DOCSLIB.ORG

Darwin's Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Darwin's Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind By June 2018 NEW BIOLOGICAL BOOKS 151 and permanent exposure of the human penis, the the experimental data, I am compelled to question phenomenon of orgasm, and a social, not solely re- the runaway process—the fundamental premise of productive, function of sex. He suggests that human much of Prum’s book. pairbonding evolved by females’ choice of males that With that significant reservation, I heartily recom- provided more sexual pleasure—the human male’s mend The Evolution of Beauty as an immensely stim- equivalent of a pheasant’s plumes. Finally, Prum sug- ulating treatment of a wide range of issues. As a gests that female sexual autonomy can account for biologist and birder, I was enthralled by the author’s variation in human sexual orientation. He makes descriptions of a range of species and their displays, the important point that same-sex attraction proba- such as the extraordinary club-winged manakin and bly did not substantially lower reproductive success the legendary great argus (which, to my great disap- for most of human evolution: even today, many ho- pointment, I am unlikely ever to see). Biology teach- mosexual men marry and raise families to mitigate ers would do well to read Prum’s story of the sexually stigma and meet social expectations. The author antagonistic evolution of duck genitalia: it will cap- supposes that like most traits, variation in sexual ori- ture the most indifferent student’simagination.The entation may result from variation at many genetic ideas and evidence the author provides about the loci and in many environmental (social) factors. If, evolution of human sexuality and its consequences through much of human evolution, women preferred should stimulate thought and argument. For exam- not men who fit the he-man stereotype, but more ple, I am not convinced that the average level of gentle, cooperative mates, a tail of the variable distri- prosocial features in the many gay men I have en- bution of behavior might include same-sex attraction. countered is higher, on average, than in heterosex- The book closes with some social and aesthetic reflec- uals—but both will have been so culturally shaped tions on mate choice as an expansion of female au- that it is hard to know what data would test Prum’s tonomy and how the coevolution of beauty and speculation on the evolution of variable sexual orien- aesthetics, in humans and other animals, might be tation. I applaud the author’s hope that “aesthetic applied to the arts. evolution and sexual conflict theory will provide a This is a marvelously interesting and well-written, productive new intellectual interface between evolu- sometimes erudite and sometimes humorous, book tionary biology, contemporary culture, and gender that should stimulate a wide range of readers. Not studies” (p. 319). His book is a good place to start. surprisingly, some of Prum’s arguments will meet Douglas J. Futuyma, Ecology & Evolution, Stony resistance among evolutionary biologists. I question Brook University, Stony Brook, New York his characterization of this community as being wed- ded to adaptationist, survival-based natural selection. This may be true in some quarters, but it does not ap- Darwin’sUnfinished Symphony: How Culture ply to most population geneticists, who usually take Made the Human Mind. random genetic drift, not selection, as a null hypoth- By Kevin N. Laland. Princeton (New Jersey): Princeton esis, and who have happily analyzed meiotic drive, University Press. $35.00. xiii + 450 p.; ill.; index. selfish genetic elements, sexual conflict, and other ISBN: 978-0-691-15118-2. 2017. processes that do not enhance organisms’ fit to their This book is one of several recent studies on cultural environment. I share Prum’s attraction to Fisher’s evolution and the mind—Richerson and Boyd’s Not runaway hypothesis, and I appreciate that the results By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evo- of many experiments fit the expectations of the run- lution. (2005. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago away model better than the good genes hypothesis Press), Mesoudi’s Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian (e.g., Z. M. Prokop et al. 2012. Evolution 66:2665– Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the 2673). But population geneticists, including those Social Sciences (2011. Chicago (IL): University of Chi- who first modeled the runaway process, agree that cago Press), Lewens’ Cultural Evolution: Conceptual this process does not work if there is even a small fit- Changes (2015. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press), ness cost of female choice (the original models as- Dennett’s From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolu- sumed no female fitness cost). Like Prum, I find it tion of Minds (2017. New York: W. W. Norton). La- hard to conceive that all of the intricate details of land and his laboratory have produced a great deal the greatly exaggerated wing feathers of a male great of research on animal and human intelligence, al- argus pheasant signal superior genes for offspring vi- most all of it from an evolutionary perspective. He ability, and I do not know of evidence that the differ- is thus well-positioned to guide readers through this ences in male ornaments among related bird species morass. are readily explained by the good genes hypothesis. The book has two parts. The first, Foundations of But unless it can be shown that female choice incurs Culture, contains five chapters examining the evolu- little or no fitness cost, I do not have grounds for re- tionary mechanisms responsible for human culture. jecting the current models. So, even as I recognize The second and third chapters deal with copying be- This content downloaded from 152.003.184.185 on January 16, 2019 13:18:40 PM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 152 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY Volume 93 havior. The fourth takes a more unusual approach— The Philosophy of Social Evolution. much of it is based on Laland’s research on fish. By Jonathan Birch. Oxford and New York: Oxford Frankly, discussing the contribution fish make to University Press. $35.00. xi + 268 p.; ill.; index. ISBN: our understanding of culture is a welcome respite 978-0-19-873305-8. 2017. from talking about apes and monkeys. Readers will There are certain major events that stand out in the appreciate the break, even when the fifth chapter re- history of evolutionary theorizing since the publica- turns to mammals and birds. tion of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Obvi- Seven chapters in the second part, The Evolution ously the coming of genetics, first Mendelian and of the Mind, develop an evolutionary story for hu- then molecular, ranks very high. As also does the syn- man intellectual capacities. The author begins with thesis of the 1930s, with first the theory and then The Evolution of Intelligence (Chapter 6), and then (thanks to people such as Theodosius Dobzhansky) covers the evolution of language (Chapter 8) and empirical flesh being added to the mathematical protocultures (Chapter 10). He finishes by consider- skeleton. Most people would say that the third big ing cases of evolution in The Arts (Chapter 12), with event was in the 1960s, when new models for under- particular attention to dance. standing behavior were forwarded and again empir- The volume’s two parts are not, however, separate ical studies did much to illuminate them. George C. investigations. The first builds on the second—for Williams, long associated with the QRB, was one of Laland, we understand the mind only by understand- the major players. As also was William D. Hamilton, ing culture. Here he reflects a dawning consensus who as a graduate student became interested in so- about the evolution of cognition: it is not possible cial behavior and published a famous model about to separate the phylogenetic development of the what came to be known as “kin selection.” It is still human mind from that of human culture. A similar a matter of controversy as to whether this was an en- concern drives the authors mentioned above. La- tirely new idea or the fulfillment of thinking that land’s main argument is that we have no silver bullet goes back to Darwin. No matter. All agreed—all still for answering our questions. What we find instead is a agree—Hamilton’s work was of fundamental impor- series of mind-culture feedback loops that lead to an tance and set the direction for much of the science explosion of computational intelligence and a com- still continuing. plex culture to match it. The loops overlap and inter- Jonathan Birch’s The Philosophy of Social Evolution is leave; no one string can unravel this Gordian knot, a careful evaluation of Hamilton’s ideas and legacy, nor one sword. much of the discussion framed in the context of Part of the author’s strategy is to emphasize, rather the individual versus group selection controversy. Is than downplay, the chasm of difference between our it all ultimately a matter of selfish genes, as Richard cognitive abilities and those of other primates. This Dawkins has so memorably described them, or can chasm becomes a problem, though, since it means there be genuine group behavior? Can people really that inferences from animal behavior to human and truly, because of their biology, do what Jesus pre- minds may be of little help. This concern is never scribed in the Sermon on the Mount, or is it all in the far from Laland’s view, and he navigates it deftly. No- end a matter of enlightened (or perhaps unenlight- table in this trajectory is the absence of memes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aesthetic Evolution by Mate Choice: Darwin's Really Dangerous Idea
    Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2012) 367, 2253–2265 doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0285 Review Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin’s really dangerous idea Richard O. Prum* Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA Darwin proposed an explicitly aesthetic theory of sexual selection in which he described mate pre- ferences as a ‘taste for the beautiful’, an ‘aesthetic capacity’, etc. These statements were not merely colourful Victorian mannerisms, but explicit expressions of Darwin’s hypothesis that mate prefer- ences can evolve for arbitrarily attractive traits that do not provide any additional benefits to mate choice. In his critique of Darwin, A. R. Wallace proposed an entirely modern mechanism of mate preference evolution through the correlation of display traits with male vigour or viability, but he called this mechanism natural selection. Wallace’s honest advertisement proposal was stri- dently anti-Darwinian and anti-aesthetic. Most modern sexual selection research relies on essentially the same Neo-Wallacean theory renamed as sexual selection. I define the process of aes- thetic evolution as the evolution of a communication signal through sensory/cognitive evaluation, which is most elaborated through coevolution of the signal and its evaluation. Sensory evaluation includes the possibility that display traits do not encode information that is being assessed, but are merely preferred. A genuinely Darwinian, aesthetic theory of sexual selection requires the incor- poration of the Lande–Kirkpatrick null model into sexual selection research, but also encompasses the possibility of sensory bias, good genes and direct benefits mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Beauty PDF Summary”
    A summary from: https://blog.12min.com/the-evolution-of-beauty-pdf-summary/ “The Evolution of Beauty PDF Summary” Darwin’s Biggest Problem Darwin’s theory of evolution is, quite possibly, the most influential theory ever conceived by anyone. In fact, when back in 2012, Edge.org, the world’s smartest website, asked the world of science “what is your favorite deep, elegant, or beautiful explanation?” most of the intellectuals surveyed answered something along the lines: “of course it’s Darwin’s theory of evolution, but I suppose everyone will say that, so I’m going with…” Consequently, Darwin’s theory of evolution is a theory which needs no introduction, and which, by Darwin’s own admission from The Origin of Species, can be summed up in a single phrase of Herbert Spencer: “the survival of the fittest.” Most of the biologists living today would certainly agree with it; after all, why shouldn’t they: it’s a nice, neat theory which seems to explain the complexity of the world in such an economical manner that it’s difficult to find any flaws with it. And yet, Darwin himself found a big, almost gaping hole in it: if the biological point of life is to be fit enough so that you can leave some offspring, then why should so many animals be so brightly colored and feature traits which instead of helping them survive, make them more vulnerable? “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” – grappling with this problem, Darwin wrote in a letter sent to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Heresy
    Darwin’s Heresy LENN E. GOODMAN Abstract Challenged by Lord Kelvin’s claims that earth and sun were too young to give evo- lution sufficient time to do its work, especially in the human case, where care for the weak blunts the edge of natural selection, Darwin leaned on Lamarckian thoughts to accelerate the process. The mental and moral traits crowning human distinctiveness, he urged, arose through sexual selection. But promiscuity, infanticide, early be- trothals, and female drudgery undermined these effects in “savage races.” In the in- evitable decline and ultimate extinction of the “melanin races” Darwin believed he could observe human evolution underway before his eyes. Years ago I had a colleague who cheerfully described himself as a red diaper baby. That is, he was raised as a Marxist. In those days, the Soviet Union still seemed viable; to some, even invincible. But Stalinism was already widely rued on the left, and my colleague hoped to show how later abuses, in thinking and practice, had under- cut Karl Marx’s insights. But after following the twists and turns of dialectical materialism through their several generations and gyra- tions, he reached the painful conclusion that the first to betray those ideas was Marx himself. The discovery had an ironic aptness, since Marx had pressed the thought that a system will bear the seeds of its own destruction. I’m not sure how far that Hegelian aperçu on the logic of tragedy can be generalized. Perhaps it could profit from a Darwinian (or Deweyan?) revision and should read: Any system bears within itself the seeds of its own destruction, unless it can adapt.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisher'S Lost Model of Runaway Sexual Selection
