3 ms·
It explains how useless ornamentation is nevertheless sexually attractive, as opposed to just characteristics with clear evolutionary value.
by version_five 3y ago
It explains how useless ornamentation is nevertheless sexually attractive, as opposed to just characteristics with clear evolutionary value.
- turnsout 3y agoIt just strikes me as a completely inanely self-evident observation. If evolution is an ongoing optimization for fitness and survival, success in procreation is a blindingly obvious component of that equation. The more interesting question would be why ornamentation independently emerges as a trait in evolution. Is it that partners favor certain functional traits that become more and more exaggerated, until they're no longer functional? Is it that ornamentation itself is intrinsically interesting to animals with eyes? Or is it that ornamentation is a stand-in for genetic quality of some kind? Any of those would be less vapid than "females prefer attractive and promiscuous males because they want their offspring to also attract mates and procreate."