 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / August 2005The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation.
The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. The solution is arrived at by viewing the problem from an entirely opposite frame of reference: What is the specific "mechanism" by which species survive over time? And that is the fact that across all species it is the male that chases after the female, while the female does not actively chase after the male--regardless of the fact that ALL females have a voice on which (of the most insistent males after her), on which of those males they "accept." Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in which her inclinations wouldn't drive her species: She could literally become "enamored of an a.s," and her choice would manifest itself in her species moving in that direction. By NOT running after males a female not only guarantees that the next generation of females will tend to be like her, but also makes sure that her female descendants have a generation of males who will also be attracted to females like her (since she also only/mostly "deigns" to permit the "reproducing" of the most insistent males).... thereby guaranteeing the stability of her species over as long a period of time as such a thing is possible in the natural world. Females across species tend to accept the most insistent male--And this rule is even true of human beings, where females will be more ready to accept an insistent male than one which may be better suited to her survival or to the survival of her offspring. Albeit, of course, all rules have their exceptions (and this is perhaps even truer of human beings). Still, it is always a dangerous thing for parents to leave their daughters overly-exposed to very passionate but unsuitable suitors, as you all know. Any species in which an appreciable percentage of the females chase after the male must either give rise to a secondary species... or it must itself go extinct (subject to who those "beloved" males may happen to be). And this may be the most significant mechanism by which a species gives rise to other species (even if it all does boil down to the fact that males who are best adapted to a changed environment are more likely to be "the strongest insister"). Therefore it's likely that at any given time one may see a tiny percentage of females in any species actively going after males. And that the more stable a species remains over time the smaller the percentage of such females it has. [Conversely, it doesn't really seem to matter what number of males become "enamored of an a.s," since they simply fall off the "species cliff" never to be heard from again--the only males that count are those who chase after their females at all cost, even if the percentage of such overly-insistent males is very low: Females "guarantee" that there will never be a shortage of such males simply by tending to prefer the most insistent male among them, for if they do not they are literally dooming their species to extinction.] So it is quite axiomatic that we do "marry our mothers." The misunderstanding comes when we imagine that we (males) pick a "wife" that is "the exact replica" of our mother. Our choices are much more varied and complex than something that simple, but the truism still holds (and all females share a huge number of similar attributes... which they "pass generation over generation" as the general attributes of what constitutes "her" species--and her sex in particular). I have not yet come across the animal species in which this does not hold true (and the specific claim is made to animal species because I have not considered what if any part this mechanism plays in the evolutioin of plant species over time). In animal species, this universal mechanism seems to have two seemingly opposite aims (stabilizing the species AND driving it in new directions). But, when properly considered, it becomes apparent that these two aims are really one and the same thing. And that the overall aim appears to be adapting to whatever new environment as quickly as possible ---Or, why it is that the variation among males (a number of which may be very strong insisters on their females... even as as great a number of the other males of their generation may divert into other "pursuits" from homosexuality to bestiality to whatnot)... why it is that the variation in "sexual preferences" among males may be so pronounced in some species (or more usual/regular in some species than in others): I have already stated what I believe the effect of such "instability" on the part of the females can do to a species. So it could be the case that a species in which such variation is very pronounced will tend to manifest greater than usual evolutionary flowering even as species that have shown great evolutionary stability over substantial lengths of time may be found to lack it. Therefore studies in this area (contrasting, say, the sexual predilections of people and cockroaches) may yet turn out to be rather illuminating for the field of evolution. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ALL females have a voice on which (of the most insistent > males after her), on which of those males they "accept." Cite? > Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, > were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in > which her inclinations wouldn't drive her species: She could > literally become "enamored of an a.s," and her choice would > manifest itself in her species moving in that direction. Like peacocks? snip the rest David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: S D Rodrian wrote: > > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cite? The black widow. And my Aunt Henrietta, for that matter: She used to wait for her husbands with a baseball bat hidden behind the front door, for Heaven's sakes. > > Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, > > were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Like peacocks? Especially peacocks: The peahen picks out the chap who makes the greatest show. Some of the boys drive themselves to distraction shaking & rocking/rolling when the little woman goes by seemingly paying very little attention to them. But she accepts the most insistent peacock--the one whose "show" is the most splendid. It matters not a whit to her which peacock is the strongest or healthiest, or which peacock will assure that her male offspring will survive (by being inconspicuous). All she cares about is which one appears the most interested in her. While, on the other hand, peacocks are among/probably the most outrageously insistent males in the animal kingdom (and that's saying a lot for the bird species). Really! You ought to do a bit of thinking before you answer these posts. Even a little bit of thinking will discover fish and worms and other creatures which on the face of it do not appear to follow my rule--although they ALL do, once you look more closely at them. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: > S D Rodrian wrote: [snip] > Really! You ought to do a bit of thinking before you answer > these posts. Even a little bit of thinking will discover fish > and worms and other creatures which on the face of it > do not appear to follow my rule--although they ALL do, > once you look more closely at them. Phalaropes? Jacanas? Species that broadcast their gametes into the water column? >> David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: >> S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> do not appear to follow my rule--although they ALL do, >> once you look more closely at them. >Phalaropes? Jacanas? Species that broadcast their >gametes into the water column? The same thing with male/female plants (which I declined to include in my general rule--only because I haven't given them the proper 10 minutes). However, in common with such plants, it is the "males" that put forth the grand effort ("insist the harder" in my term), and the "females" which, by & large, "accept" (or even reject) the males' efforts. (Which is even true for flower/female parts and male pollen--which must ripe upon the "back" of intermediate pollinators!) Make of this what you will. So on general principles the rule still very much holds. Even in cases where gametes (male and female) are loosened as if to blind luck "to find each other" still share the same sort of relationship that a woman's egg and the man's sperm have inside the woman's body (where the males engage in a competition of sorts and the female "chooses" the "most insistent" male). This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification (as there is no intent evident anywhere in the scheme), but it yet displays an odd agreement with the general rule that it is the "male" component that "insists" after the female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become of the species?] S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com >>>David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: >>>S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > (where the males engage in a competition of sorts > and the female "chooses" the "most insistent" male). That's nonsense. The egg "chooses" the first sperm that contacts it. If you want to call that "insistent" then you are distorting the meanings of words beyond the point at which they become useless. > This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to > confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become > of the species?] And of course you haven't discussed the cases of phalaropes and jacanas. >>>>David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: >>>>S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >And of course you haven't discussed the cases of phalaropes and jacanas. I think SDRodrian is simply hung up on the fact that the sperm is motile while the egg is not. Hence the male agent "actively seeks" the female while the female "passively accepts" the male. It is nonsense, of course. You might try to ask about isogamy with mating types or about conjugation. But you will get the same answer as you do to asking about specific bird (or other) species that disprove his conjecture. r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> said >>>>>S D Rodrian wrote: >>>>[snip] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>do not appear to follow my rule--although they ALL do, >>>>>once you look more closely at them. >>>>Phalaropes? Jacanas? Species that broadcast their >>>>gametes into the water column? >>> The same thing with male/female plants (which I declined >>> to include in my general rule--only because I haven't given [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> pollen--which must ripe upon the "back" of intermediate >>> pollinators!) Make of this what you will. >>> So on general principles the rule still very much holds. >>> Even in cases where gametes (male and female) are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> (where the males engage in a competition of sorts >>> and the female "chooses" the "most insistent" male). >That's nonsense. The egg "chooses" the first sperm that contacts it. Sir, my statement is NOT that the egg chooses but that it DOES NOT. Read with both mind and eyes, if you will. >If you want to call that "insistent" then you are distorting the meanings >of words beyond the point at which they become useless. I use the word to apply to males. And if you have any argument against males insisting on females, then you had better start with a simple episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom (about twenty/thirty years ago now). > This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to > confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the species?] >And of course you haven't discussed the cases of phalaropes and jacanas. Yes I have (above). Perhaps there are so many in the current that it has made you blind to it (and you snipped it, but here will I reprint it to give you another chance to read it and perhaps even understand it too): So on general principles the rule still very much holds. Even in cases where gametes (male and female) are loosened as if to blind luck "to find each other" still share the same sort of relationship that a woman's egg and the man's sperm have inside the woman's body (where the males engage in a competition of sorts and the female "chooses" the "most insistent" male). Note that the word "chooses" is in quotes because anybody would know that the egg's extent of choice is that it accept the first (most insistent) male. This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification (as there is no intent evident anywhere in the scheme), but it yet displays an odd agreement with the general rule that it is the "male" component that "insists" after the female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become of the species?] . >>> This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to >>> confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become >>> of the species?] >>And of course you haven't discussed the cases of phalaropes and jacanas. >I think SDRodrian is simply hung up on the fact that the sperm is >motile while the egg is not. Hence the male agent "actively seeks" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >do to asking about specific bird (or other) species that disprove his >conjecture. Could you be more specific? Do you know of a species of bird (or whatever) in which it is the female that chases after the male--I'd love to know why/how this helps to maintain evolutionary stability! And, of course, if you know of any eggs that chase after sperm, say, you'd do the world of science a world of good by bringing it to everybody's attention! S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> said SDR wrote: >>>Really! You ought to do a bit of thinking before you answer >>>these posts. Even a little bit of thinking will discover fish >>>and worms and other creatures which on the face of it >>>do not appear to follow my rule--although they ALL do, >>>once you look more closely at them. >>Phalaropes? Jacanas? Species that broadcast their >>gametes into the water column? > The same thing with male/female plants (which I declined > to include in my general rule--only because I haven't given [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pollen--which must ripe upon the "back" of intermediate > pollinators!) Make of this what you will. > So on general principles the rule still very much holds. > Even in cases where gametes (male and female) are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (where the males engage in a competition of sorts > and the female "chooses" the "most insistent" male). >That's nonsense. The egg "chooses" the first sperm that contacts it. Sir, my statement is NOT that the egg chooses but that it DOES NOT. Read with both mind and eyes, if you will. >If you want to call that "insistent" then you are distorting the meanings >of words beyond the point at which they become useless. I use the word to apply to males. And if you have any argument against males insisting on females, then you had better start with a simple episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom (about twenty/thirty years ago now). > This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to > confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become > of the species?] >And of course you haven't discussed the cases of phalaropes and jacanas. Yes I have (above). Perhaps tere are so many in the current that it has made you blind to it (and you snipped it, but here will I reprint it to give you another chance to read it and perhaps even understand it too): So on general principles the rule still very much holds. Even in cases where gametes (male and female) are loosened as if to blind luck "to find each other" still share the same sort of relationship that a woman's egg and the man's sperm have inside the woman's body (where the males engage in a competition of sorts and the female "chooses" the "most insistent" male). Note that the word "chooses" is in quotes because anybody would know that the egg's extent of choice is that it accept the first (most insistent) male. This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification (as there is no intent evident anywhere in the scheme), but it yet displays an odd agreement with the general rule that it is the "male" component that "insists" after the female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become of the species?] . S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com SDR wrote:(snip) > Sir, my statement is NOT that the egg chooses but that it > DOES NOT. (snip) "Evolution; international journal of organic evolution." 