Why Was Darwen Wrong About Sexual Selection?

[Persefone]

People say Darwen was incorrect about sexual selection but what do you think should be the reason(s) for such an error ?
Thank you.
--Persefone-

 

[Persefone]

I think it is only because he didn't know it, so he made false claims about sexual nature of species.

 

[saltydog]

You mind re-iterating what Darwin said about sexual selection? I can't imagine he said anything other than what I think:

Sexual selection is based (consciously or unconsciously) on maximizing the survivability and reproducibility potential of the offspring. Granted, humans seem to choose by other means but frankly, I believe the undercurrent of such still persists in the unconscious mind.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

What about the following:

We exist, therefore our parents did a good job of raising us (this may not necessarily be true anymore because we have gov. organizations to ensure this, etc. - but out in the wild this would probably be true). Therefore, we seek sexual partners with similar characteristics as our parents since that is what "worked" before.

 

[saltydog]

What about the following:

We exist, therefore our parents did a good job of raising us (this may not necessarily be true anymore because we have gov. organizations to ensure this, etc. - but out in the wild this would probably be true). Therefore, we seek sexual partners with similar characteristics as our parents since that is what "worked" before.

I can think of a countetexample: Choose parents successful in a farm environment having children which move to the big city. Would not a successful selection choice for the child be one that is fit for the city life and thus Not in general having the same fitness characteristics as the parents?

Does not a woman choose a mate based on her best appraisal of how her potential sutor will best contribute to the success of her children (in general)? I think sub-consciously she does and perhaps often doesn't even realize she's doing that. Fitness for such in New York would be different for that on a primitive pacific island: you can be a strong healty man in New York city but if you can't socially integrate into the society, your fitness level suffers by other means.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I can think of a countetexample: Choose parents successful in a farm environment having children which move to the big city. Would not a successful selection choice for the child be one that is fit for the city life and thus Not in general having the same fitness characteristics as the parents?

Does not a woman choose a mate based on her best appraisal of how her potential sutor will best contribute to the success of her children (in general)? I think sub-consciously she does and perhaps often doesn't even realize she's doing that. Fitness for such in New York would be different for that on a primitive pacific island: you can be a strong healty man in New York city but if you can't socially integrate into the society, your fitness level suffers by other means.

yes, maybe this explains some of the social problems that we have: what our biology is telling us to do, and what we must do because of social pressures are in conflict. yet i get the sense that socialogists today reject biological influences, which makes no sense to me.

 

[Persefone]

Sorry, I don't have any examples, I didn't read Darwin's book either, but I read pages on evolution and all of them say Darwin was wrong about sexual selection.

 

[saltydog]

Sorry, I don't have any examples, I didn't read Darwin's book either, but I read pages on evolution and all of them say Darwin was wrong about sexual selection.

Well . . . I request the Evolution guru in here determine such and report back to us. You know, they were so prudish back then, I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin was just flat-out affraid to talk much about sex however, I'm confident he appraised it in terms of survival and reproductive success.

 

[Phobos]

Darwin included sexual selection as one of the mechanisms in evolution. I'd have to check around to see what the specific claims are as to how he was wrong about it (care to provide an internet link or two?). But I have not heard much to that effect. In fact, I usually hear the opposite... in that Darwin argued for the inclusion of sexual selection in the model whereas other evolutionary biologists of his time (e.g., Wallace) were against it and preferred a strictly direct-competition model (possible Victorian bias (1) against having female control/choice and (2) for progress/improvement where they often used sexual selection to explain oddities such as the peacock's tail which seems to be a detriment for survivability).

 

[Moonbear]

Sorry, I don't have any examples, I didn't read Darwin's book either, but I read pages on evolution and all of them say Darwin was wrong about sexual selection.

Please provide some links to those sites. Otherwise we have very little to go on here. It's hard to argue for or against something if we neither know which comments are being refuted nor what the argument refuting them is.

 

[Loren Booda]

I'm just happy to be selected!

 

[Persefone]

Please provide some links to those sites. Otherwise we have very little to go on here. It's hard to argue for or against something if we neither know which comments are being refuted nor what the argument refuting them is.

