How Evolution changed humans’ appearance

If Fatherx does the choosing, then he is probably one of a homogeneous group of males of that generation with a low probability of having an improved appearance over the others. Motherx needs to do the choosing based on the male who she sees is more attractive than the rest.
Please accept that I believe the major changes did not occur in modern times and that over many generations improved appearance happened in the early days when male appearance changed by chance and by heredity mutation. As populations increased through stages of cavemen, tribes, villages, etc. the chance of a male mutation to a better appearance (to Motherx of that generation) improved.

Curiously, replacing motherx with fatherx and vice versa in your argument results in one that is just as (in)valid and just as (un)persuasive. Selection of a "pretty" male is as likely to add "beauty" to a lineage as selection of a "pretty" female ... unless you could demonstrate that female beauty traits are only found on the X chromosome and would somehow be unavailable to males (good luck with that) ... of course the existence of "pretty" traits in men invalidates this.Selection appears to be both male and female, as both sexes have traits that have been affected by selection by the other sex. This is not explained by either all (only) male or all (only) female selectionSexual selection is still operating ... btw ... on both sexes. Changes are still occurring.You also really need to consider what is being selected and why ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

I'm getting the impression that you have not thought this through. Was there some obstacle 200,000 years ago to children inheriting traits from both the paternal and maternal line? If not, then why wouldn't the father's choice of partner matter?

I'm still not seeing it. Females as well as males vary in attractiveness; males as well as females can exercise choice. And I don't see why you think that that should be different for earlier humans or pre-humans.

RAZD
I must emphasize that my hypothesis was based on a single unbroken lineage from MotherOne to Miss World. I believe that in the enormous time between the births of these two women, huge changes occurred in their relative appearance and it is interesting to conjecture what could have caused the changes.
Looking at what factors determining the appearance of the daughter of Motherx at any generation that are under Motherx's control, they seem to be very limited.
When we became more civilized, when food supplies were established and living conditions were not geared mainly to survival, then Motherx may have had time and inclination to devote to other things such as finding an attractive mate from the eligible male population of her local area. Such larger male populations improved the probability of hereditary mutations giving a male an improved change of appearance which can spread through the population at that and later generations. In any case random changes in appearance of both sexes can have an effect on sexual selection and introduce a bias in the evolutionary process in favour of improved appearance.
RAZD,
Please be aware that I am searching for a reasonable explanation of the change. Let me know if you have your own explanation.

I'm sorry you are getting that impression.
I must emphasize that my hypothesis is based on a single lineage from MotherOne to Miss World and I'm considering only Motherx as the child-bearer at each generation.
Motherx will mate with Fatherx at each generation and her daughter will inherit traits from both.
Why I think Fatherx will have more influence on inherited genes is because mating selection for Motherx can involve many males which improves the probability of a mutation in one of the males which improves his appearance, thus making him more attractive to Motherx, if she has a choice of selection. This can be a bias in mate selection spread over countless generations to effect the change of appearance. Do you have your own explanation of the massive change?

I don't think it is any different for earlier humans.
My hypothesis is based on Motherx at every generation, where she mates with Fatherx and gives birth to a daughter.
I believe that there is a bias in the evolutionary process for Miss World and I find it interesting to try to find the reason for this bias.
I don't believe Motherx had much control over the process apart from selecting or being selected by Fatherx. The reason I think this is that there is not much she can do to effect her chromosome x and thus the appearance of her daughter due to chromosome x. A single person's chance of a hereditary mutation which improves that aspect is pretty remote, while the chance of a male in the wider population is much better and it can spread through not only the next generation, but succeeding generations which could be picked up by sexual selection by Motherx through Chromosome y. I believe a significant improvement in the appearance of humans would spread like wildfire through the population!
Do you have your own explanation?

You were referring to our ancestors at 200,000 years ago. "Anatomists and other human scientists" will not have put together speculative images of humans of that period that fit your description: At that point, they would be far more similar to Miss World than to the other Great Apes. Genetically, there would be about fifty times the difference from Miss World to the chimps than there would be from Miss World to a woman of that time. Anatomically, they are just becoming modern.We would probably find some of them sexually attractive. It wouldn't be bestiality.

In my learning mode, I am always pleased to hear opinions of others and take them into account!
I must try to find some evidence that 200,000 years ago, MotherOne "would be far more similar to Miss World than to the other Great Apes".
Perhaps my hypothesis might have been more credible if I had placed MotherOne some time earlier when she would have been one of the species which later led to both humans and chimpanzees - from my limited memory, was it homo erectus?.

No - Homo erectus is very much on our line of the family tree. The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is believed to have lived about 5-6 million years ago, based around evidence from mutation rates. H. erectus lies on our side of the split, and appears in the fossil record from about 1.8 million years ago - so it's much closer to us than a chimpanzee.The species from around the time of the human/chimp split are Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis. They're only known from sketchy remains, and it's controversial whether they should be treated as nearer to humans or chimps, or off on their own seperate branches.

Then how do you account for Miss World's two ugly sisters?

Were you aware that Dad's also have an x chromosome which they are unable to manually alter? Through chromosome Y? Aren't we talking about daughters? I think a biology lesson is needed here. You see, when the mommy bird really loves the daddy bird...ABE:Female mammals don't inherit anything via their dad's Y chromosome. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, let's start with early Homo sapiens ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/02/050223122209.htm

quote:

---

The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago

​

Feb. 28, 2005 When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.

​

Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases appear much later in the record — only 50,000 years ago — which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff, such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. ...

​

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things), ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads. They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago, and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'" ...

---

also Ethiopia is top choice for cradle of Homo sapiens : Nature NewsThis article is from before the date revision/updatehttp://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

quote:

---

... "With these new crania," he added, "we can now see what our direct ancestors looked like." ...

​

---

Homo erectus may be a side branch like Neanderthals (Homo neander) and our previous ancestors appear to be Homo ergaster ...see http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html for startersYou have a lot to learn, and it might be a good idea to start with that before making hypothesis ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added info

there is a single unbroken lineage from primordial ooze to each living creature and many extinct ones. Other than superficial differences the major measurable change from Homo sapiens of 195,000 years ago to Homo sapiens sapiens (us) is an increase in brain size (selection is still ongoing - see M and N below).For more distant changes you need to go further back in time (which also means more time for evolution to operate).See 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

​

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

---

(note that the first skull is a modern chimpanzee and that changes to the skeletons are not shown). It wasn't until about 10,000 years ago when the agricultural revolution made surplus food available in sufficient quantities that leisure time for other pursuits became possible.The emergence of culture apparently only started some 50,000 years ago, when dolls and flutes are found.It is kind of difficult to ascertain from skeletons what people looked like, however we do see that the early doll figurines of "earth mother" showed a wide waist and large breasts.Mother goddess - Wikipedia

quote:

---

​

The Venus of Doln Věstonice, one of the earliest known depictions of the human body, dates to approximately 29,000—25,000 BC (Gravettian culture of the Upper Paleolithic era)

---

Again this shows sexual selection ... Sexual selection in general, and Fischerian runaway sexual selection in particular are more than sufficient to explain the evolution of humans from early ape ancestors.Beauty is how sexual selection affects us, it is not an aspect of our species that is special compared to other species -- each species would have a concept of "beauty" that would be based on selection for mating.Enjoy.

Many thanks for that correction. Not being a professional I have just picked up bits and pieces over the years on this subject.
You are obviously highly knowledeable on this subject and I would like to hear your opinion on what I have called the hypothesis of evolutionary change from MotherOne to Miss World - do you think there was a bias towards a more attractive appearance, and if so, what was the process to achieve it?