What is the evolutionary advantage of sexual selection? Being attractive is not synonymous with fitness

>blocks your path

This thread got me thinking. When did the greens for liking your grandchildren (and being happy they are born) come from? I mean, people didn't live long enough to see their grandchildren until recently?

Sexual selection is better than completely random mating (or no sexes at all - just cloning).
It does not mean it cannot go astray.

>Being attractive is not synonymous with fitness
Much more complicated. Many people find the weirdest things attractive - this is already an advantage as it leads to diversity.
But most often it's tits and phat ass - which means she is well fed, ready to procreate and won't have problems with child bearing.
If she is popular it's also a trait, as copulating with her upgrades your position in the pack and you'll be the first one to eat meat.

>Being attractive is not synonymous with fitness
Only peacocks that thrive can support their huge displays.

What is unusual about humans is that women are the ones with the most pronounced display behavior (discounting homosexual men). An explanation might be the disparity between the productivity and social status of a male hunter versus a near helpless pregnant woman, obtaining his affections to crucial to reproduction. The roles are reversed, whereas the female peacock has all the resources she needs and has only to choose the fittest male, with humans (until recently) the woman must prove her fitness to prove she is worth investing resources in.

Sexual selection exists because its an evolutionary stable strategy. Genes which are considered attractive will be successful, not neccisarily because they provide an advantage in fighting or hunting, but simply because the majority of the opposite sex finds that phenotype attractive. Any deviation from the genetically determined attractive traits is a hinderance, and thus will not propagate.

>Being attractive is not synonymous with fitness
not, but it's close enough you ugly loser

being fit is a must for being attractive.

Is this necessarily true?
1) infant mortality skews historical life expectancy to the low end
2) birthing ages being historically lower means shorter generation gap
If the above is true, you would be a grandparent by 30 or maybe earlier -depending on how far back you're talking. Beyond that there may be utility derived from caregiving as a division of labor. Old fucks cant hunt efficiently but they can act as caregivers while younger clan members hunt and forage.

power and money make attractive phenotype but not fit genotype

Sexual selection is always based on some measure of fitness. But it can (and does) very quickly run amok.

Say a bird with a big red tail, where the females select for bigger tails. The offspring then has males with bigger tails and females with a preference for bigger tails. So tails keep getting bigger. At least until some other factor restrains it.

Surviving long enough to know your grand children, and passing on vital parenting skills to your children seems pretty beneficial to me.

>Sexual selection is always based on some measure of fitness. But it can (and does) very quickly run amok.
so has it run amok in humans? if so how? im legit curious now

It does give you more opportunity to procreate.

damn how 2 get fit?

t. over-the-hill spinster

It's not synonymous but it's a good estimate. Many well developed secondary sexual characteristics correlate with fertility and health.

As a side note I love how bratty those girls look. I want them to humiliate me.

im surprised no-one in this thread recognizes lindsay lohan

>run amok
Yes. In the sense that it goes beyond the simple utilitarian process of selecting a healthy mate. People can get attrackted to some very strange shit.
No. In the sense that we haven't developed big red tails. Although humans do display clear sexual dimorphism.

I'm not surprised. Took me a second look to confirm but this is r/sci/ after all

There's a board for that. Read the sticky.

>Females likes vigorous males
>So males who danced better got laid
>But males that had bigger feathers looked as if they danced more
>So the "Big feather" meme was passed on
>Males now compete by also having big feathers
I have no proof of this

Do they shows signings of any disease?

I mean they have such a healthy skin and hair don´t they?

And they are fit, which in our society means ++

Healthier babies, Healthier offspring.

(Not necessarily smarter.
for smarter babies you need to seek the PHENOTYPE)

youtube.com/watch?v=B2wRvhbJIQQ

how can I get a mate with the feminine PHENOTYPE?

>mating with a mentally ill good looking girl is fine

attractiveness does not necessarily mean physical traits only. A mentally ill girl would probably do plenty of unattrative things like defecate on herself, drool, flail around etc.

>defecate on herself, drool, flail around etc.
Add retarded crying sounds and you've got Japanese porn.

The biological definition of fitness is reproduction.

>thinking evolution is some sort of directed process that attempts to create the most fit organism

>rative things like defecate on herself, drool, flail around etc.
hnnng