|
|
Summary of Chapters 4 & 5 of “the Mating Mind”
Prepared by jessica aragon, ryan Michelson, &
Chapter 4:
As
Chapter 4 opens of “ The Mating Mind” the author Geoffrey F. Miller describes
how there were different ways of achieving the evolutionary task of spreading
their genes. He explains that there was the bacterial method of divide and
conquer, there was also the cloning- factory strategy. He makes the example
that fungi reproduce in this manner and are very successful, except when a
harmful mutation arises, because there is no means of getting rid of it. Miller
writes that in the last few hundred million years, sexual reproduction has
become the third way of spreading their DNA around. An organism grows a trillion celled body to
produce packets of DNA, and tries to find a partner with complementary DNA
packets to combine them into an offspring that bear both parents traits.
COPYING ERRORS
In the
section entitled, “Copying Errors” Miller confirms that in the beginning of
sexual reproduction, most organisms were not very selective. He explains that
since most mutations are harmful, organisms developed DNA repair machines to
correct mutations. There are two kinds
of copying errors: 1) some errors just don’t look right to the DNA repair
machine, and are easily fixed. 2) Other errors look just like ordinary DNA.
These pseudo-normal DNA are the problem.
They look okay, but they do not act like good DNA when you try to grow
an organism using them. For a species to avoid going extinct as a result of
accumulating too many harmful mutations, selection must be able to eliminate
mutations at the same average rate that mutations occur, or the species will
experience mutational meltdown. Because offspring have two copies of each gene,
the normal version inherited by one parent often masks the failures of the
mutated version inherited from the other parent. This is why incest is bad idea. He says that blood relatives often inherit
the same mutations, which are not masked by normal genes when close relatives
produce offspring. This masking effect is called genetic dominance. Dominance
makes sex very powerful in limiting the damage caused by mutations. He goes on to explain that dominance is not
perfect and is really only a short-term solution. Two normal genes are
sometimes still better than one. This is because hiding the effects of
mutations allows them to accumulate over evolutionary time. To keep mutations from accumulating, some
offspring will inherit a below-average number of mutations from their father
and a below average from their mother too. Therefore, they will have much
better genes than the average offspring. Ultimately, these relatively mutation
free genes will spread through future generations. If the opposite occurs, where an offspring
inherits an above average amount of mutations, then they may fail to develop at
all, or may die in infancy. But on the
positive side, they take with them their large number of genetic mutations in
evolutionary oblivion. This is a very
important effect, because it ensures that at least some offspring will have
very good genes, and this is what will keep the species working. He explains
that as an investment strategy it is better to have fewer offspring that have a
chance to do very well, than a larger number of mediocre offspring.
MUTATIONS, FITNESS, AND SEXUAL
ATTRACTIVENESS
In this section Miller explains
that if the goal of sexual reproduction is to keep some of your offspring safe
from harmful mutations, then it would be foolish to pick sexual partners at
random. He confirms that we should pick the partner with the least amount of
harmful mutations. This decision
criterion will give your offspring the highest expected fitness, which means
the best chance of surviving and reproducing.
If your choice of sexual partner is very good, your genes may hitch a
ride to evolutionary stardom on the genetic quality of your partner. Many
biologists agree with Miller that mate choice is essentially a strategy for getting
the best genes you can for your offspring.
Dominance is often incomplete, and a lot of genetic variation does show
up in body and behavior. When genes
reveal themselves through body and behavior sometimes it can be easier to
determine which organisms have complex traits and which do not. An example is peacock tails, the more complex
the gene structure, the more elaborate the tail will be. And their variation at the visible level of
body and behavior means that genetic variation can be perceived during mate
choice.
