Persistent female choice for particular male trait values should erode genetic variance in male traits and thereby remove the benefits of choice, yet choice persists. One potential resolution to the lek paradox is Rowe and Houle’s theory of condition-dependent expression of male sexually selected traits. Similar to the handicap principle, Rowe and Houle argue that sexually selected traits depend on physical condition. Condition, in turn, summarizes a large number of genetic loci, including those involved in metabolism, muscular mass, nutrition, etc. Rowe and Houle claim that condition dependence maintains genetic variation in the face of persistent female choice, as the male trait is correlated with abundant genetic variation in condition . This is also called the "genic capture" hypothesis. The Hamilton and Zuk model addresses the lek paradox, arguing that the cycles of co-adaptation between host and parasite resist a stable equilibrium point. Hosts continue to evolve resistance to parasites and parasites continue to bypass resistant mechanisms, continuously generating genetic variation. The "worst-elimination hyp." suggests that only the worst individuals in the population should be eliminated by natural/sexual selection at each season, thus maintaining a large genetic variance in the population. Furthermore, females may be constrained in their directional choice for best partners by the rarity of these latter individuals and by sexual coercion. Thus a lot of "ordinary" individuals, not only the best, may pass their genes to the next generations and this may contribute to maintain genetic variability in the population.
Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:
(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.
(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.
(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.
(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).
(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Hi Bhakti Niskama Shanta , thank you for your advertising, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with my question. Sadly and ironically, you are the first writing something on this question forum so far, and damnation, you are an antievolutionist!! Sorry Bhakti, don't feel hurt ,but I completely disagree with most or all prepositions you claimed here. Admittedly, some of them are quite ridiculous in my opinion. Contrary to you I am a materialist, a proud reductionist, an atheist and, off course, a Darwinian EVOLUTIONIST. So, subject closed. Get well.
.
I agree with what said by Bhakti Niskama Shanta , thank you for your answer.
I agree with what said by Bhakti Niskama Shanta , thank you for your answer.
E chissenefrega se sei d'accordo! I couldn't care less if you agree with Bhakti, please don't write here any more, unless you are able to answer to my exact question! This is not a forum to propagandize or discuss antievolutionary rubbish. Thanks
On this paper there is a lot of interesting discussion going on: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/online_sadhu_sanga/Mcv2O-yhqLE
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Evolutionary Biology