Comments on: Darwin and the Swimsuit Issue http://answer.rutgers.edu/blog/2009/02/19/darwin-and-the-swimsuit-issue/ The Answer Blog Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:53:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: internationalspy http://answer.rutgers.edu/blog/2009/02/19/darwin-and-the-swimsuit-issue/#comment-187 internationalspy Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:39:20 +0000 http://answer.rutgers.edu/blog/?p=84#comment-187 The Swimsuit Issue isn't evidence against Darwin's sexual selection. In the issue, you saw men dressed professionally. According to sexual selection, males often compete through physical strength. Antlers, for example, are products of sexual selection. In contemporary American males, strength and power are exhibited through the wealth and status of a career. Among some groups of American males, muscle mass is still as important as earning potential. So, perhaps steroids are even an example of "runaway sexual selection." If American males were polygamous, a woman's looks would likely be less important. But, since men are expected to pick one woman, the men look for the woman with good genes to pass on. Men look for women who are healthy--good skin and muscle tone, well proportioned, etc. If you want to consider human evidence against Darwin, perhaps a better topic would be the number of Americans who simply choose not to pass on their genes at all. While Richard Dawkins proposed that genes are selfish, he missed the fact that humans are more selfish* than their genes. -- *By selfish, I do not mean a moral judgment. I simply mean such people are more interested in their present comfort than the long-term survival of their genes. The Swimsuit Issue isn’t evidence against Darwin’s sexual selection. In the issue, you saw men dressed professionally. According to sexual selection, males often compete through physical strength. Antlers, for example, are products of sexual selection. In contemporary American males, strength and power are exhibited through the wealth and status of a career. Among some groups of American males, muscle mass is still as important as earning potential. So, perhaps steroids are even an example of “runaway sexual selection.”

If American males were polygamous, a woman’s looks would likely be less important. But, since men are expected to pick one woman, the men look for the woman with good genes to pass on. Men look for women who are healthy–good skin and muscle tone, well proportioned, etc.

If you want to consider human evidence against Darwin, perhaps a better topic would be the number of Americans who simply choose not to pass on their genes at all. While Richard Dawkins proposed that genes are selfish, he missed the fact that humans are more selfish* than their genes.

–
*By selfish, I do not mean a moral judgment. I simply mean such people are more interested in their present comfort than the long-term survival of their genes.

]]>