2005 Jan;59(1):97-105. "Conspecific sperm precedence in two species of tropical sea urchins."By Geyer LB, Palumbi SR. of Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. "Conspecific sperm precedence occurs when females are exposed to sperm from males of multiple species, but preferentially use sperm of a conspecific. Conspecific sperm precedence and its mechanisms have been documented widely in terrestrial species, in which complex female behaviors or reproductive tract morphologies can allow many opportunities for female choice and sperm competition, however, the opportunity for conspecific sperm precedence in free spawning marine invertebrates has been largely ignored. Two sea urchin species, Echinometra oblonga and E. sp. C, have high levels of interspecific fertilization in no-choice lab crosses, but no natural hybrids have been found. We performed competitive fertilization assays to test for conspecific sperm precedence and found that eggs of both species showed a marked preference for conspecific sperm when fertilized with heterospecific sperm mixtures. Strong rejection of heterospecific sperm would not have been predicted from no-choice assays and helps explain the lack of natural hybrids. We also found significant variation in hybridization success among crosses. Conspecific sperm precedence in free spawning invertebrates shows that the simple surfaces of eggs and sperm provide ample opportunity for *egg choice* and sperm competition even in the absence of intricate behavior or complex reproductive morphologies." You're welcome EB <nylic...@frontiernet.net> wrote & pasted: > SDR wrote:(snip) >> Sir, my statement is NOT that the egg chooses but that it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > behaviors or reproductive tract morphologies can allow many > opportunities for female choice and sperm competition, It is hardly "her choice" if her morphology only allows for one choice! This is no different than other egg/sperm equations. The more different life seems--the more similar it turns out to be. > however, the > opportunity for conspecific sperm precedence in free spawning marine [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > even in the absence of intricate behavior or complex reproductive > morphologies." Obviously the eggs have no choice but to take the sperm of their own species--No one can possibly be suggesting the eggs are "making any real decision" here. My rule stands that it is the sperm that are "insisting" (competing, or any other term you wish to use) for/on the eggs. In fact, the thing one could point out is the the eggs are "accepting" the most insistent spermatozoid (from among those most insistent, that is, those that "struggle" the hardest to "fit the profile" the egg is looking for--which indeed IS the conspecific spermatozoid). > You're welcome Thank you. Although I don't exactly know how all this has advanced our very specific discussion... S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com *********************************** ALSO: >> David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: >> S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Some exceptions might include penguins, where it is common > for females to fight over a male. Please remember the point of my original post: That the percentage of females going after males determine the evolutionary stability/instability of a given species. If it is true that female penguins go after males, are we really talking about them doing that... or are we merely talking about females competing against other females? Females competing against other females is neutral to our discussion because it doesn't change the nature of the next generation--it is only when females are free to choose their males (the males have little or no choice-- which sounds most unusual if not impossible), only then are females actively tampering with the very nature of their species (given the fact that such a "choice" could and often is "irrational" ... as we see everyday in human male sexual predilections from homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and whatever). > The tendency described is correct, but on the > whole the real difference is which sex pays the higher > opportunity costs for mating. Irrelevant, as this price is paid only AFTER the choice has been made. The question here has to do with the possibility/probability that the choice is what drives "the species mechanism." (The male Black Widow spider and the male praying mantis pay the ultimate price but THEY still chase after their females rather than the other way around). > Typically it is the female, since eggs are harder to > produce then sperm. But in species where the fathers > investment in the off-spring equals the females you get > much more symmetry in the mate selection process. You will have to point me to those females, and how they are chasing/choosing the male rather than the other way around. A lot of time it just appears the females are picking the males, but on closer examination what's really happening is that the males are FIRST insisting (through nest-building competitions, dancing contests, and so forth) and ONLY THEN are the females "accepting" the "most insistent" males (i.e. the winners of the competitions). > Birds give a good range. There are species in which the > male and female appear very different. Peafowl are the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > share the roles of sitting on the egg and feeding and > protecting the cygnet. In all the above cases, my rule hold true: FIRST the males enter into a competition and THEN the female "accepts" the most insistent male from the competing group (or, if only one competitor shows up, which is rare but can happen). > But among mammals, I can think of no species where > the father invests as much as the mother. >>>> Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, >>>> were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So the guess with peafowl is that the display of tail features > shows how free from parasites the male is. Why they don't just produce a health certificate I'll never know. >> Really! You ought to do a bit of thinking before you answer >> these posts. Even a little bit of thinking will turn up fish [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > whole, though, I agree with you. The exceptions really "prove" the rule > in that they allow us to see what underlies the rule in the first place. It's still early in the game for this theory. And many studies have to flow under the bridge before anybody can give anything like a definitive answer. But I'll stick by its logic for now (as well as any lack of opposing proofs & reasonable arguments). >> re: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > drive relatively rapid changes, including substantial environmental > changes. As I just wrote to another poster: The problem with this viewpoint is that you can make the argument that all species are continually producing "blind" variations. And that ONLY AFTER THIS does the environment "pick" which succeed & which fail. It is never a matter of a species taking stock of an environmental niche and then making a decision to adapt to it. The crucial discussion here concerns which is the specific mechanism in the species which drives evolutionary stability and/or instability (leading to greater/lesser diversification). > But yes, sexual selection can lead to populations of a species > to diverge, but for both populations to survive there needs to be some > other barrier between them (otherwise they are competing for the same > resources). However, at EVERY POINT of divergence both nascent species must be competing for the same resources--so there is really very little reason for them to continue diverging (or to diverge in the first place). And, again, we are talking here about a specific mechanism driving such divergence IN the species to begin with... after which the "favored" (by the environment) species may survive and the unlucky one find it impossible to survive in the whatever environment it suddenly finds itself. > Note that sexual selection could play the role that you wish, > even where there is symmetry between male and female. > In those cases, both the male and the female choose, but still > based on whatever characteristics are the key for sexual selection. > -j Again, and finally: I don't know of any species in which it is predominantly the females that "choose" (so it may be that if the females begin choosing... they "choose" their species right into extinction or evolve it into another species). Understanding this mechanism is important because we have a very fuzzy idea of whether a given species is likely to undergo quick evolution or no further evolution at all, and if it turns out that by looking at something as what percentage of the females in a given species are "picking" the males we can predict whether that species is likelier or less likely to undergo further evolution (and at what rate)... it shall mean a great leap forward in our knowledge. (And studies might not need to be that long/complex if they involve fruit flies & other such short-lived species.) S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com ******************************************* "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> said: >SNIP: >A lot of species do not have different sexes, not only that, but Darwin >wrote a book on sexual selection a pretty long time ago. >Ron Okimoto A lot of species remain stable over billions of years, yeah. And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but he did not mention "The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation" which we're trying to discuss here. