Posted: Sep 17, 2019 12:57 pm
Lets do what always happens just to show why we're still here 10 years later.
First, I will put up sources which disprove JJ's contention.
Then, JJ will ignore them all, or most of them, unless he can find a snippet somewhere in the text which, if taken out of context, and if engaging wilful ignorance of the rest of the text, could possibly be distorted just enough to not completely demolish his central contention.
After that, JJ will go find some other source, which will be either distant and abstracted from the argument and thus perhaps be less specific in its use of language to leave room for quote-mining, or else find something that completely confounds his argument, but will include 3 words next to each other that JJ can appeal to ad nauseam as if he's struck gold.
Finally, he will simply pretend it never happened and continue repeating the same falsehoods while protesting his perfect innocence, castigating everyone else for noting the argumentative deceit, and pretending it all ultimately - through some serious contortions - underscores what he's been saying all along about teh atheists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_28
https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanford ... ction.html
https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-selection
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfl ... -selection
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2210015198
*cough cough*
Sexual selection really is just one part of natural selection, specifically the part concerned with traits that provide preferential mating success; as natural selection isn't really about survival but ultimately about mating success, there is no real distinction in terms of the process which occurs. We could, of course, come up with special names for all manner of subdivisions of selection: eating selection, predator selection, germ selection and so on which focus on traits which are acquired and varied that result ultimately in differential reproductive success, but we tend to clump all them together under one heading. Just as genes beneficial in one circumstance can be a hindrance in another, so with sexual selection where a trait selected for by potential mates actually makes survival harder for the bearer of said trait, but as the bearer of that trait is more likely to find mates and therefore reproduce, they are more likely to send that trait into the next generation, and that phenotype will become statistically more wide-spread in the population.
What many people don't realize is that natural selection isn't trying to craft beautiful bodies that can survive mountains falling on their heads. Natural selection only equates to the outcome; the presence of certain genes in the next generation. The best and most cunningly adapted to their environment may be horribly inept at getting mates, doing the business or just have poor fertility and consequently leave less of their traits in future generations, meanwhile an individual with relatively poor survival traits but who is fecund and attractive could be overly represented in future generations even if their genes made their heads melt, their hearts explode, or their teeth fall out... just so long as they get time to produce more offspring than their competitors, they will be selected for.
It's common for Creationists to think of evolution basically working like Pokemon, and understandably so when they're still basically wedded to the Medieval Great Chain of Being, but the reality is far more prosaic and statistical.
First, I will put up sources which disprove JJ's contention.
Then, JJ will ignore them all, or most of them, unless he can find a snippet somewhere in the text which, if taken out of context, and if engaging wilful ignorance of the rest of the text, could possibly be distorted just enough to not completely demolish his central contention.
After that, JJ will go find some other source, which will be either distant and abstracted from the argument and thus perhaps be less specific in its use of language to leave room for quote-mining, or else find something that completely confounds his argument, but will include 3 words next to each other that JJ can appeal to ad nauseam as if he's struck gold.
Finally, he will simply pretend it never happened and continue repeating the same falsehoods while protesting his perfect innocence, castigating everyone else for noting the argumentative deceit, and pretending it all ultimately - through some serious contortions - underscores what he's been saying all along about teh atheists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection). These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have better reproductive success than others within a population, either because they are more attractive or prefer more attractive partners to produce offspring.
Sexual selection is a form of natural selection where one sex prefers a specific characteristic in an individual of the other sex.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_28
Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection. Sexual selection acts on an organism's ability to obtain (often by any means necessary!) or successfully copulate with a mate.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanford ... ction.html
Sexual selection can be thought of as two special kinds of natural selection, as described below. Natural selection occurs when some individuals out-reproduce others, and those that have more offspring differ genetically from those that have fewer.
In one kind of sexual selection, members of one sex create a reproductive differential among themselves by competing for opportunities to mate. The winners out-reproduce the others, and natural selection occurs if the characteristics that determine winning are, at least in part, inherited. In the other kind of sexual selection, members of one sex create a reproductive differential in the other sex by preferring some individuals as mates. If the ones they prefer are genetically different from the ones they shun, then natural selection is occurring.
...
That second type of sexual selection, in which one sex chooses among potential mates, appears to be the most common type among birds. As evidence that such selection is widespread, consider the reversal of normal sexual differences in the ornamentation of some polyandrous birds. There, the male must choose among females, which, in turn, must be as alluring as possible. Consequently in polyandrous species the female is ordinarily more colorful -- it is her secondary sexual characteristics that are enhanced. This fooled even Audubon, who confused the sexes when labeling his paintings of phalaropes. Female phalaropes compete for the plain-colored males, and the latter incubate the eggs and tend the young.
https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-selection
The concept of sexual selection as a special form of natural selection is easily explained. Other things being equal, organisms more proficient in securing mates have higher fitness.
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfl ... -selection
Sexual selection is a special kind of natural selection in which mating preferences influence the traits of the organism
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2210015198
Sexual selection is a concept that has probably been misunderstood and misrepresented more than any other idea in evolutionary biology, confusion that continues to the present day.
*cough cough*
While in some ways less intuitive than natural selection, sexual selection is conceptually identical to it, and evolution via either mechanism will occur given sufficient genetic variation.
Sexual selection really is just one part of natural selection, specifically the part concerned with traits that provide preferential mating success; as natural selection isn't really about survival but ultimately about mating success, there is no real distinction in terms of the process which occurs. We could, of course, come up with special names for all manner of subdivisions of selection: eating selection, predator selection, germ selection and so on which focus on traits which are acquired and varied that result ultimately in differential reproductive success, but we tend to clump all them together under one heading. Just as genes beneficial in one circumstance can be a hindrance in another, so with sexual selection where a trait selected for by potential mates actually makes survival harder for the bearer of said trait, but as the bearer of that trait is more likely to find mates and therefore reproduce, they are more likely to send that trait into the next generation, and that phenotype will become statistically more wide-spread in the population.
What many people don't realize is that natural selection isn't trying to craft beautiful bodies that can survive mountains falling on their heads. Natural selection only equates to the outcome; the presence of certain genes in the next generation. The best and most cunningly adapted to their environment may be horribly inept at getting mates, doing the business or just have poor fertility and consequently leave less of their traits in future generations, meanwhile an individual with relatively poor survival traits but who is fecund and attractive could be overly represented in future generations even if their genes made their heads melt, their hearts explode, or their teeth fall out... just so long as they get time to produce more offspring than their competitors, they will be selected for.
It's common for Creationists to think of evolution basically working like Pokemon, and understandably so when they're still basically wedded to the Medieval Great Chain of Being, but the reality is far more prosaic and statistical.