Agnostic.com

5 0

Does Sexual Selection impeach Intelligent Design?

This stuck me this morning at the gym, which seems to be a hot spot (gyms in general, not just mine) for sexual selection... working to improve chances of getting selected, displaying selection attributes, doing the actual selecting. And there has been a cluster here of evolution vs creation stuff here lately, so I'm posting this question.

Sexual selection takes resources away from the natural selection process of getting more food and getting eaten by something else less. Granted, some sexual selection attributes could be cross-linked to natural selection: a 12-point buck may have better chance of fending off a predator than some lesser deer. But I don't think anyone has proposed peacock's tail as being good for anything except attracting pea-hens. The point here is that once it started, perhaps at some point in the Cambrian, sexual selection has kept pace with natural selection ever since.

So.

Do we think that any factor not directly related to getting food and not getting eaten, such as, for example, gigantism or longevity, once it starts being a thing to select, just keeps going under the same mathematical rules as natural selection until it puts such a dent in food-getting that the species implodes? This is to say, does biological evolution operate under its rules, randomly, and NOT necessarily with regard to efficiency in getting more food and keeping more offspring alive?

Or, do we think a designer would have included an efficiency-damper in the package?

I know that most people here wouldn't bother with this question because there is no objective basis or reason for hypothesizing a designer. But humor me, please.

andygee 7 Jan 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I am a hunter... I only hunt sex. I like the smell of a woman as much in the morning as at night. Love supersedes sex. So my hunting is only to improving my chances to become a lover. That's it. Analysis, theory or philosophy... you guys can keep them. I am in for the sport. I am a sportsman in search of the smell of a trophy.

2

Intelligent design has so many flaws, it's kinda hard to not impeach it for tons of reasons.

To me the biggest flaw is that they just cherry pick "evidence" that sounds good, or isn't refutable because of the nature of the argument.

If you pick only evidence that supports your theory, then it will seem true. If you simply ignore the rest, then it really only is just smart sounding dogma.

Evolution does take dead ends sometimes, maybe sexual selection reinforces that, who knows.

1

There is a book called The Evolution of Beauty that argues sexual selection is not just a variation of natural selection, that some traits are selected just for their beauty amd serve no other evolutionary function. It has a lot of stuff in there about the effects of mate choice, of female animals and women in particular. It's a really good book.

0

Focusing on the example of the peacock's plumage as an example of sexual selection, I posit this: that it is because the bird is able to grow and maintain this burdensome mass and still thrive, it is an attractive feature to a potential mate. It's not a matter of aesthetics. Sexual selection is the coup de grace of selective pressures. Imagine a beneficial trait that is otherwise repugnant, like an odor that repels everything including flies. It might make him proof against insect borne infections but weighs heavily against the possibility of reproduction or even social interaction.
As for sexual selection being a positive argument for ID, I don't see it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It has been proven that when we see beauty in a potential mate we are witnessing symmetry in their structure. That is a key symptom of genetic stability which is preferable to instability. These things can happen and do happen logically without there being any prime mover.

Not all scientists agree. It's controversial but some think some traits are chosen purely for their aesthetic appeal. I found this out reading The Evolution of Beauty.

@Solidarity This might sound circular but here goes: the aesthetic appeal is based on a selective pressure. That which we find attractive may be lodged in a genetic benefit.BTW, who is the author? I wouldn't mind expanding my library if you could help.

@Hicks66 It is Richard O. Prum, who does address the issue you raised. I can't remember the examples he used off the top of my head but he gave several examples of traits with no genetic benefit other than the females of the species just happen to prefer it (and preferences themselves evolve, in a feedback loop) and sometimes these traits were actually disdvantageous in some way.

@Solidarity Thank you.

I may not have been clear. I'm proposing that SS refutes ID.

@andegee Probably all forms of evolution do, I would think. And the existance of bad backs, the appendix, sex organs being so close to waste removal, etc. If there were a designer he isn't very intelligent at all.

0

The question "design??" Indicates there is a designer!!
As of me sexual selection is purely instinct based.
And all falls within origin of evolution.

I'm asking this to see if people think this is a valid impeachment of ID. I'm not proposing a designer!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:18796
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.