Natural selection and genetics are only about looks

[Uglyme]

Mother Nature must be a foid cause she only cares about looks. I mean, if a man is handsome, it doesn't matter if he has a heart disease, or if he has cancer, or if he has poor eye sight, of if he is a psychopath. He is good looking right? So, he has to mate and produce children that will likely be good looking but they will inherit all those hidden defects. While a perfectly healthy man is doomed to be lonely just cause he is not so physically appealing. I mean, does that make sense to you?

 

[Deleted member 15737]

Most incels have fucked up health and poor genetics, I don’t know what you mean. Chad is almost never sick.

 

[PPEcel]

Mother Nature must be a foid cause she only cares about looks. I mean, if a man is handsome, it doesn't matter if he has a heart disease, or if he has cancer, or if he has poor eye sight, of if he is a psychopath. He is good looking right? So, he has to mate and produce children that will likely be good looking but they will inherit all those hidden defects. While a perfectly healthy man is doomed to be lonely just cause he is not so physically appealing. I mean, does that make sense to you?

Eh, sort of? Human sexual selection is based entirely on looks because that's pretty much the only way a human way can assess the fitness of a potential mate. If we could somehow smell someone's predisposition to cancer or heart disease we would intrinsically use it to determine someone's attractiveness, but we can't.

Natural selection will off some individuals with negative traits before they get the chance to mate (e.g. a screwed up tumor suppressor gene makes someone more likely to die of childhood cancer), but if those traits kill someone after they get to reproduce then there's no selective pressure against it.

That actually makes sense to me. It kinda sucks to be born as genetic trash, though -- I wish I could even live just one day of another person's life.

It's over for pooreyesightcels.

 

[Ellioty]

I feel like throughout history women have became more and more picky about who they will choose to mate with as they get more selection. Back when human lived in caves women might have been able to choose between 3 guys. One of them only had one eyeball, one had a finger growing out of his forehead, and the other didn't have these problems. She chooses the 3rd guy and is happy. As history progresses and humans begin to form societies women get to choose from more and more men with less and less genetic problems until we reach the point where we are today where women decide not to mate with someone just because they have a narrow jaw.

 

[Deleted member 20195]

Nah, you can have aids be ugly as shit and still get foids if you have enough money.

 

[Mainländer]

That's a very valid questioning. I even made a vid about that very topic.

 

[KaizenYagi]

Eh, sort of? Human sexual selection is based entirely on looks because that's pretty much the only way a human way can assess the fitness of a potential mate. If we could somehow smell someone's predisposition to cancer or heart disease we would intrinsically use it to determine someone's attractiveness, but we can't.

Natural selection will off some individuals with negative traits before they get the chance to mate (e.g. a screwed up tumor suppressor gene makes someone more likely to die of childhood cancer), but if those traits kill someone after they get to reproduce then there's no selective pressure against it.

That actually makes sense to me. It kinda sucks to be born as genetic trash, though -- I wish I could even live just one day of another person's life.

It's over for pooreyesightcels.

You can make an argument for frame, height, and bmi/ phenotype as in ecto meso or endo being reliable indicators of fitness, but how does a person's facial features indicate overall genetic fitness? If any of this is based off of strength alone as in caveman days a large ogre would be better than 5'9 chad face. Shannen Doherty is an example of a hot female who has asymmetric features, so you can rule out symmetry beign important as a factor. Negative canthal tilt doesn't indicate genetic fitness, many of these things don't. I think facial beauty or bodily beauty is often just a feature in, and of itself with no other intrinsic value.

 

[Shigechi]

Natural selection doesn't work in a controlled environment where the foids give the last word. How can be natural selection if only women can play their cards and their actions don't have consequences? That's why you think it's only about looks, because women can choose without consequences for their actions in this controlled and cucked society. We live in a matriarchy, not in the fucking jungle.

