Author: Simon Whyatt 16th August 2011 3 Comments Nutrition Evolution, Nutrition, Paleo Diet, Primal Living http://www.primalliving.co.uk/?p=879 ← Previous post Next post → 3 Comments Evol 16th August 2011 at 2:12 pm Great article as always and lots of points cleared up that the paleo community gets wrong. “Although on some deep instinctual Primal level, a healthy, athletic individual may still be more attractive to the opposite sex, their physical prowess no longer provides them with a significantly greater chance of passing on their DNA than any other member of the human race!” Just want to highlight this part. Their physical prowess no longer provides athletic individuals an advantage in passing on their DNA from a survival of the fittest advantage, as we aren’t hunting for food or having to fight off other tribes to the death and we can live long enough to reproduce with terrible nutrition but as you said physical prowess is still perceived as instinctual attractive and sexual selection also influences evolution. Peacocks tails have no survival advantages yet have continually grown because of this sexual preference. With sexual selection directing evolution for humans athletic humans will have a greater chance at passing on their DNA because of this perceived attractiveness. Say a talented musician. Humans perceive that as an attractive trait and even though it offers us no survival benefits through sexual selection those genes will be more reproduced and then populated and the population trend will lean towards that. The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller thinks it’s this part of evolution that accounts for rapid increase in brain size. Reply ↓ simonprimal (Post author)17th August 2011 at 12:37 pm Hi Evol, I see where you’re coming from with this argument, but unfortunately I don’t think sexual selection is taking us in the direction of becoming a species of beautiful, intelligent, athletic, talented individuals! Though it is possible that a more athletic individual may have more sexual encounters/partners than a less attractive individual (though I am not sure even this is necessarily the case, based purely on observation – not sure what the actual science says), the invention of contraception means that this does not necessarily equate to more of their DNA being passed on. Again, based purely on observations when out and about in the UK I have not noticed a trend for athletic, attractive parents to have larger numbers of children than overweight, unfit parents. If anything, I’d say the opposite tends to be true. There may well be some truth in the musician theory though – I wonder what % of the population have some Rolling Stones DNA… Reply ↓ Milla 20th September 2011 at 6:07 pm “Although on some deep instinctual Primal level, a healthy, athletic individual may still be more attractive to the opposite sex, their physical prowess no longer provides them with a significantly greater chance of passing on their DNA than any other member of the human race!” That’s very true – as long as the status quo is maintained. Humans are very dependent on their electricity and enmeshed networks that support everything from everyday basic needs to luxuries and leisure. But it’s like a house of cards. A huge, complicated, beautiful – one could say – structure, but it only needs a single blow to collapse into total chaos. We live on a sort of brink, which some people don’t realise, some do, and others worry too much about (e.g. the people who think armageddon will come in 2012). And if something happens that all these crutches we’ve made for ourselves go away, it will indeed be the survival of the fittest. Let’s just hope it doesn’t happen before the sun implodes in a few tens of million years… Reply ↓ Leave a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Sign me up for the newsletter! This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.