How do extremely attractive individuals come from mediocre, if not ugly, parents?

[Mokele]

There's also the issue how how much effort an individual puts into their appearance. Some folks will spend 2-3 hours in the morning getting their look just right, others will just toss on any clean clothes and stagger out the door. In women, the former is far more common, because they've basically been told by our patriarchal society that their only value is in their appearance.

[Sisyphus]

I very much doubt any of it is as simple as Mendellian inheritance of a single or a few different genes. Humans have tens of thousands of genes. There isn't a "nose gene," let alone one gene that determines multiple aspects of "attractiveness." Often changing one will have a noticeable effect (which is how Mendellian inheritance was discovered in the first place), but the "full package" is a ridiculously complicated interaction of all your genes.

[mooeypoo]

Good call. The dude, when I met him, was utterly flaming. But why is that? Why is there such a strong stereotype of beautiful, if not womanly gorgeous, men being gay? Maybe there's proof of a "beauty" allele(s) that either men or women can inherit, which may also premeditate a sexual appetite for men.

Actually, I'm not sure it's the fact he's 'beatiful,if not womanly gorgeous' seeing as I (not having a crush on him ) don't think he is.

 

It is true, however, that some men seem to give off that 'vibe', as do some women. Usually I wait to judge through a personal meeting - so I see the way they carry themselves, etc. It's an interesting question though and if my "gaydar" would be *always* correct (which it's not) then I might've been convinced that there was a pattern there, but it's not always corrent. In fact, it's probably more wrong than it is right, and when it is right, it's usually due to the fact I use this 'gaydar' on men an women who frequent the same clubs as I do, which are gay clubs.

 

See, that's a pretty decent indication, right there.

 

I have read about recessive genes, and referenced it in my post. I've also read the other answers, but really, I think saying "sexiness is relative" or "how attractive one appears can be environmental" is just an excuse to not delve deeper into how we inherit genes that actually cause someone to be more physically attractive regardless of the environment, and inherit the kind of physical appeal that spans across cultures and is universal at the core. Basic example: facial symmetry. A sultry voice for guys. A fey voice for women. A filled out body (rather than scrawny). Height (more subjective than the others, but society tends to like tall models).

I disagree with you, but that's less relevant than my other points that I was making earlier:

 

1. "Attractiveness" has to do with how you carry yourself as well as how you're "built". For that matter, if this guy would have neglected himself completely, become fat and had his hair longer (and not in a stylish haircut), then you might've not said he was as beautiful.
   
2. I do agree, though, that some people are more 'nice looking' than others and sometimes you can see it *despite* things like clothing or being overweight. What I was saying earlier, though, is that it's enough that the daughter/son have 3-4 *slight* improvements in their physique to get them to be EXTREMELY different than their parents in terms of beauty.
    
   Think about it, how do you usually "ugly" someone for a theater show or movie? You give them ugly overly-thick (and unsuitable to their faces usually) glasses, have their hair tangled and bad clothing. All those have nothing to do with genes. Then, you might put a small bump on their nose, a few zits and have them scowl. Those are genetic, but they're relatively *minor* changes from a previously different face.
    
   So, small changes *can* absolutely change the facial features of a person -- and produce a beautiful child to "ugly" parents. Specially seeing as your definition of ugly is not *that* different than your definition of beautiful, judging from the photos you posted
   

I think you're getting too hung up on the genetic side. It's true that there are people who are more prone to things that society considers as "more beautiful" but those are not *MAJOR* changes from a previous generation, and the fact this guy has VERY well-maintained stylish haircut, no eyeglasses, stylish clothing and his smile and demeanor imply confidence, you need to admit that there's *some* part that isn't genetic.

 

 

It's not just one claim that "trumps" it all.. the combination of many aspects together makes this a not-too-surprising conclusion. That's my point

 

 

 

~moo

[CityandLights]

I very much doubt any of it is as simple as Mendellian inheritance of a single or a few different genes. Humans have tens of thousands of genes. There isn't a "nose gene," let alone one gene that determines multiple aspects of "attractiveness." Often changing one will have a noticeable effect (which is how Mendellian inheritance was discovered in the first place), but the "full package" is a ridiculously complicated interaction of all your genes.

