3 ms·

Without passing judgment on the book itself, which I have not read, I find key elements of the argument as presented in this review to be unconvincing. > Consi

Without passing judgment on the book itself, which I have not read, I find key elements of the argument as presented in this review to be unconvincing. > Consider, for instance, this handful of well-known distinguishing human traits: [...human mating behaviors...] none of these traits evolved in our fellow ape species. Prum argues that they evolved in humans because they help women evaluate men’s prosocial-pleasure potential. Wait but, if they're so helpful, why didn't they evolve in our fellow ape species too? Our mating behaviors aren't any more evolved than apes, the apes of today have had exactly the same amount of time to evolve as we have. Shouldn't this case be made based on archeological species that we've since outcompeted? An a separate note, this review makes it sound like no one else has done significant work on sexual selection. Isn't Fisherian runaway, for example, a well-known instance of sexual selection? And Ronald Fisher was a key figure in the modern synthesis.

pygy_ 9y ago
> Shouldn't this case be made based on archeological species that we've since outcompeted? Wait a few decades and we'll be the only ape species left (not counting captive subjects). Edit, since the above extrapolation isn't apparently convincing: all ape species are currently endangered. While they are not extinct yet, we have outcompeted them to the point where we have to take active measures for them not to become so.
hwillis 9y ago
> Wait but, if they're so helpful, why didn't they evolve in our fellow ape species too? Apes have vastly different social structures than humans. Those structures do not encourage those traits. Apes have strict ranking and group around families. In chimps, females emigrate after puberty and permanently relocate to other groups. Fertility is used as a passport to join a new group. Constant fertility would be disruptive. Humans want to have sex constantly because it helps form large communities. The possibility of mating bonds together many nonfamily groups. Humans do better in large groups, so attractive features are selected for much more strongly. In ape groups it doesn't matter, because they simply accept or reject new apes based on the size of the group and availability of resources.

pygy_ 9y ago

> Shouldn't this case be made based on archeological species that we've since outcompeted? Wait a few decades and we'll be the only ape species left (not counting captive subjects). Edit, since the above extrapolation isn't apparently convincing: all ape species are currently endangered. While they are not extinct yet, we have outcompeted them to the point where we have to take active measures for them not to become so.

hwillis 9y ago

> Wait but, if they're so helpful, why didn't they evolve in our fellow ape species too? Apes have vastly different social structures than humans. Those structures do not encourage those traits. Apes have strict ranking and group around families. In chimps, females emigrate after puberty and permanently relocate to other groups. Fertility is used as a passport to join a new group. Constant fertility would be disruptive. Humans want to have sex constantly because it helps form large communities. The possibility of mating bonds together many nonfamily groups. Humans do better in large groups, so attractive features are selected for much more strongly. In ape groups it doesn't matter, because they simply accept or reject new apes based on the size of the group and availability of resources.