Worst Science Article of the Week?

By Melissa Lafsky | July 28, 2009 6:05 pm

Women are getting “hotter” as more beautiful women reproduce at a higher rate and have a higher proportion of girls to boys? We post, you decide:

MORE ABOUT: bad science, evolution
  • http://www.youtube.com/user/SkeptikSnarf SkepticSnarf

    worst science article? – well consider which news network ran the piece, i say yes

    p.s. hey Melissa, what happened to your blog reality base

  • Albert Bakker

    Well, I don’t know the explanation as to why women are so much more attractive than men, part of it would by my orientation I guess. But looking around it seems hard to deny there is a more objective component of that too.
    Could it be that men select women on their looks exclusively (oh yeah and they have to be nice and longlegg.. I mean smart and blon.. I mean smart too) and men are selected on the basis on which they are able to provide: preferably the evolutionary model, the symmetrical muscular type, for creating the offspring (which by the way is why women, like bosons always like to occupy the same space at the same time) and then a stable (don’t need to worry about competition) working jackass to raise them with. Because women have been playing this game over evolutionairy time scales they are so much better at multitasking and infinitely smarter than men too. I suspect one day we will find this is why the male X chromosome shrunk to Y proportions and I expect to be informed about this by Fox, otherwise I wouldn’t trust it.

  • Carman

    Was this article co-authored by Herbert Spencer? Just wondering.

  • David Adams

    It is so obvious that FOX has a cloning operation producing beautiful AND smart women news anchors. They are so amazing that one even became the governor of our largest state and may be our next President. The only logical, not liberal emotional, conclusion is that evolution is refining our species to produce beautiful AND smart women!
    The best of this species are articulate, convincing, attractive, and Conservative.

  • Tommy

    Mr. Adams I concur with your findings and your conclusions can not be underscore enough!

  • http://www.asziserra.com Brent

    I believe evolution requires the inability of less fit individuals to reproduce. The speed of evolution could be influenced by the percentage of a species that reproduces over time. Humans have a very high likelihood of reproducing. Despite the high variances of physical characteristics humans have and the extent from which ours can stray from our parents’, I don’t believe we are evolving quickly enough – if at all – to actually observe a change happening. Also, the length of time between generations has lengthened significantly since the neolithic revolution slowing the process even more.

    We have gotten noticeably taller and heavier in the last couple of centuries, but I don’t think this is due to a change in our genes. More likely an increase in the availability of nutrition.

    Hotter? If I judged purely from watching TV, sure.

  • Tom Voreis

    Women are not getting hotter! It just appears that they are because only the most beautiful and talented are shown on TV etc. From what I have seen a lot of not necessarily attractive women are reproducing just fine.

  • Bluejay

    Sexual selection acts on males much more than females. Almost all females have the option of reproducing whereas males must compete amongst each other for access to females.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


Quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe.

See More

Collapse bottom bar