How Evolution changed humans’ appearance

Good question! Do you think this evolutionary nonsense is just pure chance in the content of Chromosomes x and y?

Thanks for your comments! You are giving me a biology lesson and for that I'm grateful.
So can you comment on the hypothesis that a bias exists in the process of evolution from MotherOne to Miss World?
In spite of my ignorance on human evolution I find it interesting
to examine the way our appearance changes with time and is the primary reason for putting up the article. So far we seem to be skirting around the edges.

Many thanks for that!

Many thanks for that.
I will study your "Fischerian runaway sexual selection "

Quite random actually. Remember Motherx's Dad also contributes an X chromosome to Motherx and that during miosis her Dad's X and her Mom's X randomly swap pieces parts before forming the haploid daughter cells. You also have the same thing in Fatherx. The X chromosome he contributes to the eventual daughter (or next generation Motherx) is a random moosh of his mother's and his paternal grandmother's X.Since the phenotypic traits which go into a beautiful Miss World are due to genes scattered across her entire genome, not just the X, the random mooshing of genes taking place on every chromosome in each Motherx/Fatherx generation results in a very random outcome indeed.Our Miss World's leg length may have come from her paternal grandfather's paternal grandmother while her high cheekbones came from her maternal grandmother's paternal grandfather without the X chromosome involved in either trait.What you get is what you get. The only evolutionary bias in the population is the combination of all the selection pressures operating on the entire population over the entire time.

Sure. Given a choice a man is unlikely to marry a woman he finds repulsive. Women make similar choices.However nobody is going to marry someone who looks anything like that doll RAZD showed you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"The only evolutionary bias in the population is the combination of all the selection pressures operating on the entire population over the entire time"
I appreciate your explanation of the various selection pressures operating. I have thought that one of the pressures could be what I have called "admiration bias". Do you think that a significant pressure comes from something like that bias or something similar by a different name? If so, do you have further information on that selection pressure?
I have seen references to "sexual selection" and "Fischerian runaway sexual selection " in this thread. Related?
I appreciate your courtesy in not ridiculing some of the assertions I have made on this thread. As a layman in this area, I have obvious limitations in trying to explain situations which I find interesting! I thank you for taking the time and effort to make your comments.

I'm getting the impression that any bias in the evolution can come from a multitude of "selection pressures". I would certainly like to know more about the particular pressure that has a marked positive effect on "attractiveness" as judged by us.

Not just related, "sexual selection" is the name we give the selection pressures for attractiveness, aesthetics, admiration and anything else that contributes to general hornyness.I wanted to make three points in my message:1. Other than determining what sex you are, the X-Y chromosome thing is a relatively minor bit and has practically no value in determining attractiveness.2. The entire genome of a person working in concert to produce the complete outward phenotype is the key to sexual selection.3. The genotype is randomly determined.Sexual selection pressures certainly can cull/enhance specific traits (or rather combinations of traits ie. combinations of genes) creating a "bias" for/against those traits in a population, but in the end the entire genome as a single package is what is being selected.So what is happening is that the genotype of an individual is randomly determined but this randomness is limited to the traits available in the population and is "biased" by the prevalence of that trait in the population. The more people with blue eyes in the population the more chance for blue-eyed babies. But no baby is guaranteed the blue-eye trait.The chance combination of all the traits that go into making what we would consider a beautiful Miss World may not, probably will not, occur in her sisters as well.

Thanks for that detailed explanation of the evolutionary process. In essence it seems to me that at every generation sexual pressure is at work with either a positive or negative effect, but with a bias for the positive.
I have found the thread very rewarding and thank the contributors for taking the time and effort to help an ignoramus with the understanding of a most interesting subject.

I think your ideas are a but outdated here. The magical date of 50,000 years for the sudden emergence of a modern, cultural package is the hangover of Eurocentric palaeontology. 'Modern' culture arrived in Europe about 50,000 years ago all at once because it was brought there by people who had already gradually developed it over the course of the preceding 150,000 years in Africa. Recent discoveries have shown that people were carving abstract images, creating pigments and making jewellery in southern Africa almost as early as 100,000 years ago.Controversial evidence that Neanderthals had artistic traditions may mean we have the push the advent of modern-like culture back a lot further than that.

Good to know. I thought th 50k seemed off, but it was noted in two sources I looked at. Which is part of the controversy on whether there was any "social" interaction between Cro-magnon and Neanders. As I recall a flute and a doll were involved in the controversy being found in what appeared to be Neander burial.Enjoy

Don't know if you have been following the latest discussion on Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution, but I posted this in Message 97: This demonstrates (to me) that the perceived "ideal" beauty is outside the available genotypes, and this demonstrates (to me) that we are seeing Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection. Note that both sexes are involved with pursuing this perceived "ideal" -- men, by finding the women attractive, and women, by altering their appearance to be closer to this "ideal" ...Enjoy.

Perhaps beauty isn't defined in terms of some 'ideal', but rather in terms of the relation of various characteristics.

Still getting to grips with "Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection". As you said, much to learn. Will look at that other forum!