Theory of Evolution - Page 6

there are only a fraction of people opting for cosmetic surgery.And by being fit doesn't necessarily mean looking great.
In terms of evolution, women look for strong and stable minded(read intelligent) men who willnt harm and protect the kids,bring food,blah blah.Tall,dark, charming,sensitive men.
Men look for mates who will be great moms and nurse well (Big butts,boobs,cheerful,caring,blah blah)
Cosmetic surgery is for appeal to the masses and rarely mating partners and hence is usually opted by acting,modelling professionals or those with self esteem issues or serious injuries.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Also, does anybody else feels that the concept of 'arranged marriage' goes against law of natural selection ?..

it slows down evolution since it happens within a caste.what am I writing? 🤣

Originally posted by: iMini

there are only a fraction of people opting for cosmetic surgery.And by being fit doesn't necessarily mean looking great.
In terms of evolution, women look for strong and stable minded(read intelligent) men who willnt harm and protect the kids,bring food,blah blah.Tall,dark, charming,sensitive men.
Men look for mates who will be great moms and nurse well (Big butts,boobs,cheerful,caring,blah blah)
Cosmetic surgery is for appeal to the masses and rarely mating partners and hence is usually opted by acting,modelling professionals or those with self esteem issues or serious injuries.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

I Agree..but from what i have come to know so far , in the west at least ,the cosmetics enhancements aren't restricted to the women (even men) in the glamour industry..

so how does that change my opinion about cosmetic surgery?
My opinion is gender-neutral.

Originally posted by: iMini

so how does that change my opinion about cosmetic surgery?
My opinion is gender-neutral.

I didn't know it's common in the west so it's a news to me.It only alters ones looks.Shouldn't matter much in evolution, only slows selection.

We see the world from a human perspective. All the laws, all the flaws. It's based on our discoveries, our observations. Otherwise I wonder if we're even the most evolved species. Many bacteria are better adapted to survive in conditions which are extreme in our terminology, Like they can survive in extreme climatic conditions, can live w/o oxygen etc. Infact they can even invade us, compete us for our own machinery and defeat our immune self, if we don't take foreign aid. Looks like we're just the most complex, not most evolved as we like to believe. But unfortunately or fortunately, those bacteria can't come and argue they're better/ more fit.

Cosmetic surgery is an artificial approach, so it's indeed against the nature. Other than that IDK much about whether its process is mutagenic or not. Since it's not a routine procedure, I think it's less likely to contribute much to gene pool. Unless it's potent enough to cause a sudden evolution.

Marriages in same caste, arranged or not - If this continues for several thousands of years more, each caste may separately evolve into a new species. Divergent evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens. Unless there's a break in practice after every few generations. Then that break would include other variants in the pool and not hinder normal evolution.

In cosmetic surgeries, arranged marriages or other forms of human interference, nature's collateral damage. We don't aim to purposefully harm it, our lifestyle is such we thrive on artificial aids. We live disconnected from nature and don't think about the effect our actions have on it or on ourselves for that matter. Number of casualties and types of diseases have increased multiple folds in the years of our civilised existence. We don't think of uprooting the basic cause or pay attention to root disturbance because we have external aids to sustain ourselves, however superficial. But, when it comes to natural calamities, we stay helpless. Had we not civilised and lived with our mammalian instincts, we'd have surely been more attuned to nature. But now the condition is such that any severe exposure to natural stuff is intolerable to us, be it sunlight or normal dust.

Originally posted by: amidstthehues

Cosmetic surgery is an artificial approach, so it's indeed against the nature. Other than that IDK much about whether its process is mutagenic or not. Since it's not a routine procedure, I think it's less likely to contribute much to gene pool. Unless it's potent enough to cause a sudden evolution.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

I dont think 'sudden evolution' is a possibility here..however, the accumulation of undesirable traits achieved through artificial deception (cosmetic surgeries) could affect the future generation..🤔

It's possible, just improbable. And we can't say at this moment whether it helps accumulate desirable or undesirable traits. It just alters natural ones. Only our exposure to nature in coming years will tell whether it's harmful, neutral, or miraculously useful. Don't you think?

Originally posted by: amidstthehues

It's possible, just improbable. And we can't say at this moment whether it helps accumulate desirable or undesirable traits. It just alters natural ones. Only our exposure to nature in coming years will tell whether it's harmful, neutral, or miraculously useful. Don't you think?