21–30 of 79 posts
The title reminds me of a species we're all familiar with where the females are adopting increasingly high standards for mates based in obsolete evolutionary preferences which have no applicability to fitness in the current environment, and where the skills relevant to survival in the current environment are ironically often seen as unattractive by the females, and males who cultivate these skills often don't have th…
What obsolete traits are you talking about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're describing this viewpoint Yes. > evolution selects at multiple levels That's just another way of saying that evolution selects for reproductive fitness with respect to a particular environment. If a gene is part of an organism, then the other genes in that organism are part of that gene's environment. The aggregation of genes into organisms is itself an evolutionary adaptation (as is the aggregation of organ…
I think you're trying very hard to fit the real world into a hypothesis that doesn't make any sense.
Boo, that anyone would tell me my love is wrong! Boo, to the very idea that my love at first sight is unfit to survive the slings and arrows of this cruel universe!
Boo, to the slightest belief that my handsome and wonderful instincts would lead me astray!
Boo, to this! Boo, I say!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're describing this viewpoint Yes. > evolution selects at multiple levels That's just another way of saying that evolution selects for reproductive fitness with respect to a particular environment. If a gene is part of an organism, then the other genes in that organism are part of that gene's environment. The aggregation of genes into organisms is itself an evolutionary adaptation (as is the aggregation of organ…
I think you're trying very hard to fit the real world into a hypothesis that doesn't make any sense.
> that doesn't make any sense
If you look at the criticism leveled against this theory you will find that many of them have been addressed by the proponents of the theory, in many cases very successfully. Many things can be said about this theory but your claim strikes me as highly unqualified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow I see plenty of short guys with little atleticism dating girls.
I can't say I ever do. This comes from living on a college campus for years and leaving without having been able to get a single date.
Sorry if that doesn't help. But blaming women for not liking you doesn't help either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say I ever do. This comes from living on a college campus for years and leaving without having been able to get a single date.
I once thought this was my problem. Turns out it had nothing to do with anything, and I was just an unlikable weirdo. Sorry if that doesn't help. But blaming women for not liking you doesn't help either.
> But the evolutionary mechanism behind this novelty is not adaptation by natural selection, in which only those who survive pass on their genes, allowing the species to become better adapted to its environment over time. Rather, it is sexual selection by mate choice, in which individuals pass on their genes only if they’re chosen as mates. TFA has a weird definition for natural selection. Evolution has no preference…
Agreed. This is more akin to evolution being stuck in a suboptimal (and perhaps a dead-end) local minima - but it is still natural selection as more pleasing features = survival on an individual scale.
Traits need to be considered with the ones they compete against. It's impossible to judge the bird in isolation.