Ομορφότερες οι γυναίκες με το πέρασμα του χρόνου

Η εξέλιξη και ο ανταγωνισμός ωθούν τις γυναίκες να γίνονται ολοένα και πιο όμορφες με το πέρασμα του χρόνου, ανοίγοντας έτσι την «ψαλίδα» ομορφιάς με τους άνδρες, όπως προκύπτει από έρευνα Φινλανδών επιστημόνων.

Ειδικότερα, σύμφωνα με τους επιστήμονες, με το πέρασμα των γενιών οι γυναίκες γίνονται σταθερά όλο και πιο ωραίες, στο πλαίσιο μιας «κούρας ομορφιάς», που αδιάκοπα λαμβάνει χώρα στο γυναικείο φύλο.

Η έρευνα διαπίστωσε επίσης ότι οι όμορφες γυναίκες έχουν 16% περισσότερα παιδιά κατά μέσο όρο σε σχέση με τις λιγότερο εμφανίσιμες γυναίκες, ενώ τα πιο πολλά παιδιά των ομορφότερων γυναικών είναι κορίτσια.

Οι κόρες αυτές, όταν μεγαλώσουν, τείνουν να γίνονται επίσης ελκυστικές και έτσι να διαιωνίζουν -και σταδιακά να βελτιώνουν- το πρότυπο της ομορφιάς, διαπιστώνει η έρευνα, τα αποτελέσματα της οποίας ταιριάζουν με τα συμπεράσματα πρόσφατης έρευνας του Σατόσι Καναζάβα, εξελικτικού ψυχολόγου της Σχολής Οικονομικών του Λονδίνου.

Ο Καναζάβα διαπίστωσε ότι οι όμορφοι γονείς είναι πιθανότερο να κάνουν κόρες παρά αγόρια, στο πλαίσιο μιας εξελικτικής στρατηγικής που αθόρυβα έχει προγραμματιστεί πλέον μέσα στο ανθρώπινο DNA.

Ειδικότερα, οι πιο ελκυστικοί γονείς είναι 26% λιγότερο πιθανό να αποκτήσουν αγόρι. Όταν μάλιστα πρόκειται για το πρώτο παιδί, οι πιο όμορφοι γονείς είναι κατά 36% πιθανότερο να αποκτήσουν κορίτσι. Οι λιγότερο όμορφοι άνδρες έχουν κατά μέσο όρο 13% λιγότερα παιδιά σε σχέση με τους υπόλοιπους.

Σύμφωνα με τον Κιναζάβα, η φυσική ομορφιά είναι ένα άκρως κληρονομήσιμο χαρακτηριστικό, που αυξάνει δυσανάλογα την αναπαραγωγική επιτυχία των κοριτσιών σε σχέση με των αγοριών. «Αν οι πιο ελκυστικοί γονείς έχουν πιο πολλές κόρες και αν η φυσική ομορφιά είναι κληρονομήσιμη, τότε λογικά προκύπτει ότι η μέση γυναίκα, με το πέρασμα πολλών γενιών, διαδοχικά γίνεται πιο ελκυστική σε σχέση με τον άνδρα», υπογραμμίζει.

Αντιθέτως, στους άνδρες, από εξελικτική άποψη, η ομορφιά δεν φαίνεται να έχει κάποια ιδιαίτερη σημασία, με συνέπεια στο πέρασμα του χρόνου δεν μην αισθάνονται πραγματική βιολογική πίεση να γίνουν πιο όμορφοι.

Πάντως, σύμφωνα με τις ανωτέρω μελέτες, και τα δύο φύλα συμφωνούν πως οι γυναίκες είναι αισθητικά πιο ωραίες από τους άνδρες. Οι έρευνες επιβεβαιώνουν, άλλωστε, την κοινή αντίληψη ότι «η ομορφιά βρίσκεται στα γονίδια».

Πηγή: ΑΠΕ-ΜΠΕ

NAFTEMPORIKI.GR Δευτέρα, 27 Ιουλίου 2009 12:02

Women getting more beautiful, say scientists

Evolution has led to women, but not men, getting progressively beautiful, according to scientists.

By Ben Leach
Published: 3:00PM BST 26 Jul 2009

Actress Angelina Jolie is regularly voted world's most beautiful woman Photo: EPA

Researchers found that attractive women have more children than their less attractive counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female.

Once those daughters become adult they tend to be good looking themselves and so the pattern is repeated as women over the generations become steadily more aesthetically pleasing.

