re: #354 Ben Hur

I’m back.

And I take your point about the changes being small enough to be difficult to spot, but I think any major advances would be cancelled out by modern mans focus on non-existential factors. What I mean is something like this - a boy was born recently with 11 perfectly formed and functional fingers. This would be an advantage in our modern society, with keyboard usage, etc. Natural selection would mean that since he would be more successful at doing certain things we need for survival, he would find a mate, or a mate would find him more desirable, because the chances of their DNA advancing and surviving would increase.

The problem is, in today’s superficial society, chicks aren’t going to kill one another to get mate with someone with 11 fingers.

I don’t think I am being as clear as a can be on this.

Another example. I read an interesting article a while back that short stocky people will survive longer because their bodies can take more abuse of modern society.

But, in the face of a society that finds height more attractive, and tall people more successful, I can’t see a shortening of the human race over time.

Sexual selection is part of enviromental selection. You have to both survive and reproduce for your genes to perdure. The question would be to tease out which of the indices of sexual attractiveness are genetically based and which ones are societally based. Certainly some cultures have found bound feet, forcibly sloped foreheads, major tattooing, branding and scarring, and huge discs worn in lower lips to be turn-ons.