 

 

I suppose that ridiculously complicated interaction is too menacing for anyone to ever attempt to map out? I wouldn't be surprised if one day the Human Genome Project found correlations for certain traits, despite how ridiculous the relationship might be between the thousands of genes that are involved in how one appears (irregardless of one taking care of him or herself, the original body).

 

Here's food for thought: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24625

[mooeypoo]

I suppose that ridiculously complicated interaction is too menacing for anyone to ever attempt to map out?

We do map it out, but you seem to be asking for a specific gene for "beauty" which, as we are trying to point out, doesn't exist.

 

It's a mixture of many aspects that are genetic and social and external that makes someone attractive.

 

When I was in 10th grade we had a girl in class that had a twin. They looked almost perfectly alike, with VERY small variations. And yet, one (her sister, actually) was - in the opinion of most of my friends and myself - just strikingly beautiful while the other was relatively simple-looking.

 

It was *some* genetic aspects (perhaps one had her nose just a *little* bit different and her lips *a tiny bit* different) and some social aspects (the sister was *much* more confident, and gave off this confidence vibe noticeably, unlike her twin) and external features (let's just say the "how to math colors and dress stylishly" trait is, quite obviously, not genetic, specially not in their case).

 

As a result, you start from almost-perfect twins (which are more "copies" of another another, genetically, than parents-kids) and yet one twin is strikingly attractive and the other is not.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if one day the Human Genome Project found correlations for certain traits, despite how ridiculous the relationship might be between the thousands of genes that are involved in how one appears (irregardless of one taking care of him or herself, the original body).

I would be surprised, because traits, as we keep saying, are mixtures of things. When we give you subjects to read we don't mean to be a pain in the behind - we intend for you to see that the research into the genome shows not correlations between traits-genes ('beauty' gene, 'homosexual' gene, 'short hair' gene) but rather biological traits that are much more localized. A grouping of a lot of those traits can lead to a bigger one that may result in a person being considered attractive, or a person being beautiful, etc.

 

You're making this a bit more simple than it actually is. We would all *love* to find a gene for every trait (though that *would* create some ethical dilemmas, which we won't get into in this thread) but that's just not the way the genome works.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

Oh, sure, correlations for traits. I think there are only a couple of genes for eye color, for example. But there's more to eyes than color, etc. I just meant that answering "why is this person attractive" (however you define it) is going to be very complicated, if only because "attractive" has many and subtle aspects.

[SH3RL0CK]

I suppose that ridiculously complicated interaction is too menacing for anyone to ever attempt to map out? I wouldn't be surprised if one day the Human Genome Project found correlations for certain traits, despite how ridiculous the relationship might be between the thousands of genes that are involved in how one appears (irregardless of one taking care of him or herself, the original body).

 

But it is also much more complex than simply the genes as well.

 

Consider that proper diet during childhood is a very major component of an individuals height (one item you keep bringing up) at maturity. IIRC, lots of protein during key intervals of childhood growth results in being tall as an adult. Diet is possibly more important than genetics with regards to this, if you doubt that consider that the average man during the Roman empire was only about 5ft 3 in tall.

 

And proper diet is a major component determining if an individual is overweight. Overweight is also determined by excercise, and a muscular build (developed by excercise) is generally considered attractive as well.

 

The confidence and attitude of an individual determines attractiveness as well. While there could be a genetic component here this isn't entirely genetic as well.

 

And even if the genetic formula for attractiveness existed, what would be the point of utilizing it when other factors (diet, excercise, medical care, accident avoidance, etc.) are vastly more important? Some of the most unhappy people are also those considered most attractive, and the reverse can be true as well.

[Sisyphus]

Diet is possibly more important than genetics with regards to this, if you doubt that consider that the average man during the Roman empire was only about 5ft 3 in tall.