Fitness Indicators are traits
that evolved specifically to advertise an animal’s fitness. Fitness means the propensity to survive and
reproduce successfully. It is determined
mainly by an individual’s genetic quality, which boils down to how many gene
mutations they have. Miller explains that because mutations are deviations the
genetic norm that are therefore, deviations from the genetic norm. If a set of mutations makes an individual
unable to grow an optimal body and unable to produce optimal behavior, then
they impair that individual’s ability to survive and reproduce. He makes the
distinction that since fitness means the ability to survive and reproduce,
mutations almost always lower fitness; conversely, high fitness implies freedom
from harmful mutations. Miller ends this section by stating that Fitness
indicators are the connection, for they are the traits that make fitness
visible. He says that Fitness indicators are the genetic sieve that lets sexual
selection sift out harmful mutations. In this view of fitness indicators,
sexual ornaments and courtship behaviors evolve as fitness indicators.
The human mind as a set of
fitness indicators
Miller starts us
off here by recalling that he defined the theory, runaway brain theory in the
previous chapter 3. He explains that it
has problems though. It does not explain the trend of hominid brain evolution
toward the big and the bright, and it does not work very well with mutual mate
choice. He explores here that what if
there is another possibility. He poses
the question as to whether or not the human mind’s most distinctive capacities
evolved through sexual selection as fitness indicators. He calls this the
healthy brain theory, and contrast to the runaway brain theory by saying that
the healthy brain theory suggests that large brains are simply better
advertisements of how good our genes are compared to smaller brained apes. He says that because our brains produce
behaviors such as art and language that we may be advertising our fitness to
potential mates. Furthermore, our creative intelligence evolved not for
survival but actually as a fitness indicator to the opposite sex. Examples of other species that have developed
behaviors as fitness indicators are songbirds, fruit flies and bowerbirds. Songbirds repeat complicated melodious sings
to reaveal their fitness.
Fitness
indicators serve a sort of meta-function.
They sit on top of other adaptations, proclaiming their virtues. He
explains that these traits are not helpful in survival or hunting or avoiding
predators, instead these traits help to attract sexual partners. In humans,
examples would be good senses of humor and artistic creativity, or even
morality.
Evolutionary fitness and physical
fitness
Miller says that evolutionary psychology has paid very little attention to the possibility that many of our psychological traits may have evolved as fitness indicators too. He says that in order to understand it better we must first understand the difference between Evolutionary fitness and Physical Fitness. He ponders over the difference between what biologists believe to be fitness and what fitness in an evolutionary sense means. Biologists believe that fitness is a means of surviving and reproducing. Evolutionary fitness has 3 important features: it is relative to competitors in a species, it is relative to an environment, and it is a statistical propensity rather than an achieved outcome.
Evolutionary fitness is relative to a species. Evolution increases fitness, by definition. In this sense, evolution is progressive: when sexual selection favors fitness indicators, it necessarily increases fitness and contributes to evolutionary progress. Evolutionary fitness is also relative to environment. It depends on the fit between an organism’s traits and an environment’s features, which is why he calls it fitness rather than quality or perfection. Fitness as a propensity is an expectation that allows us to predict how an individual will probably fare. Fitness is something we attribute to organisms to explain why they survive and reproduce better than their competitors. Fitness in the physical sense can also imply youth, health, athletic ability, and physical attractiveness. Another contrast to evolutionary fitness is that physical fitness is closer to a measurable achievement than a statistical propensity. It is less abstract, and closer to real behavioral outcomes. Evolutionary fitness is linked to physical and mental fitness by something that biologists call “condition.” Miller says that it is in fact an animals “condition” that is basically its physical fitness, health, and energy level. A high fitness animal may be in poor condition due to a temporary injury or food shortage. The abilities to find food, resist disease, and avoid parasites are major determinants of condition, and major components of fitness. Good condition is a pretty good indicator of high fitness.
A set of chain relationships prove central to Miller’s book. They are genetic mutations influence fitness, fitness influences condition, condition influences the state of fitness indicators, fitness indicators influence mate choice, and mate choice influences evolution. Miller states that for animals making sexual choices, fitness indicators are just proxies for good genes. But the sexual selection that results does not just influence the genes; it also affects the fitness indicators themselves.
This theory of fitness indicators suggests that much of human courtship consists of advertising our physical fitness and mental fitness to sexual prospects. Physical fitness may mean body shape, facial features, skin condition, energy level, athleticism, fighting ability, and dancing ability. Mental fitness may be defined as creative storytelling, intelligent problem solving, skillful socializing, a good sense of humor, empathetic kindness, a wide vocabulary, and so forth.
