Inconvenient truth about our evolution

(1/2) > >>

Faerie (December 03, 2010, 14:25:48 PM):
Came across this article and found it interesting enough. When will people start realising that we're simply animals inhabiting this planet and that we're driven by instinct as much as the average unneutered dog in spite of our so-called intelligence?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inconvenient-truths-about-our-evolution-2146994.html
Hermes (December 03, 2010, 16:14:50 PM):
Quote
Why do beautiful people have more daughters? Because beauty is more important for a woman than a man, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa.
What mechanism in natural selection would cause such an effect?
If the claim that beauty is more important for a woman than a man is true, then natural selection would simply cause ugly women to procreate less successfully, not have more sons. Surely physical attraction plays a significant role in the selection of partners. If it is true that persons higher up in this pecking order tend to have more daughters, then some physical explanation is called for. Here's my idea: They have sex more often than ugly people!

The gender of the fetus is determined by whether a sperm carrying the X-chromosome (resulting in female offspring) or the Y-chromosome (resulting in male offspring) fertilizes the ovum. The Y-sperm has higher motility at ejaculation, but loses it faster.* If the sperms have to wait for the ovum, the X-sperms will gain the upper hand. This is likely to be the case if the parents have frequent sex. If the parents only have sex after the ovum has already been released, the Y-sperm has the upper hand. This is more likely when the parents have infrequent sex. Couples who have frequent sex are therefore more likely to have daughters.

No wonder the females are the fairer sex, but let's hope handsome men don't become extinct! :D


*Various internet articles make this claim, but I have not found an authentic source.
Brian (December 03, 2010, 16:39:38 PM):
so now I have two sons and two daughters ;D what does that make me (and they're all beautiful, says a proud father)...heheh I introduced my youngest son (30 yrs and a 6'5" bomb) to a lovely girl over the weekend...she looked at me and said "you're a good breeder! without blushing! Oh the vanity of the man! ;D
Hermes (December 03, 2010, 18:48:37 PM):
Dr. Kanazawa is an "evolutionary psychologist", so his claims must be true, not so? ;)
I cannot talk for you. (Twice a week?) I have eleven daughters.
Hermione (December 06, 2010, 09:02:17 AM):
This Wikipedia entry about Satoshi Kanazawa is quite interesting. In particular:

Quote
In 2006 he published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, claiming that attractive people are 26% less likely to have male offspring. In a letter to the editors, Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman points out that a correct interpretation of the regression coefficients in Kanazawa's analysis is that attractive people are 8% more likely to have girls, an error that Kanazawa acknowledges. Gelman further argues that Kanazawa's analysis does not convincingly show causality, because of possible endogeneity as well as problematic interpretations of statistical significance in multiple comparisons. While Kanazawa claims that the former error is "merely linguistic" and that he addressed the latter two in his initial article, Gelman maintains that his original criticism remains valid.



and

Quote
P.Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, has called Kanazawa "the great idiot of social science."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page