 

More recently than that, too. The average British officer in WW1 was about 3 inches taller than the average enlisted man, due solely to differences in nourishment between social classes. The average adult male height during revolutionary France was under five feet tall.

[CityandLights]

Actually, I'm not sure it's the fact he's 'beatiful,if not womanly gorgeous' seeing as I (not having a crush on him ) don't think he is.

 

It is true, however, that some men seem to give off that 'vibe', as do some women. Usually I wait to judge through a personal meeting - so I see the way they carry themselves, etc. It's an interesting question though and if my "gaydar" would be *always* correct (which it's not) then I might've been convinced that there was a pattern there, but it's not always corrent. In fact, it's probably more wrong than it is right, and when it is right, it's usually due to the fact I use this 'gaydar' on men an women who frequent the same clubs as I do, which are gay clubs.

 

See, that's a pretty decent indication, right there.

 

You just called out (correctly) a man being gay over the internet, after only seeing a single picture or two. I think that gives your gaydar some credibility.

 

 

I disagree with you, but that's less relevant than my other points that I was making earlier:

 

1. "Attractiveness" has to do with how you carry yourself as well as how you're "built". For that matter, if this guy would have neglected himself completely, become fat and had his hair longer (and not in a stylish haircut), then you might've not said he was as beautiful.
   
2. I do agree, though, that some people are more 'nice looking' than others and sometimes you can see it *despite* things like clothing or being overweight. What I was saying earlier, though, is that it's enough that the daughter/son have 3-4 *slight* improvements in their physique to get them to be EXTREMELY different than their parents in terms of beauty.
    
   Think about it, how do you usually "ugly" someone for a theater show or movie? You give them ugly overly-thick (and unsuitable to their faces usually) glasses, have their hair tangled and bad clothing. All those have nothing to do with genes. Then, you might put a small bump on their nose, a few zits and have them scowl. Those are genetic, but they're relatively *minor* changes from a previously different face.
    
   So, small changes *can* absolutely change the facial features of a person -- and produce a beautiful child to "ugly" parents. Specially seeing as your definition of ugly is not *that* different than your definition of beautiful, judging from the photos you posted
   

I think you're getting too hung up on the genetic side. It's true that there are people who are more prone to things that society considers as "more beautiful" but those are not *MAJOR* changes from a previous generation, and the fact this guy has VERY well-maintained stylish haircut, no eyeglasses, stylish clothing and his smile and demeanor imply confidence, you need to admit that there's *some* part that isn't genetic.

 

 

It's not just one claim that "trumps" it all.. the combination of many aspects together makes this a not-too-surprising conclusion. That's my point

 

 

 

~moo

 

 

I get the point. But, yes, I am hung up on the genetic aspects, because I'm interested in genetic engineering. I'm currently working on a biomedical engineering/computer science degree (I'm a natural digital systems / computer person, which is why I'm requesting input from biologists.)

 

I know there are many social and environmental factors involved, including taking care of oneself, diet, and exercise, but I understand those already. Those parts don't fascinate me as much because virtually everyone has the ability to change those factors in this time period. The complex relationship between the on/off switches in our DNA and the hundreds of thousands genes we inherited? We're just numbers in a genetic lottery, we don't get to choose our parents--no control at all, not until parents begin to be able to engineer babies. The genetic element is the unknown factor that fascinates me.

 

I'm not looking for someone to say "genetics trumps all," I'm simply wondering what complex relationship of what genetic symposium gave Angelina Jolie her lips, while Brad Pitt has hairline lips. That's not environmental, even if height or perceived attractiveness is more about diet or how well one dresses oneself.

 

Let's write the word "beauty" on a piece of paper. Now, this thread is going to throw it away.

 

I should rephrase the original question, what genes actually ARE involved in ones physical appearance, not necessarily beauty or ugliness, and in what relationships amongst one another. The reason no one has given me any links or whatnot is because no one ****ing knows, there's not enough research or links out there to begin with.

 

The answers I get are just circumventing the genetic aspects of the physical shape of our bodies, I've already said I "get it" in terms of the external aspects involved in how one appears.