    BRIEF COMMUNICATION doi:10.1111/evo.13910 Fisher’s lost model of runaway sexual selection Jonathan M. Henshaw1,2 and Adam G. Jones1 1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter MS 3051, Moscow, Idaho, USA 2E-mail: [email protected] Received October 28, 2019 Accepted December 9, 2019 The bizarre elaboration of sexually selected traits such as the peacock’s tail was a puzzle to Charles Darwin and his 19th century followers. Ronald A. Fisher crafted an ingenious solution in the 1930s, positing that female preferences would become genetically correlated with preferred traits due to nonrandom mating. These genetic correlations would translate selection for preferred traits into selection for stronger preferences, leading to a self-reinforcing process of ever-elaborating traits and preferences. It is widely believed that Fisher provided only a verbal model of this “runaway” process. However, in correspondence with Charles Galton Darwin, Fisher also laid out a simple mathematical model that purportedly confirms his verbal prediction of runaway sexual selection. Unfortunately, Fisher’s model contains inconsistencies that render his quantitative conclusions inaccurate. Here, we correct Fisher’s model and show that it contains all the ingredients of a working runaway process. We derive quantitative predictions of his model using numerical techniques that were unavailable in Fisher’s time. Depending on parameter values, mean traits and preferences may increase until genetic variance is depleted by selection, exaggerate exponentially while their variances remain stable, or both means and variances may increase super-exponentially. We thus present the earliest mathematical model of runaway sexual selection. KEY WORDS: Coevolution, Lande-Kirkpatrick, mechanism, quantitative genetics, Ronald A.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin, Sexual Selection, and the Brain PERSPECTIVE
    PERSPECTIVE Darwin, sexual selection, and the brain PERSPECTIVE Michael J. Ryana,b,1 Edited by Marlene Zuk, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, and approved December 7, 2020 (received for review June 25, 2020) One hundred fifty years ago Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,in which he presented his theory of sexual selection with its emphasis on sexual beauty. However, it was not until 50 y ago that there was a renewed interest in Darwin’s theory in general, and specifically the potency of mate choice. Darwin suggested that in many cases female preferences for elaborately ornamented males derived from a female’s taste for the beautiful, the notion that females were attracted to sexual beauty for its own sake. Initially, female mate choice attracted the interest of behavioral ecologists focus- ing on the fitness advantages accrued through mate choice. Subsequent studies focused on sensory ecology and signal design, often showing how sensory end organs influenced the types of traits females found attractive. Eventually, investigations of neural circuits, neurogenetics, and neurochemistry uncov- ered a more complete scaffolding underlying sexual attraction. More recently, research inspired by human studies in psychophysics, behavioral economics, and neuroaesthetics have provided some notion of its higher-order mechanisms. In this paper, I review progress in our understanding of Darwin’s conjecture of “a taste for the beautiful” by considering research from these diverse fields that have conspired to provide unparalleled insight into the chooser’s mate choices. sexual selection | mate choice | neuroscience One hundred fifty years ago Charles Darwin published selection which explained the evolution of adapta- The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex tions for survivorship and fecundity, a theory that (1), in which he presented his theory of sexual selec- was later fleshed out in Darwin’s On the Origin of Spe- tion with its emphasis on sexual beauty.
    [Show full text]
  • Descent of Darwin: Race, Sex, and Human Nature
    BJHS Themes (2021), 1–8 doi:10.1017/bjt.2021.9 INTRODUCTION Descent of Darwin: race, sex, and human nature Erika Lorraine Milam1* and Suman Seth (guest editors)2 1Department of History, Princeton University and 2Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University *Corresponding author: Erika Lorraine Milam, Email: [email protected] Abstract In 1871, Charles Darwin published Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, a text that extended, elaborated and completed his On the Origin of Species (1859). When he had published Origin, Darwin sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to skirt controversy; in Descent he waded into the fray on near-innu- merable issues. Readers could find explicit the claim that humans had descended from apes, in add- ition to explorations of the similarities and apparent gulfs between ‘man’ and other animals. They also found Darwin’s opinions on issues ranging from the origin and hierarchy of races to the ques- tion of women’s education, from the source of altruistic bravery to the biological importance of aes- thetic judgement, from his views on what his cousin would term ‘eugenics’ to the history of monogamy. In the last 150 years these ideas have been variously contested, rejected and recovered, so that the shadow of Descent extended into debates over the development of languages, the evolu- tion of human sexualities, the ongoing possibilities of eugenics and the question of women’s equal- ity. In this volume, appearing during the sesquicentennial of the text’s first appearance, one finds papers dedicated to all of these themes and more, laying out the roots and fruits of Darwin’s Descent.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation FINAL
