Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock

Another question is male - male selection.

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.Enjoy

What has been sexually selected in humans is the apparent bareness, especially in females.Rather than being actually bare, the bare appearing skin is covered with fine vellus hair. More ape hair traits are retained in males, including backs, chests, arms and legs hair, where terminal hair grows, while predominantly vellus hair on backs, breasts, arms and legs of females. Vellus hair is found on children, so this is a retained childhood trait in women more than men. This indicates the selection is in the females (for youthful appearance), and the male expression of apparent bareness is inherited\carryover from genes shared with females.The (terminal hair) beard in the male also signals coming of age for mating.Enjoy

They don't and it isn't necessarily so -- they make the more childlike female be more fit by mating with her in preference over other females, that is how sexual selection operates.The fact that this selection process is still going on is an indicator that it has been around for a while.Sexual desire for more childlike → young looking models in ads
Sexual desire for less hair → female body shavingEnjoy.

Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human EvolutionSo, yes, just a bit -- along with evidence supporting the thesis. If you look at chimpanzee hair patterns, and note that there is a general trend to lower density the larger a species is, then a line extends from monkeys to apes to elephants ... and human hair density falls on that line.Male chimps have beards (usually white?).We do not have less hair, we just overall have less noticeable hair.Personally I think the selection for apparent hairlessness is what drove the speciation split from chimpanzees ...Enjoy

Female chimps have hairs on their chins. Young chimps do not appear to have hairs on their chins, but vellus hair is not easy to see, being very fine and relatively transparent.Female humans have hairs on their chins -- it is just very fine vellus hair instead of terminal hair.Male human have terminal hairs on their chins.What has happened is that the progression of hair on female faces has been arrested during development at the vellus hair stage. Breasts and hips signal sexual readiness. The conflict between youthful appearance and sexual signal traits results in desire for a combination of traits that is not available ... and this has been ascertained by experiments. Such extreme shifting of sexual desired to outside the range of available alleles shows Fischerian Runaway Sexual Selection.In populations where women have fat flat noses, the children also have fat flat noses.The sale of razors to remove hair from armpits, legs etc. shows that selection for apparent bareness is alive and well in human society.In cases where women have male pattern hair it is treated as a disability -- or as a circus performer.Enjoy.