Miller goes on to explain that he will try to argue that some human mate preferences have been misunderstood as seeking purely non-genetic benefits, when they have actually been focusing on indicators of genetically heritable fitness.
Ms. Fitness USA
Miller says that for him the sexual revolution of the last 20 years has come in the form of the Ms. Fitness USA pageant, as opposed to Ms. America Pageant that was more popular 20 years ago. He says that these more fitness-oriented contests were created in response to the criticism about the stereotypes of the women in the Ms. America pageants. Women said that the ability to totter around in heels and a swimsuit did not seem to reflect any very significant aspect of a woman’s being. The purpose was to try to show an active display of health instead of a giggly, soft-bodied display of femininity. The point was to show that Ms. Fitness USA contestants could only win if they trained like professional athletes by doing aerobics, weight lifting, stretching, sports and healthy eating. The end result is that the ornaments that stick around that have something to do with genes are the ones that should reveal some information about fitness.
Sexual choice for fitness
Miller starts
this section out by telling us about Sir Ronald Fisher and how he first
emphasized that animals could choose their sexual partners for high fitness by
favoring certain kinds of sexual display. The “lek paradox” is the most extreme
case of a general problem with the heritability of fitness. Any form of sexual selection for fitness
indicators should even out genetic variation in fitness. If female choice in our species favored tall
males, all males would be equally tall.
This is an example of how if everyone chooses the same traits in their
sexual partners then these traits become the norm in all humans. Once biologists agreed that the lek paradox
was a problem, the hunt was on for the evolutionary forces that could maintain
variation in fitness. Two major
candidates emerged. One emphasized that
fitness is environment-relative; the other emphasized that the ubiquity of
harmful mutations that erode fitness.
Fitness
fluctuates according to changes in the environment and species adapt fairly
quickly to those changes. More
importantly, however is the species interaction with surrounding parasites. The
capabilities of parasites to determine what counts as fitness for the host,
because parasites can evolve much faster than their host, there is no
hypothetical situation in which every individual has high fitness. This arms
race between parasites and hosts could maintain the incentive for mate choice.
While this may explain why physical fitness and health remains heritable it
does not explain why there is such variation in mental adaptations.
The balck Rain of Mutation
Mutations
do undermine normal appearance and attractiveness, but they rarely bring
survival or fertility benefits. Many
biologists hold the view that fitness
remains heritable mostly because new mutations are constantly arising and
causing trouble. To avoid mutational
meltdown, and extinction selection had to be potent enough to eliminate those
mutations. Very rarely does selection
favor a new mutant, because only rarely is a mutated gene better than the
existing gene at helping an organism survive and reproduce. These rare occasions attract the biologist’s
attention because they are the times when evolution-genetic change in a
species--- can occur.
The more complex a trait is the more genes there are that
are vulnerable to mutation. This means
that a very complex trait like the human brain is an excellent fitness
indicator because there are thousands and thousands of genes that may contain
mutations. Because fitness has the
ability to be inherited mate choice is our method of flushing out those
mutations.
Fitness indicators are necessary because mates will
whenever possible lie about their fitness.
One way to determine fitness is through an idea called “conspicuous
consumption” which means that a mate will ornament themselves with costly
luxuries in order to advertise their fitness.
This is one of the only ways to advertise true fitness because it cost a
lot of fitness to produce the signal.
For example a peacock’s tail is heavy, costly, and cumbersome. Therefore only the fittest peacocks can
afford to have large, extravagant tails.
Most sexual ornaments are therefore handicaps that advertise true
fitness by handicapping an individual with survival costs. “Why should a man give a woman a useless
diamond engagement ring, when he could buy her a nice bit potato, which she
could at least eat (124).” The more it
cost the individual the better of an indictor it is. For example proclaiming, “I have a straight
flush” in poker carries less credibility than placing a large bet on one’s
hand.
Because fitness indicators are handicaps, most sexual
ornaments are not produced by all males to equal degree. “Better fed animals can afford to grow larger
sexual ornaments. Most energetic animals
can afford to exert more effort in courtship.
