are reaching a point where we are so confident of survival/safety/comfort that we are able to make choices on an emotional or deeper level. Thousands of years ago, sticking with someone with a disability could've been a death sentence. It isn't like that any more.

i cant get the prize but interesting stuff so +followed

Ok, not in the competition either.
Perhaps its not scientifical but more intuitive answer.
Humans SHOULD look for the best possible mating partner. That would eventually start to weed out the ugly genes, but that's not the way it happens.

Put it this way...both ugly people and beautiful people have the same "mission" in life that is to procreate.

When good looking partners are already set, ugly looking people are still looking and have to settle for ugly ones. That way both "branches" if you like are kept alive.

Also, there are other factors that mix both groups, it could be social status, charisma, need for food, protection...you get the idea. That way the ugly but "powerful" get a shot to breed with good looking ones.

Also, i guess genes aren't "inteligent", it's not like you mix both persons and pick the best features of each. And tens or hundreds of years ago, people didn't even know about genetic diseases, so there was no way to avoid em either. That discovery has 50 years, 100 at best.

Survival of the fittest actually happens, but not in the way you would like to work. Ugliness is not a feature that keeps you from staying alive in the wilderness. People were able to adapt to their enviroment regardless of their looks.

I could go on for a while, but i dont know if this sounds like an old man rant hahahaha
I hope i didnt make a fool of myself there.

Genetics are passed down from parent to kid. If ugly diseas ridden people have kids it continues...

you'd think that but i think with all these preservatives and carcinogens we're inhaling and drinking and smoking and eating, we're creating new diseases

because natural selection doesnt apply in todays modern world

In simplest terms, because genetics are too complicated for such a thing as total eradication of the perception of "ugly."

Because beauty isn't exactly a trait that ensures reproductive success. The beings that have the most offspring are what drive the course of evolution. Beauty is a relatively new standard to measure mates by, prior to that it was how fit you where to reproduce.

Because we, as humans, love to break the rules of life. We get emotionally attached to other people, and don't want to see them die. Therefore, we've created ways to keep people alive, without having to change your lifestyle. Instead of following natures course, we've started to make nature follow us. You got fat? Get liposuction, and keep your normal diet. You're "ugly"? Go get botox/a nosejob/boobjob; and in turn, that'll get you laid (and get your "ugly" genes back into the running!).

And with genetic diseases, yeah, it should probably take as long for it to weed out, as it did to come in? Or possibly longer since our population is growing so quickly...

Trick question, there's no such thing as evolution. (Just kidding, I'm not a republican.)

Why hasn't evolution gotten rid of the ugly and genetically dysfunctional individuals?

Ugly is a subjective and relative term. It's not a real thing. Therefore, evolution pays no attention to it. The most beautiful person to you is ugly to someone, and so on.


It's survival of the fittest, right?

Actually no. Survival of the fittest is a term that originated in economics classes, and has nothing to do with science or evolution.

For the past hundred thousands of years, wouldn't ugliness and genetic diseases be slowly weeded out?

See my answer on ugliness above.

Comment section tl;dr...

From what I remember, evolution is full of things called "dead ends." These dead ends are usually culled naturally in order to ensure that they do not pass on the traits that caused such a evolutionary dead end, usually at the hands of another predator.

Humanity (while we DO still have predators out and about, and I ain't talkin' 'bout aliens) has grown to control the world further and further to the point where the only way for such evolutionary dead ends to take place is with crippling diseases, crippling ugliness (both internal and external) and other nasty ways to ensure a person cannot pass on their ickyness to the next generation.

Of course they do ANYWAY, but that's neither here nor there. Also, linking back to that wonderful (to me at least!) post concerning the ban being lifted on genetic research, these kind of things can be dealt with thus ensuring those traits aren't passed on to the next generation ANYWAY...but then it brings up the question: what next?

If we cure all diseases, heal all deformities, ensure that each generation is physically and chemically perfect, what will be thrown our way to ensure that our numbers will be culled?

Me personally, I say aliens. Friggin' aliens, man. Or multi-dimensional invaders. There's always wandering black holes popping up here and there....I'm just sayin'.

Y'know, Cracked has an awesome series of lists and the one that had me waking up in a cold sweat for a coupla nights was "The Top 10 Ways Our Planet Could Die" or somethin' like that. Massive asteroids and wandering black holes aside, there was some other event that could possibly unravel our entire universe if not reality at any point in time.

First off, 'ugliness' is purely subjective; but even if you consider what the majority of people believe to be undesirable, we must also remember that people do not choose companions based on attractiveness throughout history.

In the past, marriages have been based on status, or wealth, or any myriad of options, rather than attractiveness of any kind (including personality). Even the ugliest of men could be married.

