Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 79 of 131 (311005)
05-11-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by EZscience
04-29-2005 2:25 PM


the difference between male combat and female choice
quote:
Yes, the difference between male combat and female choice (the 'old' terminology) is the same as the difference between intra- and inter-sexual selection. Sorry for not noting your recognition of this.
IS IT?
Does anyone in this thread have an opinion on
Science and Politics
? or did I just miss reading about it here on EVC?
This seems to have been what was on reply as to if Darwin was maligned or not but the response to that was a, "I know but..",there is another quote where the difference in this trait is ...(current issue of SCIENCE).
other links
Page Not Found
Rochester Review • University of Rochester

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 04-29-2005 2:25 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 10:47 AM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 83 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 11:00 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 81 of 131 (311010)
05-11-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by EZscience
05-11-2006 10:47 AM


Re: the difference between male combat and female choice
Great,
because I have started to make up my mind!!
It has always been curious to me why "emlenisms"
Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
held so much weight at Cornell. I also have my human personal experience which definitely tends towards investment prior to conflict but I will have to WORK to keep my personal bias out of it. In any effect I will guess that game theory *can* get around some "older" visions of the subject. I can not see how it matters whether Darwin was misinterpreted or not.
This is what Bruce Wallace had to say about it in 72 from Prentice Hall
The titles to these volumes are listed on the third thumbnail.
Wallace's discussion is relevant to the comments in SCIENCE this week on a "within generation 'integral'." The area I boxed in, is likely the reason that Sheldrake finds Gould's writing as coming to a boring point. Gould is constantly transitioning through this phrase of Wallaces'. Daphina may be "brinksman" but a decision really is not.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-11-2006 04:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 10:47 AM EZscience has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 131 (311357)
05-12-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
04-02-2006 8:10 PM


Re: bump for discussion of sexual selection
I can see the "need" to branch off "criticizing" neo-d into a particular discussion of sex selection because in the book by Stove, I cited in that (other) thread, Stove speaks of a category of organisms that are baby snatchers/mother's with snatched babies. In my personal case it was one of sperm sneaking etc and this seems to fall within Roughgarden's notion of investment prior to conflict (no one sperm CELL can be in conflict principle of BSM)which IS NOT sexual selection. So I can see a challenge to sexual selection that is independent somewhat of my challenge to neo-darwinism in general which is rather about "general welfare" vs the economics of biological change etc.
So in this particular context I would like to add what Bruce Wallace %reall% means as far as I can DELIMIT and FOLLOW it. I have posted the last few pages in his first volume above and now I would like to add the last paragraph before that section. It reads,
quote:
"Because decisions, even when properly made, can err, the routine decision-making process outlined here is most useful in arriving at trivial decisions, which if wrong lead to remediable, not irreparable, consequences. Decisions that may lead to irreparable harm, such as a decision to play Russian roulette, as the following essay emphasizes, must be made by extraordinarily thoughtful, not routine, procedures."
The problem of sexual selection as primative or derived IS one of possible "irreparble harm" NO MATTER HOW MUCH ADAM SMITH one finds in the base of evolutionary thought. Having been in psyche hospital, jail for state charges in Lousinana, rejected by Cornell, lover, and family, I have given more thought to this decision about the sky over Ithaca than Wallace. But it is a decision that must be made in real time every time nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2006 8:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 131 (311439)
05-12-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by EZscience
05-12-2006 11:00 AM


