Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Beauty: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Evolution of beauty
m (thigh gap was misspelled) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== Evolution of beauty == | == Evolution of beauty == | ||
Animal's preference for objective beauty as geometrical simplicity is likely only a fluke of evolution and only preferred because simple shapes are easy to process, resulting from the (actual useful) preference to create order and predictability.<ref>https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pretty</ref> | |||
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 favoring simple shapes. Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction. | Due to this preference, members of a species tended to choose objectively/mathematically beautiful mates and hence species evolved to be beautiful (''aesthetic sexual selection'') and beauty became an important factor of attraction. | ||
Complex ornament and [[few millimeters of bone]], however, likely cannot entirely be explained by mathematical simplicity because they are unnecessary specific and complex. The simplest nose shape would be simply two nostrils as found in some apes | Some simple and elegant body shapes may, however, not necessarily be a result of aesthetic selection, but simply coincidental result of optimizing e.g. for resources efficiency or resilience favoring simple shapes. | ||
Attraction to sexually dimorphic beauty also increases fitness because seeking out the opposite sex is conductive for reproduction. | |||
Complex ornament and [[few millimeters of bone]], however, likely cannot entirely be explained by mathematical simplicity because they are unnecessary specific and complex. The simplest nose shape would be simply two nostrils as found in some apes. A flat chest is simpler than one with permanently swollen breasts. Even more obviously, the peacock tail is unnecessarily complex. | |||
Several explanations can be provided for these shapes: 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, | Several explanations can be provided for these shapes: 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 these shapes are an honest signal of e.g. health, mutational load and intelligence, can thus signal ''good genes'' overall. | or these shapes are an honest signal of e.g. health, mutational load and intelligence, can thus signal ''good genes'' overall. | ||