May 27, 2010

From Toby Katz:

Re: “Other half” of Darwin’s theory passes test (Oct. 13, 2008):

Quote: 'Sex­u­al se­lec­tion is an in­tri­guing as­pect of ev­o­lu­tion be­cause it drives the ev­o­lu­tion of traits that on their face, seem less than clearly ben­e­fi­cial, said Dun­can Greig of Uni­ver­s­ity Col­lege in Lon­don, one of the pa­per’s au­thors “For ex­am­ple a pea­cock’s tail might be con­spic­u­ous to preda­tors,” he not­ed in an e­mail. Or for a hu­man equiv­a­lent: “Fer­rari drivers might be more likely to end up splat­ted against a tree than Buick drivers.” For both ex­am­ples, “the sim­ple ex­plana­t­ion is that the cost is more than bal­anced by the ben­e­fit of ex­tra mat­ing.”'

From an evolutionary standpoint, how would it make sense for a female to be more attracted to a mate with worse survival potential?!


Blogger John Ludlow said...

The only way it makes sense to me is if females have a strong attraction to males who are willing to put themselves in danger, for example to protect the female and her young.

This in turn makes sense if there was a history (in early evolution) of males abandoning their mate and young when danger arrives.

May 28, 2010 1:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home