Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


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 replied

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

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024