Stronger animals can afford to fight other strong animals in ritualized
contests. Faster animals can afford to
taunt predators from a closer distance (127).”
But all animals are not forced to have a sexual ornament that will in
the end exhaust them and kill them.
“The acts of love considered most romantic are often those
that cost the giver the most, but that bring the smallest material benefits to
the receiver.” The form of the waste is
not necessarily what is important rather the amount of waste is the key
factor.
In Rowe and Houle’s model all fitness indicators start out
as ordinary traits. Once an ordinary
trait is favored by the opposite sex those with costlier versions of that trait
have a better chance of reproducing. “The
sexual selection also puts pressure on the trait to recruit a larger share of
the individual’s energy budget for itself (130).” In this way, sexual selection has turned an
ordinary trait into a really good fitness indicator. No only does it recruit more energy but it
also recruits a larger percentage of that individual’s genes. “This might mean that when sexual selection
seized upon the ape brain as a set of possible fitness indicators, the genic
capture process recruited a lot of pre-existing brain circuitry into human
courtship behavior (131).” This means
that human mental abilities might be so complex because they are so efficient
at advertising the brain’s mental abilities.
Human mental traits that evolved through natural selection
for some specific function show small differences between people because
selection should have eliminated bad variations long ago. But mental traits that evolved as fitness
indicators are just the opposite; showing large differences between
people. “If a human mental trait shows
large individual differences, high heritability, high condition-dependence,
high costs, and high correlations with other mental and physical abilities,
then it may have evolved through sexual selection as a fitness indictor
(133).” This does not mean that all
mental and physical adaptations evolved because of sexual selection. Probably 90 percent came from natural
selection and social selection to solve routine daily problems of living. But the remaining 10 percent like music and
art have a pretty good chance of being products of sexual selection.
“Our brains are only 2 percent of our body weight, but
consume 15 percent of our oxygen intake, 25 percent of our metabolic energy,
and 40 percent of our blood glucose (134).”
Our brains cost a lot of energy and effort to run. Sexual selection stretched the capacities of
our mind to find new innovative ways of showing good fitness. “It is asked not what a brain can do for its
owner, but what fitness information about the owner a brain can reveal (135).”
It seems immoral to say that everything that we value about
humanity has evolved to proclaim one message: “I am fit, my genes are good, mate
with me.” But look at it this way;
social norms or morality is developed to minimize the social costs of
advertising one’s fitness. “We value
humility precisely because many people are unbearable braggarts who try to
flaunt their fitness indicators so relentlessly that we cannot hold a decent
conversation. We value frugality because
so many people embarrass everyone with their ostentatious displays of luxuries,
and waste limited resources that others need.
We value egalitarianism because it protects the majority from aspiring
despots intent on power and polygyny (136).”
Our moral values may in fact just be adaptations.
Because sexual choice is relayed via the senses sexual
ornaments have evolved as sound and light shows designed for sensory
appeal. But as humans we have
communication systems that through language are able to convey complex
ideas. This means that sexual selection
is able to play on that. “The mind could
be viewed as an entertainment system that appeals to the psychological
preferences of other minds (138).” Even
consciousness itself may be a sexual ornament.
“Like burglars learning about the security systems of
banks, animals evolve courtship strategies to sneak through the senses of other
animals, through the antechamber of their decision-making systems, into the
vault of their reproductive potential (140).”
In 1978 Richard Dawkins and John Krebs produced a paper that argued that
when animals send each other signals, they are selfishly trying to influence
each other’s behavior.
The senses have multiple
functions therefore they cannot be perfectly adapted to mate choice. For example because primates eat fruit they
have developed visual systems attracted to bright colors. If a male primate happens to evolve a bright
red face, he might prove more attractive to females. The female senses are biased to notice bright
colors and this influence is coined “sensory bias.”
This may allow us to predict some of the paths that sexual
selection will take. “Finally, sensory
bias theory, recognizes that senses evolve interactively with the signals they
favor (142).”
