Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-27-2017 8:44 AM
370 online now:
Heathen, New Cat's Eye, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 366 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,712 Year: 19,318/21,208 Month: 2,077/3,111 Week: 298/574 Day: 12/82 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 121 of 131 (739889)
10-28-2014 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jon
10-28-2014 2:27 PM


Re: beauty standards
It sounds like you had a different take on the show than I did. No big deal.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 2:27 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 131 (739893)
10-28-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
10-28-2014 5:30 PM


Re: beauty standards
Which is still within the time-frame of runaway sexual selection for specific traits ... the only thing that has changed is the ability to provide such services, the desire for it was there before.

Then what is the point you are trying to make?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2014 5:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:29 AM Jon has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 123 of 131 (739905)
10-29-2014 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by NoNukes
10-28-2014 7:29 PM


Re: beauty standards and selection
In short, we don't need to postulate a grooming gene or a grooming instinct. All that's necessary for a man or woman to groom himself or augment him or herself is a belief that the opposite sex requires or likes it.

The runaway sexual selection gene is shared by both sexes.

I've explained why I don't find animal behavior great evidence for human behavior.

You have, but I don't think that is a valid opinion. It's like saying that evolution doesn't apply to humans. So I am questioning it because I think you use that argument to avoid the comparison of animal runaway sexual selection to human runaway selection.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2014 7:29 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2014 5:38 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 124 of 131 (739907)
10-29-2014 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jon
10-28-2014 8:24 PM


Re: beauty standards
Then what is the point you are trying to make?

That runaway sexual selection has been a factor in human development for a very long time, that it is how we came to be "the hairless ape" in the first place, that it is how we cam to be sexually active on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis, that this is how we came to have females with year-round full breasts and men came to have much larger penises than all other apes ... that sex is what made us distinctively human. It may well be what set hominids apart from chimps.

What we see today is just more of same with new technology being used.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jon, posted 10-28-2014 8:24 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2014 5:19 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 10-29-2014 9:27 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 128 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2014 10:54 AM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9743
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 125 of 131 (739913)
10-29-2014 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
10-29-2014 1:29 AM


Re: beauty standards
That runaway sexual selection has been a factor in human development for a very long time, that it is how we came to be "the hairless ape" in the first place, that it is how we cam to be sexually active on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis, that this is how we came to have females with year-round full breasts and men came to have much larger penises than all other apes ... that sex is what made us distinctively human. It may well be what set hominids apart from chimps.

It's possible to agree with much of this and still not reach all of the conclusions you do. One might also point out that bonobos are certainly sexual apes so perhaps the distinction is not as clean as you suggest.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2014 7:52 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9743
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 126 of 131 (739914)
10-29-2014 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by RAZD
10-29-2014 1:20 AM


Re: beauty standards and selection
You have, but I don't think that is a valid opinion.

What the heck does that mean RAZD? In what sense is my opinion invalid?

It's like saying that evolution doesn't apply to humans. So I am questioning it ...

You can question it all you want. But I am not saying that evolution does not apply to humans. Not even close. I am saying instead that humans can develop behavior patterns in ways other than developing instincts and are more likely to do so than most other animals. In fact, humans are able to develop such behaviors in far shorter than evolutionary times. Humans have no need for 'want my breasts enhanced' gene because they have plenty of societal cues that tell them that men like big boobs.

...because I think you use that argument to avoid the comparison of animal runaway sexual selection to human runaway selection

And I'm not avoiding the comparison with animals. I'm simply not persuaded by it, primarily because of the different roles instinct plays in humans. And not every disagreement with your opinion is based on some kind of mental malfunction. Perhaps a better strategy for convincing me would be to show me the deficiencies in my position rather than impugning my motives.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:20 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 131 (739915)
10-29-2014 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
10-29-2014 1:29 AM


Re: beauty standards
That runaway sexual selection has been a factor in human development for a very long time, that it is how we came to be "the hairless ape" in the first place, that it is how we cam to be sexually active on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis, that this is how we came to have females with year-round full breasts and men came to have much larger penises than all other apes ... that sex is what made us distinctively human. It may well be what set hominids apart from chimps.

That's a very strong argument. I think it will require more evidence than 'dudes like tits' and 'chicks like dicks'.

There have been individual threads on each of these points, and in every case it was clear that there is ambiguous evidence and enough evidence to argue for either position (or both).

I think sexual selection probably plays a pretty big role. But I don't think it plays the only role, and I would never go so far as to claim it solely led to the hominid line and eventually us. I think that overlooks the existence of obvious non-sexual benefits to our upright walking, our big brains, our use of language, etc.