I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.

 

[saltydog]

I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.

Is this about Creationism? I want to know how much ATP I expended up there cus' I want my money back.

 

[Astronuc]

Does not a woman choose a mate based on her best appraisal of how her potential suitor will best contribute to the success of her children (in general)?

When my wife and I decided to get married, it was a very conscious decision for each of us. She and I felt we could work together with the other, and stay together in a positive relationship. It is a matter of security, particularly when children are a product of such as relationship.

As part of the process, we spent time with my parents and my siblings and their families. That gave my wife (or fiance at the time) a chance to see examples of the family life to which I had been exposed.

 

[Phobos]

I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.

ah, well that explains it.

I checked one creationist site, did a search for "sexual selection" and checked the first link that came up (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/peacock.asp). It was an article about the Peacock's tail and basically summarized like this...

There are several serious problems with the evolutionary theory of sexual selection. There is no satisfactory explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful features. In addition, there is irreducible complexity in both the physical structure of the feather and in the beautiful patterns.

Shall we start a rebuttle?

 

[Emieno]

I think people side with Darwin's theory might be because there has not been any theory that is more correct than Darwin's. All of what Darwin said was about diffrerent sexes' relationships. How about same sex problems in some animals which can produce eggs and sperm to self-fertilize ?
I don't say his theory is completely incorrect, just that he actually made his own judgments, created his works from his own observations which might be only absolutely correct in his own time but from a general viewpoint to look at this sociologically, species diversity I strongly believe will bit by bit defeat his theory in the future...

 

[saltydog]

The male peacock is concerned with surviving only long enough to pass on his genes. The tail might be a disadvantage for survival but a beautiful one gives the female, in her limited capacity to estimate vigor, a clear sign of such: Males with outstanding tails have the strength and health to carry them if only long enough to copulate and that's good enough for the species as a whole.

Some may ask, "why not some other sign of vigor that's less expensive". It's chance. It just happen that way during the evolutionary history of the peacock: Chance caught on a wing.

Edit: You know, I'm not sure about that. If he only wanted to survive long enough to reproduce then why is is living longer (say 10 years or so). Anyway, I just want to qualify my statement: perhaps his "primary objective" is to do so but then his secondary objective is just to stay alive.

 

[Phobos]

I think people side with Darwin's theory might be because there has not been any theory that is more correct than Darwin's.

For what it's worth, Darwinism has already been updated to be Neodarwinism to include what is now known about genetics.

 

[Phobos]

Some may ask, "why not some other sign of vigor that's less expensive".

Certainly other species have 'less expensive' methods. Peacocks are on the upper end of the overall bell curve, I suppose.

Edit: You know, I'm not sure about that. If he only wanted to survive long enough to reproduce then why is is living longer (say 10 years or so). Anyway, I just want to qualify my statement: perhaps his "primary objective" is to do so but then his secondary objective is just to stay alive.

The longer an individual lives, the more chances it has to reproduce and the more offspring it is likely to have.

There's an interesting debate in species that live beyond reproductive years...like we humans! Ah, what is it called?...the Grandparent Hypothesis? Something like that. The idea is that within our social species, grandparents help raise not 1, but 2 generations (that 2nd generation still carries 1/4 of a grandparent's genes which is a significant fraction)

 

[saltydog]

Certainly other species have 'less expensive' methods. Peacocks are on the upper end of the overall bell curve, I suppose.

The longer an individual lives, the more chances it has to reproduce and the more offspring it is likely to have.

There's an interesting debate in species that live beyond reproductive years...like we humans! Ah, what is it called?...the Grandparent Hypothesis? Something like that. The idea is that within our social species, grandparents help raise not 1, but 2 generations (that 2nd generation still carries 1/4 of a grandparent's genes which is a significant fraction)

Very nice Phobos. Thanks for straightening me out on that. I do very much like to have my Darwinism straight because you know they look for the slightest weakness to mount the next attack.