 

[PPEcel]

You can make an argument for frame, height, and bmi/ phenotype as in ecto meso or endo being reliable indicators of fitness, but how does a person's facial features indicate overall genetic fitness? If any of this is based off of strength alone as in caveman days a large ogre would be better than 5'9 chad face. Shannen Doherty is an example of a hot female who has asymmetric features, so you can rule out symmetry beign important as a factor. Negative canthal tilt doesn't indicate genetic fitness, many of these things don't. I think facial beauty or bodily beauty is often just a feature in, and of itself with no other intrinsic value.

You've made a good point about facial attractiveness. I stand by what I said regarding bodily attractiveness though.

 

[KaizenYagi]

You've made a good point about facial attractiveness. I stand by what I said regarding bodily attractiveness though.

I don't disagree on body. When I think of bodily attractivenss being useless, it is the aesthetic aspects. Meaning you can find a nice not fat woman who is healthy, but she may not have a butt that screams pure sexual beauty. Maybe she is just a normal healthy girl versus some woman who has a diamond above her crack, and a nice valley where her spine is. Little nuanced features like that, like the shape of some women's breasts are great, but in my mind not indicative of fitness for anything other than looking good.

 

[PPEcel]

I don't disagree on body. When I think of bodily attractivenss being useless, it is the aesthetic aspects. Meaning you can find a nice not fat woman who is healthy, but she may not have a butt that screams pure sexual beauty. Maybe she is just a normal healthy girl versus some woman who has a diamond above her crack, and a nice valley where her spine is. Little nuanced features like that, like the shape of some women's breasts are great, but in my mind not indicative of fitness for anything other than looking good.

Actually, those "little nuanced features" are indicative of fitness (not necessarily strength, but the ability to withstand evolutionary selective pressure).

That "nice valley" where her spine is located is known as "lumbar curvature" (and men are attracted to backs arched at a certain angle); that influences the chances of healthy childbirth, or the ability to run from a predator during pregnancy.

And certain buttock masses are indicative of gluteal development (physical fitness) as opposed to adipose tissue deposition.

 

[zangano1]

Everything is only about looks

 

[KaizenYagi]

Actually, those "little nuanced features" are indicative of fitness (not necessarily strength, but the ability to withstand evolutionary selective pressure).

That "nice valley" where her spine is located is known as "lumbar curvature" (and men are attracted to backs arched at a certain angle); that influences the chances of healthy childbirth, or the ability to run from a predator during pregnancy.

And certain buttock masses are indicative of gluteal development (physical fitness) as opposed to adipose tissue deposition.

I'm going to say that is interesting regarding the lumbar curvature. I did not know that.

Is "The ability to withstand evolutionairy selective pressure" another way of saying men prefer it therefore it persists, because it doesn't indicate a survival advantage, other than a reproductive one which may have its basis purely in looks?

Also the gluteal masses. I have seen dudes built like hippos run sub 6 minute miles like nothing. They look like they would need CPR after walking a block, but they are merely big boned, and thickly muscled. This is what I mean about female butts. Yes, certain butts are shaped the way they are because of better muscle dstribution, but other less attractive butts are likely as functional, just not as pretty in the way hippo dudes are. Even if there is a demonstrable correlation between gluteal aesthetics in women, and survivability, not selection preference, the preference for aesthetic butts strikes me as being disproportionate to the benefits.

 

[SchrodingersDick]

heart disease/cancer - if it’s not visible/known, makes no difference. How would foids know?

poor eye sight - I think foid’s would filter this out if corrective lenses/glasses didn’t exist. It would be a severe handicap in life.

psychopath - this is not a handicap. Psychopathy aids in survival success. It’s just inconvenient for everyone else

remind yourself that foids make mate choices largely based on the man’s ability/potential to kill other men. That is what’s rewarded. That’s what their sexuality is all about. It’s brutal primal barbaric sexual selection. No wonder we are such a violent species. Non-violent genes get weeded out of existence

 

[thebuddhacel]

As I like to say, looks is more important than health.