Why are there ugly people?

In any given population there is a variation in the attractiveness (or if you prefer the ugliness) on the individuals of that population. Those at the lower end are considered ugly relative to the other individuals. Sexual selection will favor the more attractive individuals and they will pass on their genes. Evolution occurs and in several generations all the individuals are more attractive relative to previous generations. Again, however, there is a continuum of attractiveness in that later generation. Those at the lower end of the spectrum are considered ugly relative to those at the upper end.

There is always variation in the attractiveness of any given population. Therefore there will always be some individuals that are considered ugly regardless of whether evoluion occurs in either direction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This person is attractive relative to who?
Forget it - I don't wanna know..
​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. I almost cared until I read some BS about evolution and how there shouldn't be any ugly people then. Hah! Really now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did not carefully read all your post. I think the blue parts are your comments. I note wrt them, that there are lots of things, such as dishes I wash, that I do both less frequently and less well than my wife does, so I am not sure you are on solid ground with this "underpants argument."

I can add a little to the behavior of mice:

If you deliver a litter of mice by cesarean operation and immediately separate the males from females and then raise them separately, even in separate buildings, to sexual maturity, the biological siblings will not mate, unless no other choice is available. This clearly shows something chemical, instead of social conditioning, is at work, much like your reference were stating. Even if one male is later placed cage in with all his sisters and only one non-sister, that is the one he will mate with.

But who you think is beautiful and who you mate with may not be strongly related. - Ask any ugly mother of five.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is probably true if all other more important factors were equal, but that is rarely the case. Most females of all advanced primates, at least, place more emphases on the males "power" or ability to "provide and protect" - I some social groups this goes to extreme than only the "alpha male" is allowed to mate with a fertile female. Even in humans, some societies have the more successful men with many "wives" and others with none.

In addition, evolution is very slow, many generations required for significant change, but fashion changes in less than a generation. For example, the modern slender woman was "ugly" in most of pragmatic Eastern Europe about 60 years ago. If you could, (were more successful than most men) you chose a good sturdy woman for you "beautiful bride" - Not one of the weak fashion model types of today. Are you old enough to remember flat-chested, skin and bones "twiggy" - that mal nourished paragon of beauty in the west for a few years back in the 1950s I think it was.

SUMMARY: Beauty rapidly changes on evolutionary time scales and is only a small factor, if any, in the determination of the next generation's gene pool, even in societies were most men do not have children. In one where almost all have children - almost all the genes are handed down as number of children born to what is currently considered "ugly" is not significantly less. (Probably their reproduction rate is actually slightly more as the poor tend to be "ugly" and reproduce more. - With little money, what else can they do for fun?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I've read that body symmetry has a lot to do natural selection, but I haven't heard any presumed theories about ugliness being related to natural selection. As with good and evil, ugliness is a matter of POV, and in actuality, cannot exist. It is another attempt of man to recognize duality where it is not. However, it does seem that most people have a set of specific preferences. I beleive it has relation to the people who your raised around aswell as the idea of "uniqueness." A few friends and I met a black woman with bright green eyes. We all agree that she is one of the most beautiful women we've ever seen. Granted that the dark skin-green eye combination wasn't the only factor that we would consider attractive in her, it is one of them. My mother, after giving birth to 8 children, still ways only 90 lbs. I myself am very attracted to skinnier, or petit women. Also a greek friend of mine is very attracted to women with curly hair. Greek people very generally have curly hair. I haven't read very much into scientific ugliness, and I couldn't find much with a simple google search. Perhaps I'll try again later and post if I find something.

 

I wrote down the essence of my latest point down in an essay, since the science apparently obscured the message:

University of Life Lecture



’Why men do not wash their underwear frequently’



Indeed, why are men reluctant to wash their underwear? During the 70s the predominant theory in sociology circles was that men are afraid of washing machines. These machines represented the female sphere of influence. Men had invented washing machines to liberate women to do other chores such as bringing men a cool beer when watching a football game, and instead women started to invade the male environment. They became truck drivers, laywers, doctors, bounchers and plumbers. The theory goes that no man can subconsciously touch the instrument that caused the demise of the world of man.

We were always suspicious about this theory because it eliminates the essence of the human species. That it is driven by biological principles.

In the 80s real scientists discovered that mice like to breed with mice that are genetically different from themselves regarding the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes. A fancy name for genes important for the immunesystem.

But how does a mouse know what kind of MHC genes a potential partner has? Research groups in Japan proposed that mice might have a miniature 'genome sequencer' or PCR machine somewhere used for genotyping the potential partner, but careful studies of histological sections showed none. It then turned out that the secret lies in piss. By sniffing the urinary odour of the potential mate the mouse can determine subconsciously if the MHC genes are different.

We propose that mate selection work not much differently. And that is why men less frequently wash their underwear than women. We are still in tune with nature. Men do not want to remove the one signal that signifies the most important message for the potential partner: 'PICK ME!!!'