 

[detta]

When it comes to why live longer than just long enough to reproduce, think of humans. Why doesn't a man only live long enough to spread his sperm? It is because we need more than one person to take care of a child to survive. As babies, we need so much attention and learning from parents and other humans that it is not only important for a man to give his sperm but also a large part of his life. I don't know about the peacock very much but there most likely a reason to survive beyond reproducing, possibly just to impregnate as many females as possible or maybe there is some type of social structure, I have no idea. If you compare this behavior to some spiders, which require no parental care after birth, a male spider will let the female eat him so he can inpregnate her. This is an extreme cost because he won't be able to inseminate another female but he will have an almost guarantee to get his genes out there.

It is hard to compare sexual selection of animals with humans because our value systems are much more complicated then the peacock. For example, women might be attracted to a man with certain physical characteristics like a peacock but she might sacrifice some looks for money because money is a status symbol. What I find somewhat strange is that reproductive success doe not follow from what we look for in men and women. Wealthier people tend to have less children and within the last 40-50 years the ideal women looks more like a 14 year old girl than a woman who could bear lots of children.

When there are animals that have only one sex, I think there could also be sexual selection or possibly sexual selection against having more than one sex. Many of those animals that are only female will have a male appear in the species or will mate with males outside the species on rare occasions to help increase variability so there is probably some type of selection.

I also don't think that Darwin was wrong. Maybe his definition wasn't complete or does not apply to all organisms, not everything may undergo sexual selection just as not every organism is going to have gene flow.

 

[Charles Brough]

My I suggest a different line of reasoning? The concept of sexual selection is that we "subconsciously" seek the best mate to reproduce ourselves in order to propagate our line. Instead, the whole situation can be pictured in a far more accurate way. All we need to do is understand our behavior---including the way we gratify our sexual feelings---as a repitoire of instincts which have evolved in us through millions of years of biological evolution. However, we depend upon our society, our religion, public opinion or whatever you want to call it to CONDITION or determine how we satisfy those instincts. This avoids the really dumb position of having to think anyone really has sex to propagate their genetic line! Is there really anyone of you what ever did that for that reason?!

Perhaps you might all wonder why my more accurate way of looking at the situation is not standard. The reason is that it is offensive to Christian doctrines (of us being "created") and also to the democratic non-concept of "free will." The big professors have their careers to worry about and do not want to offend people.

Myself, however, I don't worry about that. If you don't either, have a look at
http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

charles

 

[Phobos]

we depend upon our society, our religion, public opinion or whatever you want to call it to CONDITION or determine how we satisfy those instincts. This avoids the really dumb position of having to think anyone really has sex to propagate their genetic line! Is there really anyone of you what ever did that for that reason?!

I certainly agree that both nature & nurture play a role in human behavior. Although hardly any people evaluate a genetic resume when choosing a mate, it seems that we are hard wired to find certain indicator traits more attractive than others. Culture/society may narrow down the choices from there, but it's not an absolute power ("the heart wants what it wants").

 

[Loren Booda]

In that the heart wants, it modifies the environment, including an increasingly free-will selection of mates as evolution progresses.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In that the heart wants, it modifies the environment, including an increasingly free-will selection of mates as evolution progresses.

Evidence? Examples? Even a just-so story?

 

[Loren Booda]

"How the Elephant got its Trunk," or "Sometimes a Trunk is only a Trunk"

Usually we hear of the individual adapting to the environment. With the free will of emotion a population experiences participatory behavior more independent of genetic mutation or sexual selection. People live and die due to their inherited emotional makeup, yes, but like continuously breeding various pure strains of dog together, in mating we always eventually regain that "mutt mood" much like the primitive canine ancestor.

Take love, for example. Its pertinence as an inherited trait (compared to its myriad of other manifestations) has essentially been fully encoded. What is left is an averaged affect, not so much modern modified DNA, that intricately guides the populace through primitive nature and relationships with others.

I propose that feelings are primarily divorced from active heredity overall, yet relate to the survival of the individual from reflexive instinct to social immersion. At this point in evolution any further change in the genome will not alter substantially the genetic basis of moods over our species as a whole.

