Journal of Theoretics

Comment on "A New Taxonomy of Selection Types"

 

No Sex in Evolution?

One point that I initially had concern with was that of sexual selection being a minor if any factor in evolution as proposed in A New Taxonomy of Selection-Types by Devaraj.   My initial thought was that it would have a larger impact, such as picking a strong mate during times of famine or an intelligent mate when predation on one's species disappeared. In terms of famine or the like, Maurice Devaraj is correct that it would be sporadic and not constant for a long enough period to influence the overall species. In terms of the latter, I was still skeptical because it seemed logical that as brute force becomes less necessary to a species (no predators), would not the sexual desire go more from "brawn to brain?" But alas as much as I would like to think such a change has occurred over the last million years to the species Homo sapiens, I needed only to remember high school.

It was always the "jock" and not the "brain" that got the dates. Even in college where the supposedly more enlightened go, this trend seemed to persists. As illogical as this "brawn over brain" concept is in the face of needing to have financial security, family nurturing (the partying blonde bombshell is not the epitome of motherhood nor is muscle bound Bruno), and so on in a socialized culture, this illogical sexual selection process seems to have persisted without respite since the dawn of history.

I therefore have come to agree with Maurice Devaraj, in that sexual selection is not a significant factor in species selection and development. If anything, it keeps a species from developing in an intellectually positive direction. Alas, a sad conclusion for mankind.

Respectfully,

JP Siepmann

Journal Home Page

Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 1999   (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)