|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3631 days) Posts: 22 From: Miraflores, Lima, Peru Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Your argument is circular. You can claim that any trait which is better suited for fitness will get passed on, but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say, well, because obviously it must be better suited for fitness.
That's the whole crux of the evolutionary theory in a nutshell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
What I would say is, "Why is that trait passed on, if it appears to be worse suited for fitness?" You can claim that any trait which is better suited for fitness will get passed on, but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say.... It does seem obvious that those individuals best suited for survival will survive. Are you seriously questioning that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Bolder-dash writes: But Bluejay, don't you think that the whole notion of a cosmetic trait being an indication of an animals fitness, when the cosmetic trait itself is simply a measure of the cosmetic devices fitness, is in itself a pretty funny argument for evolution. In other words, if you posses a trait which makes you appear more fit, regardless of whether or not it ACTUALLY made you more fit, or if it even made you less fit, but it can fool people, you will pass on that fake fitness indicator. The important feature becomes the fakery, not the real individuals health. I could think of hundreds of examples of this. Yes, I certainly agree that this could happen: cheating, lying and stealing are viable and often successful strategies in the wild, just as they are in human society. Of course, as the theory of sexual selection goes, certain traits indicate fitness precisely because unfit individuals can't replicate them, but I'm not well-read enough on the relevant literature to determine how prevalent a "faker" phenomenon might be. You seem to be aware of some examples: I would definitely be interested in reading them, if you were willing to share them. But, if we consider the possibility of "faker" peacocks, then wouldn't this potentially explain why the feather-train is only weakly correlated with female preferences? Perhaps the feather-train only establishes a baseline filter for fitness, and the females are capable of scrutinizing other factors to separate "fakers" from genuinely fit males. The studies I cited upthread all seem to mesh well with this hypothesis, so would you be interested in applying for some funding to test that hypothesis with a little bit of research? Do you think the Discovery Institute would fund an opportunity to disprove a Neo-Darwinian sexual selection theory? ----- If you were claiming that sexual selection is invoked too often in biology research, I would agree: every hypothesis is invoked by researchers in more cases than it actually applies to. But, science is a trial-and-error process: there is no way to be confident that you've correctly developed or applied a hypothesis until a significant amount of research has been done. So, it's no surprise that we're wrong a lot. ----- And, finally, I pose the same question to you that I posed to Arriba: How do you propose that peacocks with feather trains survive in spite of the apparent handicap of giant feather trains? ----- P.S. You'll notice that I put a space in my name now: without the space, it's apparently slang for something that I'd rather not use as my screen name.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Would not logic dictate that if the trainless peacocks were more successful they would be more prevalent than those with trains? I'd ask what phenotype is more prevalent? As I understand it, the extravagant tail is so embedded in the population that there are just varying degrees of extravagance. What does happen is that more dominant males attack the younger and weaker males and damage their plumage, making them look more like peahens than peacocks. The peahen may not be swayed by more tail just wants healthy tail vs damaged tail. This is where male-male competition becomes part of sexual selection, not all female choice. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You can claim that any trait which is better suited for fitness will get passed on, but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say, well, because obviously it must be better suited for fitness. If a trait reduces the reproductive success of those carrying it then it would disappear from the population. This is simple logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Hi Blue Jay,
I'm not a biologist but it seems to me animals fuck whenever they get a chance. Let me give you 2 cases. Case1, Blue Jay is taken to the Miss America pagent and told he can have sex with any of the 50 girls, just pick one. He takes the one with the biggest Boobs and widest hips. Thereby proving the theory of sexual selection. Case 2, Blue Jay is living in the woods and hasn't seen another human in 3 months. That was a guy, women and 2 kids. Blue Jay has never had sex. In his hunting he comes upon a frumpy short female with small boobs and narrow hips. Now according to the theory of sexual selection Blue Jay does not fuck her because she doesn't look "fit" enough. (yeh, right!) Do I have This theory correct? What do you think is more like reality case1 or case 2?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I'd like to echo what Bluejay said. You tell us, rightly, that a single study based on statistical analysis may be misleading.
