Sexual selection. Mmmm. No field matches biology, with lab meetings full of discussions about the benefit of sex, details of reproduction, and anatomical wonders of private parts.
From PartiallyClips.com.
Sexual selection is - apparently, and to my amazement - contentious. Not really, but someone think's it doesn't fit the bill. I find that... [just, no comment].
- Home
- Angry by Choice
- Catalogue of Organisms
- Chinleana
- Doc Madhattan
- Games with Words
- Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
- History of Geology
- Moss Plants and More
- Pleiotropy
- Plektix
- RRResearch
- Skeptic Wonder
- The Culture of Chemistry
- The Curious Wavefunction
- The Phytophactor
- The View from a Microbiologist
- Variety of Life
Field of Science
-
-
From Valley Forge to the Lab: Parallels between Washington's Maneuvers and Drug Development1 week ago in The Curious Wavefunction
-
Political pollsters are pretending they know what's happening. They don't.1 week ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
-
-
Course Corrections5 months ago in Angry by Choice
-
-
The Site is Dead, Long Live the Site2 years ago in Catalogue of Organisms
-
The Site is Dead, Long Live the Site2 years ago in Variety of Life
-
Does mathematics carry human biases?4 years ago in PLEKTIX
-
-
-
-
A New Placodont from the Late Triassic of China5 years ago in Chinleana
-
Posted: July 22, 2018 at 03:03PM6 years ago in Field Notes
-
Bryophyte Herbarium Survey7 years ago in Moss Plants and More
-
Harnessing innate immunity to cure HIV8 years ago in Rule of 6ix
-
WE MOVED!8 years ago in Games with Words
-
-
-
-
post doc job opportunity on ribosome biochemistry!9 years ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
-
Growing the kidney: re-blogged from Science Bitez9 years ago in The View from a Microbiologist
-
Blogging Microbes- Communicating Microbiology to Netizens10 years ago in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
-
-
-
The Lure of the Obscure? Guest Post by Frank Stahl12 years ago in Sex, Genes & Evolution
-
-
Lab Rat Moving House13 years ago in Life of a Lab Rat
-
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs13 years ago in Disease Prone
-
-
Slideshow of NASA's Stardust-NExT Mission Comet Tempel 1 Flyby13 years ago in The Large Picture Blog
-
in The Biology Files
2 comments:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think the sexually-selected-for traits necessarily have to be adaptive otherwise, or associated with adaptive features: All you need is a response to some sort of stimulus (which gets stronger with it), and the other sex will respond by enhancing that stimulus. As I think I may have mentioned here before, I find the whole "birds grow potentially maladaptive long feathers to show off that their genes are good enough to compensate" or whatever hypothesis to be rather unnecessarily awkward. (they state or heavily imply that in some textbooks anyway...)
ReplyDeleteBut of course, you'd probably find more sexually-favoured features to be also favourable in other situations (eg. freaking out the predators). But there may well be some that have no adaptive value whatsoever aside from being pleasing to the mind of the opposite sex. And we can see how far our own species can go to please the mind of the opposite sex! ^_^
I just don't see what's amazing about sexual selection -- it's just a subtype of natural selection, and nowhere near as fundamental as some textbooks (and zoologists) make it out to be! For starters, most organisms don't have sex!
(And I should stop procrastinating with my biochem final...bleh. >_>)
Yes, we discussed that a bit here.
ReplyDelete