 

Saying that genes are involved to a minuscule point of being irrelevant in ones physical appearance is, to me, bullshit. If Halle Berry's wearing sweatpants and a wifebeater, her curves still show through. I don't look like her because the complex relationship between the hundreds of thousands of human genes we share express themselves differently in our bodies, that and I need to work out more, and maybe she had a better diet growing up. Regardless, if she gained 50 pounds and rolled in dirt for a month, I bet you she would still be pleasing to the eye compared to the fictional hunchback Quazi Modo, or some quintessential "unattractive" person.

 

We do map it out, but you seem to be asking for a specific gene for "beauty" which, as we are trying to point out, doesn't exist.

 

By map out, I mean literally listing the genetic relationships between alleles or relate known complex interactions based in the DNA that contributes to physical appearance. So far, no one's done that, nor even given links to any sites that might be relevant to such research. I know it's not that "simple," but isn't that the point of freaking research? Here's an analogy. Finding the cure for cancer or diabetes isn't easy either, arguing of how much genetics, stress, or environment plays into causing the cancer to express itself is irrelevant to making it go away in an individual, it's already there, and arguing is not helping map out the cure... you can still do research on what causes it, and obviously those are both very complex phenotypic entities.

 

It's a mixture of many aspects that are genetic and social and external that makes someone attractive.

 

When I was in 10th grade we had a girl in class that had a twin. They looked almost perfectly alike, with VERY small variations. And yet, one (her sister, actually) was - in the opinion of most of my friends and myself - just strikingly beautiful while the other was relatively simple-looking.

 

It was *some* genetic aspects (perhaps one had her nose just a *little* bit different and her lips *a tiny bit* different) and some social aspects (the sister was *much* more confident, and gave off this confidence vibe noticeably, unlike her twin) and external features (let's just say the "how to math colors and dress stylishly" trait is, quite obviously, not genetic, specially not in their case).

 

As a result, you start from almost-perfect twins (which are more "copies" of another another, genetically, than parents-kids) and yet one twin is strikingly attractive and the other is not.

 

I would be surprised, because traits, as we keep saying, are mixtures of things. When we give you subjects to read we don't mean to be a pain in the behind - we intend for you to see that the research into the genome shows not correlations between traits-genes ('beauty' gene, 'homosexual' gene, 'short hair' gene) but rather biological traits that are much more localized. A grouping of a lot of those traits can lead to a bigger one that may result in a person being considered attractive, or a person being beautiful, etc.

 

You're making this a bit more simple than it actually is. We would all *love* to find a gene for every trait (though that *would* create some ethical dilemmas, which we won't get into in this thread) but that's just not the way the genome works.

 

~moo

 

I love your example, but what genetic components are involved that make the twins look how they look, regardless if one is more confident or sexier than the other? No one knows here, and I will just be redirected to diet / exercise because no one has an answer that's "simple" enough. I know it's not a simple answer, it's more or less a rhetorical question. I'm guessing there's no research in the world going on in this regard? Is it considered veering dangerously close to eugenics? Aryan race-style? Etc.?

 

But it is also much more complex than simply the genes as well.

 

Consider that proper diet during childhood is a very major component of an individuals height (one item you keep bringing up) at maturity. IIRC, lots of protein during key intervals of childhood growth results in being tall as an adult. Diet is possibly more important than genetics with regards to this, if you doubt that consider that the average man during the Roman empire was only about 5ft 3 in tall.

 

And proper diet is a major component determining if an individual is overweight. Overweight is also determined by excercise, and a muscular build (developed by excercise) is generally considered attractive as well.

 

The confidence and attitude of an individual determines attractiveness as well. While there could be a genetic component here this isn't entirely genetic as well.

 

And even if the genetic formula for attractiveness existed, what would be the point of utilizing it when other factors (diet, excercise, medical care, accident avoidance, etc.) are vastly more important? Some of the most unhappy people are also those considered most attractive, and the reverse can be true as well.