Re: A strongly biased attack on Sexual Selection theory
Is there a credible difference of social selection and sexual selection within a nexus of artifical and natural selection?
That seems to me to be the question.
In trying to make a case of the interactions that *might* occur in species selection Gould relates (SETH p 732)
quote:
This crucial condition can be validated at the organismic level- not because mutation represents a process so differnt from natural selection, and operating on material (the structure of DNA)so disparate from the bodies of organisms (integrated tissues and organs), that we cannot postulate a reason why favored directions of mutation should correspond in anyway to the needs of organisms.
I have no way of juding the gender role reversal of the author just as I can have no expectation that you or anyone else %should% believe me that I am inclined to social selection particularly because the conflict in my own reproductive effort happened AFTER not before agreeable sex. I do not know for sure how it happened in my lovers' mind but that is never what I have access to anyway.
So now to your observation.
Perhaps I should not have directed EVC to the links but should have copied some of this:
SCIENCE(see below)
What I was trying to ask you when you related
quote:
male combat and female choice (the 'old' terminology)
quote:
intra- and inter-sexual selection
was the difference of social and sexual selection.
It seemed to me that a priori one might consider male combat and female choice as not only intra-sexual selection and that inter- sexual selection, (perhaps you can say again what you meant by that ( that might be my only issue here, I dont know) if it did not consider social selection of Roughgarden et al, can not accomodate any reverse asymmetry (your word) capability of +> and 0+ no matter what the origin of sex itself was. Thus I do not think that I am disputing the notion of "gender."
quote:
Published this May by UC Press, Evolution’s Rainbow calls for the “outright abandonment of Darwin’s sexual selection theory” and posits a new theory of “social selection” to take its place.
Page Not Found
I do not see the real issue as being about role reversal. Correct me if I am wrong or have misread what your are writing. It seems to me that what is at issue is if something we might only be thinking about as artifical selection is an "aspect" of natural selection due to 'social' aspects AFTER the arrival of the molecular existence of sex (thus why it matters if sexual selection is primative rather than derivative (if "yes" than Roughgarden and I would be wrong (as argued in this thread) but if "no" then... well...))which would ipso facto then imply a different ESS (evolutionary stable strategy decided) division.
This came out by Roughgarden et al explaining to the letters to SCIENCE in VOL312 p 694(see tumbnail below) where they named "old fashioned" ESS and their version, which includes "strategies developed in behavioral time". So when you say,
quote:
it has specific ecological correlates that result in a reversal of the asymmetries between male and female.
is the "ecology" meant in the 'old' fashioned of Roughgarden sense?
You also said,
quote:
The asymmetries between the sexes, starting with the differential investment in gametes (anisogamy), and ending with differential investment in parental care, create many incontrovertable conflicts between the sexes that are resolved in different ways in different species. The author attempts to dismiss the significance of these differences in a very unconvincing manner.
The only way right now that I can start to figure out what you mean is if Gould is wrong and that I am free to explain how favored mutation directions correspond with organismal needs, which I am tempted to do but is not due if I have misread you.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-12-2006 03:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 11:00 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 3:58 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 86 of 131 (311701)
05-13-2006 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by EZscience
05-12-2006 3:58 PM


Re: A strongly biased attack on Sexual Selection theory
Great-
This pretty much cleared up my questions. I was trying to get a sense of your take as *possibly* different than RAZDs'. Razd can now correct me if I say something misrepresenting him. Don’t worry about the mutation direction area just yet if you don’t want to, that is just me.
Seeing that you do see some possibility for some notion of "social biology", I can redress any other points I want to make appropriately. It was just strange to me that the particular example you and Razd were discussing was the same as brought up in the letters to Science (I didn’t show those yet).
As far as I read it Roughgarden et al were only trying to set up an "alternative" to be tested against. I did not see evidence of "debunking" but I CAN say that the attitude of the whole relation of the neurobiology and behavior dept to the PSYCHOLOGY dept at Cornell is related to sexual selection, pretty much in exclusion to any REAL WORK in social biology(Cornell established a "BIOLOGY AND SOCIETY" dept instead), and this despite the writings of Wallace on the very thing. There is not enough cross over into the depts. of ecology ,evolution and systematics and I can see the reason has to do with how MATH not physics or chemistry is involved is the reason. The biologists simply have not "decided" to try to do so and because they have the "psychologists" on this side there is little academic social reason to do so. Roughgarden did. I new of Roughgarden's work on lizards before reading this. And in fact if you wait for a bus in Florida one can end up in "conflict" with a Brown Anole MALE, that will flash its dewlap if you just repeatedly point a finger at it and in that case I was just trying to go to the doctor, I had made no "investment" to seek out the lizard(as I had done on many other "herpetological" occasions). I was just standing there and it started in on me. I think the mate should have "remembered" that it was really on a pole in CUBA (ha ha, as if lizards were us...).
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-13-2006 07:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2006 3:58 PM EZscience 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