Dethroning Sexual Selection

Charles Darwin took the ancient pagan beliefs of evolution,  changed the meaning of natural selection, then presented the product as his theory. It needed rescuing from the get-go, so he also bundled sexual selection with it at no extra charge.

To oversimplify, the best-looking critters are chosen to mate and spread their genes while the unattractive or drab should disappear. It works to some extent in the animal kingdom and is supposed to apply to humans as well. Although it sounds plausible on the surface, sexual selection does not work.

Victorian Fashion, Columbian magazine, February 1844, from Copyright Expired

A recent study shows that the concept was never valid and not handled properly in the scientific community. Something that does not fit the purely physical aspect of sexual selection is the fact that people do not select mates strictly on appearance. Women want men who can be providers, for example. (It may be surprising, but it has been suggested that abusive men attract some women because they present self-confidence and go after what they want.) There are ideals for physical attractiveness in both men and women, but more average people are often chosen for mates.

I have been married twice, and I'm no prize. Maybe being able to make them laugh had something to do with those romances. In fact, I met my second and final wife online; I like to say that we knew each other "inside out," soul and spirit. We loved each other before we met physically. That goes against sexual selection.

It is interesting that Charlie expected various cultures to have different standards of what is considered attractive, but quite a few criteria crossed cultural boundaries. This should not be surprising to biblical creationists, as it may very well be that the Creator designed us to be attracted across cultural boundaries.

Darwin reasoned that the standards of human beauty would vary considerably in different parts of the world because these judgments evolved as a result of local sexual selection pressures. However, in contrast to Darwin’s prediction, and that of other evolutionists, recent research has demonstrated that judgments of human beauty are remarkably similar regardless of race, sex, or culture. This supports the conclusion that standards of human beauty were hard wired by our Creator in Adam and Eve. Most of the research in this area focuses on anatomical features of the face, but standards of beauty for other bodily features are likewise very uniform regardless of race, sex, or culture.

To read the rest of this interesting paper, head on over to "Darwin’s Sexual Selection Theory of Humans Falsified."