3 ms·

This is an example of what anthropologists and evolutionary biologists call "adaptive storytelling." Just because human beings or any other organism have a par

by whyenot 17y ago

This is an example of what anthropologists and evolutionary biologists call "adaptive storytelling." Just because human beings or any other organism have a particular feature or behavior does not necessarily mean that it is an adaptation and does not necessarily mean that natural selection has acted upon it. You've come up with an interesting story but that is all it is -- there is absolutely no reason to believe it is correct. For a more detailed (and entertaining!) explanation, see the classic paper by Gould and Lewontin (1979) http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/gould.pdf http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/gould...

barry-cotter 17y ago
Your point is worthwhile, and spandrels certainly do exist, but you weaken your point by linking to a paper in which Gould was involved, even if Lewontin (who actually knows what he's talking about in evolutionary biology) was the co-athor. Also, spandrels would be expected to be ephemeral over evolutionary time, while the much greater skewness of male reproductive success over female is practically a biological universal. The optimal reproductive strategies will thus differ, and higher male risk tolerance seems one of the more plausible evo-bio "just so" stories. Lewontin's Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/ If you've read anything Stephen J. Gould has ever said about evolutionary biology, I have some bad news for you. In the field of evolutionary biology at large, Gould's reputation is mud. Not because he was wrong. Many honest scientists have made honest mistakes. What Gould did was much worse, involving deliberate misrepresentation of science.
- whyenot 17y ago
  That paper I linked to is a classic that every graduate student in evolutionary biology and has read and discussed. I honestly don't know how to respond further without being offensive. If you want to educate yourself on evolutionary theory, here are some papers to get you started (note that Gould and Lewontin is one of them). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/ http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/ Also, spandrels would be expected to be ephemeral over evolutionary time, while the much greater skewness of male reproductive success over female is practically a biological universal. I don't agree with either of these. Please explain your reasoning, maybe I'm just misunderstanding the points you are trying to make.
  - barry-cotter 17y ago
    Why not be offensive? My dismissal is based far more on my state of knowledge than on that of true or aspirant experts. It took me an hour to get through the Hardy-Weinberg Equation and that was recently. I'm relying upon the fact that Tooby, Cosmides and Pinker among others do not respect Gould. http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html I see no special reason to rate Gould as an evolutionary biologist. As an essayist and polemicist, I rate him, and I'm as qualified to do so as anyone else. As a palaeontologist, I rate him because Harvard did. As an evolutionary biologist, ttbomk his contributions boil down to coining "punctuauted equilibrium" i.e. adaptation does not proceed always and everywhere at a uniform speed. Why would I, currently ignorant as I am, read the work of someone who I do not trust to put science before ideology? If I ever reach a stage where I can say I'm not ignorant I'd obviosuly read Lewontin first. Spandrels: Complexity that is not conserved as such but that arises as a consequence of some feature that is selected for. Thus any mutations that effect the spandrel but not the parent feature will have no selective advantage or disadvantage. As such the spandrel will decay or be repurposed in some adaptive fashion. It will not be conserved as such. Male reproductive skew: How many calories does it cost me to deposit some sperm and then bugger off? How many does it cost a female to bring a child to term? How many more to bring it to sexual maturity and/or independence? Given the diference in minimum investment, and the 1:1 sex ratio that arises as a consequence of Fisher's Principle a very small advantage in mating will have a much greater effect on males than females in terms of number of surviving offspring, and will as such be more strongly selected for. Alternatively, why do we have males and females rather than interfertile hermaphrodites? Given that we do, why do we have so many males when a tenth or a hundredth as many would do to fertilise all the females? Apologies for the late reply.

by whyenot 17y ago

barry-cotter 17y ago

Your point is worthwhile, and spandrels certainly do exist, but you weaken your point by linking to a paper in which Gould was involved, even if Lewontin (who actually knows what he's talking about in evolutionary biology) was the co-athor. Also, spandrels would be expected to be ephemeral over evolutionary time, while the much greater skewness of male reproductive success over female is practically a biological universal. The optimal reproductive strategies will thus differ, and higher male risk tolerance seems one of the more plausible evo-bio "just so" stories. Lewontin's Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/ If you've read anything Stephen J. Gould has ever said about evolutionary biology, I have some bad news for you. In the field of evolutionary biology at large, Gould's reputation is mud. Not because he was wrong. Many honest scientists have made honest mistakes. What Gould did was much worse, involving deliberate misrepresentation of science.

whyenot 17y ago
That paper I linked to is a classic that every graduate student in evolutionary biology and has read and discussed. I honestly don't know how to respond further without being offensive. If you want to educate yourself on evolutionary theory, here are some papers to get you started (note that Gould and Lewontin is one of them). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/ http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/ Also, spandrels would be expected to be ephemeral over evolutionary time, while the much greater skewness of male reproductive success over female is practically a biological universal. I don't agree with either of these. Please explain your reasoning, maybe I'm just misunderstanding the points you are trying to make.
- barry-cotter 17y ago
  Why not be offensive? My dismissal is based far more on my state of knowledge than on that of true or aspirant experts. It took me an hour to get through the Hardy-Weinberg Equation and that was recently. I'm relying upon the fact that Tooby, Cosmides and Pinker among others do not respect Gould. http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html I see no special reason to rate Gould as an evolutionary biologist. As an essayist and polemicist, I rate him, and I'm as qualified to do so as anyone else. As a palaeontologist, I rate him because Harvard did. As an evolutionary biologist, ttbomk his contributions boil down to coining "punctuauted equilibrium" i.e. adaptation does not proceed always and everywhere at a uniform speed. Why would I, currently ignorant as I am, read the work of someone who I do not trust to put science before ideology? If I ever reach a stage where I can say I'm not ignorant I'd obviosuly read Lewontin first. Spandrels: Complexity that is not conserved as such but that arises as a consequence of some feature that is selected for. Thus any mutations that effect the spandrel but not the parent feature will have no selective advantage or disadvantage. As such the spandrel will decay or be repurposed in some adaptive fashion. It will not be conserved as such. Male reproductive skew: How many calories does it cost me to deposit some sperm and then bugger off? How many does it cost a female to bring a child to term? How many more to bring it to sexual maturity and/or independence? Given the diference in minimum investment, and the 1:1 sex ratio that arises as a consequence of Fisher's Principle a very small advantage in mating will have a much greater effect on males than females in terms of number of surviving offspring, and will as such be more strongly selected for. Alternatively, why do we have males and females rather than interfertile hermaphrodites? Given that we do, why do we have so many males when a tenth or a hundredth as many would do to fertilise all the females? Apologies for the late reply.