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > Obviously the eggs have no choice but to take the sperm > of their own species.. Hmm, now exactly how did the egg decide this? EB <nylic...@frontiernet.net> >> Obviously the eggs have no choice but to take the sperm >> of their own species.. >Hmm, now exactly how did the egg decide this? By taking the old square peg & round hole test. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > EB <nylic...@frontiernet.net> >>>Obviously the eggs have no choice but to take the sperm >>>of their own species.. >>Hmm, now exactly how did the egg decide this? > By taking the old square peg & round hole test. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 2;101(9):2945-50. Epub 2004 Mar 1. "Surface hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect."by Endler A, Liebig J, Schmitt T, Parker JE, Jones GR, Schreier P, Holldobler B. Lehrstuhl Verhaltensphysiologie und Soziobiologie, Universitat Wurzburg, 97074 Wuerzburg, Germany. "A hitherto largely unresolved problem in behavioral biology is how workers are prevented from reproducing in large insect societies with high relatedness. Signals of the queen are assumed to inform the nestmates about her presence in the colony, which leads to indirect fitness benefits for workers. In the ant Camponotus floridanus, we found such a signal located on queen-laid eggs. In groups of workers that were regularly provided with queen-laid eggs, larvae, and cocoons, with larvae and cocoons alone, or with no brood, only in the groups with queen-laid eggs did workers not lay eggs. Thus, the eggs seem to inform the nestmates about the queen's presence, which induces workers to refrain from reproducing. The signal on queen-laid eggs is presumably the same that enables workers to distinguish between queen- and worker-laid eggs. Despite their viability, the latter are destroyed by workers when given a choice between both types. Queen- and worker-laid eggs differ in their surface hydrocarbons in a way similar to the way fertile queens differ from workers in the composition of their cuticular hydrocarbons. When we transferred hydrocarbons from the queen cuticle to worker-laid eggs, the destruction of those eggs was significantly mitigated. We conclude that queen-derived hydrocarbon labels inform workers about the presence of a fertile queen and thereby regulate worker reproduction." > John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> said > SDR wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>Phalaropes? Jacanas? Species that broadcast their >>>gametes into the water column? To clarify here: The third question is not intended to amplify the first two; jacanas and phalaropes do not broadcast their gametes in the water column. [snip] >>So on general principles the rule still very much holds. >>Even in cases where gametes (male and female) are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > had better start with a simple episode of Mutual of Omaha's > Wild Kingdom (about twenty/thirty years ago now). You switch back and forth between sperm and male organisms as if it's all the same thing going on. Sperm are not insistent. Calling them insistent is to carry metaphor far beyond the level of real meaning. >>This analogy is inexact, and probably more conducive to >>confusion/mystery than the best possible clarification [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > female one! [And were it otherwise, what would become > of the species?] . You don't know what jacanas and phalaropes are, do you? Try Google. I would suggest jacana, phalarope, and reverse sexual dimorphism as search terms. [snip] >The same thing with male/female plants (which I declined >to include in my general rule--only because I haven't given >them the proper 10 minutes). Wow, are plants worth that much of your time? What about bacterial or fungus? >However, in common with >such plants, it is the "males" that put forth the grand effort [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >pollen--which must ripe upon the "back" of intermediate >pollinators!) Make of this what you will. On the average males put in as much effort into reproduction as females. (There is a rather obvious evolutionary reason for this.) Males expend less effort on each attempt, but make more attempts, females expend more effort in each attempt, but make fewer attempts. This is pretty much the definition of male and female. [snip]  SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers > David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: > S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > She used to wait for her husbands with a baseball bat > hidden behind the front door, for Heaven's sakes. You said all species. How do you know all species follow this rule? I wasn't asking for examples that follow the rule, I want to know about studies showing that all species follow that rule. >> > Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, >> > were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > do not appear to follow my rule--although they ALL do, > once you look more closely at them. I was asking if peacocks were an example of what you were talking about. I wasn't certain of what you meant. When you wrote: "Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, were she to also "pick" the male..." I took it to mean the females didn't pick the males. Yet the rest of your post implied that they did. > S D Rodrian > http://poems.sdrodrian.com > http://physics.sdrodrian.com > http://music.sdrodrian.com > > David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: > > S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > You said all species. Any time you hear anyone claiming that particular omnience you can pretty much rest assured that it is definitely confined to something like "all the species that have crossed my experience" (and not really ALL the species in the universe, including those in all unknown planets and/or dimensions). > How do you know all species follow this rule? Only all those in my limited experience, obviously. > I > wasn't asking for examples that follow the rule, > I want to know about > studies showing that all species follow that rule. Then here is your chance to undertake the critical study which shall prove or disprove my proposal! Good luck! > >> > Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, > >> > were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Yet the > rest of your post implied that they did. Perhaps you're right that I wasn't altogether perfectly clear. And perhaps this'll fix it: The females ONLY "pick" from among the most insistent males, and usually "pick" THE most insistent male of that group. That's what keeps the species stable. Any other choice by the female has a tendency to destabilize the species and either send it in some unexpected new direction (which may end up with two species, the new one and the old one); or, if the old species cannot compete with the new one, then we end up with a new species and no older species. Or, if neither species can survive, complete extinction. Or we may end up with any number of species. The really exciting prospect is really that we may finally have a means of predicting whether a given species is evolutionarily stable or likely to continue evolving rapidly simply by studying what the females are up to: If they are extremely passive, then the species may be extremely stable. But if, on the other hand, they're out there hunting down males in large proportions, then the species may be extremely likely to undergo greater amounts of evolution (in whatever unpredictable direction evolution usually takes) S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > > S D Rodrian > > http://poems.sdrodrian.com > > http://physics.sdrodrian.com > > http://music.sdrodrian.com >> > David Holland <daj...