Why do women insist on washing men's underwear so frequently once a relationship has started? With a frequency that says to the man: is this really necessary? She is undermining his chances to attract another partner by removing the signal. 'Is this guy matching my MHC? I can't smell a dam thing. That's not an object of desire, that is just an object.'

And that is why men also drink beer. It stimulates the production of urine. It stimulates sloppiness in urination spreading the urinary odour over a greater area. And it stimulates the urination outside the designated sanitary facilities (from toilet to trees, bushes, corners), reverting back to the natural practices of spreading one of nature's most important signals: 'Mate me.'

Yes, it was a feminist who invented the toilet and a man who invented beer.



Spuriousmonkey

Professor at the UOL

http://www.spuriousmonkey.com/lectures/lectures/052.html

 

they breed with other ugly people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

spurious: I remember reading that both men and women also selected against HLA genes that were similar from maternal descent but not those that were similar from paternal descent. Is this still believed to be true?

 

what is this HLA gene you speak of?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oh, wait. let me use wiki.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

its Human Leucocyte Antigen genes; a subset of the MHC

The two terms are often used interchangeably

 

:bugeye: wikipedia should have a section for regular old scientific-jargonless people.
is it the same thing as the mitochondrial protein thing? i mean the way most of the people on the face of the earth were traced back to an ethiopian woman several hundred years ago?

 

I guess the neanderthals had something to do with it, don't you think? I see one or two them on the bus on the way to work in the mornings, standing on a street corner or walking down the sidewalk everyday. God bless the neanderthals.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

MHC or Major Histocompatibility Complex molecules are present in the membrane of cells (vertebrates). Their function is to identify "foreign" particles and display them on the cell's surface in order to initiate a specific immune response. So they sort of initiate/maintain a dialogue between immune cells and other cells.

 

kind of like those advertisments on the sides of buses?

 

Why, do you feel incredibly attracted , as immune cells to antigens (foreign particles), and immediately throw yourself against the bus?

 

that depends on whether or not the advertisement is for something like chocolate or half-naked military men.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am too lazy and inept to goggle, so I ask you as I think you generally know what you are talking about in this area. (Hercules does too, so if he is reading the question goes to him also.)

The MHC must thus have a complete store of information that tells it "Hey that protein structure that just banged up against me, is me - no need to get excited and call for help from 'T-cells' etc." How is this possible?

I seem to recall, but only read it once, that the thyroid is a depositor this information or the “library of proteins” that are "me." - Is there any truth to this "thyroid library" story? It seems to me the variety of "me proteins" is too great to be stored in the MHC. Can you clarify a little? If you cannot, now, is question interesting enough to research some?

 

The MHC region in the human genomes has over a 100 genes. The HLA is the most important sub-type and is associated with antigen presentation at the cell syrface.

The MHC are divided into Classes I, II & III of which Class I & II show a high degree of polymorphism such that it is possible for humans to be heterozygous at all loci.

When the host cell is a leucocyte or macrophage, it ingests and processes the peptides and presents them on Class II molecules, with highly polymorphic alpha and beta polypeptide chains.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When the host cell is an infected cell or a cancerous cell it presents the antigen on Class I MHC molecules which has alpha chains with polymorphic domains.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The MHC molecules are usually kept busy presenting self and non self molecules to the T-cells via T cell receptors or TCRs. Successful MHC TCR interactions are such that self peptides are ignored by the T cells while foreign peptides are dealt with.

If you pause to consider that the HLA subtype has 9 classical genes with allelic diversity going up to 500, you can imagine the vast ranges of permutations and combinations possible. The more diverse the MHC genes of the parents, the stronger the immunity in the child.


I'm not up with the current literature on this but I remembet that a couple years ago some papers were published which linked some autoimmune disease to differential processing and presentation of a peptide by an HLA variant; there is also evidence that T cells and immunoglobulins(antibodies) both of which are variable and subject to recombinations may confer genetic susceptibility to auto immune disease.

I am not certain about this, but I believe that a TCR-MHC interaction is required for the specific immune reaction. No binding = no reaction; it is possible that TCRs do not bind to MHC molecules presenting self proteins. This area is still under research (articles require subscription)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16546094&query_hl=31&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16799471&query_hl=31&itool=pubmed_docsum



Further reading

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16551255&query_hl=21&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Hercules, please check!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To Sancdkey:
Thanks. I think the upper or first of you drawing represent the "class II and the secopnd the "class I" - is that correct?

A little old JW (Johova's Witness) lady came to my door back in 1990 and I told her quickly (to get rid of her): "I'm not interested - I am an atheist." She looked so pained, that I soften and said: "What do you want?" Half an hour past with us talking at the door, me letting her think she was converting me to Christ and the JW view.

To be fully convencing, I even paid her $0.25 for my only copy of "Awake" and she went away extremely happy, to have "saved a soul." I have always wondered if I did a very good or very bad thing by tricking her, but for me it was good as that JW paper is, as recall, excellent.

I am going to read my copy of 22Nov.1990 Awake again. - I have been saving it for 16 years as despite it source, it was the best article I ever saw back then on imumune system (for someone on my level of understanding). I will probably be back with more questions.