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.