NationStates Jolt Archive

If a mutation occurred the gave some males of a species say blue hair. This trait would be obvious but for this thought experiment neither improves or reduces the 'fitness' of the male. What mechanisms would females of the species use to decide whether this was an attractive trait, as it was something new that they had not encountered before?

If a mutation occurred that gave some males of a species, say, blue hair. This trait would be obvious but, for this thought experiment, neither improves nor reduces the 'fitness' of the male. What mechanisms would females of the species use to decide whether this was an attractive trait, as it was something new they had not encountered before?

Are you playing Mommy and Daddy with your troll dolls again?

I'd answer...

Many different factors under many different circumstances.

I've also edited your post for grammar.

Are you playing Mommy and Daddy with your troll dolls again?

I'd answer...

Many different factors under many different circumstances.

I've also edited your post for grammar.

Ironically I am busy proof reading something for publication, so didn't take much time with my grammar. What sparked my interested is an article on the New Scientist website - which says that female wolves found black fur (which came from interbreeding with dogs) 'sexy'. However, not being a subscriber I cannot read the article.

Uhh... Wuh?

Human =/= Wolf
If a human female were to mate with a blue haired human male; many factors would come into play... Mostly psychological; such as cultural recognition/ coditioning per example: a female fan of Anime, or what ever may float any random woman's boat.

O.P. is a moot point.

Ironically I am busy proof reading something for publication, so didn't take much time with my grammar. What sparked my interested is an article on the New Scientist website - which says that female wolves found black fur (which came from interbreeding with dogs) 'sexy'. However, not being a subscriber I cannot read the article.

I can't read the article either alas, for anyone else interested, this is as much as can be read:

A wolf's dark pelt is a gift from the dogs
29 September 2008
Peter Aldhous
Magazine issue 2675
THEY may not be man's best friend, but wolves in North America do have a little dog in them.

Geneticists investigating the relationships between members of the dog family have found that wolves with black pelts owe their distinctive coloration to a mutation that first arose in domestic dogs.

Domestic dogs were bred from the grey wolf Canis lupus, but exactly when and where that domestication took place, and how various modern breeds of dog relate to wolves, has been a matter of debate.

Now Robert Wayne at the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues are revealing these relationships. The team use DNA chips - which are able to examine some 53,000 genetic variants - to determine which animals are most similar genetically.

The results so far have shown that domestic dogs are most closely related to wolves from the Middle East. If domestication took place elsewhere as ..

Anyhoo, I'm off.

If a mutation occurred the gave some males of a species say blue hair. This trait would be obvious but for this thought experiment neither improves or reduces the 'fitness' of the male.

If it affects their attractiveness to potential mates then it most certainly does affect the males' fitness.

What mechanisms would females of the species use to decide whether this was an attractive trait, as it was something new that they had not encountered before?

There's probably no simple answer to this: there'd be a variety of factors involved.

*Dyes hair blue*

I'll conduct the experiment and report to you on the outcome.

Is the "species" in your thought experiment able to actually see colour, or just note "blue" as "shade variant"? Is the blue hair different in texture or growth? Does it smell different? Taste different? Shed faster? Is it linked to any other characteristic (say, for example, vocal range) that does not affect the "fitness" of the male? Is it apparent in newborns, or does it appear at a later stage, and if so, when?

As a female of the human species -- and thus, obviously, able to speak for all females of all species -- I'm gonna hafta say, Define Your Terms, Mate.

Or possibly Not Mate, depending on how you define 'em.

As a female of the human species -- and thus, obviously, able to speak for all females of all species -- I'm gonna hafta say, Define Your Terms, Mate.

Or possibly Not Mate, depending on how you define 'em.

I think he was thinking along the lines would females be more attracted to males with blue hair more than males of other hair colours.

What I am really thinking of is; how do we make a choice when we have no information of whether it is of benefit or not? Presumably some would find blue hair attractive some would not, but how would the choice be made - are we actually capable of making random choices?

Is the "species" in your thought experiment able to actually see colour, or just note "blue" as "shade variant"? Is the blue hair different in texture or growth? Does it smell different? Taste different? Shed faster? Is it linked to any other characteristic (say, for example, vocal range) that does not affect the "fitness" of the male? Is it apparent in newborns, or does it appear at a later stage, and if so, when?

As a female of the human species -- and thus, obviously, able to speak for all females of all species -- I'm gonna hafta say, Define Your Terms, Mate.

Or possibly Not Mate, depending on how you define 'em.

