Do we as humans fall in love with Darwinian traits or redeeming traits?

Maybe you can be a little more detailed in Darwinian and redeeming aside from just a couple sentences.

 

We are one of the few 'animals' that fall in love, simply because it takes so long, and so much work to raise a human child from baby to adult. Falling in love is nature's way of keeping two ppl together long enough for our young to grow into adulthood and help, as partners, raise that baby.

 

No.

Proving a biological basis for love isn't absolute proof that I.D. is false.

 

Nice guys finish last because they're push-overs. No one respects a guy who'll do anything to be liked or accepted. Although I can't speak for all women (or really any woman), I have heard them express their disdain for guys who will change their mold to fit whatever woman they happen to be trying to gain the interest of.

There's a huge difference between being a nice guy and being a good guy. And, believe it or not, I've learned from experience that a lot of the women I've been around DO appreciate the latter. You can be respectful of women, courteous, and STILL gain their interest. Character still counts, man. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

Good call, especially considering that all our actions/thoughts are biological (biochemical) in nature. Perhaps (s)he actually means to segregate traits deemed selfish ("Darwinian") from traits deemed selfless ("redeeming")?

 

I've always been looking for a nice, altruistic guy who's kind of handsome looking too. I guess this is why I've been single most of my life.

 

Hot and nice can never occupy the same body. They're either hot and *******s or they're ugly but nice.

 

Crap.... I mean I'm not really looking for an Adonis here but just a guy that doesn't make me feel like retching whenever I look a him,which describes roughly 99.9% of the guys that have expressed interest in me.

 

What the hell is this thread about?

 

I'm interested in women for sex, and nothing else beyond that.

 

Simply, completely not true.

 

I always do

 

Actually, from a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense. A human baby takes a lot of energy to raise, and it takes a relatively loooong time for it to be self-sufficient (even ignoring society's artificial constructs).

In a situation where so much time and biological energy needs to be invested, selection really would favor the care of the baby by two adults. We even see this phenomenon in birds and various other groups of animals, so it really isn't a uniquely human characteristic.

 

good looks will only get you the initial attraction. I meet alot of really attractive country girls, who initially i'm really attracted to, but as soon as they open their mouths and that harsh "i've-smoked-2-packets-of-cigarrettes-this-morning" aussie country girl slur dribbles out, i'm as flacid as a pancake.

when it comes to love, both are important. but good child raising qualities (like not sounding like a bogan) definately play a major role.

 

I'm a sucker, I'll take either or depending on the situation

 

i think someone got confused by the term selfish gene.

 

That is what the bible says ... procreate

 

Your FACE got confused by the term selfish gene.

 

Darwinian traits = Hereditary traits - can't Hereditary traits also be redeeming?

 

Well that's the problem. The OP doesn't define what he considers to be Darwinian traits in the first place, horribly crippling any chance his question has for a viable answer.

What we know, "darwinian traits," to be may be in a context completely different from what he regards them to be (with specific regard to his original question).