 

No matter how minuscule a role genetics plays, if person A's sexual capital is exploited to the fullest (they take care of themselves, eat a proper diet their entire life, grow to their fullest height, wear nice clothes), they might still be less attractive than person B who also maximizes his or her sexual capital due to genetics, assuming both are perceived as equally sexy in confidence and personality and whatnot.

 

Genetics may not be very important, but it's the aspect that fascinates me the most, irregardless of how complex the inner workings are in terms of the role ones thousands of genes play in ones ultimate, corporal end result.

 

Oh, sure, correlations for traits. I think there are only a couple of genes for eye color, for example. But there's more to eyes than color, etc. I just meant that answering "why is this person attractive" (however you define it) is going to be very complicated, if only because "attractive" has many and subtle aspects.

 

Exactly! That's what I'm referring to. Regardless of how complex, the thousands of subtleties are still genetic to a certain range. And the mathematical permutations of all those gene expressions are well over 9,000, which makes them null and pointless of researching according to the attitude of this thread, since environment totally owns genetics.

 

No matter how much make up I wear or well-exercised I am, at the end of the day, I still won't look like Angelina Jolie.

 

Why?

 

Genetics.

 

(And please no one throw the environment/social perception back at me, I know! I'm just saying it's the genetic aspect that I would like to see links about posted here in this thread.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have to point out that it's worth noting "Attractive" is somewhat subjective.

 

First off, it can be totally different in different societies - what's considered attractive in eastern Europe is not necessarily what is attractive in the United States, or Africa, or Japan or China.

 

Somewhat true. Yes, there are some cultural differences, but ask people of different races to rank each other on attractiveness and their judgments tend to agree. There is a large embedded genetic component that is universal across humans. Has something to do with symmetry and smooth skin color.

[mooeypoo]

Somewhat true. Yes, there are some cultural differences, but ask people of different races to rank each other on attractiveness and their judgments tend to agree. There is a large embedded genetic component that is universal across humans. Has something to do with symmetry and smooth skin color.

Are we talking about the western world where everyone seem to be subjected to the same style of "attractive" style in newspapers, magazines, internet stes and tv?

 

Because if we are, then that's a bad example. We're way too interconnected and influencing one another to measure that. Try going to a relatively separate society and measure this effect, and you'll find a MUCH larger difference. That's why I gave the example of eastern europe - you don't need to go as far as remote places in africa or china where they not only have less exposure to the media that influences you and I, but they also have different looks.. just go to eastern europe in places where the influence is *less* predominate and see who they put up as 'beautiful'.

 

I do agree that symmetry is important, as well as skin "softness" or however you'll put it -- but both of these are correctable with wearing certain types of cloths and emphasizing certain aspects using makeup.

 

Some of the actresses and actors that we consider "hot" and "beautiful" can be quite horrifying without makeup on.

 

Just saying.

 

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Bilateral symmetry has been the common "gold standard" measure, consistent across many cultures, not just Western. I recall reading (though Google fails me here) that consistent skin tone had also been recently shown to be another cross-cultural indicator.

 

Of course, there are quite a few culture-specific things, but as I said, ask people of different races to rank each other on attractiveness and their judgments tend to agree. I just wish I could find the reference.

[mooeypoo]

I agree with you generally, I thnk I've read some stuff about that too, but I still maintain that the external factors (like cloths, makeup, your attitude, your "vibe", etc) is as important (if not more) to the consideration of attractiveness.

[blood_pardon]

This question has been on my mind for years' date=' and it's driving me nearly insane. Even if I get the answer, like, "Oh, it's just probability," I still would like a more in depth answer--how?