In terms someone from the fictional continent of Australia can relate to:

If a male bower bird brought a potential mate something shiny and completely novel that glowed in a colour she could see but had never seen before - would she like it and consider him a good mate for finding it. Is novelty alone enough to make a choice, or would she just ignore it and use other factors to make a choice?

In terms someone from the fictional continent of Australia can relate to:

If a male bower bird brought a potential mate something shiny and completely novel that glowed in a colour she could see but had never seen before - would she like it and consider him a good mate for finding it. Is novelty alone enough to make a choice, or would she just ignore it and use other factors to make a choice?

The asnwer to that would be. I dunno. I guess you'd have to norrow it down to a particular speices, abnd then we need experts on the social customs of that species.

Your question is too broad man, narrow it down for us.

The asnwer to that would be. I dunno. I guess you'd have to norrow it down to a particular speices, abnd then we need experts on the social customs of that species.

Your question is too broad man, narrow it down for us.

I am having a thick day so I am actually struggling to explain what it is I am trying to get at.

What I am really thinking of is; how do we make a choice when we have no information of whether it is of benefit or not? Presumably some would find blue hair attractive some would not, but how would the choice be made - are we actually capable of making random choices?

Do you really mean to use the word 'choice'? I can't see how someone's preference for a particular characteristic is something they choose. I suspect that people are born with their preferences, and that the variety of preferences helps to ensure a more varied gene pool.

I am having a thick day so I am actually struggling to explain what it is I am trying to get at.

Ahh yes, the thick day. :D

What I am really thinking of is; how do we make a choice when we have no information of whether it is of benefit or not? Presumably some would find blue hair attractive some would not, but how would the choice be made - are we actually capable of making random choices?

Ahhh I'm getting ya.

In us humans I would say sure. Why prefer one genre of music over another?

I love 'The Blues' I even know what it is about it that grabs me, it is the sound of the guitar. I love Ska and some types of Soul and Northen Soul, for the samse reason, yep the sound of the trumpet.

Or more particulary the sound of both instruments within those genres of music. Why I like Ska trumpet and Blues guitar any better than Jazz trumpet and Spanish guitar, *shrug* I donno. Nature and nurture I would suppose.

Allow me to use my form of logic.

Naturally, evolution results in a woman wanting to mate with a male that is most likely to produce the most health babies. Those babies are most likely to be able to procreate healthily, prosper and carry on the parents genes.

So, We can assume that in the initial generation, excusing conscious decision of a woman saying "Blue hair is hotter" (because blue hair is not in our evolutionary sub-concious, a woman would not be particularly receptive or repulsive), that a woman is equally likely to give herself to a blue haired as black haired.

A good way to think of it: Is the interaction of a person of Western decent with a person of Asian decent. I am of European decent, and I find that the most physically attractive women are those also of European decent. This is probably due to evolutionary changes (for example, White skinned people may have been able to survive better in Europe) or social things (For example, social prejudice against Asians (stemming from the communities evolutionary changes)). So, If there were blue haired people in our evolutionary progress, I would think that it is entirely likely that they would die off, or atleast never become a dominant 'species'.

None of the above is meant in anyway racist, but rather a comment on Evolution and social interaction with it. I do not have any issues with any Asians and if I met an Asian that I found attractive (on a physical level plus emotional level) I would not hold back. It is saying that on a physical level our likes are influenced by the 'survival of the fittest' model.

I was thinking you meant involuntary attraction. So a characteristic that was shared by infants and some adults might make the adults attractive at an unconscious level -- like advertisers tending to go for models with big eyes, or some females having a preference for a particular physical type (I read years ago, and have no intention of sourcing, that the higher the human female's intelligence, the more likely they are to go for the silhouette that screams "nerd".)

With bower-birds, incidentally, I seem to remember a study saying that novelty is an attraction. Again, no source and no intention of hunting for it.

But I can tell you from experience that it's certainly true for human teenagers.:D

....(I read years ago, and have no intention of sourcing, that the higher the human female's intelligence, the more likely they are to go for the silhouette that screams "nerd".)

With bower-birds, incidentally, I seem to remember a study saying that novelty is an attraction. Again, no source and no intention of hunting for it.

But I can tell you from experience that it's certainly true for human teenagers.:D

This is why I like smart women and shiny things.

I don't know why, but for the past 2 years, I have found red haired women the best looking. I have no idea why, and no other bloke I have talked to has agreed.

I have dark brown hair... Confused much?

