Comment by kevinalexbrown | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevinalexbrown | Hacker News Reader

I remember once from undergrad the saying '"obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.' Seeing how something could be true is dramatically different from identifying and defending that it is true.

It's dangerously easy to say "oh yea, makes sense, natural selection happens by mating so if mates choose club wings, I get it. Obvious." But Prum's trying to go a step further, and test just how far out of balance and arbitrary the mate selection part can be from the direct do-not-die part of evolutionary fitness.

He proposes that we can differentiate between these two by considering that the club wings aren't actually indicators of higher direct fitness, because they hurt the ability to fly, even among females that have no need for such shenanagins. I'm not sure I totally agree with or grasp that, but at least it's an attempt to further understand and test the idea.

I'm frankly surprised by comments accusing a well established evolutionary biologist of severely misunderstanding natural selection. The author has spent his career, among other things, investigating mechanisms of evolution, and identifying and performing tests to assess their relative importance to a particular species (here's an example: http://prumlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/prum_1997_phylog...).

You might consider whether your objections are addressed in his work not aimed at the lay population, and that your criticism really just amounts to "He wrote this at not exactly the right level of sophistication for me." Maybe that's true, but it's a pretty boring claim.

I agree. I'm inclined to think the concepts are more subtle, not less.

Some traits are shaped by sexual selection because of their deleterious effects. It's an honest signal: if you can survive despite having that crappy trait, you must be really robust!

You can't conceptualize that as a fitness hit, because of what fitness means in the context of evolutionary biology. But you had better be able to conceptualize it somehow, because it's interesting and important if true.

What I've understood is that if the change that's detrimental is compensated for by other attributes that do connote fitness this can be an evolutionarily stable strategy. That is, if the the bird is able to survive even with the club wings that is in fact an indication of relative fitness and the club wings can be selected for. Though I've only heard this theory in reference to things like bulking/attractive plumage that itself connotes some kind of fitness. For example, those birds with crazy long tails are arguably less able to hunt or whatever but the ones that do hunt effectively cause the female to think: wow so attractive! And he can manage to provide.

it seems to me like the article is more about elucidating beauty as a mechanism of decadence than an attempt to upend natural selection as a core component of the theory of evolution. the article basically says that beauty (however defined for a given species) can be both a selective and maladaptive pressure, where conventionally it's thought of only as a selective pressure.

species die out because of maladaptive pressures. that doesn't contradict the theory of evolution and natural selection's role in it.

Yeah but his whole thesis in thus article is based on the assumption that efficient flight is important for the survival of this species.

If we said 40 millions years ago - protowhales cannot run as fast because their mates really like the membranes between their legs this would still be technically true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com