@sbcglobal.net> casually objected: >> > S D Rodrian wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Only all those in my limited experience, obviously. This isn't much help. I have no way of knowing how well supported you assertion is. >>I >>wasn't asking for examples that follow the rule, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > study which shall prove or disprove my proposal! > Good luck! Isn't it your job to support your proposal? >> >> > Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, >> >> > were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >> > http://physics.sdrodrian.com >> > http://music.sdrodrian.com >The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that chases after the female, while the female does not >actively chase after the male This male can definitely tell you otherwise. Must suck to be you. --- "This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause" - Padme Amidala, Episode III >On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:25:56 +0100, S D Rodrian <s...@sdrodrian.com>wrote: >The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. >The solution is arrived at by viewing the problem from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that chases after the female, while the female does not >actively chase after the male >This male can definitely tell you otherwise. Have you "checked" all those "females" that've been after you? (Maybe you've been running too hard in a gay bar...) > Must suck to be you. Not really. No: I know how to juggle. And I am easily amused. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com >Have you "checked" all those "females" that've been >after you? (Maybe you've been running too hard in >a gay bar...) I think that this whole thread was a setup just so SDR could post something like this - else it's from personal experience of pursuing females and getting shot down. Seamus zawadzki@yahoo.com saw the great poet & fired at him: >>SDR wrote: >>Have you "checked" all those "females" that've been >>after you? (Maybe you've been running too hard in >>a gay bar...) > I think that this whole thread was a setup just so SDR > could post something like this You're over-thinking my wit. > - else it's from personal experience of pursuing > females and getting shot down. Seamus I don't care how many times they shoot me down: I'm not giving up my women-chasing aeroplane! I still say I can cover more women with it than on foot. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com >zawadzki@yahoo.com saw the great poet & fired at him: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I'm not giving up my women-chasing aeroplane! >I still say I can cover more women with it than on foot. Learning to play the guitar is a lot more effective. --- "This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause" - Padme Amidala, Episode III >>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:25:56 +0100, S D Rodrian ><s...@sdrodrian.com>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Have you "checked" all those "females" that've been >after you? I take it you've never been a rock musician on tour. Pity. --- "This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause" - Padme Amidala, Episode III > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ALL females have a voice on which (of the most insistent > males after her), on which of those males they "accept." SNIP: A lot of species do not have different sexes, not only that, but Darwin wrote a book on sexual selection a pretty long time ago. Ron Okimoto "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> said: >SNIP: >A lot of species do not have different sexes, not only that, but Darwin >wrote a book on sexual selection a pretty long time ago. >Ron Okimoto A lot of species remain stable over billions of years, yeah. And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but he did not mention "The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation" which we're trying to discuss here. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com >"Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> said: >>SNIP: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >A lot of species remain stable over billions of years, yeah. Which ones are you thinking of? >And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about >the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but >he did not mention "The Specific Mechanism of Species >Differentiation" which we're trying to discuss here. Do you think there is a single such method? Or even a single such method for sexually reproducing species (which seems to be all you are willing to consider)? SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> he done wrote: > On 24 Jul 2005 12:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "SDR" > <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which ones are you thinking of? I am now thinking of some ancient bacteria and protozoa, reproducing only by cell division, which are still around and predate even the hoola hoop. Did you guess correctly what I was thinking of? >>And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about >>the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but >>he did not mention "The Specific Mechanism of Species >>Differentiation" which we're trying to discuss here. > > Do you think there is a single such method? Could be: The simplest solution is almost always the correct one. Most species now living on this planet descend from the same ancestor (men are the cousins of fungi, as most women have been saying all along). And evolution MEANS the evolution of more and more complex organisms from simpler and simpler ones. > Or even a single such > method for sexually reproducing species (which seems > to be all you are willing to consider)? --Matt Silberstein I am always willing to consider everything. THAT is why I am usually the first to arrive at the ONE true answer. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move > as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's > why you always feel smarter after a few beers. --Cliff on Cheers Like most winos, Cliff never heard that Indians used to drive herds of buffaloes over a cliff. Therefore, only the slowest buffaloes trailing at the back of the herd survived. This is why today you go to Yellowstone Natl. Park and see the buffaloes there standing around unwilling to run or even walk away at all! (And, no matter how hard you try, there is no way anybody can get them to jump over a cliff.) --Itch Kabible >Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> >he done wrote: >> On 24 Jul 2005 12:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "SDR" >> <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> in >> <1122233178.020331.32...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote: <snip> >>>A lot of species remain stable over billions of years, yeah. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >are still around and predate even the hoola hoop. >Did you guess correctly what I was thinking of? <snip> >And evolution MEANS the evolution of more and more >complex organisms from simpler and simpler ones. Our friend, SDRodrian, display an uncanny absence of knowledge about biology. r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> cracked: > Our friend, SDRodrian, display an uncanny absence of > knowledge about biology. I may not know a lot about biology but I know what I am. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com >Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> >he done wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >are still around and predate even the hoola hoop. >Did you guess correctly what I was thinking of? Except that they don't remain stable at all, there is lots of diversification among those organisms. If you have evidence that they have not evolved I would like to see it. Don't confuse their retention of some sent of primitive characteristics with lack of evolution, all life has retains some primitive characteristics. >>>And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about >>>the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Could be: The simplest solution is almost always >the correct one. That is one of the common incorrect versions of the Razor. A better restricted version says that when you have various solutions that all explain the same evidence the one that requires the fewest assumptions is the best to go with. >Most species All living things. >now living on this planet >descend from the same ancestor (men are the cousins >of fungi, as most women have been saying all along). Population, not individual. >And evolution MEANS the evolution of more and more >complex organisms from simpler and simpler ones. No, it does not. Nor is the complexity of the organism at all