31–40 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What obsolete traits are you talking about?
Mainly muscle mass and height.
More height means you have more cells that could potentially become cancerous.
I will just echo the other posts here that the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection. The most important thing to understand about evolution is that natural selection can only work with the existing traits of an organism, the current environment in which the organism exists, and what random changes happen. Furthermore, every change in t…
> the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection. The author of this article is an Evolutionary Biology researcher at Yale. It would be really weird if he severely misunderstood natural selection.
Sexual selection definitely produces some interesting effects, but it's still a form of natural selection. This article portrays it as the opposite. I think it's far easier to understand the outcomes of sexual selection if you realize that reproductive success is the only thing that matters. And the factors that influence reproductive success vary widely. It's important to not get eaten, die of disease, starve to death, or die young. But for organisms that reproduce sexually, it's even more important to be able to find a mate. An organism that lives twice as long but reproduces just once is far less successful than an organism that lives half as long but reproduces twenty times. The whole idea that sexual selection is somehow at odds with natural selection instead of just being one of many selection pressures, is deeply confused.
I will just echo the other posts here that the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection. The most important thing to understand about evolution is that natural selection can only work with the existing traits of an organism, the current environment in which the organism exists, and what random changes happen. Furthermore, every change in t…
> the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection. The author of this article is an Evolutionary Biology researcher at Yale. It would be really weird if he severely misunderstood natural selection.
Since the 1930s, it's been well known that in some cases sexual selection will undermine natural selection. Very simply, if a male is liked by most females, then a female has an incentive to mate with that male, even if the female does not like that male, because then her male children will have a trait that most females like. This can lead to a feedback loop that then goes to far, with maladaptive consequences.
This is a well studied case:
-------------------
Fisherian runaway or runaway selection is a sexual selection mechanism proposed by the mathematical biologist Ronald Fisher in the early 20th century, to account for the evolution of exaggerated male ornamentation by persistent, directional female choice. An example is the colourful and elaborate peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued peahen plumage; the costly ornaments, notably the bird's extremely long tail, appear to be incompatible with natural selection. Fisherian runaway can be postulated to include sexually dimorphic phenotypic traits such as behaviour expressed by either sex. Extreme and apparently maladaptive sexual dimorphism represented a paradox for evolutionary biologists from Charles Darwin's time up to the modern evolutionary synthesis. Darwin attempted to resolve the paradox by assuming genetic bases for both the preference and the ornament, and supposed an "aesthetic sense" in higher animals, leading to powerful selection of both characteristics in subsequent generations. Fisher developed the theory further by assuming genetic correlation between the preference and the ornament, that initially the ornament signalled greater potential fitness (the likelihood of leaving more descendants), so preference for the ornament had a selective advantage. Subsequently, if strong enough, female preference for exaggerated ornamentation in mate selection could be enough to undermine natural selection even when the ornament has become non-adaptive.[3] Over subsequent generations this could lead to runaway selection by positive feedback, and the speed with which the trait and the preference increase could (until counter-selection interferes) increase exponentially ("geometrically").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Being an "unlikable weirdo" wouldn't explain getting no responses on the standard dating sites/apps everyone on campus uses, when the demographics of the college are around 65% female. Part of the problem is that way back in the day, when the tribes were small, it was in the woman's best interest to mate with only the perceived fittest mates around, and her mental baseline of "average" would be set by the local tribe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're describing this viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio... however I don't think it's really an accepted (in terms of evidence) theory that explains all evolution. I think most biologists think that evolution selects at multiple levels (although likely the underlying processes are much more complex than just that). After all, no real visible phenotype is truly based on a single…
I think he doesn't describe GCVOE but rather uses it to explain the apparent paradox. Naively expecting "better" organisms to win fails to explain why these birds are evolving progressively "worse". But if you go down and look at genes which handicap the male while triggering some silly attractiveness glitch in females versus genes that don't, it becomes clear that as long as the handicap isn't too strong, the former…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What obsolete traits are you talking about?
Mainly muscle mass and height.
By the way, a large majority of humans in the United States marry and even among the ones who don't marry a vast majority of them have dated. A large majority of people in the United States are not tall and muscular, we come in all shapes and sizes.
You may find this shocking but Women aren't uniform brainless sheep. Women come in all forms with all sorts of different things they find attractive. For example, I don't find muscles especially attractive and tallness does absolutely nothing for me. My husband is overweight and I don't mind a bit, doesn't distract from his attractiveness to me. Some women are even attracted to other women.
(Hint: it actually might be you since 99% of society can somehow manage to get a date)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Being an "unlikable weirdo" wouldn't explain getting no responses on the standard dating sites/apps everyone on campus uses, when the demographics of the college are around 65% female. Part of the problem is that way back in the day, when the tribes were small, it was in the woman's best interest to mate with only the perceived fittest mates around, and her mental baseline of "average" would be set by the local tribe…
I will just echo the other posts here that the author of this article or his sources severely misunderstand natural selection and the special case of sexual selection. The most important thing to understand about evolution is that natural selection can only work with the existing traits of an organism, the current environment in which the organism exists, and what random changes happen. Furthermore, every change in t…
Through that lens, there's no counterintuitive behavior here, and natural selection isn't being undermined. It's an emergent polarization.