Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Beauty: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Evolution of beauty
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Objective beauty has likely mostly evolved by a preference for simplicity (aesthetic sexual selection) which is common to many higher animals.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref> This means members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful and beauty became an important factor of attraction. | Objective beauty has likely mostly evolved by a preference for simplicity (aesthetic sexual selection) which is common to many higher animals.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref> This means members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful and beauty became an important factor of attraction. | ||
Complex ornament and few millimeters of bone likely cannot entirely be explained by simplicity because they seems to be unnecessary specific and complex. | Complex ornament and [[few millimeters of bone]] likely cannot entirely be explained by mathematical simplicity because they seems to be unnecessary specific and complex. | ||
Either there are functional constraints<ref>Price T, Langen T. 1992. ''Evolution of correlated characters.'' [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21236041 Abstract]]</ref> preventing a simpler shape, or feedback loops in sexual selection such as [[Fisherian runaway]] and ''sensory bias''.<ref>Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. 2005. ''Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences.'' [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/444443 Abstract]]</ref> resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming increasingly sexually attractive, which in turn, overcomplicated or exaggerated these body features. | Either there are functional constraints<ref>Price T, Langen T. 1992. ''Evolution of correlated characters.'' [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21236041 Abstract]]</ref> preventing a simpler shape, or feedback loops in sexual selection such as [[Fisherian runaway]] and ''sensory bias''.<ref>Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. 2005. ''Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences.'' [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/444443 Abstract]]</ref> resulted in arbitrary shapes becoming increasingly sexually attractive, which in turn, overcomplicated or exaggerated these body features. | ||
Such feedback loops can explain the immense sexual attraction to superficial traits which have barely any relevance for survival except socially. | |||
Some simple and elegant body shapes may however not necessarily be a result of aesthetic selection, but result of optimizing e.g. for resources efficiency or resilience, but this in turn could have initiated feedback loops in sexual selection. Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction. | Some simple and elegant body shapes may however not necessarily be a result of aesthetic selection, but result of optimizing e.g. for resources efficiency or resilience, but this in turn could have initiated feedback loops in sexual selection. Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction. | ||