In the present, marriages do not rely so heavily upon attractiveness, but rather the 'inner beauty,' or personality, which (at this point in science) cannot be attributed to genetics. Generally unattractive genes are still frequently passed on.

On an additional note, unattractive people may mate with each other, furthering the unattractive genes. In a current society where no person is deemed to have less rights than another, these supposedly unattractive people can then mix back into the common society.

As for genetic diseases, they usually occur as mutations (which are random and do not factor simply into the genetic equation) or as a dormant gene passed on to the offspring, which is largely unforeseeable. The most attractive, healthy individuals still have the chance to pass on genetic disease.

I'm no scientist but I'd just put it down to x-factors in behavior and genetics. Human nature isn't as binary as pretty/ugly. Different people sometimes prefer body/facial features others would not. I myself happen to be a little chubby around the middle. I don't find it very attractive so I'm working to change that, but I've still found a number of women who are downright hot who find me appealing despite or in some cases even because of my belly.
Ugly people have needs as well, and whether they pay to have their needs fulfilled or simply look at someone who isn't necessarily as "out of their league." It leads to sex and sex on occasion makes babies. Even if the parents are physically appealing the baby could still come out ugly simply because of a latent gene in one or both the parents.

I don't expect to win any contest with that answer but that's how it appears to me.

Many genetic diseases (i.e. Huntington's Disease), are only harmful after a person's prime reproductive years (35-44, in the case of Huntington's). Because of this, the genes can be passed on successfully before the disease disables or kills you.

In other cases, like Tay-Sachs or Sickle-Cell Anemia, the genes may be advantageous in the heterozygous form, but harmful with two copies.

And of course, new deleterious mutations continually occur, so some people will continue to be born with genes that cause ugliness or infirmity, before they can be selected out.

Social welfare and medications. The strongest people oin our society makes life better even for the stupid and poor. And it's all not so bad. Average IQ has risen with 13 points during the last 100 years. And in the future we'll be able to screen, choose and do whatever we want with our kids before they're even conceived. And genetic manipulation and nano-robots, cyber implants etc. Will make even the stupidest person into a super human in the future. And that future isn't that far away.

Well actually, if you have seen society today, you can see that ugly people do the most f***ing. They are generally more self conscious and 'put out' at an early age to get attention and popularity. Also, with the breakthroughs in medicine, evolution is having a hard time killing the deformed and less adapted, unless you consider places stricken with poverty like India, Africa, China, etc. From personal experience, women who are the ugliest usually have the most sex, because their standards are really low, and men have sex with a lot of ugly chicks because they are easy access and they have low standards as well. So, if you are considering ugly people to be weeded out by evolution, maybe beautiful people will soon be weeded out, or turn into a new species!!

While this answer probably isnt going to be the most scientific, I would say that it is because of circumstance. While you can a say weeks worth of newspaper pretty much equaled a lifetime of news for someone in ancient times, there were always genetic abnormalities. But now, with the population at 7 billion(?) there are loads of more chances for two recessive genes to match up, and also more chances for something to just go wrong. Also you have to think of the enviroment that we live in. You could have the mother of a child drinking alcohol which could mess with the baby's growth in some way, where in the olden times, there wasnt such an abundance of ways to get alcohol. I may be rambling at this point, but in the end I believe that its because the more people there are, the more problems will show, mostly because of the chances increasing for a 1-in-a-million disease to show up is growing because millions of babys are born every year.

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, not a genetic problem. As for disease, they're evolving too. It's the constant battle.

Have to agree with everyone else about ugliness, as far as genetics go, even the sickliest can easily survive under the current conditions.

Ugly people are pretty people.

I have to echo everybody and say that ugly is very subjective.

There is really no efficient way to get rid of the "ugly". Different matches of parents will present a combination of both genetics. Some people will have good looks and some will not. It's inevitable.

Ugly is simply a point of view and meaningless in this situation, now the second part of your propsal, until recently, has been impossible. It is normally the cause of a mutation or side effect from something to cause the genetic disfunction, With the mapping of the human genome and the applications we can now bring to the trade, it is only a matter of time until it they are eradicated in whole.

maybe evolution is a lot more complex than survival of the fittest

I have to say that being "ugly" or not, has nothing to do with genetics. Ugly vs. pretty is nothing more then an opinion. Everyone has a different outlook on what "ugly is, so saying that evolution would weed it out, is a little ridiculous.
Secondly, it is very unlikely that weeding out the genetically dysfunctional will ever happen either. Nothing on this planet is perfect, and evolution can't do everything. There are some things that are just uncontrollable.

I believe it is because as humans create technology to survive, any human has a fighting chance. If it was truly survival of the fittest uneducated people would not be protected or rely on products, but so will people with disabilities. So it being really survival of the fittest would be almost inhumane.

Post a Comment

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More