82,469
edits
Sexual selection: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (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...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
A successful variation which prejudices a species’ ability to survive and replicate, would ''[[falsify]]'' the theory of evolution by natural selection, you would think. | 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 | Yet, this is exactly what sexual selection purports to do: explain the prevalence 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. | 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. | ||