So I'll say it again: you simply haven't provided the nail-in-the-coffin evidence required to support your conclusions to the level of certainty that you preach them.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:29 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 128 of 131 (739922)
10-29-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
10-29-2014 1:29 AM


Why should we think human evolution is special?
I don't think any of the respondents in this thread are going to dispute that sexual selection has an important functional role in evolution. The question you seem to lack an answer to is why we should think it was so uniquely important in shaping these human traits and why we should think that your answer of sexual selection is more compelling than the alternative hypotheses.

Popping out weaksauce support for your position like the modern fad for hairlessness in porn isn't helping your case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2014 1:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2014 8:01 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 129 of 131 (742195)
11-17-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
10-29-2014 5:19 AM


Re: beauty standards
... One might also point out that bonobos are certainly sexual apes so perhaps the distinction is not as clean as you suggest.

Yet there is no evidence of run-away sexual selection, most likely because they don't appear to 'compete' over sex but share it. The female and male sexual development is virtually the same as the chimpanzee. Penis size is small, breasts only fill when lactating, facial characteristics are not childlike in adults.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2014 5:19 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 130 of 131 (742196)
11-17-2014 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Jack
10-29-2014 10:54 AM


Re: Why should we think human evolution is special? Runaway sexual selection.
... The question you seem to lack an answer to is why we should think it was so uniquely important in shaping these human traits and why we should think that your answer of sexual selection is more compelling than the alternative hypotheses.

But it's not just sexual selection -- it's runaway sexual selection. That is what drives selected traits in a direction that comes up against the limits of variation in the population, traits that are exaggerated in the individuals compared to other species, especially close cousins like the chimpanzees and bonobos.

We look at text-book examples of runaway sexual selection -- peacocks and scissor-tail flycatchers -- and we see selected traits driven in a direction that comes up against the limits of variation in the population, traits that are exaggerated in the individuals compared to other species, and recognize it for what it is: fisherian run-away sexual selection.

As stated in Message 1:

quote:
The identifying characteristics of run-away sexual selection, then, that differentiate it from normal sexual selection, involve a feature (or features) carried to an extreme that is not needed for species survival (and which may even jeopardize survival), and that may still be selected for if it were possible to undergo further (still continuing?) evolution.

This would be evident in a skewing of the population chosen for mates versus the variation within the population (demonstrating that it is one extreme end of available variations that is consistently chosen), and it would also be evident in comparison to closely related cousins without the features (demonstrating that the features are not needed for survival): all the longer tailed male birds mated, and close cousins do not have a long tail.


That doesn't make us "special" when we see similar extreme trait selection and development, it just explains how we got to where we are with those traits.

If you have a better explanation then trot it out and let's see how it compares.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : msg1 ref


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2014 10:54 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Jack, posted 11-30-2014 6:15 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 131 of 131 (743407)
11-30-2014 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by RAZD
11-17-2014 8:01 PM


Re: Why should we think human evolution is special? Runaway sexual selection.
We look at text-book examples of runaway sexual selection -- peacocks and scissor-tail flycatchers -- and we see selected traits driven in a direction that comes up against the limits of variation in the population, traits that are exaggerated in the individuals compared to other species, and recognize it for what it is: fisherian run-away sexual selection.

The problem, RAZD, is that you're not trying to explain one human trait in such a way but that you're trying to argue that multiple human traits are the result of separate runaway sexual selection. That's a pretty extraordinary claim and argues for special status for human selection.

And even for each individual trait you have no strong evidence that it is the case:

You also have chosen traits which don't conform to the classic model of runaway selection - hairlessness is not a disadvantage, for example, whilst intelligence has multiple straight forward selection benefits. Traits which don't conform to the dimorphic pattern of runaway sexual selection - men are not smarter than women, women are not markedly different in musical talent, men and women have similar natural head hair (until older ages, anyway), only in body hair is there dimorphism and even there it is slight. And traits for which attractiveness to the opposite sex does not show the marked and consistent needed to explain the differences you want to explain by sexual selection. And, finally, human mating patterns are not well suited to runaway sexual selection since we pair-bond and have done throughout Homo's evolutionary history.

If you have a better explanation then trot it out and let's see how it compares.

No, I'm not getting into that game. You've made the strong claim that multiple, important, human traits can be attributed to runaway sexual selection. You need to present credible evidence that this occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2014 8:01 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017