4 ms·

> suggests that the females have selected for traits they hate Selected for rejection in reproduction. But the term “select” here has a particular jargon meani

> suggests that the females have selected for traits they hate Selected for rejection in reproduction. But the term “select” here has a particular jargon meaning that doesn’t line up with how you seem to be using it. > collective eugenics Choosing breeding partners isn’t a eugenics program no matter how you try to frame it, that’s just mating. Evolutionary biology especially isn’t, it’s a process that happens generationally based on which genes continue to propagate. Certainly many species consciously prefer outcomes for their offspring, but they’re not (to anyone’s knowledge so far as I’m aware) making those choices for the whole of their social organization or species.

vmception 5y ago
I’m talking about evolutionary selection in the context of pressure for some genes to propagate, that is the jargon yes? I’m also acknowledging that an individual can influence that when many individuals are doing the same thing
- mxkopy 5y ago
  There is also the reverse, males can be selecting for traits that make it easier to propagate their genes... that's how I read the result. The more 'endowed'/aggressive the male is, the more complex the vagina becomes to retain some preference in gene retention. >I’m also acknowledging that an individual can influence that when many individuals are doing the same thing The individual can't influence anything on evolutionary scales EDIT: "Retaining preference" is an incredible mischaracterization and an artifact of my not being a biologist. What I'm sure is actually happening is aggression /'mating through endowment alone' is detrimental to the well being of the female, which is detrimental to the well being of the offspring. What is interesting though is that instead of such offspring dying and aggression/endowment being selected against, these traits stay around long enough for there to be some evolutionary pressure for females to adapt around. I guess this kind of makes sense since aggression and physical size are advantageous in fights and whatnot, so there is a selection process going on independent from the mating process of that species
  - vmception 5y ago
    > The individual can't influence anything on evolutionary scales Correct, unless many individuals from the whole generation are doing it. like I said. If the whole generation is selecting one way, then they are influencing the next generation greatly reducing the randomness of the outcome I will concede that I did consider the male influence, but opted to focus on the females because the article said the females can reject unwanted advances, and that only 2-5% of unwanted advances are successful (although would want to see that peer reviewed, something like that was comically said by US Senators only a few years back about humans, but with ducks? I don't know!), in any case this article is saying that the other 95-98% are the ones are selected for by the females. Who then have to fend off big dick energy in future seasons (sexual maturity being 4-5 months in duck world).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mxkopy 5y ago
      >If the whole generation is selecting one way, then they are influencing the next generation greatly reducing the randomness of the outcome Consider...the selection of the Nth generation, if it significantly affects the N+1th generation... was significantly affected by the N-1th... thus most if not all of the randomness lay in the 0th generation... But that's not the case. Each generation randomly selects traits, the distribution of these traits is constrained by their biological fitness, which is not determined by an individual, but by the interaction of phenotype and the environment. >Who then have to fend off big dick energy in future seasons Love is out there man. Just work on yourself and keep an open mind. Humans can work with abstractions so far above the base nature that we see in animals.
mxkopy 5y ago
Yeah OP reads kinda...weird. If natural mating processes are the source of 'generational woes'...we live in a really dark world
- vmception 5y ago
  like the article says about sex in general, I think the entire field has been avoiding studies on that I would like to see studies on it, peer reviewable, and will accept any direction the results go
  - mxkopy 5y ago
    I guess I am just confused by what you mean by generational woes. Do you mean the difficulty in coming of age in general? Or more specific woes that have to do with modernity?
    - vmception 5y ago
      generational woes such as more aggressive males with stronger penises, in this case.
vmception 5y ago
> Choosing breeding partners isn’t a eugenics program no matter how you try to frame it, that’s just mating. Okay fine. I would like a word specifically for a population collectively selecting for certain genes to propagate. Even if its not a controlled selective breeding programme like the word eugenics requires, I want a word for "population wide selective breeding of the exact same traits" programme.
- the_af 5y ago
  "Natural selection".
  - vmception 5y ago
    Touche' that's hadn't been good enough for me because its too broad, that one means anything that results in reproduction gets passed on, and assigns no agency to the individuals reproducing
    - mxkopy 5y ago
      >that one means anything that results in reproduction gets passed on No, it doesn't. Just because you reproduce does not mean your genes will get passed down more than a generation, especially if there is a method of reproduction that is more successful. The agency is exactly that. It's an emergent ranking of how successful certain genes are. There is no agency. For the individual there is only the response to the environment given their genetic makeup.
- mxkopy 5y ago
  >programme It's not a programme, that would make it eugenics, which it's not - there are no centralized decisions, there is no hiearchy with beings at the top saying "we want this trait but not this one." You would have to believe in a Lain-esque intelligence directing every cultural and biological movement from a central location, and in that case...stop taking acid and go to the club if you do...
  - 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

