Comments on: Sexual selection and how the peacock got its tail http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:29:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Annis http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail/comment-page-1/#comment-554 David Annis Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:06:53 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=103#comment-554 To A Skeptic: I think that you have some valid criticism of wording, but I take some issue with your argument that the wording amounts to bad science. I don't believe that peacocks intend to produce sexy male offspring. Perhaps I should have said that "A female peahen that selects males with elaborate ornament in a population where females tend to select for ornamentation will have offspring that are more reproductively fit and thereby contribute to the perpetuation of the selection mechanism" but on a site with a lay audience that is much harder to follow. While the statement was ambiguous and could imply plans and intention I don't believe that my statement as necessitates plans and intentions. Selection can be caused by plan and intention or by another mechanism. Either way the result is the same - a self perpetuating selection mechanism. I don't address the mechanism by which the female makes the choice, but she is intentionally choosing. There have been experiments that show that females in many species choose mates very intentionally, not just mating with the first available male of the species. I do, however, want to point out that I believe plans and intention can occur in the natural world. When I was courting my wife, it certainly crossed my mind that if we ever had kids they would be smart, conferring upon them advantages. I have personally seen animals as simple as seahorses court and bond in a way that certainly seems to imply plan and intention. To A Skeptic: I think that you have some valid criticism of wording, but I take some issue with your argument that the wording amounts to bad science. I don’t believe that peacocks intend to produce sexy male offspring. Perhaps I should have said that “A female peahen that selects males with elaborate ornament in a population where females tend to select for ornamentation will have offspring that are more reproductively fit and thereby contribute to the perpetuation of the selection mechanism” but on a site with a lay audience that is much harder to follow.

While the statement was ambiguous and could imply plans and intention I don’t believe that my statement as necessitates plans and intentions. Selection can be caused by plan and intention or by another mechanism. Either way the result is the same – a self perpetuating selection mechanism. I don’t address the mechanism by which the female makes the choice, but she is intentionally choosing. There have been experiments that show that females in many species choose mates very intentionally, not just mating with the first available male of the species.

I do, however, want to point out that I believe plans and intention can occur in the natural world. When I was courting my wife, it certainly crossed my mind that if we ever had kids they would be smart, conferring upon them advantages. I have personally seen animals as simple as seahorses court and bond in a way that certainly seems to imply plan and intention.

]]> By: A Skeptic http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail/comment-page-1/#comment-552 A Skeptic Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:40:50 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=103#comment-552 I really surprised from seeing this article in this site; because it has really non-scientific items. Remember, sometimes scientists also behave in non-scientific ways. My point is, wording evolution as "universal common descant" is clearly scientific, falsifiable (but not falsified, at least, yet) argument. But not every mechanism trying to explain evolution are scientific and falsifiable. "Sexual selection" is also a scientific explanation. But not in these examples. "The second theory is that females select males with elaborate ornament, because doing so ensures that their sons will be “sexy” and have a lot of mating opportunities; it becomes a sort of self perpetuating selection mechanism." This sentence is talking in a way that female animals have "plans and intentions", which is clearly a metaphysical statement. "Health" thing is also as so. A good scientist will report the reality as "female peacocks select ornamented males", but will not assign them plans and intentions. (if someone plans something, God-theory is the best :) ) My second criticism is about the wording. "Battles for mates sometimes lead to the evolution of features that are used in the fights." Evolution is not a leaded phenomenon; at least not in the mechanism of natural selection. ( this kind of sentences will lead to intelligent-design theory). And this sentence is like "God saw male deers needed antlers, and gave them what they need" A rule of thumb for good science: If your sentence is written in a way like a religious text; rewrite that sentence... I really surprised from seeing this article in this site; because it has really non-scientific items. Remember, sometimes scientists also behave in non-scientific ways. My point is, wording evolution as “universal common descant” is clearly scientific, falsifiable (but not falsified, at least, yet) argument. But not every mechanism trying to explain evolution are scientific and falsifiable.

“Sexual selection” is also a scientific explanation. But not in these examples. “The second theory is that females select males with elaborate ornament, because doing so ensures that their sons will be “sexy” and have a lot of mating opportunities; it becomes a sort of self perpetuating selection mechanism.” This sentence is talking in a way that female animals have “plans and intentions”, which is clearly a metaphysical statement. “Health” thing is also as so.

A good scientist will report the reality as “female peacocks select ornamented males”, but will not assign them plans and intentions. (if someone plans something, God-theory is the best :) )

My second criticism is about the wording. “Battles for mates sometimes lead to the evolution of features that are used in the fights.” Evolution is not a leaded phenomenon; at least not in the mechanism of natural selection. ( this kind of sentences will lead to intelligent-design theory). And this sentence is like “God saw male deers needed antlers, and gave them what they need”

A rule of thumb for good science: If your sentence is written in a way like a religious text; rewrite that sentence…

]]>