As attractive couples are less likely to have boy than a girl, men, in contrast, remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors, the scientists claim.

The findings have emerged from a series of studies of physical attractiveness and its links to reproductive success in humans. In a study released last week, Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, found beautiful women had up to 16 per cent more children than less attractive women.

He looked at a sample of more than 2,000 men and women in America, following them through four decades of life.

Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.

A study in 2006 by scientists at the London School of Economics found that good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters.

He suggested this was because of differing "evolutionary strategies" that each sex has adopted to survive, and which had been subtly programmed into their DNA.

Mr Kanazawa said: "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."

From;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5912250/Women-getting-more-beautiful-say-scientists.html

Garbage Summer Science

Posted on 08:23, July 27th, 2009 by Strangely

Is This the Worst Science Project Ever?

The Daily Telegraph, short of stories this summer now that the expenses scandal is dead, has published a picture of Angelina Jolie under the heading:

Women getting more beautiful, say scientists: (see link)

According to some work done by Finnish Philosopher/Psychologist Markus Jokela,

…attractive women have more children than their less attractive counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female…

The methodology was to look at 2000 Americans, and then decide that ‘beautiful‘ women had 16% more children. How this ‘beauty‘ decision was derived, is unknown, save for the comment that,

“attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study”

The article continues in the same vein by quoting the results of yet more “scientists” from the London School of Economics taken in 2006. They had the same ‘results‘.

The gaffa in charge of this, Mr Kanazawa, said…,

“Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons.”

Rubbish Science

Dunce's Hat

The point is that the above statement is produced with absolutely NO backing. It’s an opinion, that’s all.

It could be equally well said about men.

Remember, it takes two to tango and make a child. The fact that attractive men can rapidly spread their seed faster than any woman proves that this statement is bunkum…

Look at it like this…

• In 9 months, a woman can parent one child.
• In 9 months, with one successful shag per day, a man can parent 270 children.

Who is having the greater initial reproductive success? Obviously, the man.

I’m sure that someone like Brad Pitt, Jolie’s husband, if let loose into the wild, would procreate many more children than Jolie could! If he came to Bridgwater, it’d be legs akimbo for weeks followed by lots of little Brad lookalikes! Apart from the jollity, this will seriously slew the statistics wholly against the research’s argument! It only takes one rampant male to break the ‘hard work’ of hundreds of ‘beautiful’ women taking a lifetime to improve the gene pool!

Or look at it like this…

This ‘research’ assumes that attractiveness is a one-way process and that women passively sit around waiting to choose the best mate (using what criteria, are we to wonder?). Again, this is plain garbage. Women aren’t passive. If one of a woman’s criteria for mate choice is the appearance of the man, then it chucks out the research findings right out of the window. Indeed, the ‘beauty’ gene, if it exists, could be being selected for because the man holds it (he having half of his mother’s genes, after all) without actually expressing it himself.

Note to Researchers: check out the difference between a genotype and a phenotype before spouting this muck.

Or Look at it This Way…

My Observation of many UK towns tells me that there are a lot of fat munters on the estates (call them endomorphs, please). They all have appear to have heaps of children despite any perceived lack of ‘beauty‘. So what does this mean to a ‘scientist‘ in this calibre of research?

A. Using their specious logic, I could say that fat munters are the most successful breeders in the country. I could say that only fat people breed fast. I could make all sorts of scurrilous accusations about them and the reason(s) for the perceived fecundity. Just like boys-nights-out on a Friday eyeing up the talent? But I won’t….

Because Any Logic with like this is seriously flawed.

It’s not logic, it’s just opinion dressed as fact. What the Telegraph (and other media organisations) has done by publishing this rubbish as summer titter, is to denigrate the hard work of real scientists with the mumbo-jumbo claptrap from pseudo-scientists looking for job justification.

There’s a heap of proper evolutionary and genetic research that disproves this tripe, so why do the Telegraph publish it? A. To fill space.

Finally

Even defining beauty with the narrow bounds of appearance is hard enough – but beauty and appearance, the attractiveness of an individual – these are all complex concepts that have provided artists and writers material for millenia

The trouble with the ‘research’ and it’s reporting, is that it demeans the real work to titillate the lowest common denominators in society, with the result that scientists, striving for humanity’s betterment, are made to look like pariahs and idiots, which in the long run, is very, very bad.

From;

http://strangelyperfect.tv/5447/garbage-summer-science/