2 ms·
Sure, that's exactly the 'hidden fitness argument' mentioned in the article, which the author is arguing is insufficient to explain observed behaviors. A thoug
by sdenton4 9y ago
Sure, that's exactly the 'hidden fitness argument' mentioned in the article, which the author is arguing is insufficient to explain observed behaviors.
A thought I had while reading the review: survival is the low bar on fitness. Once you've passed the bar and have ten males to choose from, some sort of differentiation can easily come into play, regardless of whether or makes much sense with regard to utility.
- subroutine 9y agoFirst, it is completely sufficient. How is it not? I think the author is taking an idea that is already embedded in evolutionary theory and presenting it as a novel idea that doesnt fall under the scope of 'survival of the fittest' Anything that increases an organism's odds of passing on their genes compared to another conspecific can be considered 'fitness'. Survival is not taken to mean within a single generation, survival refers to the genes; attracting a sexual partner is a central component of being evolutionarily fit. Lastly, even within a single generation, I'm not so sure you can claim survival is a low bar - when you are in the food chain.
- sdenton4 9y agoa) Sure, fitness can take an expansive definition. The question is whether sexual selection is a separate force from natural selection. If so, fitness would break down into environmental fitness and reproductive fitness. b) the height of the survival bar of quite variable. Suppose you've got a decent niche that holds steady for a few millennia. Or your an invasive species with no real competition but others of your kind. In either case there's plenty of space for variation to arise which won't depend on natural selection pressure.