[ExI] IQ and beauty

rex rex at nosyntax.net
Mon Oct 19 16:53:50 UTC 2015


John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> [2015-10-19 08:18]:
>    On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan <[1]danust2012 at gmail.com>
>    wrote:
> 
>      [2]​> ​http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html
>      ​ ​The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail length
>      in a widowbird.'
>      ​ ​This will only do for the species in question.
> 
>    ​One species example is enough. Nobody is saying that sexual selection is
>    always bad, in fact I specifically said that generally sexual selection
>    helps a species. But like everything else about Evolution sexual selection
>    is not ​perfect, it can make mistakes like when a female uses the wrong
>    rule of thumb to determine which male to mate with.    

But you have yet to provide a single example of selection driving a species
to extinction. Anything less than that is mere hand-waving -- a popular
activity in the social "sciences" -- IMO.

No, the Irish elk is NOT even a quasi-established example, regardless of how many
times it's mentioned in repeated arm-waving arguments.

> 
>      ​> ​Also, this is an extant species.
> 
>    ​The article describes an experiment, do you demand a experiment be
>    ​performed on a extinct species? that would be rather difficult. 

Obviously, extant species cannot serve as examples of selection
driving a species to extinction.

>      ​>​That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish Elk. There are
>      many theories of why it went extinct.
> 
>    ​And I would be astounded if the authors of any of those theories were
>    foolish enough to suggest that the size of the Irish Elk's antlers played
>    no part in its extinction, especially when species of elk which have a
>    large body size but much smaller antlers survive to this day.     ​ 

You're apparently easily astounded, as it's easy to find examples of sexual
selection for characteristics that have no measurable effect on reproductive
fitness. 

>      ​> ​Why is not possible that range reduction and hunting by humans
>      played a much bigger role here than merely having supersized antlers?
> 
>    ​Human
>    ​predation​ probably was a factor,
>    ​I would be surprised if it wasn't, ​but the two things are not unrelated.
>    Humans are no different from any other animal, any predator would find
>    that
>    ​catching​ 
>    ​an​
>    ​​ animal with
>    ​a​ 9
>    foot wide ​90 pound
>    ​ grappling hook on top of its head would be a lot easier than hunting
>    ​an​ animal without
>    ​ such
>    an
>    ​ impediment.  

Do you not see the gaping whole in this arm-waving argument? Hint: how much
do mature elephant tusks weigh? Why aren't they extinct?

>      ​> ​(If we're going to go back to the 1980s, e.g., check out this
>      article: [3]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340 -- 'Taphonomy
>      and Herd Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus.'
>      Note what the abstract states: adult males with small antlers seemed to
>      have died during winter segregation from females. What might that imply,
>      if true, about big antlers having an impact on survival?)
> 

>    And we know for a fact that large bodied elk with small antlers
>    survived the winters (and the summers) better than large bodied
>    elk with large antlers because large bodied elk with small
>    antlers are still around today. 

More illogical arm-waving. If you don't see why it's illogical, ask.

>    ​ ​It
>    ​ ​is just not viable to maintain
>    ​ ​that the resulting huge increase in angular momentum of the head (never
>    mind the fact that the antlers would also hit things
>    ​and ​further restrict
>    ​ ​movement) would be beneficial to a species.  

Of course it is. "_M. unicornicus_ is a unique species of elk with a
sessile male that grows horns that are three times its body
weight. It's fed from an early age by females. It's apparently the
only mammal where one sex is sessile."

Once unsupported arm-waving is introduced as a logical form any
conclusion can be 'proved,'
 
>    ​Can you find one single expert who maintains that gargantuan antlers were
>    not a factor in extinction and if they were just a bit larger the Irish
>    Elk would still be with us today? ​


Would the existence of such a person sway your belief? Unsupported claims don't
do much for me, as well as most others here, I'd venture.

-rex
--



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list