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Evolutionary Aestheticism: Scientific Optimism and Cultural Progress, 1850-1913 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English by Lindsay Puawehiwa Wilhelm 2017 © Copyright by Lindsay Puawehiwa Wilhelm 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Evolutionary Aestheticism: Scientific Optimism and Cultural Progress, 1850-1913 by Lindsay Puawehiwa Wilhelm Doctor of Philosophy in English University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Joseph E. Bristow, Chair While evolutionary science may appear to have little in common with the Aesthetic Movement—the “art for art’s sake” philosophy of culture that arose in Britain in the late 1860s—this dissertation contends that these schools of thought formed interdependently, through a sustained dialogic exchange between writers whose interests spanned both art and science. Prominent Victorian figures such as the polymath Herbert Spencer, the aesthete Oscar Wilde, and the critic Vernon Lee (Violet Paget) not only accepted the truth of Charles Darwin’s insights, but also converged in their conception of what I term “evolutionary aestheticism”: a rational and yet remarkably optimistic philosophy that looked to the enjoyment of beauty and the cultivation of taste, rather than violent Darwinian competition, for modes of peaceable evolutionary progress. ii Each chapter explores the development of evolutionary aestheticism, from the decade leading up to Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) to the publication of Lee’s aesthetic primer The Beautiful (1913). The first chapter traces the tradition to Darwin’s and Spencer’s mid-century evolutionary theories, which exempted aesthetic experience from brutal natural laws of scarcity and struggle.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution: Mask of Science Second Edition
    Evolution: Mask of Science Second Edition John B. Andelin, MD Dakota Prints Williston, North Dakota Acknowledgements I would like to express deep appreciation to my wife, Cindy, for her never-ending support and encouragement over the past several years during the writing of this book. Her suggestions and encouragement have been invaluable. It would have been impossible for me to compose this work were it not for her patience, love and support. I would also like to acknowledge the profound influence of my parents, Aubrey P. Andelin (1918-1999) and Helen B. Andelin (1920-2009). Their teachings and example have provided a foundation for which I will be forever grateful. Copyright © 2021 By John B. Andelin www.maskofscience.com 2 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..………… 4 1. The General Theory of Evolution ………………………………………………….….….. 6 2. History of the Theory of Evolution and its Effect on the World ….…….….. 23 3. Principles of Science ………………………………………………………….…………….….. 39 4. Primary Evidences for Evolution …………………………………………….……….…… 62 5. Secondary Evidences for Evolution ………………………………………………….….. 89 6. Probability: A Pillar of Science ……………………..……………………………………... 113 7. Abiogenesis ……………………………………………………………………………………….… 135 8. False Assumptions of Evolutionary Theory ……………………………………….….. 148 9. Radiometric Dating of the Earth’s Strata …………………………………………….… 163 10. Obstacles to Evolution ………………………………………………………………………… 175 11. The Paradigm of Evolution ………………………………………………………………….. 208 12. The Evolution of Man ………………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • The Late Ascent of Darwin's Descent: Exploring Human Evolution And
    BJHS Themes (2021), 1–20 doi:10.1017/bjt.2021.11 RESEARCH ARTICLE The late ascent of Darwin’s Descent: exploring human evolution and women’s role for a new China, 1927–1965 Lijing Jiang* STS Program, Colby College *Corresponding author: Lijing Jiang, Email: [email protected] Abstract Darwin’s ideas held sway among Chinese intellectuals by the early twentieth century. Yet the usual emphasis was a Spencerism instead of Darwin’s original ideas. As a result, translations of The Descent of Man in the early twentieth century quickly fell into oblivion. When the embryologist Zhu Xi (1900–62) eventually decided to give all evolutionary theories a comprehensive examination, he nevertheless found the idea of sexual evolution inadequate, as expressed in his volume Biological Evolution (1958). Only in the 1950s did serious efforts to translate Descent gather momentum, thanks to eugenicist and sociologist Pan Guangdan (1899–1967). Such efforts were not only responses to a renewed interest in Darwinism under the socialist regime, but also expressions that synthesized both scholars’ earlier paths in wrestling with schemes of human evolution and the roles of women in China’s survival and renewal. Trained in different scientific and cultural milieus and hold- ing almost oppositional views, the two scholars nevertheless converged in finding new meanings in Darwin’s Descent. Topics of race and gender loomed large in a number of cultural debates in early twentieth-century China. A number of scientists, translators, and writers were preoccu- pied not
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Beauty”: Everything You Always Wanted(?) to Know About Duck Sex, but Were Afraid to Ask the Rev