“The senses used for mate choice in each species tend to be
well matched to the sexual ornaments displayed by that species (142).” For example in several species of Central
American frogs the female ears are the most sensitive to auditory frequency of
male courtship calls.
One claim to sensory bias theory is that certain features
evolved because they are the most in tune with our ability to perceive things
in our world. Advanced visual systems as
those in humans are the most excited by symmetric patterns. This explains why sexual ornaments like stars,
sunbursts, and eyespots are so popular.
But sexual ornaments may be so unpredictably diverse in different
species because a new sexual ornament may excite the senses in a way that could
never have been predicted.
But just because an individual grabs the attention of a
prospective mate through stimulation of their senses doesn’t necessarily mean
that they will then have sexual appeal.
“Animals usually respond more strongly to visual ornaments that are
large, brightly colored, and symmetrical, and to auditory ornaments that are
loud, low in pitch, frequently repeated, and sampled from a large repertoire
(147).” Only the healthiest animals and
those with the best fitness can produce these ornaments. Thus sensory bias is tied into adaptive
strategies for mate choice.
“Sensory bias theory reminds us that mate choice is
mediated by perceptual abilities, and that as new perceptual abilities evolve,
the way is opened for new kinds of sexual ornaments to evolve. With the evolution of bird ears came the
possibility of bird song (148).”
Consider two hypothetical types of brains wired for mate
choice: the cold chooser and the hot chooser.
The cold chooser compares prospective mates through a mathematical
procedure and simply chooses the better.
No pleasure is derived from doing this.
It is suspected that most insects work like this. In contrast the hot chooser chooses a mate by
the way in which that individual gives them subjective feelings of
pleasure. The more pleasure a potential
mate arouses the more likely that individual is chosen. In this hot chooser every decision is mediated
by this pleasure meter even those decisions that are needed for survival. A pleasure meter like this would be useful in
telling an individual to do more of what gives them pleasure. “For this reason, pleasure-giving courtship
behavior is probably a better fitness indictor than courtship that merely
activates sensations (152).”
This article has a lot of focus on the
pleasure-meter which lies in mostly all species. These species utilize this
pleasure-meter to select mates to their best benefits possible. This puts the
courters in competition with each other to have the sexual partner of their
choice. They work harder at providing pleasure for the female they are
courting. A major issue in who the female selects to mate with is that they are
choosing someone who is best fit to grant good genes upon any offspring that
comes about from the mating process.
Miller explains the
pleasure-meter as not always being an issue in mating species, rather it
evolved and came about according to the complexity of the brain. The brain
tells the species that it enjoys something, is pleasured by something, and it
signals it that this act is something worthy of repetition. For example, eating
is something that brings pleasure to a species, this pleasure is a
reinforcement to do it again, in order to feel that same pleasurable feeling.
Not only would the species repeat the eating process, but also would repeat the
choosing process of what exactly it eats. As far as mating goes, this is where
the selection ties in to the pleasure-meter. If a mating partner supplies the
female with great pleasure in the mating process, then the female will
reinforce the same strategies that she went about before in choosing her next
mating partner. If satisfaction is not brought upon by the particular mating
partner she has chosen, then the learning process continues to cycle in that
now she will go about different strategies to select a mating partner. This is a very beneficial concept in that it
allows females, who have a great concern for their offspring and the qualities
that their offspring contain, to select a mate that will best provide good
genes for their offspring to be fit and endowed with great pleasure providing
qualities.
An issue that is faced in the
process of the pleasure-meter is the fitness of the male who is courting the
female. The providing of pleasure says nothing about the whole genetic make up
of the male because the pleasure-meter cannot even guarantee the honesty of
itself! So the question now is: Is this a cost for the female in the long run?
Will her offspring, instead of having good genes passed on by the other mate,
have bad genes because of the manipulation that was used in the providing of
the pleasure in courting? Well, no, of course not. The genes and fitness that
are being avoided by the female in selection of a mate are very apparent in
that particular courter. Therefore, those qualities will not be able to be
avoided and the female will not be able to overlook them. The pleasure systems
are very sensitive to variations in mating partners, which would allow them to be
aware of a bad quality. This makes the manipulation of some courters who know
what a female is looking for, so provide it, be not such a bad cost for the
female in the mating process.