 

For example, my family has some neighbors named Family A. In family A, the mother is alright-looking, while the father isn't that great looking, but he's a smart guy. The first son of theirs is fairly good-looking, but probably has Asperger's, got a perfect score on the SAT, etc. (He's the only on that actually looks like his parents).The first daughter looks like a downright model, with blonde hair and perfect skin. The second son just blows my mind. He is well over 6'4", Adonis-like, THICK curly-brown hair, not that half-curled bird's nest kind of curls, this boy has hair like you've never seen. Think an African American afro, but with caucasian, brown locks rather than tight, sponge-like material. Despite his size and height, he has a baby face, with big, hooded green eyes, a great smile with small, symmetrical white teeth, and bronze skin. If you gave him the up-down, not only does he have height, but his muscles are defined like a super hero. His legs aren't scrawny, they're thick and filled-out like a model. And his backside? Perfectly shaped, almost like he has the shoulder-wedge of a man but the backside of a female.

 

In family B, the parents are a bit larger, not ugly, but not great looking, either. Though, they have very distinct features. The 6'4" dad has ice-blue, hooded eyes and tan skin, while the mom has strikingly black hair and pale white skin, and both have normal voices. The daughter in family B, however, looks NOTHING like them, with the exception of her father's breath-taking ice-blue eyes. Her face looks like it was perfectly carved by a higher deity, with a straight nose so thinly defined in detail you would think she had plastic surgery (she hasn't). Not only that, but she has a perfect figure, although a bit on the bigger side--but this girl's sexier than a skinny model because she has curves. She's gorgeous. On top of that, she has a voice like I've never heard--a voice that you'd think was fake because, normally, you would only hear it in a porn video--the kind of sexy musicality that is very rare in real life. This girl also got a perfect score on the SAT, I guess I should mention both families are upper-class and intelligent, also.

 

How are gorgeous children born from normal parents? What gives?

 

(I am not a pedophile, these "children" are actually my age. I'm 19.)[/quote']

 

 

Has it seriously not occurred to you that the parents might have been more attractive when they were younger? And that the difference if because you're comparing the young to the old?

 

Mokele's answer is the exact words that I thought before I read response.

[SH3RL0CK]

...

No matter how minuscule a role genetics plays, if person A's sexual capital is exploited to the fullest (they take care of themselves, eat a proper diet their entire life, grow to their fullest height, wear nice clothes), they might still be less attractive than person B who also maximizes his or her sexual capital due to genetics, assuming both are perceived as equally sexy in confidence and personality and whatnot.

 

Well part of my point is that if the point is to improve the lot of humanity, there are better avenues to address, why choose beauty? But you have already answered the question of mine below...

Genetics may not be very important, but it's the aspect that fascinates me the most, irregardless of how complex the inner workings are in terms of the role ones thousands of genes play in ones ultimate, corporal end result.

[Galindo]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't want to spill out too much, but they wake up in the morning looking bad too.

[mv]

Beauty (natural beauty) is an indicator of the health level, specially the power of the immunity system, for each person.

 

There are "beauty" differences between children, given by the DNA compatibility of their parents (usually, the true love between parents, indicates a good DNA compatibility, producing strong immunity system to their children).

 

Fact:

Besides DNA, most important influence (maybe more important than DNA) is given by the quality of life, which is making people look more or less beautiful.

 

Explanation:

- Not enough sleep, too much stress, inadequate food, sedentary etc. will make ugly a previously beautiful person (mainly, by decreasing the power of the immunity system).

- Happy life, without stress, with enough sleep daily, good food, playing into fresh air (doing sport into nature periodically) will make beautiful a previously ugly person (mainly, by increasing the power of the immunity system).

 

Conclusion:

Both, the DNA information received from parents, and mostly the quality of life, are deciding the way we look: more or less beautiful.

Edited January 28, 2010 by mv

[mooeypoo]

Beauty (natural beauty) is an indicator of the health level, specially the power of the immunity system, for each person.

 

There are "beauty" differences between children, given by the DNA compatibility of their parents (usually, the true love between parents, indicates a good DNA compatibility, producing strong immunity system to their children).

 

Fact:

Besides DNA, most important influence (maybe more important than DNA) is given by the quality of life, which is making people look more or less beautiful.

I see your point, but tha'ts not a fact, it's an opinion... to make this factual you need to back it up with some data. I'm not too sure you're entirely correct, either, seeing as we CAN find "poor people" that are considered beautiful and ugly people who are rich.