I don't know why, but for the past 2 years, I have found red haired women the best looking. I have no idea why, and no other bloke I have talked to has agreed.

I have dark brown hair... Confused much?

Funny, I was having this discussion with a couple of people about a week ago. They found red haired women to be attractive, I said that in my experience every red haired women I had come across was a bitch and not worth the time, they concluded that it may be me rather than them. Though upon further discussion they were talking about Strawberry blond, which I have not met a bitchy women with strawberry blond hair, I was thinking of natural red hair.

If a mutation occurred the gave some males of a species say blue hair. This trait would be obvious but for this thought experiment neither improves or reduces the 'fitness' of the male. What mechanisms would females of the species use to decide whether this was an attractive trait, as it was something new that they had not encountered before?

Fashion magazines. *nod*

You will kindly note that it is not red hair. It is "Titian". Or "flame". Russet, or chestnut. Or "auburn", or "copper". Or "all the colours of autumn leaves".

I point this out purely in the interests of accuracy. I have, of course, no personal bias in this matter.

You will kindly note that it is not red hair. It is "Titian". Or "flame". Russet, or chestnut. Or "auburn", or "copper". Or "all the colours of autumn leaves".

I point this out purely in the interests of accuracy. I have, of course, no personal bias in this matter.

It doesn't matter what it is called, just thinking about that red (or variant) haired lady I saw at work today does it :p

So either I am sexually deprived and my drunkenness is exaggerating my phallus induced emotions
Or I am just sexually deprived...

Funny, I was having this discussion with a couple of people about a week ago. They found red haired women to be attractive, I said that in my experience every red haired women I had come across was a bitch and not worth the time, they concluded that it may be me rather than them. Though upon further discussion they were talking about Strawberry blond, which I have not met a bitchy women with strawberry blond hair, I was thinking of natural red hair.

Don't insult my potential future love interests like that! :mad:

I have actually thought about it a bit, and have decided it could be because of an unfulfilled interest I had a couple of years ago with a red haired friend. It never eventuated because I was an idiot and didn't call her within the initial 72 hours of hookup - I was stupid, and nervous and stuff (we all know the rule, that after hooking up with a lady, if you want to turn it into a relationship, you must contact them no more than 24 hours and no less than 72 hours after)

You will kindly note that it is not red hair. It is "Titian". Or "flame". Russet, or chestnut. Or "auburn", or "copper". Or "all the colours of autumn leaves".

I point this out purely in the interests of accuracy. I have, of course, no personal bias in this matter.

Point taking, being the lowly male of the species I have very little knowledge of hair colour (brown, black, red, blond, purple etc), I only know different blond colours because a friend of mine changes her colour every few moths or so.

But knowing this difference may just open up a new section to me, whether they want me to be looking at these new sections is an entirely different matter.

Don't insult my potential future love interests like that! :mad:

I have actually thought about it a bit, and have decided it could be because of an unfulfilled interest I had a couple of years ago with a red haired friend. It never eventuated because I was an idiot and didn't call her within the initial 72 hours of hookup - I was stupid, and nervous and stuff (we all know the rule, that after hooking up with a lady, if you want to turn it into a relationship, you must contact them no more than 24 hours and no less than 72 hours after)

Tell you what Lapse, you get a love interest in the future with a variant of red hair and I will change my status.

Three days Lapse, thats quite a bit of time not to do anything. If you still have her number you should call her, you won't lose anything if she rejects you.

So, If there were blue haired people in our evolutionary progress, I would think that it is entirely likely that they would die off, or atleast never become a dominant 'species'

Not quite sure on that one. There are plenty of people who find members of other 'races' attractive.

I find the opposite would be true, but like you I am only going my own subjective experiance.

Funny, I was having this discussion with a couple of people about a week ago. They found red haired women to be attractive, I said that in my experience every red haired women I had come across was a bitch and not worth the time, they concluded that it may be me rather than them. Though upon further discussion they were talking about Strawberry blond, which I have not met a bitchy women with strawberry blond hair, I was thinking of natural red hair.

Hehe yeah coz the colour of the hair is a genetic clue to a persons 'bitchiness'.

Three days Lapse, thats quite a bit of time not to do anything. If you still have her number you should call her, you won't lose anything if she rejects you.