    “The Evolution of Beauty”: Everything You Always Wanted(?) to Know about Duck Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask The Rev. Dr. J. Carl Gregg 18 February 2018 frederickuu.org This past week included Charles Darwin’s birthday. He was born a little more than two hundred years ago on February 12, 1809. In recent years, his birthday has become known as International Darwin Day, an annual opportunity to celebrate the principles that guided his life: “perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth.” A tragedy of the ongoing “Creationism vs. Evolution” debate is that coming to terms with Darwin’s theories of natural selection and common descent were among the greatest intellectual challenges of the late nineteenth century. But we live in the early twenty-first century, long past the point at which basic tenets of evolution became settled science. One reason that it is significant to celebrate Darwin Day in UU congregations is that both sides of Darwin’s family were “largely Unitarian.” While it is true that Darwin was baptized in an Anglican Church, attended an Anglican boarding school, and was married by an Anglican priest—it is also the case that, growing up, both “Charles and his siblings attended the Unitarian chapel with their mother” and the liturgy used in his wedding to Emma Wedgwood was adapted to “suit the Unitarians” (Desmond & Moore, 279). We do tend to be notorious changers of liturgy! Accordingly, some of our Unitarian and Universalist forebears were among the earliest religious leaders to embrace the paradigm-shifting implications of Darwin’s discoveries that we humans are not a little lower than the angels, but rather “a little higher than the apes” with 1 of 7 whom we share a common ancestor.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Beauty: Two Views Egbert Giles Leigh Jr*
    Leigh Jr Evo Edu Outreach (2018) 11:13 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0087-5 Evolution: Education and Outreach BOOK REVIEW Open Access Sexual selection and the evolution of beauty: two views Egbert Giles Leigh Jr* Abstract This is a review of Ryan’s A Taste for the Beautiful and Prum’s The Evolution of Beauty, two books that show how sexual selection by female choice can favor the evolution of beauty. Book details as mates, what criteria females use to choose, and how A Taste for the Beautiful: Te Evolution of Attraction, by their choices afect evolution. Tese books will interest Michael J. Ryan. this Journal’s readers because they suggest that evolution Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. 2018. pp. is not a purely utilitarian process: females often favor the x + 200. ISBN 978-0-691-16726-8. H/b $27.95. evolution of beauty for its own sake, choosing males for Te Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin’s Forgotten Te- their beauty in form, color and behavioral displays, char- ory Shapes the Animal World—and Us, by Richard O. acteristics which may, like Hardy’s (1967, pp. 101, 119– Prum. 120, 150) number theory, be of no practical use whatever. New York: Doubleday. 2017. pp. xii + 429. ISBN 978-0- Darwin (1871, p. 257) distinguished non-adaptive 385-53721-6. H/b $30.00. sexual from adaptive natural selection very carefully, New York: Anchor Books. 2018. pp. xiv + 428. ISBN remarking that sexual selection applies to character- 978-0-345-80457-0. S/b $17.00.
    [Show full text]
  • How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution - the New York Times
    14/1/2019 How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution - The New York Times FEATURE How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution The extravagant splendor of the animal kingdom can’t be explained by natural selection alone — so how did it come to be? By Ferris Jabr Jan. 9, 2019 male flame bowerbird is a creature of incandescent beauty. The hue of his plumage A transitions seamlessly from molten red to sunshine yellow. But that radiance is not enough to attract a mate. When males of most bowerbird species are ready to begin courting, they set about building the structure for which they are named: an assemblage of twigs shaped into a spire, corridor or hut. They decorate their bowers with scores of colorful objects, like flowers, berries, snail shells or, if they are near an urban area, bottle caps and plastic cutlery. Some bowerbirds even arrange the items in their collection from smallest to largest, forming a walkway that makes themselves and their trinkets all the more striking to a female — an optical illusion known as forced perspective that humans did not perfect until the 15th century. Yet even this remarkable exhibition is not sufficient to satisfy a female flame bowerbird. Should a female show initial interest, the male must react immediately. Staring at the female, his pupils swelling and shrinking like a heartbeat, he begins a dance best described as psychotically sultry. He bobs, flutters, puffs his chest. He crouches low and rises slowly, brandishing one wing in front of his head like a magician’s cape. Suddenly his whole body convulses like a windup alarm clock.
    [Show full text]