relevant to the question of the complexity of an explanation for speciation. Some life on Earth now is more complex, for some meaning of complex, than that from a few billion years ago. What evolution says is that *if* such complexity offers selective advantage, and *if* it is reachable via available mutation, then we are likely to see that kind of complexity. But evolution does not demand increases in complexity nor is most life more complex than that of a billion years ago. Now I will ask again, why do you think that there is a single cause of speciation? As a small question, what is the relative importance of peripheral isolates in speciation? >> Or even a single such >> method for sexually reproducing species (which seems >> to be all you are willing to consider)? --Matt Silberstein > >I am always willing to consider everything. THAT is why >I am usually the first to arrive at the ONE true answer. ROTFLMAO. You mean it, don't you? >> Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move >> as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >how hard you try, there is no way anybody can get them to jump >over a cliff.) --Itch Kabible Nah, they survived by riding planks of wood down the rivers. After all, they also surf, those who stand and wait. SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers > Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> > he done wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > are still around and predate even the hoola hoop. > Did you guess correctly what I was thinking of? Can you name species, please? Or at least a group of microbes that has remained unchanged for billions of years? Vagaries are unbecoming. >>>And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about >>>the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Could be: The simplest solution is almost always > the correct one. "Given that all things are equal," is *always* the necessary precursor to that phrase. In life, things are rarely equal; the rules are changing all the time. In such a volitile situation, why would a single mechanism suffice? > Most species now living on this planet > descend from the same ancestor (men are the cousins > of fungi, as most women have been saying all along). > And evolution MEANS the evolution of more and more > complex organisms from simpler and simpler ones. Then you know a LOT less about evolution than you think you do... >> Or even a single such >> method for sexually reproducing species (which seems [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > how hard you try, there is no way anybody can get them to jump > over a cliff.) --Itch Kabible >>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> >>he done wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Can you name species, please? Or at least a group of microbes that has > remained unchanged for billions of years? Vagaries are unbecoming. I believe that his inference would be that because fossils several billion years old look like spheres and rods, they are therefore the same species as modern bacteria that look like spheres and rods. Simple, really. And of course we know this is because male bacteria are insistent, and female bacteria accept the most insistent male bacteria. [snip] > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> said: > >SNIP: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A lot of species remain stable over billions of years, yeah. Even if this were true, what does it have to do with sexual selection? > And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about > the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://physics.sdrodrian.com > http://music.sdrodrian.com Well, it isn't "the" specific mechanism of species differentiation is it. I looks like one factor for those species that replicate sexually. People have added to our understanding of sexual selection over the years. Have you looked up guys like Endler? Ron Okimoto "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> asked: SDR wrote: >> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> said: >> >SNIP: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> A lot of species remain stable over billions of years, yeah. >Even if this were true, what does it have to do with sexual selection? Are you typing this from inside a glass bubble? >> And Darwin "padded" his book with endless minutia about >> the steps & the colors & the whistles & the whacks, but >> he did not mention "The Specific Mechanism of Species >> Differentiation" which we're trying to discuss here. >Well, it isn't "the" specific mechanism of species differentiation is >it. I looks like one factor for those species that replicate sexually. >People have added to our understanding of sexual selection over the >years. Have you looked up guys like Endler? --Ron Okimoto Yes. But unfortunately I went out wearing my cloak of invisibility that day (without realizing it) and they couldn't see me. Besides, they were all busy playing checkers and I didn't wish to startle them, and they all had their broads... I mean boards on their laps. Hope this doesn't get anybody in trouble. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> asked: > SDR wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > http://physics.sdrodrian.com > http://music.sdrodrian.com I see my problem now. I thought you were serious. > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> asked: > > SDR wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > I see my problem now. I thought you were serious. Pretty sad isn't it? Ron Okimoto >The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >ALL females have a voice on which (of the most insistent >males after her), on which of those males they "accept." Overwhelmingly most life on Earth, by number, by number of species, by total mass, is single celled asexual. An explanation of biological diversity that ignores most life is, well, lacking. BTW, you might read what Darwin (and others, of course) have written about sexual selection. >Since the female already has the reproductive instrument, Some males have one as well. >were she to also "pick" the male... there is no direction in >which her inclinations wouldn't drive her species: She could >literally become "enamored of an a.s," and her choice would >manifest itself in her species moving in that direction. And if that "a.s" had genes that did not lead to her progeny surviving then they won't be around to reproduce again. [snip] SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that chases after the female, while the female does not > actively chase after the male Not true, though it's most common. Jacanas, for instance, compete for males. > By NOT running after males a female not only guarantees > that the next generation of females will tend to be like her, > but also makes sure that her female descendants have a > generation of males who will also be attracted to females > like her (since she also only/mostly "deigns" to permit the > "reproducing" of the most insistent males).... This too isn't necessarily the case. In many species, including humans to an extent, there is a tendency to select mates different from oneself and hence one's parents, a mechanism to avoid inbreeding. > Females across species tend to accept the most insistent > male-- Not all forms of male competition involve 'insistence'. Birds of paradise, for example, don't actively insist on matings - the female chooses the male in possession of the best perch and the male only attempts to mate when she signals her receptiveness. Once a female chooses a potential mate in these or many other species. Philip Bowles >>The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > attempts to mate when she signals her receptiveness. Once a female > chooses a potential mate in these or many other species. He's got a solution for that. Whatever males do, that counts as "insistence". Why these four newsgroups, I wonder? Does anyone want to be removed? > S D Rodrian wrote: >>The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>that chases after the female, while the female does not >>actively chase after the male > Not true, though it's most common. Jacanas, for instance, compete for > males. >>By NOT running after males a female not only guarantees >>that the next generation of females will tend to be like her, >>but also makes sure that her female descendants have a >>generation of males who will also be attracted to females >>like her (since she also only/mostly "deigns" to permit the >>"reproducing" of the most insistent males).... > This too isn't necessarily the case. In many species, including humans > to an extent, there is a tendency to select mates different from > oneself and hence one's parents, a mechanism to avoid inbreeding. >>Females across species tend to accept the most insistent >>male-- > Not all forms of male competition involve 'insistence'. Birds of > paradise, for example, don't actively insist on matings - the female > chooses the male in possession of the best perch and the male only > attempts to mate when she signals her receptiveness. Once a female > chooses a potential mate in these or many other species. > He's got a solution for that. I have a solution for everything. Ask. Don't pass up this opportunity! >Whatever males do, that counts as "insistence". Hello! What males do MOST, that counts as "insistence" (i.e. "what they do more than they might usually do, in more cases than not"). And only when it comes to their females-chasing antics. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com Philip Bowles pbow...@aol.com saith: >> The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. >> The solution is arrived at by viewing the problem from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not true, though it's most common. Jacanas, for instance, > compete for males. Hold on to your bra, Mister Bowles, but Jacana males compete themselves to death to get into a female's "harem." Perhaps you're not looking at the competition where it's really taking place. The Jacana females have "devised" a system to force the males to take care of the eggs, that is all. The sex-role reversal which surprised biologists is that "Biologists had assumed that males would only bear full parental responsibility for incubating eggs and raising the young under one condition: When there is certainty that the young are genetically his own -- that is, when the male's assurance of paternity is high. Instead, a male Jacana sits on the nest, watching the mother of the chicks he will raise, while she continues to mate with other males nearby." At THAT POINT the "successful" father may no longer continue to "compete to be the primary mate" of the female Jacana because he might abandoning the eggs he has fathered. It's a very nasty trick the little tart plays on him, but (as I said) it doesn't change the fact that the males compete against each other for the female and she merely accepts the most insistent male(s). Males who do not "insist on joining her harem" (they may be invited to join the harem or competition but may bow out/escape) do not count, as the female does not REALLY force them to mate. [Cuckoldry is also part of other bird species; and a single male ostrich, for example looks after a brood which not only includes his wife's eggs, but the eggs of their neighborhood's other couples too.] What you should ask yourself is this: Would YOU go to the extent the male Jacana goes in order to succeed with YOUR wife? It's the same story with the peacock: If all you see is the peahen checking out the strutting males, your first thought might be that it's the females competing for the best males. And you're likely to miss that it's really the males killing themselves in their desperate competition for the rather drab female's acceptance. She will accept the most "insistent" (that is, the one that makes the greatest effort). FIRST they insist and THEN she accepts. It is axiomatic that the males will universally compete EVEN when females collect this harems (or "competition shows") or males. What the female Jacanas are trying to do is to get as many males as possible to raise young(s) for her. But she does not chase individual males, she tries to corral as many males into her "competition" among (her males "harem") as she can (preempting other females). That is, trying to keep as many males as possible from running off to compete for other females. It doesn't really change anything because, as you may know, sometimes she can only corral a single male. And then she accepts him ("females accept the most insistent male" ---which, as you know, can make of even you the greatest man on earth ... if everybody else is dead). >> By NOT running after males a female not only guarantees >> that the next generation of females will tend to be like her, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > different from oneself and hence one's parents, a mechanism > to avoid inbreeding. Boy, where to begin! First, it is impossible to say exactly why it is we aren't sexually attracted to our brothers & sisters. But it is a truism that we have a tendency to be "fascinated" by foreign and exotic/romantic strangers (who may all be hohum Joe Averages in their own back yards too). Second, there have been far too many cases of people finding they have married their siblings unknowingly. Third, with all the opportunities offered us, the cases of life-long mates who have been together since they were children are rare enough to merit being thought legendary and worthy of all the newspapers. Four, Arabs & others actually have a cultural bias/preference for marrying their cousins. Five, in all the cases above, most women STILL marry the guy that shows up at the door many more times than they marry the guy they have to ferret out of the trenches. >> Females across species tend to accept the most insistent >> male-- > > Not all forms of male competition involve 'insistence'. You have to understand something basic here, before you go on to everything else: Insistence does not always means the guy is calling her on the phone all day/night, or trying to "chat down her resistance verbally" in person: Males compete with each other as the principal manifestation of this "insistence" on females--When coral release their "clouds" they are engaging in one form of insistence (competition), and without even leaving their spot. There is a very good reason why there are thousands/millions of sperm/pollen to every egg/flower [sic]... and it is because this is just another manifestation of males competing against each other: In apes, for example, females are quite willing to copulate with practically any male that "asks" and so males have developed large sperm-manufacturing chambers to "outnumber" their competitors. This does not mean there is an equality of females going after males to match males going after females, it just means that the competition has moved to a place into which one has to stick one's nose deeply in order to sniff it all out. > Birds of paradise, for example, don't actively insist on matings > - the female chooses the male in possession of the best perch > and the male only attempts to mate when she signals her > receptiveness. Once a female chooses a potential mate in these > or many other species. Philip Bowles Peacocks, my boy, peacocks! Birds of paradise put on one of the natural world's best shows (that's "competitions"). And did you think they were doing it all for you? Are you one of those souls who misunderstands the damning curses of every male bird hurled out against all the other males of his species... as lovely sweet/gentle songs of tender love? Sounds like... you are. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com > Philip Bowles pbow...@aol.com saith: > >> The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > STILL marry the guy that shows up at the door many more times > than they marry the guy they have to ferret out of the trenches. It's easy to say why we aren't normally attracted to our siblings, those that do mate with close relatives tend to have offspring that are less likely to make it to adulthood. Those that avoid mating with close relatives tend to have greater reproductive success. > >> Females across species tend to accept the most insistent > >> male-- [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > which one has to stick one's nose deeply in order to sniff it > all out. This is only true of chimps....female gorillas tend to mate with the dominant male in the group. Gorilla testes are smaller than human testes. > > Birds of paradise, for example, don't actively insist on matings > > - the female chooses the male in possession of the best perch [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > http://physics.sdrodrian.com > http://music.sdrodrian.com > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ALL females have a voice on which (of the most insistent > males after her), on which of those males they "accept." [megasnip] SDR here reminds me of an old critique of a scientific paper I once read: "This paper contains material that is new and interesting. Unfortunately, the new material is not interesting, and the interesting material is not new. The idea that the choosiness of