THE
ORNAMENTAL MIND
The human mind is a complex
subject and has been analyzed by so many to be compared to various things. It
can be “a set of survival abilities”, “a computer”, “a Swiss Army Knife”, “a
Machiavellian intelligence center”, or a new concept that many theorists have
become fond of which is “the entertainment system”. The entertainment system
allows the mind to be attracted to various types of qualities that may lead to
us preferring one mate rather than the other. The qualities that we may be
attracted to may be very complex, whereas certain pleasure-giving courters
might only touch upon the superficial interests that we may have.
This entire concept of the mind
is the Ornamental Mind Theory. This is very complex in the description of the
mind, whereas before in time, we were dealing with metaphors such as the mind
“as a computer”, which in this day and age, is eliminating most of human life
as an important aspect. The mind as an entertainment system is very precise in
touching upon the things that are important to us according to evolution. As an
entertainment system, the mind’s primary concern is to stimulate the brains of
others. This is where the pleasure-giving comes into play. They become an
individual who appears to others to be the best fit for mating and passing on
good, fit offspring. If they can stimulate the brains of others, than they have
the ability to open a door for a possible mate and this benefits them since
they are the ones looking for a mate initially in that they are trying to
pleasure others. The mind as an entertainment system reflects popular taste
according to the time and evolution. This popular taste will be attracted if
stimulated by an individual, in turn wanting a mating partner to pass on these
traits and abilities to please. Sexual selection is very different from
survival of the fittest, and this is very apparent through the selection
process in that it is clearly a matter of what appeals to us of the possible
mate, rather than what will keep us alive. If it was a matter of what would
keep us alive, we wouldn’t care what kind of genes we had, let alone our
children! Instead we have a concern for who fathers our children, not
domestically, but biologically. We want our children to be of the best, and
that can only come to if we partner up with the best mate possible to create
them. It is not about having to ponder the idea either. The thought of wanting
the best genes for our children is intuitive and inherent in the individual. We
all want the best, and in order to get it, we must mate with the best. The
“best” varies for various individuals, according to what appeals to them and
what they are attracted to.
THE SPACE
OF ALL POSSIBLE STIMULATION
The aspects of an individual that
different individuals appeal to can vary from one person to the next. This is
the reason that the entertainment industry, in reference to our minds, is seen
as an exploration of the “space of all possible stimulations”. Every person is
different from the next. This makes it very difficult to predict what a
specific individual will like and be pleasured by. The human brain is able to
stimulate others however it does not have premature knowledge of what exactly
will stimulate it in the correct manner. Without competition however, there
would only be opportunity for mutual selection. This would in turn cause no evolutionary
progress among our species. Instead the same genes would be passed along in the
same manner, without ever encountering variation. Pleasure will never increase
from one generation to the next.
PUTTING
PIECES TOGETHER
Some sexual ornaments do not vary
from generation to generation. They simply pass on from our ancestors to us in
a very ordinary fashion. The runaway theory, the indicator theory, and the
sensory bias theory all tie in together. Runaway occurs, according to Miller,
because sexual preferences become genetically correlated with the sexual
ornaments they favor. The indicator theory occurs, in his eyes, because it is
the source that sexual selection will gain direction from. They all tie in when
it comes down to sensory biases. Miller explains that sensory biases influence
where runaways are most likely to go and which indicators will most likely
evolve.
HOW
ORNAMENTS AND INDICATORS INTERACT
Indicators
portray a particular quantity, a constant number or quality that is consistent
in any situation. The ornament is the way in which the indicator is portrayed.
Geoffrey Miller uses the analogy of the car and the meters on the car to
compare the indicator and the ornament. He states that the indicator would be
like the speedometer and the ornament would be like the various types we see
among various styles of cars. Miller ties in the handicap principle to explain
how the design of the human is much more complex than that of a speedometer or
a watch. Because as far as the human ornaments go, they are so unique and
cannot be replicated easily. He compares humans to that of a coin, which is so
precisely created to the degree of not being copied sufficiently. After any
species developed mate choice as an option in lifestyle, then every species would
be capable of selection in the fitness of a mate, thus the fitness indicator.