 

[Charles Brough]

Granted, it is hard to accept that there is something about the elaborate feathers and crests of the peacock that would benefit the species having it reproduced. Needless to say, however, the species has thrived, so there has to be benefit in what they are doing!

But in we humans, it is a very different story. There is no evidence that we humans have undergone any evolution worth mentioning in the one hundred to two hundred thousand years we have been in existence. So, there is no sexual selection going on that has any evolutionary significance.

There is sexual selection going on, however. In most mammals, including primates and ourselves included, there is the alpha male. He and his fellows (his leutenants) run the herd, protect it and do most of the impregnating. We humans, however, have religions which put a crimp on this practice. Instead, we ration women, one woman to each man's "harem." Its called "taking a wife." and the system has been quite successful in building societies which are able to feed millions if not billions of people for some 5,000 years. What it means is that the higher up an individual is on the Alpha male scale, the more attractive a wife he gets. Those down low on the scale sometimes cannot even get a wife at all. Moreover, the alpha males are the big successful corporate and political figures. They seem to "radiate power." Its a strange expression, but when you are in Washington and in politics, you feel it and women love it.

So, the alpha males get the most attractive women.

What is "an attractive woman?"

That is harder to define! I guess you could say it is whatever men prefer and the alpha males get!

charles
http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

 

[saltydog]

So, there is no sexual selection going on that has any evolutionary significance.

Choice of a mate, both male and female, influences the evolutionary history of humans. Thus, in my view, sexual selection has evolutionary significance.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Choice of a mate, both male and female, influences the evolutionary history of humans. Thus, in my view, sexual selection has evolutionary significance.

it certainly makes life more interesting as well

 

[Danger]

I'm just going to put this in my terms and let the censor software deal with it. As a general rule, women **** for flash and marry for cash. They want the macho jerk to impregnate them, and then let the ugly rich guy deal with raising the kid.

 

[saltydog]

I'm just going to put this in my terms and let the censor software deal with it. As a general rule, women **** for flash and marry for cash. They want the macho jerk to impregnate them, and then let the ugly rich guy deal with raising the kid.

Well, you use more asterisks then me anyway. The women wish to bear healthy children that survive. How that's accomplished is of secondary concern.

"she purposefully pursues him and wins for her prize, his dominant genes for her offspring", Stacy Keech, talking about elephants.

 

[Emieno]

I'm just going to put this in my terms and let the censor software deal with it. As a general rule, women **** for flash and marry for cash. They want the macho jerk to impregnate them, and then let the ugly rich guy deal with raising the kid.

I don't think so, the broken relationship you mentioned, and if I am not mistaken, is due to the man's "choosey" nature and also because his wife couldn't put up with such a "him" anymore not because of the fact that he is rich, I believe.
Fame and money are what most people try to earn, and they sure become main targets for social selection in human society, which explains for my assumption.
I think one of the main points distinguished humans and other animals in selecting a mate lies in there also...

 

[saltydog]

Fame and money are what most people try to earn.

Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End of History and The Last Man". He emphasized the point that we all struggle for recognition. He proposed that we live in a world of masters and slaves: "masters" will fight to the death for recognition; "slaves" . . . will not.

 

[Charles Brough]

In humans, a case can be made for sexual selection. The shape of a woman's hips is an erotic trigger for we men, and it is an indication that the hips are wide enough for a decent birth canal to function and produce a live baby. Ample breasts are another trigger and they are needed to nurse the baby. An ample buttock stores energy reserves and the back curve indicates a balanced spine. bow legs, skinny calves and other disfiguring characteristics are indications of misuse, mal nutrition, or genetic defect.

We men do seek what is physically healthy, but we are certainly at least as concerned over the personality! It too has a selective basis---at least to me. I don't know if this has been researched, but in my case perhaps we can see an example of what I am talking about. I have no patience with stupid women, but that does not mean I want one who claims to be smarter than myself. This may seem a paradox to you all, but the fact is that a very smart woman can be very feminine and, hence, very attractive. I am not saying their femininess is "put on." It is only attractive if it is genuine. Men are not that easily fooled.

charles
http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com