- #1
Persefone
- 42
- 0
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-
Thank you.
--Persefone-
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.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.
Persefone said:I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.
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.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)?
Persefone said:I really don't know, I read about creationism and I asked question.
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.
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.
saltydog said:Some may ask, "why not some other sign of vigor that's less expensive".
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 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)
Charles Brough said: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?!
Loren Booda said:In that the heart wants, it modifies the environment, including an increasingly free-will selection of mates as evolution progresses.
Charles Brough said:So, there is no sexual selection going on that has any evolutionary significance.
saltydog said:Choice of a mate, both male and female, influences the evolutionary history of humans. Thus, in my view, sexual selection has evolutionary significance.
Danger said: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.Danger said: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.
Emieno said:Fame and money are what most people try to earn.
Darwen's theory of sexual selection states that certain traits in animals, such as elaborate feathers in male peacocks, evolved through competition for mates rather than for survival purposes.
Darwen's theory was initially controversial because it challenged the widely accepted idea of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution. It also proposed that female choice played a significant role in evolution, which was not widely accepted at the time.
Studies have shown that certain traits, such as the colorful feathers of male birds, are not advantageous for survival but are preferred by females during mating. This supports the idea that these traits evolved through sexual selection rather than natural selection.
While Darwen's theory has gained more acceptance over time, it is still debated because it is difficult to prove definitively. Additionally, some scientists argue that natural selection and sexual selection are not mutually exclusive and both play a role in evolution.
Since Darwen's time, our understanding of sexual selection has expanded to include other factors such as social and environmental influences on mate choice. We now also recognize that sexual selection is not limited to just animals, but can also occur in plants and other organisms.