Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of J Lo's kids?

When they were babies they were ugly. Now the boy is pretty cute, the girl less so. I don't expect them to be very attractive adults.

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of J Lo's kids?

Forgot to post a shot:

What do you all think of J Lo's kids?

Anonymous wrote:What did Chelsea Clinton look like as a baby and toddler? She was an awkward teen but pretty adult.

make up baby
pretty adult with make up. Make up can do wonders.
truth comes out when they have a kid without makeup

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JIM BOB is good-looking?

speechless

He is not far from John Edwards range. Of course, these days nobody thinks Edwards is attractive, but I clearly remember times when he was considered very hot.

Exactly! Look past the hair style with James Robert and dude is not too far from Edwards range. http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/iH197JxoasX/5th+Annual+Values+Voter+Summit/c4-0G2OpvA6/Jim+Bob+Duggar

Anonymous wrote:JIM BOB is good-looking?

speechless

He is not far from John Edwards range. Of course, these days nobody thinks Edwards is attractive, but I clearly remember times when he was considered very hot.

JIM BOB is good-looking?

speechless

Looking people. His dad and I are average, as with our other child.

I am curious to see how my DS ends up fairing. He was a goofy looking baby, is a gorgeous five year old (I am often stopped by strangers to comment on his good looks). In my family we are mostly average, with one or two goofy l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did Chelsea Clinton look like as a baby and toddler? She was an awkward teen but pretty adult.

Are you crazy? She is not attractive at all.

She's done well with what God gave her.

What does that even mean?

New poster. It means that she's put herself together very well (hair, make-up, clothing), and she looks quite good despite the fact that she's not pretty at all.

Jessa Duggar is pretty, as is Jana. Most of the girls aren't bad looking actually but the only decent looking Duggar boy (IMO) is Josiah. The rest of the boys are just kind of... Pale and runty looking.

I also think Michelle has a pretty face.

Anonymous wrote:Jessa Duggar is a good example of a pretty sibling with other average looking siblings. Jim Bob is good looking and Michelle is average.

Agree about Jessa, some of the middle aged boys are cute too, I don't find any of them ugly, which is odd considering the number of them. I do have to disagree with you about Michelle, I think she is the more attractive parent. I'm sure under that blouse and denim skirt it's a fuckin mess but her face is really pretty. (I have to look pass the "compound" hairstyle though)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On average they don't have ugly babies, but they don't have babies (nor adult children) as gorgeous as themselves. It's because of regression to average. It is unlikely that the very rare combination of genes that made them very attractive will happen again, even though the many of the same genes are there. So their children will be closer to average though, in most cases, still above average. You can see that children of Hollywood couples are rarely ugly but rarely as gorgeous as their parents.

Maybe, but think about the gene for blonde hair - it's regressive. Two blonde people can't get together and have a brunette baby. So, why wouldn't the unusual genes of both parents pass on to the kid. (BTW, I think this thread is ridiculous. The perception of baby cuteness is very subjective. And I hate the phrase 'ugly baby.')

Because it's not just one gene, it's a set of genes. It's very unlikely that the very attractive (unlikely) combination will as a whole be passed down. Particular features yes, but that rarely makes someone beautiful. The boundary between beautiful and ugly is sometimes very thin - there were studies showing that, if you change some features on a beautiful face just a few mm you get an ugly or unattractive face. And it's very likely, as many many genes from two attractive people get recombined, you get subtle shifts like that.

Anonymous wrote:On average they don't have ugly babies, but they don't have babies (nor adult children) as gorgeous as themselves. It's because of regression to average. It is unlikely that the very rare combination of genes that made them very attractive will happen again, even though the many of the same genes are there. So their children will be closer to average though, in most cases, still above average. You can see that children of Hollywood couples are rarely ugly but rarely as gorgeous as their parents.

Maybe, but think about the gene for blonde hair - it's regressive. Two blonde people can't get together and have a brunette baby. So, why wouldn't the unusual genes of both parents pass on to the kid. (BTW, I think this thread is ridiculous. The perception of baby cuteness is very subjective. And I hate the phrase 'ugly baby.')