Ah yes, that would be good:
"Oh Hey, <her name>, how are you? Cool. Hey, It's <my name> here... Uhh... I went to college with you 2 years ago... no, that's not me... nor that... well, we were quite close for a while and hooked up a couple of times... Yes, I'm the one who was too much of an idiot to call you even though we both knew it would have been more... No, not <name>, It's <my name>. oh.. you don't remember... oh... well... do you want to catch up anyway? no? What? Your married? and have a child? plus another on the way? oh.. well.. wanna have some casual sex anyway? cool... meet you at the hotel, midday Wednesday."

hmm.. can't really see it happening, especially as I don't actually have her number.

Oh, I was young and stupid. However, have learnt from my mistakes.

Hehe yeah coz the colour of the hair is a genetic clue to a persons 'bitchiness'.

I did clarify it in my experience. Now I know I am drawing a long bow stating that and I am definite that it is merely a coincidence that every women I have come across with red hair is a bitch and not every women who has red hair is one. But I did say it was in my experience, and I did say that it was concluded by these guys that it may have been me rather than them.

Ah yes, that would be good:
"Oh Hey, <her name>, how are you? Cool. Hey, It's <my name> here... Uhh... I went to college with you 2 years ago... no, that's not me... nor that... well, we were quite close for a while and hooked up a couple of times... Yes, I'm the one who was too much of an idiot to call you even though we both knew it would have been more... No, not <name>, It's <my name>. oh.. you don't remember... oh... well... do you want to catch up anyway? no? What? Your married? and have a child? plus another on the way? oh.. well.. wanna have some casual sex anyway? cool... meet you at the hotel, midday Wednesday."

hmm.. can't really see it happening, especially as I don't actually have her number.

Oh, I was young and stupid. However, have learnt from my mistakes.

lol, well I did say you would have nothing to lose, but good to hear you know better now.

You will kindly note that it is not red hair. It is "Titian". Or "flame". Russet, or chestnut. Or "auburn", or "copper". Or "all the colours of autumn leaves".
Or RGB #FF0000, in the interest of ultimate political correctness.

Or RGB #FF0000, in the interest of ultimate political correctness.

Ohhh far too nerdy for here!

The way I see it, there would be a portion of the female population that would find the new hair colour more attractive, and another portion that would not.

Now, if the blue hair was evolutionarily advantageous, or was linked to genes that were, these couples wpould eventually outbreed the other couples.

So, what we have here is evolution breeding for two things: blue hair in males, and an attraction to blue hair in females. There are two genetic characteristics being opted for in this case: one physical, and the other behavioural. And they would be complementary, by that I mean that you can't have one without the other.

The way I see it, there would be a portion of the female population that would find the new hair colour more attractive, and another portion that would not.



But why would they find it attractive or not attractive? If it was a new trait to the species how could they have a preference either way?

But why would they find it attractive or not attractive? If it was a new trait to the species how could they have a preference either way?

There doesn't have to be a reason. Mutations are supposedly random, so the mutation to be attracted to blue hair would also be random.

There doesn't have to be a reason. Mutations are supposedly random, so the mutation to be attracted to blue hair would also be random.

Does there need to be a mutation? If I dyed my hair blue and then people were attracted to it does that mean there was a mutation? Why can't they be more of a behavioural thing going on here?

There doesn't have to be a reason. Mutations are supposedly random, so the mutation to be attracted to blue hair would also be random.

That is actually getting to the heart of what I am trying to get to. Clearly a mutation could arise that would favour attraction to blue haired males, but until that happens would it be ignored because there was no "attracted to blue haired males" 'gene' or would it be favoured because there might be an existing "favour novelty" 'gene'?

Does there need to be a mutation? If I dyed my hair blue and then people were attracted to it does that mean there was a mutation? Why can't they be more of a behavioural thing going on here?

There doesn't have to be a mutation to prefer certain behaviours or physical characteristics. But in the case of the OP, we're looking at evolutionary traits. But the fact that you can do that (dye your hair blue and go to the bar where somebody will say "I like your hair' and attempt to breed with you) implies that there is already some sort of behaviour in humans for novelty in terms of hair colour. Now, in my previous example, we saw that some behaviour can be selected for evolutionarily. So, I think we can safely say that some of this behaviour could easily be partly genetic in origin.

That is actually getting to the heart of what I am trying to get to. Clearly a mutation could arise that would favour attraction to blue haired males, but until that happens would it be ignored because there was no "attracted to blue haired males" 'gene' or would it be favoured because there might be an existing "favour novelty" 'gene'?

I would go more with the novelty gene. Since mutations are essentially novel, organisms that select for novelty in their mates would have a highewr rate of genetic mutation, I would think, which would give an evolutionary advantage. It would aslo be more general. The neophilia gene would react to any novelty, while the 'attracted to blue hair' gene would only react to blue hair.

