5 ms·

Structurally speaking, it's easy to imagine a number of ways the female could have complete control over the process. But if we don't observe that complete con

Structurally speaking, it's easy to imagine a number of ways the female could have complete control over the process. But if we don't observe that complete control (at least not in most species), and instead it's more of an "arms race"; then it makes me think complete control is an evolutionary disadvantage. Is that true?

mxkopy 5y ago
I think at some point other limitations come into play that prevent it being an arms race. It would be quite funny, but unfeasible, for most of the male's physical development to go to their reproductive organs. At some point it would weigh you down, you wouldn't be able run fast and you'd get eaten...
Fomite 5y ago
One thing to keep in mind is that evolution does not produce global optimums - only local ones.
- dmichulke 5y ago
  That's kind of a hard thing to measure against, can you tell me of an example in real life where you know something is the global optimum?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    That’s basically why it does local optima rather than global. As for an example where you know the global optima: real life hill climbing rather than the blindfolded version used to explain the algorithm of the same name?
  - Fomite 5y ago
    You don't need to know something is a global optimum - you just need to know there's a slightly better at-least-local optimum with a decrease in fitness between that and where one is now.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  While the individual interactions between organisms are indeed local, sexual evolution precisely attempts to work around this limitation with selection pressure for diversity. That is to say, sexual evolution increasingly approximates a globally optimal process, as an aggregate system of autonomous agents. The Internet is also not actually a global network. It's just lots of local connections between two computers. Yet the effect approaches a global network.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    You use a lot of jargon, but I’m not sure where you ended up. It seems obvious to me (from logic and observation) that most animals don’t have global connectivity (despite your comparison to internet meshes), and obviously evolve differently across the world.
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      There is genetic exchange between different animals from across the world, which is a mechanism that has evolved presumably specifically because it strengthens global resolve. It's entirely non-obvious but genetic material propagates through many pathways, including but not limited to sexual reproduction. Virii, for example, transfer genes between species. Bacteria have plasmids, rings of genes they can literally just give to other bacteria.
jtsiskin 5y ago
I would guess it’s about genetic variety. If a female duck had complete control, genetic variety would likely decrease quickly as fewer, genetically similar males fathered all the children. This group of ducks would be more susceptible to disease, genetic defects, etc. It could also be the case that if male ducks can’t be certain who the father is, they are more likely to help protect/not kill the young.
yunohn 5y ago
> it makes me think complete control is an evolutionary disadvantage Have you considered that every specie approaches this differently for their own situations? That doesn’t mean it’s a conceptual failure.
runeks 5y ago
> Structurally speaking, it's easy to imagine a number of ways the female could have complete control over the process. Would you care to name a few? I don’t immediately see it, unless we assume that the male genitalia stops adapting to whatever the female has.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  There are millipedes that don't have sex. Presumably the female has the ability to curl up inside her armor and there's not much the male can do if that happens. Mating takes place in much the same way most fish do it, with the female releasing eggs and the male fertilizing them. Female fish can't really establish control of the process this way, but female millipedes basically can as long as they only meet one male at a time. The strategy is not fundamentally stable; female bedbugs have no genitalia at all but that doesn't give them any control.

mxkopy 5y ago

I think at some point other limitations come into play that prevent it being an arms race. It would be quite funny, but unfeasible, for most of the male's physical development to go to their reproductive organs. At some point it would weigh you down, you wouldn't be able run fast and you'd get eaten...

Fomite 5y ago

One thing to keep in mind is that evolution does not produce global optimums - only local ones.

dmichulke 5y ago
That's kind of a hard thing to measure against, can you tell me of an example in real life where you know something is the global optimum?
- ben_w 5y ago
  That’s basically why it does local optima rather than global. As for an example where you know the global optima: real life hill climbing rather than the blindfolded version used to explain the algorithm of the same name?
- Fomite 5y ago
  You don't need to know something is a global optimum - you just need to know there's a slightly better at-least-local optimum with a decrease in fitness between that and where one is now.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
While the individual interactions between organisms are indeed local, sexual evolution precisely attempts to work around this limitation with selection pressure for diversity. That is to say, sexual evolution increasingly approximates a globally optimal process, as an aggregate system of autonomous agents. The Internet is also not actually a global network. It's just lots of local connections between two computers. Yet the effect approaches a global network.
- yunohn 5y ago
  You use a lot of jargon, but I’m not sure where you ended up. It seems obvious to me (from logic and observation) that most animals don’t have global connectivity (despite your comparison to internet meshes), and obviously evolve differently across the world.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    There is genetic exchange between different animals from across the world, which is a mechanism that has evolved presumably specifically because it strengthens global resolve. It's entirely non-obvious but genetic material propagates through many pathways, including but not limited to sexual reproduction. Virii, for example, transfer genes between species. Bacteria have plasmids, rings of genes they can literally just give to other bacteria.

jtsiskin 5y ago

I would guess it’s about genetic variety. If a female duck had complete control, genetic variety would likely decrease quickly as fewer, genetically similar males fathered all the children. This group of ducks would be more susceptible to disease, genetic defects, etc. It could also be the case that if male ducks can’t be certain who the father is, they are more likely to help protect/not kill the young.

yunohn 5y ago

> it makes me think complete control is an evolutionary disadvantage Have you considered that every specie approaches this differently for their own situations? That doesn’t mean it’s a conceptual failure.

runeks 5y ago

> Structurally speaking, it's easy to imagine a number of ways the female could have complete control over the process. Would you care to name a few? I don’t immediately see it, unless we assume that the male genitalia stops adapting to whatever the female has.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
There are millipedes that don't have sex. Presumably the female has the ability to curl up inside her armor and there's not much the male can do if that happens. Mating takes place in much the same way most fish do it, with the female releasing eggs and the male fertilizing them. Female fish can't really establish control of the process this way, but female millipedes basically can as long as they only meet one male at a time. The strategy is not fundamentally stable; female bedbugs have no genitalia at all but that doesn't give them any control.