NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anybody know whether the gene variations that make for what in evolutionary terms make an attractive male are the same ones that make an attractive female - or are there different genes involved? My hypothesis being that there could be different evolutionary strategies possible so that there could be pairs whose female offspring are more likley to be 'succesful' (in the evolutionary sense) and other pairs whose male offspring are more likely to be succesful because they both have genes that code for positve male traits?

Does anybody know whether the gene variations that make for what in evolutionary terms make an attractive male are the same ones that make an attractive female - or are there different genes involved? My hypothesis being that there could be different evolutionary strategies possible so that there could be pairs whose female offspring are more likley to be 'succesful' (in the evolutionary sense) and other pairs whose male offspring are more likely to be succesful because they both have genes that code for positve male traits?

Read The Red Queen by Matt Ridley for all you need to know.

Short answer - yes.

Considering what 'attractive' is in an evolutionary sense is different for men and women, I shouldn't think the same genes are involved in terms of physical appearance. Things like disease-resistance and other things that cover humans more generally will have the same genes but aren't generally apparent to an observer other than the subject looking healthy. However, I don't know a lot about this, wait til someone who's studied it in depth comes along.

Does anybody know whether the gene variations that make for what in evolutionary terms make an attractive male are the same ones that make an attractive female - or are there different genes involved? My hypothesis being that there could be different evolutionary strategies possible so that there could be pairs whose female offspring are more likley to be 'succesful' (in the evolutionary sense) and other pairs whose male offspring are more likely to be succesful because they both have genes that code for positve male traits?
We honestly don't even know all the genes that are involved in making a human attractive. There's a lot of them.

Generally speaking, there are some shared elements that increase the attractiveness of both males and females. Symmetry is the big one, which I'm sure you've heard of before: male or female, we tend to find individuals with higher degrees of physical symmetry to be more attractive.

There has been a ton of speculation in recent years (particularly since the 1990s) that pheromones may play some part in human attraction. Both males and females have been said to give off and receive pheromones that would influence sex selection. The jury is still out on that one, though.

If you want some "sex-specific" traits, the first place you should look is the sex hormones. They influence the development of secondary sex characteristics, and those characteristics are strong factors in mate selection. For instance, the presence of large eyes, full lips and a delicate chin have been associated with sexual fertility in a woman, and are typically what define an "attractive" female face. However, testosterone (a key male sex hormone) is responsible for "masculinizing" the face, tending toward a more squared jaw and heavier brow, and women who are at the fertile point of their menstrual cycle were shown to rate male faces that reflect high testosterone levels as more attractive.

How much testosterone, estrogen, or other sex hormones your body releases will be largely influenced by your genes.

I guess the short answer to your question is, there are lots and lots and lots of genes involved in attractiveness, and there are lots and lots and lots of possible "right answers" in an evolutionary sense. Especially since some of the genes that makes us more attractive to the eye may also DECREASE our fitness in other ways. (Testosterone, for instance, is highly toxic and can encourage dangerous behaviors that would decrease the survival potential of the individual. So having a genetic make up that results in higher testosterone levels could be both good and bad for your evolutionary prospects.)

*snip*

The first place to look is the X & Y chromosomes, not hormones.

The first place to look is the X & Y chromosomes, not hormones.
If you want to look at physical attractiveness, I think the first place you should look is the direct causes. Start with the development of particular features, and work backward through the immediate cause, to what caused that, to what caused that, and so forth. It's better than starting with an assumption that X gene MUST CAUSE X feature, and then trying to work all the way forward to see if it actually hooks up.

It's also a mistake to assume that the chromosomes will necessarily lead to what we view as "normal" sex differentiation. There are a surprising number of ways that the connection between sex chromosomes and sex phenotype can be disconnected.

If you want to look at physical attractiveness, I think the first place you should look is the direct causes. Start with the development of particular features, and work backward through the immediate cause, to what caused that, to what caused that, and so forth. It's better than starting with an assumption that X gene MUST CAUSE X feature, and then trying to work all the way forward to see if it actually hooks up.

It's also a mistake to assume that the chromosomes will necessarily lead to what we view as "normal" sex differentiation. There are a surprising number of ways that the connection between sex chromosomes and sex phenotype can be disconnected.

I didn't know we were limiting this to physical attractiveness.

Thank you all for such erudite answers so far. I suppose it is quite a complex question, and if it did work to much extent you would end up with some dimorphism (is that the right word?) within the sexes which I don't think has been observed in any species.

Thank you all for such erudite answers so far. I suppose it is quite a complex question, and if it did work to much extent you would end up with some dimorphism (is that the right word?) within the sexes which I don't think has been observed in any species.

Yes it has - think hemophilia.

I didn't know we were limiting this to physical attractiveness.
*shrug*

We don't have to, I suppose. My answer would be the same. Look at the feature you're interested in, then work backwards to the cause. Much better than trying to assume a cause and then work forward (in my personal opinion).

Yes it has - think hemophilia.

Isn't that a difference between the sexes rather than within a particular gender - unless in the sense that some men have haemophilia and some don't? I would expect more rather all the members of a gender fitting a classic bell curve you would get two fairly distinct clusters of traits within that gender.

*shrug*

We don't have to, I suppose. My answer would be the same. Look at the feature you're interested in, then work backwards to the cause. Much better than trying to assume a cause and then work forward (in my personal opinion).

Ahhh similar then to that old standard? You know the one, it goes summit like this:

'If you want to know what your woman will look like when she gets older, look at her Mum'

I got beaten for doing just that, but hey at least now I know!:D

Isn't that a difference between the sexes rather than within a particular gender - unless in the sense that some men have haemophilia and some don't? I would expect more rather all the members of a gender fitting a classic bell curve you would get two fairly distinct clusters of traits within that gender.

Dimorphism is the difference between genders of the same species - that may be my confusion.

*shrug*

We don't have to, I suppose. My answer would be the same. Look at the feature you're interested in, then work backwards to the cause. Much better than trying to assume a cause and then work forward (in my personal opinion).

Yet the feature we're interested in here is genetic variation and whether there's a difference - the answer would be yes since genes group to form chromosomes and that makes a large difference between male and female.

To start from physical attractiveness is such an open question that it's nere impossible to answer, but we can point to chromosome differences to establish where that difference might stem from.