Sexual Selection Goes Nowhere
Sexual Selection Theory still
does not give an answer for dances and colours in life.
Geoffrey Hamilton
January 5, 2006
All the colourful flowers and birds, and all their dances and attributes
that are taken for beauty are still not being addressed in Sexual Selection Theory.
The most obvious problem is that the agent making a choice, the one finally being allowed by scientists to play
a part in the changes seen in life, is not actually being allowed to choose. It is only
made an extension of the weeding theory called 'Natural Selection'. The agent is
still not given
a criteria or an ability to choose the shapes and
colours of their mates.
The positive creation of species-harmful dances,
courtship, colours and shapes that we see in the peacock, for example, still have no
possible criteria for their forms or for their existence. Some in the Sexual
Selection 'team'
have tried to extend their
rancid evolution tautology (saying whatever survives survives and then use that to
define fit) into dance and colour by saying that whatever is beautiful is therefore the
fittest. But
I ask a simple question; why not just be strong, smart, sexually virile, and healthy
and choose from that?
No, the
attributes we see, by whatever way you define it, are extraneous things that are, at best,
inefficient indirect displays of all those proofs of fitness.
Actually, these extraneous things are completely arbitrary no matter
how they are rationalized. The orange colour on a bird rather a tangerine
colour can never factor into its fitness.
This manifest
and permanent inefficiency counters any claim by
evolutionary theorists that the fittest survives, or
that fitness matters overall. On top of that it
even counters any claim by creationists of a perfect
designer because you can't have perfection
if the beauty that exists is entirely arbitrary.
The criteria for choice
is still nowhere to be found in evolutionary theory. The scientists cannot see it.
Sexual selection doesn't even come close to explaining it - the sole
point for its own existence.
Why one colour and not another? The only way an
arbitrary choice is made is by game playing. The only
way to want to play games is to have a genetically
encoded compulsion
to play. Now that is why peacocks are beautiful.
GRH
