Sexual selection

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

saltydog

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,579
2
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.
 
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

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,579
2
quetzalcoatl9 said:
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.
 
saltydog said:
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.
 
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.


:confused:
 

saltydog

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,579
2
Persefone said:
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.


:confused:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,923
5
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,185
51
Persefone said:
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.


:confused:
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.
 
3,036
3
I'm just happy to be selected!
 
Moonbear said:
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

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,579
2
Persefone said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,177
1,563
saltydog said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,923
5
Persefone said:
I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.
ah, well that explains it. :smile:

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?
 
96
0
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...
 
Last edited:

saltydog

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,579
2
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.
 
Last edited:

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,923
5
Emieno said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,923
5
saltydog said:
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

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,579
2
Phobos said:
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.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top