But you tell us that just after citing a single study based on statistical analysis and claiming that this on its own "falsifies" the sexual selection hypothesis. Not merely that it is at variance with that hypothesis, not that it casts a faint shadow of doubt on it, but that it falsifies it altogether! This despite the fact that this one study is at odds with (a) other studies of peafowl (b) other studies of birds with exaggerated secondary sexual plumage (c) common sense. By your own standards, you ought to be telling us that such a study on its own can't falsify anything and is probably wrong. Instead, you pick and choose. You write:
The appropriate way to express the new findings is simple: Marion Petrie's results could not be replicated. Even if we only had these two studies (which we don't) why would it not be equally "appropriate" to say that these new findings cannot be replicated? After all, they haven't been. If all we had were these two studies, then all we could say is that they seem to contradict one another: we have no more warrant to say Takahashi proves Petrie is wrong than to say Petrie proves Takahashi is wrong. But as I say, we don't just have these two studies. Petrie's results have been replicated at least twice by different groups of researchers: see * Yasmin, S. & Yahya, H. S. A. 1996. Correlates of mating success in Indian peafowl. Auk, 113, 490e492.* Loyau, A., Saint Jalme, M. & Sorci, G. 2005a. Intra and inter-sexual selection for multiple traits in the peacock (Pavo cristatus). Ethology, 111, 810e820. So it is simply untrue to say that Petrie's results cannot be replicated. It is true to say that her results and the results of two other independent research teams are at variance with the results of Takahashi et al, which have not been replicated. So who is more likely to be wrong? Takahashi, of course. Petrie's results have been replicated, Takahashi is the odd one out. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I could think of hundreds of examples of this. Oh, good. If you would, please, list about 25 of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Do I have This theory correct? So if there is only one choice to be made than sexual selection selects the only one available, while, if there are several to select from then sexual selection selects the most desirable? Makes sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Your argument is circular. You can claim that any trait which is better suited for fitness will get passed on, but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say, well, because obviously it must be better suited for fitness I can agree that the argument is circular. But for the particular question being asked here, a circular argument works just fine. True, we cannot answer the question of what the actual mechanism is for propagating ornamental peacock tails is by using a circular argument. But we can answer the question of whether evolution can offer an explanation using the types of circular logic presented here. All that is necessary to answer rebut the statement "Darwinism cannot explain the Peacock is one feasible change/selection mechanism.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Your argument is circular. You can claim that any trait which is better suited for fitness will get passed on, but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say, well, because obviously it must be better suited for fitness. No. Circular is saying the bible is god's word cause he said so in the bible. That is circular. What is presented here is an attribute followed by an example. - better suited for fitness will get passed on Q: Why are peacock's trains passed on? A: We just covered that. You need to pay attention. Or, are you unable to comprehend without undue elaboration? A: Well, the more attractive train gives more breeding opportunities thus producing more offspring which inherit the attractive train. Since producing more offspring is, by definition, better fitness, the cock's train is said to enhance that fitness in the population. The only thing circular here is that little cog in your brain spinning trying to make sense of a most simple concept. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I see AZ, so any traits which are prevalent in a population, are by definition examples of better fitness which have been passed on. I get it, I get it.
Like cancer, and cystic fibrosis, and aging... Cool theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Like cancer, and cystic fibrosis, and aging... Cool theory. As you are doubtless aware, traits that do not affect comfortably reaching the age for siring/bearing of offspring are not subject to natural selection pressures. So no, those traits are not examples of better fitness. Even patients with cystic fibrosis survive into child bearing years.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Nonukes, you have to take this up with azpaul. He is convinced that the definition of a better fitness trait is one that gets passed on through generations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Nonukes, you have to take this up with azpaul. I bring it up with you because it is relevant to your statements about evolutionary theory that are incorrect.
Bolder-dash writes: but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say, well, because obviously it must be better suited for fitness. That's the whole crux of the evolutionary theory in a nutshell. No, that is not the crux of evolutionary theory in a nutshell, for at least the reasons I have stated. Even if Taq did make the statement you claim he would make, and I don't see that he did, we both know that such statements are wrong AND unnecessary to defend the theory of evolution. I also note that the question posed by the OP puts anyone proponent of evolution into the position of postulating that the ornamented peacock evolved from a non-ornamented one. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024