3 ms·

First, 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 n

First, 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 ago
a) 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.