I’m talking about evolutionary selection in the context of pressure for some genes to propagate, that is the jargon yes? I’m also acknowledging that an individual can influence that when many individuals are doing the same thing

mxkopy 5y ago
There is also the reverse, males can be selecting for traits that make it easier to propagate their genes... that's how I read the result. The more 'endowed'/aggressive the male is, the more complex the vagina becomes to retain some preference in gene retention. >I’m also acknowledging that an individual can influence that when many individuals are doing the same thing The individual can't influence anything on evolutionary scales EDIT: "Retaining preference" is an incredible mischaracterization and an artifact of my not being a biologist. What I'm sure is actually happening is aggression /'mating through endowment alone' is detrimental to the well being of the female, which is detrimental to the well being of the offspring. What is interesting though is that instead of such offspring dying and aggression/endowment being selected against, these traits stay around long enough for there to be some evolutionary pressure for females to adapt around. I guess this kind of makes sense since aggression and physical size are advantageous in fights and whatnot, so there is a selection process going on independent from the mating process of that species
- vmception 5y ago
  > The individual can't influence anything on evolutionary scales Correct, unless many individuals from the whole generation are doing it. like I said. If the whole generation is selecting one way, then they are influencing the next generation greatly reducing the randomness of the outcome I will concede that I did consider the male influence, but opted to focus on the females because the article said the females can reject unwanted advances, and that only 2-5% of unwanted advances are successful (although would want to see that peer reviewed, something like that was comically said by US Senators only a few years back about humans, but with ducks? I don't know!), in any case this article is saying that the other 95-98% are the ones are selected for by the females. Who then have to fend off big dick energy in future seasons (sexual maturity being 4-5 months in duck world).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mxkopy 5y ago
    >If the whole generation is selecting one way, then they are influencing the next generation greatly reducing the randomness of the outcome Consider...the selection of the Nth generation, if it significantly affects the N+1th generation... was significantly affected by the N-1th... thus most if not all of the randomness lay in the 0th generation... But that's not the case. Each generation randomly selects traits, the distribution of these traits is constrained by their biological fitness, which is not determined by an individual, but by the interaction of phenotype and the environment. >Who then have to fend off big dick energy in future seasons Love is out there man. Just work on yourself and keep an open mind. Humans can work with abstractions so far above the base nature that we see in animals.

mxkopy 5y ago

Yeah OP reads kinda...weird. If natural mating processes are the source of 'generational woes'...we live in a really dark world

vmception 5y ago
like the article says about sex in general, I think the entire field has been avoiding studies on that I would like to see studies on it, peer reviewable, and will accept any direction the results go
- mxkopy 5y ago
  I guess I am just confused by what you mean by generational woes. Do you mean the difficulty in coming of age in general? Or more specific woes that have to do with modernity?
  - vmception 5y ago
    generational woes such as more aggressive males with stronger penises, in this case.

vmception 5y ago

> Choosing breeding partners isn’t a eugenics program no matter how you try to frame it, that’s just mating. Okay fine. I would like a word specifically for a population collectively selecting for certain genes to propagate. Even if its not a controlled selective breeding programme like the word eugenics requires, I want a word for "population wide selective breeding of the exact same traits" programme.

the_af 5y ago
"Natural selection".
- vmception 5y ago
  Touche' that's hadn't been good enough for me because its too broad, that one means anything that results in reproduction gets passed on, and assigns no agency to the individuals reproducing
  - mxkopy 5y ago
    >that one means anything that results in reproduction gets passed on No, it doesn't. Just because you reproduce does not mean your genes will get passed down more than a generation, especially if there is a method of reproduction that is more successful. The agency is exactly that. It's an emergent ranking of how successful certain genes are. There is no agency. For the individual there is only the response to the environment given their genetic makeup.
mxkopy 5y ago
>programme It's not a programme, that would make it eugenics, which it's not - there are no centralized decisions, there is no hiearchy with beings at the top saying "we want this trait but not this one." You would have to believe in a Lain-esque intelligence directing every cultural and biological movement from a central location, and in that case...stop taking acid and go to the club if you do...
- 5y ago