Evolution Making Women More Beautiful?
A new study says attractive couples are more likely to produce girls.
Go to any bar in any city at any given time and you'll likely see the same pattern: hordes of Katherine Heigls making small talk with rows of Seth Rogens (pre-weight loss, of course). Perhaps this was why Knocked Up struck such a reverberating tone and enjoyed so much success—afterall, how many times (a day!) do we see attractive women giving schlubby (but lovable) men a shot? Katherine Heigl
Well, it looks like science (once again!) is behind this phenomenon. New research suggests that evolution is making women more attractive and leaving men as frumpy as they've always been.
While we've always assumed women are so much hotter now due to gym memberships, breast implants and gift certificates to Sephora, several studies suggest that stunning ladies are not only more likely to have more children, but also more likely to have daughters. Thus gifting the world with more good-looking women.
Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, followed 1,244 women and 997 men throughout four decades and found that beautiful women had 16 percent more children than average-looking ones. Previous studies, by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, say pretty women are 26 percent less likely to have sons. Children Conceived In Summer Score Low On Indiana Test
Come to think of it—Brad and Angelina's biological brood include two daughters to one son, right? Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner have two daughters, Nicole Kidman had a girl, and so on and so forth.
Kanazawa explains this trend by saying:
Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons. If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.
Scientists then explain that men more than make up for their subpar looks by providing for the family. "Rich men tend to have more wives and many children," they say.
While we don't discredit the research gone into such studies, we just wish "science" didn't have to always reinforce a woman's relevance by looks and a man's by his bank account. Which, to be honest, really doesn't sound much like evolution at all.
Discussion
This article is crazy and I can't believe that a P.H.D. would even spend the time to test a theory like this. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. What opne person thinks is ugly or even hidious is beautiful to another. Does that mean if two men slept with the same woman one thinks shes beautiful..the other ugly, her chances of having a beautiful baby girl are 50/50?
It's a pretty big leap to say that attractive women have more girls because girls benefit more from attractive genes than boys.
1. We don't actually know of a mechanism for women to select their baby's sex. It would have to be something like pretty women make fluids that kill boy sperm. Or pretty women have sex in the right position to make girls. Or pretty women have sex at the right time of month to make girls. Or pretty women are more likely to have sex with men who have girl sperm. Or pretty women have sex with men who have the right sperm count to make girls.
Unfortunately, scientists so far don't agree on the best time of month or position or anything to make a girl. You can't choose.
2. Anyone who thinks that boys don't benefit from attractive genes is nuts. And, as Noble suggests, evolution isn't about what rich men do. It's about what hunter-gatherers did a very, very long time ago. The best husband was a physically fit one, so an attractive guy would have been an even better catch back then.
3. Somehow somebody keeps forgetting the reason attractive women are attractive - the way they look is associated with good health. Maybe it's much simpler - maybe healthier women are more likely to give birth to girls. Maybe when times are good, you need more girls and less boys. Of course, you have all the questions about exactly how this works again.
4. Or maybe it's something about the guys in the modern study. Maybe the ones who married attractive women had more girl sperm. Why? Maybe attractive men make more girl sperm because then they can pass on more of their genes. Maybe rich, old men make more girl sperm because the boy sperm has less protection against genetic defects that are more likely with older fathers.
Or maybe it's not so goal-oriented - maybe in the modern world rich, older men are able to marry attractive, healthy young women. The men are older, their sperm are weaker. Maybe they are more likely to produce babies that are miscarried. Male fetuses are more likely to be miscarried, so they end up with more daughters. And maybe, this has nothing to do with natural selection or what would be the best strategy for the female to pass on her genes.