I don't have the facilities to test it, but I would hypothesise that most organism populations have a segemnt of their population that is attracted to novelty.

Or RGB #FF0000, in the interest of ultimate political correctness.

I don't want PC, I want poetry! :(

Yeah. Considering how us coppernobs get rubbished, life's looking dismal for the blue-hairs.

Until somebody rich/famous/powerful has a blue-haired kid.

Childrens' authors start including interesting blue-hairs in their books. Blue-haired kid models get shown in the good clothes in sales catalogues. A "bluey" rock star hits the top. Blue is beaut.

And on NSG somebody confesses that, y'know, it's strange, but blue hair doesn't actually do anything for them ...

Thing is, I don't think blue hair is a powerful enough mutation; not likely to set off any strong instinctive response, because it doesn't really change the way things are. A novelty for a generation, perhaps, but after that, part of the scenery.

If your mutation was something that would change the power structures in the human tribe -- humans developed who were telepaths, or naturally amphibious, for example -- then, I think, others might feel instinctive attraction or aversion. But hair's just hair.

If a mutation occurred the gave some males of a species say blue hair. This trait would be obvious but for this thought experiment neither improves or reduces the 'fitness' of the male. What mechanisms would females of the species use to decide whether this was an attractive trait, as it was something new that they had not encountered before?

Something similar may have already happened in human evolution. Blond hair is a fairly new trait among humans. There is a new theory as to why it happened and how it was an advantage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article735078.ece

...The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000-11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men.

Lighter hair colours, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding and numbers increased dramatically, according to the research, published under the aegis of the University of St Andrews.

“Human hair and eye colour are unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe (and their) origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicates some kind of selection,” says the study by Peter Frost, a Canadian anthropologist. Frost adds that the high death rate among male hunters “increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of colour traits.”

Frost’s theory, to be published this week in Evolution and Human Behavior, the academic journal, was supported by Professor John Manning, a specialist in evolutionary psychology at the University of Central Lancashire. “Hair and eye colour tend to be uniform in many parts of the world, but in Europe there is a welter of variants,” he said. “The mate choice explanation now being put forward is, in my mind, close to being correct.”

Frost’s theory is also backed up by a separate scientific analysis of north European genes carried out at three Japanese universities, which has isolated the date of the genetic mutation that resulted in blond hair to about 11,000 years ago. ...

That is actually getting to the heart of what I am trying to get to. Clearly a mutation could arise that would favour attraction to blue haired males, but until that happens would it be ignored because there was no "attracted to blue haired males" 'gene' or would it be favoured because there might be an existing "favour novelty" 'gene'?

Back in the 80's Garry Numan had blue hair, many people liked it.

I don't want PC, I want poetry! :(

Yeah. Considering how us coppernobs get rubbished, life's looking dismal for the blue-hairs.

Until somebody rich/famous/powerful has a blue-haired kid.

Childrens' authors start including interesting blue-hairs in their books. Blue-haired kid models get shown in the good clothes in sales catalogues. A "bluey" rock star hits the top. Blue is beaut.

And on NSG somebody confesses that, y'know, it's strange, but blue hair doesn't actually do anything for them ...

Thing is, I don't think blue hair is a powerful enough mutation; not likely to set off any strong instinctive response, because it doesn't really change the way things are. A novelty for a generation, perhaps, but after that, part of the scenery.

If your mutation was something that would change the power structures in the human tribe -- humans developed who were telepaths, or naturally amphibious, for example -- then, I think, others might feel instinctive attraction or aversion. But hair's just hair.

Wait!!!

You have a variant of red hair???

Well then I may have to reconsider my experiences with red haired women.

There doesn't have to be a mutation to prefer certain behaviours or physical characteristics. But in the case of the OP, we're looking at evolutionary traits. But the fact that you can do that (dye your hair blue and go to the bar where somebody will say "I like your hair' and attempt to breed with you) implies that there is already some sort of behaviour in humans for novelty in terms of hair colour. Now, in my previous example, we saw that some behaviour can be selected for evolutionarily. So, I think we can safely say that some of this behaviour could easily be partly genetic in origin.

Yeah, fair enough, I don't really have any expertise in this matter but what you are saying sounds plausible.

Does there need to be a mutation? If I dyed my hair blue and then people were attracted to it does that mean there was a mutation? Why can't they be more of a behavioural thing going on here?

Indeed. This isnt a genetics question what so ever. The question is why do we find certain things sexy?