[pywakit]

Not to in any way put down the families in question, but after looking at those pictures, I would have to say that 'beauty' couldn't be more subjective. After hearing all those gushing and overly descriptive comments, I was rather stunned to see the actual pics.

 

They all look rather ordinary to me. Adonis? Perfect figure? Wow! Not even close.

[StringJunky]

Not to in any way put down the families in question, but after looking at those pictures, I would have to say that 'beauty' couldn't be more subjective. After hearing all those gushing and overly descriptive comments, I was rather stunned to see the actual pics.

 

They all look rather ordinary to me. Adonis? Perfect figure? Wow! Not even close.

 

People see what they want to see and ignore the rest.... from this selection they create a more beautiful composite that often doesn't align with reality when analysed by a group as demonstrated here.

 

I think everybody does it...when we are attracted to someone it is because they have certain and sufficient attributes that fit in with our personal model of perfection and we selectively magnify those desired qualities rendering the negative ones insignificant in our minds.

 

I was going to suggest as an experiment for people to link to a picture of their idea of physical perfection but then I realised it wouldn't be truly representative because people would show images that were considered beautiful by Western media (general consensus) and not honestly follow their own personal instinct for fear of peer disapproval..

 

The OP has demonstrated what we ALL do ALL the time in this field of life.....selection bias.

[mv]

I see your point, but tha'ts not a fact, it's an opinion... to make this factual you need to back it up with some data. I'm not too sure you're entirely correct, either, seeing as we CAN find "poor people" that are considered beautiful and ugly people who are rich.

 

Thank you for your answer, but you forgot to quote my explanation too:

 

- Not enough sleep, too much stress, inadequate food, sedentary etc. will make ugly a previously beautiful person (mainly, by decreasing the power of the immunity system).

- Happy life, without stress, with enough sleep daily, good food, playing into fresh air (doing sport into nature periodically) will make beautiful a previously ugly person (mainly, by increasing the power of the immunity system).

 

It is not about being reach or poor, but about the quality of life (there are poor people that have healthier life than many rich people, it depends on education level, habits, morality, contracted diseases etc.).

 

Also, what I forgot to mention in my opinion above is the time required, which can be longer to become more beautiful, than the time with low/bad quality of life to become less beautiful.

[mooeypoo]

Thank you for your answer, but you forgot to quote my explanation too:

 

- Not enough sleep, too much stress, inadequate food, sedentary etc. will make ugly a previously beautiful person (mainly, by decreasing the power of the immunity system).

- Happy life, without stress, with enough sleep daily, good food, playing into fresh air (doing sport into nature periodically) will make beautiful a previously ugly person (mainly, by increasing the power of the immunity system).

 

It is not about being reach or poor, but about the quality of life (there are poor people that have healthier life than many rich people, it depends on education level, habits, morality, contracted diseases etc.).

 

Also, what I forgot to mention in my opinion above is the time required, which can be longer to become more beautiful, than the time with low/bad quality of life to become less beautiful.

I didn't forget -- your explanation was of the premise, which I disagreed with the fact it's a FACT. And I still do. While I see your point, I disagree with stating it's factual. Unless you base it on actual data and not anecdotal observation, it's not fact, it's opinion.

[TheTruth101]

This question has been on my mind for years, and it's driving me nearly insane. Even if I get the answer, like, "Oh, it's just probability," I still would like a more in depth answer--how?

 

For example, my family has some neighbors named Family A. In family A, the mother is alright-looking, while the father isn't that great looking, but he's a smart guy. The first son of theirs is fairly good-looking, but probably has Asperger's, got a perfect score on the SAT, etc. (He's the only on that actually looks like his parents).The first daughter looks like a downright model, with blonde hair and perfect skin. The second son just blows my mind. He is well over 6'4", Adonis-like, THICK curly-brown hair, not that half-curled bird's nest kind of curls, this boy has hair like you've never seen. Think an African American afro, but with caucasian, brown locks rather than tight, sponge-like material. Despite his size and height, he has a baby face, with big, hooded green eyes, a great smile with small, symmetrical white teeth, and bronze skin. If you gave him the up-down, not only does he have height, but his muscles are defined like a super hero. His legs aren't scrawny, they're thick and filled-out like a model. And his backside? Perfectly shaped, almost like he has the shoulder-wedge of a man but the backside of a female.

