 | Sexual selection has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 23, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teleological reasoning reference concern
editHi everyone,
Under "Modern theory", there is a photograph of the giant deer, Megaloceros giganteus, with a note that its enormous antlers may have helped "drive it" to extinction, and a reference to a classic paper by Stephen Jay Gould about the subject. What Gould was arguing, however, was that although these antlers might have been detrimental to the species' survival during post-glacial climatic changes in Ireland (where many M. giganteus specimens have been found), the main point of that paper was a counter-argument to the teleological idea that species can be purposefully "driven" to extinction by selective forces.
I don't know of a good way to reword the caption of that photograph, but thought that this was an important point for this article.
--OpenBarry (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reworded. In general, given the metaphorical nature of language, it is impossible to avoid sounding teleological, but there's certainly no indication of intention here; I'm a bit surprised anyone would ascribe agency to a pair of antlers, however bulky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
How?
editHow does favouring a more attractive partner favour reproductive success? Conceivably so for subsequent generations, but not immediately evident why it would confer 'success' on the current generation. If so, this should be expressed more explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Obvious Fallacy
editWhat constitutes 'reproductive fitness' in a species? And the female knows what constitutes 'reproductive fitness'? How does she know? From her innate knowledge and understanding of molecular biology??? And the female is able to discern the presence or absence of this 'fitness' in a mate? How, exactly? Why is this not pseudoscientific nonsense? Intellectual garbage? Humans chiefly use only the nebulous and subjective qualities of intellectual and physical attractiveness. With respect to other organisms we can only speculate, surely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And Sexist
editAnd .... females DON'T (?) maximise their reproductive 'success', as males purportedly do, by maximising their number of partners, because ......why, exctly???? 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. No, it's not sexist. Males make millions of small gametes, so reproductive success can mean fertilising a large number of partners. The same doesn't necessarily work for females; in mammals, the number of pregnancies a female can have is limited - still more so in species which provide lengthy parental care - so the best strategy for the female is to select the 'best' males. But read the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)