Sexual selection: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{a|people|}}The yang to natural selection’s yin, and the thing that perhaps more than anything else leads to muted cries that the theory of Evolution may be not so...")
 
(Redirected page to Evolution by natural selection)
Tag: New redirect
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|people|}}The yang to [[natural selection]]’s yin, and the thing that perhaps more than anything else leads to muted cries that the theory of [[Evolution]] may be not so much universal acid as universal ''arse''.
#redirect[[Evolution by natural selection]]
 
For natural selection says that all variations are selected for environmental fitness. This, you would think, stands to reason (is ''[[a priori]]'' true); for if it were not, and a variation that ''prejudiced'' one’s environmental fitness could sometimes win out in the genetic lottery, then the reliable [[algorithm]] of incremental, and inevitable, ''improvement'' of a species’ capacity to cope with prevailing conditions would be, in a word, buggered.
 
A successful variation which prejudices a species’ ability to survive and replicate, would ''[[falsify]]'' the theory of evolution by natural selection, you would think.
 
Yet, this is exactly what sexual selection purports to do: explain the prevalance of “peacock’s tails” in the genetic record — biological adaptions which confer no survival benefit at all, and indeed, seem to make survival harder. Such as a male peacock’s tail.
 
There is a theory that the client alert has survived in the great ecosystem of ideas, despite it being read by absolutely no-one except the poor sod commissioned to put it together, and his supervising associate, by dint of some kind of analogue to sexual selection.
 
{{sa}}
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Legal evolution]]
*[[Client alert]]

Latest revision as of 08:17, 3 October 2023