SEXUAL
SELECTION, NATURAL SELECTION, AND INNOVATIONS
Sexual selection can interact with natural selection and create innovations. This is a result of evolution on a higher degree and level. The doors are opened for new things, resulting in the exploration of innovative ideas, in turn ending with “adaptive radiation”. Miller explains this concept with the example of an ape. The ape has evolved into many various types of species, including the human itself. Miller explains that every single class or family has a greater history that is brought from an innovation. There are macro and micro innovations that may exist. These innovations are determined according to the negative effects or the positive effects. There are many issues involved in the development of innovations that will be valuable. The metaphor that Miller uses is that of Microsoft and how it needs all of its employees in order to have been successful and they all need each other to work together.
THE
THRESHOLD OF INNOVATION
The beginning of
innovations do not show immediate results, therefore leaving the problem of why
natural selection would favor the innovations occurring. When an innovation
occurs, it should occur so that the evolution can have a good result, however
natural selection cannot foresee this benefit. Therefore, how can natural
selection work together and favor this idea of innovation, without having
doubts and questions? This is where
SEXUAL
SELECTION AND VENTURE CAPITAL
Evolution has no
form of venture capitalist. It has no support system in the actual evolution
that leads to innovation. It has no way of knowing that if it falls through,
everything will still be alright. The species takes a risk of becoming extinct.
In turn, sexual selection is a working venture capitalist. It can favor an
innovation because of the ornaments it holds. It will support them with
reproductivity, therefore the costs will not be as great as without that.
Miller explains this to still be very risky, however it is a risk that is well
worth taking. The only real profit that is guaranteed is the profit of
confidence that is built upon the individual species itself. This confidence
can be broken by the extinction of the species, however this is something that
is not expected.
WHY
IS EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION OBSESSED WITH MALE GENITALS?
Male sexual ornaments along with it’s genitals are the most distinguishable traits for most species that are from closely related members of the same genus. When one species splits off from another, the male genitals are the first thing to diverge. Innovation has occurred a lot among the shape of the male’s genitals. The male genitals are more specific in identifying what species they are, whereas the female genitals can only get as specific as the genus that she belongs to.
INNOVATION
THROUGH SEXUAL CHOICE
The many courtship benefits that exist can have a lot of survival benefits as well. They, then become very valuable because they contain various benefits to the lifestyles of the species. These become innovations that are very beneficial and crucial to the species. An example that Miller utilized to explain more clearly the meaning of this was the example of the feathered wings of a bird. Their feathered wings have innovated to become beneficial as far as mating and survival was concerned. Sexual selection is the primary way to lead to innovations without confronting the threshold problem. The human mind, according to Miller, is one of these innovations that has benefited us in both ways, the sexual selection aspect of life, and the survival aspect of life.
FROM A PRODUCTION ORIENTATION TO A MARKETING ORIENTATION
Rather than the
selection of a species for a mate to be from scratch and without any
advertisement, the species does as a Marketing Orientation in that it focuses
on the preferences of the possible mates it encounters. The species realizes
that it has to satisfy the consumer, which is the mate, in order to gain
profit. This means that the whole existence of a species would be important as
far as pleasing the mate.
Outline
I.
Copying Errors
A.
Organisms develop DNA repair machines to correct
mutations.
B.
There are two types of copying Errors:
·
Some errors just don’t look right to the DNA repair
machine, and are only chemical nonsense, and are easily fixed.
·
Other errors look jut like ordinary DNA. These
pseudo-normal DNA are the problem. They
look okay, but they do not act like good DNA when you try to grow an organism
using them.
C.
Selection must be able to eliminate mutations at the
same average rate that mutations occur, or the species will experience
mutational meltdown.
D. Strategy
it is better to have fewer offspring that have a chance to do very well, than a
larger number of mediocre offspring.
II.
Mutations, Fitness and Sexual Attractiveness
A. That we should pick the partner with the least amount of harmful mutations. This decision criterio