Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sexual selection

  1. Jun 8, 2005 #1
    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-
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2005 #2
    I think it is only because he didn't know it, so he made false claims about sexual nature of species. :approve:
     
  4. Jun 8, 2005 #3

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  5. Jun 8, 2005 #4
    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.
     
  6. Jun 8, 2005 #5

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  7. Jun 8, 2005 #6
    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.
     
  8. Jun 9, 2005 #7
    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:
     
  9. Jun 9, 2005 #8

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  10. Jun 9, 2005 #9

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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).
     
  11. Jun 13, 2005 #10

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  12. Jun 13, 2005 #11
    I'm just happy to be selected!
     
  13. Jun 15, 2005 #12
    I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.
     
  14. Jun 15, 2005 #13

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    Is this about Creationism? I want to know how much ATP I expended up there cus' I want my money back.
     
  15. Jun 15, 2005 #14

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  16. Jun 15, 2005 #15

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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...

    Shall we start a rebuttle?
     
  17. Jun 16, 2005 #16
    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: Jun 16, 2005
  18. Jun 16, 2005 #17

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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: Jun 17, 2005
  19. Jun 17, 2005 #18

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For what it's worth, Darwinism has already been updated to be Neodarwinism to include what is now known about genetics.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2005
  20. Jun 17, 2005 #19

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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)
     
  21. Jun 17, 2005 #20

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?