 

In family B, the parents are a bit larger, not ugly, but not great looking, either. Though, they have very distinct features. The 6'4" dad has ice-blue, hooded eyes and tan skin, while the mom has strikingly black hair and pale white skin, and both have normal voices. The daughter in family B, however, looks NOTHING like them, with the exception of her father's breath-taking ice-blue eyes. Her face looks like it was perfectly carved by a higher deity, with a straight nose so thinly defined in detail you would think she had plastic surgery (she hasn't). Not only that, but she has a perfect figure, although a bit on the bigger side--but this girl's sexier than a skinny model because she has curves. She's gorgeous. On top of that, she has a voice like I've never heard--a voice that you'd think was fake because, normally, you would only hear it in a porn video--the kind of sexy musicality that is very rare in real life. This girl also got a perfect score on the SAT, I guess I should mention both families are upper-class and intelligent, also.

 

How are gorgeous children born from normal parents? What gives?

 

(I am not a pedophile, these "children" are actually my age. I'm 19.)

 

 

I would not assume "looks" come from both parents alone, we humans have been accumulating or genes/looks for a long time, almost like a snowball that rolls down a hill and continues getting bigger as it gos down.

we started off rough and ugly, and will end the complete opposite as we combine ourselves, just like everything else. In simple English, she could have had a hot grandmother, or just the combo of her grandparents, parents, great grandfather make a good mix....

either way, 2 parents alone dont just contribute, thats why you have millions of little sperm.

 

on a side note, if the pictures on the first page are of this girl and her family, she has her mothers lower face, from the quick first glance i took, everything else looks like its from distance relatives(grandparents or higher)

[Double K]

Thank you for your answer, but you forgot to quote my explanation too:

 

- Not enough sleep, too much stress, inadequate food, sedentary etc. will make ugly a previously beautiful person (mainly, by decreasing the power of the immunity system).

- Happy life, without stress, with enough sleep daily, good food, playing into fresh air (doing sport into nature periodically) will make beautiful a previously ugly person (mainly, by increasing the power of the immunity system).

 

It is not about being reach or poor, but about the quality of life (there are poor people that have healthier life than many rich people, it depends on education level, habits, morality, contracted diseases etc.).

 

Also, what I forgot to mention in my opinion above is the time required, which can be longer to become more beautiful, than the time with low/bad quality of life to become less beautiful.

 

Whilst these points will tend towards being correct, there are factors to consider here. Firstly, what is ugly? What is beautiful? Someone with no teeth may be considered ugly but might fit into your framework above of having a healthy immune system. You just need to have a look at an olympic squad to see beauty doesnt always run parallel with fitness & health.

 

I think one thing to keep in mind is that often, the wealthy/noble families were interbred to retain their money and status in the family. This lead to genetic anomolies and disorders (just take a look at the royal family in britain!) and then along came Princess Di to diversify the gene pool.

 

Genetics plays the leading role in looks, but two ugly people can produce a good looking child on several basis. The genetic material is relevant at the time of conception, so if the parents are fit and healthy, then the baby will inherit the DNA at this point. Then things such as good dental care, innoculations (debatable) and cosmetic options such as bracers, teeth whitening etc all add up and cant be overlooked. Also the parent may have been ugly as their parents at the time drank while pregnant, smoked while pregnant etc, but the next generation took care not to do this.

 

Also personal grooming habits and expsoure to a typically better educated (regarding cleanliness habits) generation at school etc would sociologically encourage the child to have better appearance, even if not blessed with a perfect bone structure its amazing what shiney hair, straight white teeth, and good dress sense can do to improve one's appearance. Just watch any Oprah make-over show to see this at play.