Does natural selection make people more beautiful?

That would be the case if beauty was the only consideration in choosing a partner. However, as we all know, that is not the case.

I suppose you are presuming that in a culture where someone is allowed to choose their own mate that they would tend to choose the best looking one. That is not necessarily true. Appearance comes in far down the list of what people look for in a mate in all cultures where this has been studied. Qualities like intelligence, kindness, personality, family connections, ability to support a family and overall compatibility are much higher considerations. And even if more “beautiful” people were to pair up, having handsome parents doesn’t guarantee that the children will be equally as attractive.

I recall nearly 40 years ago a good friend of mine spent 6 months traveling overland from Israel to Nepal through the Middle East and Central Asia (something that would be impossible for an average American citizen to do these days). She reported that rural and village Afghanistan had more incredibly handsome men than in any country she had ever visited. Since women in those tribal regions have NO choice in who they are married off to by their families, that sort of contradicts your premise.

Selecting mates for their physical beauty is known as sexual selection. Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Basically, those with desirable traits (beneficial traits) have a better chance of attracting mates and creating offspring (this is known as sexual selection). Those with less desirable traits attact fewer mates. Because of this, attractive traits continue within the species and non attractive traits eventually fade away. There are other factors also. Strong individuals with certain variants of a trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. In essence, any phenotype (observable characteristic) that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population.

Magnificence is only epidermis deep. Unhappy however true. My daughter is a knock out on the outside and a knock out on the within. That’s now not just me speakme its anyone who has ever met her. That’s infrequent, most “wonderful persons” are self based and self absorbed. The percents on your mom and dad yearbook were generally black and white, glasses had been more function-in a position than trendy and garments were more conservative so all of that tied together gave us a more mature appear. I’m definite your youngsters will suppose the identical thing once they appear at your year publication. In case you have lived long ample you notice the whole thing that goes out of trend comes back after about twenty years. Normal selection now your talking Hitler’s way of thinking. Create a dominate lovely race, how unhappy. I just like the usual way, we all deliver something to the table that’s if that you may get someone to pay attention now that’s another story.

Based on what set of premises?

Is there a way to objectively measure beauty in the sense that we can measure the speed of a car?

Does beauty have an empirical mathematical foundation?

My experience is that once a person has features in the right place and has horizontal symmetry, all other attributes are valued based on personal opinion/bias.

So the answer to your question will always be ambiguous unless you are able to give me a set of realistic mathematical equations that calculate how beautiful people are.

It amazes me how superficial and ignorant people are getting.

Beautiful is a cultural construct, not a universal.

The only real universal is that symmetrical people are found more attractive. Given that most symmetry isn’t a result of genetics, this isn’t much of a genetic indicator.

I would say ;;; yes

if the father and mother are good looking

chances are on the side of the children for beauty

Yes (see Sexual selection), and maybe.