In daily life, we often hear the saying, "Survival of the fittest in natural selection." It seems that in the long river of evolution, only those individuals with advantageous traits can survive. When this view is extended to the field of human appearance, some people may wonder: Why haven't the characteristics of genetic survival of the fittest completely eliminated all the "ugly" people in the world? After all, from the perspective of our social environment, good-looking people seem to have more advantages in many aspects. But the reality is clear: human appearances vary greatly, and many people who do not conform to the mainstream aesthetic still live healthily and reproduce offspring. Behind this, there are actually misunderstandings about the theory of evolution and the extremely complex operating laws of human society.
The Core of Evolution: Adaptation to the Environment, Not Superior Appearance
The core of the theory of evolution is "survival of those who adapt to the environment," by no means "survival of the good-looking." In the long process of evolution, the "beauty or ugliness" of appearance accounts for a negligible proportion, and it can even be said to be meaningless in some cases.
Human definitions of "beauty" are highly subjective, and such standards can change dramatically with the changes of culture and the times. Aesthetics is a product of culture. For example, in the Tang Dynasty, plumpness was regarded as beauty, and a plump figure of women was considered a symbol of beauty. In 19th-century Europe, however, a pale and sickly appearance was admired. Looking at modern society, aesthetic standards such as "right-angled shoulders" and "A4 waists" are largely concepts created by commercial marketing. If evolution really took such erratic "appearance" as the screening standard, the human gene pool would probably have fallen into chaos or even collapsed due to the capriciousness of aesthetics.
From an in-depth exploration of the perspective of evolution, what is really concerned is survival value. Looking back at primitive society, natural selection focused more on those advantages that could actually affect survival, such as disease resistance, exercise efficiency, and immunity. For instance, in equatorial regions, people with dark skin were able to survive in the competition because they were more resistant to strong ultraviolet rays, which has nothing to do with the "beauty or ugliness" we usually talk about. Therefore, we should be clear that evolution selects genes that can adapt to the environment, rather than appearances that conform to some narrow aesthetic preferences.
The Mystery of the Survival of "Ugly Genes"
If evolution follows the principle of "survival of the fittest," then why haven't those seemingly "imperfect" genes been cleared from the human gene pool yet? The answer lies hidden in the underlying logic of genes.
Genetic diversity is like an insurance policy for the entire species. Imagine that if everyone in a certain group carried the so-called "good-looking genes," once the environment changed drastically, such as the large-scale outbreak of a new virus, this group with highly homogeneous genes might be completely wiped out due to the lack of genetic diversity to deal with different environmental challenges. On the contrary, some genes carried by individuals with "imperfect" appearances, such as specific disease-resistant genes, might instead become the key to saving the entire group at critical moments.
Many genes that affect appearance are recessive genes. For example, parents may carry the recessive gene for a "flat nose," but their own appearance shows a high nose bridge. In the process of intergenerational gene transmission, these recessive genes will combine randomly with other genes, making it impossible to completely eliminate them. The randomness of this gene combination is like a life game full of variables, allowing various genes to have the opportunity to emerge in different generations.
The neutral theory of evolution indicates that most gene mutations have neither obvious benefits nor harms to the survival of organisms. For example, genes corresponding to appearance characteristics such as single eyelids and protruding ears. Evolution will not waste resources to eliminate these "neutral characteristics," so they can be randomly retained in the population. The common blond and blue-eyed genes of Northern Europeans were initially "neutral characteristics" resulting from mutations and were later retained only because of cultural preferences, having no direct relation to survival ability.
The Complex Mating Logic of Humans
Darwin's theory of "sexual selection" points out that animals often use their gorgeous appearances to attract mates, and the most typical example is the magnificent tail feathers of peacocks. However, the mating logic of humans is much more complex than that of animals, and appearance is only one of the factors.
Evolutionary biologists have found through research that animals will weigh between "appearance" and "resources" when choosing mates. The same is true for humans. In primitive society, an ordinary-looking person who could provide a stable food source and a safe shelter for the family had a greater advantage in reproducing offspring compared to an individual with only good looks but poor health. After all, the needs for survival and reproduction are the most basic instincts of humans. In an environment with relatively scarce resources, resource providers who can ensure survival are often more favored.
Humans are one of the few species that pay attention to "long-term partner value." In the process of evolution, traits such as intelligence, responsibility, and cooperation ability are far more important than appearance. Taking the evolutionary competition between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens as an example, although Neanderthals were muscular and had an advantage in physical strength, Homo sapiens ultimately emerged victorious in the evolutionary race by virtue of stronger social skills, being able to better organize groups, share information, and cooperate in hunting. This fully shows that in the process of human evolution, internal qualities and abilities are of great significance for survival and reproduction.
The intergenerational shift in aesthetics is also an interesting phenomenon. If a certain generation generally regards "small eyes" as beautiful, then genes related to small eyes may be more frequently inherited and spread during this period. But in the next generation, if the social aesthetic trend changes and "big eyes" are admired, the gene frequency will change accordingly. The frequent fluctuations of such aesthetic standards prevent a single appearance characteristic from being fixed as an absolute "advantageous gene," thus providing room for the survival and continuation of genes with various different appearance characteristics.
Evolution: A Game Full of Chaos and Accident
Even without the intervention of human society, evolution is by no means an accurate "appearance optimization program"; it is full of randomness and uncertainty.
Gene mutations are highly random, and approximately 99% of gene mutations are not controlled by natural selection. Take the gene mutation that determines earlobe shape as an example. Its occurrence is completely random. This kind of mutation neither has an obvious impact on the survival of an individual nor will it be actively eliminated because it is insignificant to survival. In the evolutionary history of life, such random mutations are like small "episodes," constantly adding new changes to the gene pool.
In small groups, gene frequencies can fluctuate significantly due to some accidental events, which is called genetic drift. For example, in some African tribes, "lip plates" are regarded as beautiful. This unique aesthetic preference is essentially a gene preference triggered by cultural accidents and has no direct connection with the organism's ability to adapt to the environment. It may be just because of the personal preference of an influential figure in the tribe or a certain accidental cultural event that the genes related to "lip plates" have been spread and strengthened in the tribe.
When a ethnic group encounters a disaster and only a few survivors are left, a bottleneck effect will occur. The genes carried by these survivors, including genes related to their appearance characteristics, will dominate the genetic composition of future generations, regardless of whether these genes are "optimal" or not. The fact that the Amish in the Americas commonly carry the gene for polydactyly is because there were individuals carrying this gene among the early immigrants by chance, and through generations of reproduction, this gene has been widely spread in the ethnic group.
It can be seen that the fact that "ugly" genes have not been eliminated precisely reflects the wisdom of evolution. Diversity is the ultimate strategy for organisms to deal with unknown risks. The development of human social civilization has also rewritten the original pure rules of natural selection, and randomness makes life full of infinite possibilities. When we talk about the beauty or ugliness of appearance, essentially we are discussing cultural preferences, historical accidents, and the chaotic combination of genes. The theory of evolution has never been a simple "appearance scorekeeper" but a complex algorithm that has allowed life to survive and develop for hundreds of millions of years. Perhaps the real survival advantage of humans lies in our ability to accept differences rather than blindly pursue uniform "beauty."
No comments:
Post a Comment