females can have an impact on the stability of a species under certain circumstances is hardly new. In fact, it is a topic that I have been reading about quite a bit lately, since it seems to play a role in a group of organisms that I will most likely be using in my PhD work: the Hawaiian _Drosophila_. The Hawaiian _Drosophila_ are the product of an adaptive radiation process that began possibly as much as 25 million years ago (when Midway was a high volcanic island) and which continues to the present. The total number of species produced during this period is unknown, but there may be more than 1000 extant species that are endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. One of the (many) factors involved in driving the evolution of this group may well be female choosiness. In members of the Hawaiian _Drosophila_, as in other members of their family, mating involves complex rituals. Males stake out mating territories (leks), defend those territories from other males, and perform mating displays for females who visit their lek. If the female finds the display to be acceptable, then they mate. It should be noted that the females do not necessarily visit every lek possible, or even every lek in the immediate vicinity before accepting a mate. Under normal circumstances, this leads to some selective pressure favoring the reproduction of only those males who can adequately perform the mating ritual. One of the normal features in the evolution of groups on oceanic islands, however, is abnormal circumstances -- genetic bottlenecking, in particular. This can happen as the result of many processes, but there are two which are particularly common here: colonization of new habitat, and habitat fragmentation. The colonization of a new island, or of a new patch of terrain on an island, normally involves a very small number of individuals - potentially as small a group as a single fertilized female. In other cases, a large piece of habitat can be fragmented into smaller pieces of habitat through any number of different processes. Here in Hawaii, lava flows are a common natural fragmenter - enough so that there is a Hawaiian word, kipuka, which is used to describe an "island" of vegetated land surrounded by a sea of lava rock. The bottlenecks that occur in these cases are not normally as severe as the ones seen in colonization events, but they are still significant. Immediately following a bottleneck, the pressure favoring good ritual performances by males shifts to a pressure that favors less-'choosy' females. This is relatively intuitive: if there aren't that many males around, a female who has high standards for male ritual performance may not find a suitable mate, while a female who will sleep with anyone with the appropriate anatomy will have better luck. This can go so far as to lead to hybridization. By the time the population reaches levels where the pressure for less-choosy females is reduced, the normal ritual for males in the population may have shifted far enough to create a pre-mating reproductive barrier to reproduction with other, once united, populations. There are a couple of things worth noting here. The first is that it is a serious stretch to talk about this mating pattern in terms of how "insistant" the males are. The females do not necessarily visit all of the leks in their vicinity prior to selecting a mate, and the males do not venture from their own leks to find mates. Thus, it is not the "most insistant" male who succeeds in mating; it is the first adequately insistant male that the female encounters. The second point that needs to be noted is that this hypothesis was first advanced by Ken Kaneshiro in the mid-70s, and that it is an idea that has actually been investigated for a good 30 years now. That covers the interesting portion of SDRs post. Now we get to the new part: that this process is universally important to biology, at least within the animal kingdom. This idea is not really all that interesting. (At least from a scientific perspective, anyway. It may be interesting from a psychological perspective.) As others have pointed out, there are numerous and clear counterexamples that are readily apparent to anyone with anything more than the most rudimentary knowledge of biology. The case of broadcast spawning is perhaps the clearest counterexample, SDR's protests notwithstanding. When gametes are released into the water column, there are an enormous number of factors that influence reproductive success. These include, but are hardly limited to, timing, current patterns, temperature, presence or absence of organisms to prey on the gamete clouds, and the distance separating conspecific neighbors. The result can only be described as a success by the "most insistent" male if "most insistent" is taken in this case to mean "the sperm that was spawned at the right time, in the right place, without getting knocked away by turbulence or a wave, without getting eaten by a predator, and which through blind chance hit the egg first." While SDR might find that to be an acceptable definition, reasonable people find that such a definition lacks the degree of specificity needed to be useful. To summarize, SDR has come up with a concept that may apply in some cases (and which has been known for quite a while), and decided that it must be a universal truth, despite clear evidence to the contrary. In short, something new and something interesting, but nothing that is both. --Mike Dunford > > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. > > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > short, something new and something interesting, but nothing that is > both. I found this to be an excellent response, even POTM material....in fact, I am nominating it for POTM. I found that last point about the creationists asking a question about a complex issue and looking for a single, universal answer to be very telling about the creationist mentality. They seem to find the lack of universality [absolutes] to be a weakness when it is simply an accurate reflection of how the world operates [no, or very few absolutes]. > --Mike Dunford >> > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. >> > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > >> --Mike Dunford Good post - seconded. Lek mating is known from some fish, bird and insect species. The wording above does not make it obvious that AFAIK a single lek is a place where a group of males are displaying, as opposed to a single lek being just one male's spot within the larger area. . http://users.ox.ac.uk/~zool0206/lek.html http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Birds/courtship-lek.html dunk S D Rodrian wrote: > "Mike Dunford" <dunfo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Unfortunately, the new material is not interesting, and the > interesting material is not new. So now those who questioned the validity of my "not new material" know it is an honored thread in the current (and take a bath). And those who did not know how just how interesting my irrelevant material really is will run out to the nearest suits empirium and clothe themselves in its traditional high styles. > The idea that the choosiness of females can have an impact on the > stability of a species under certain circumstances is hardly new. Good. Some posters here who did not know that thought I might be putting them on. > In > fact, it is a topic that I have been reading about quite a bit lately, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hawaiian Islands. One of the (many) factors involved in driving the > evolution of this group may well be female choosiness. And perhaps it is "The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation" as we are discussing it here. Keep in mind that my idea is that the "female choosiness (percentage of it in a species)" in not just only the mechanism FOR faster evolution of (sub-)species but also a key mechanism AGAINST it: REGARDLESS of secondary external influences (like your own "radiation-driven," or all other forms of environmental pressures)... DNA-damage may be countered by females refusing to chase "odd, new-fangled males" (insisting on those males who are not DNA-altered--and continue to "behave properly"). Or, conversely, even in conditions where these "new- fangled males" crop up even in very limited numbers... when females express an inclination to chase them (rather than merely continue to "passively accept" the most insistent males (who "normally" would principally "lust" after females most like their mothers)... the species would tend to become unstable and move perhaps more quickly than usually in new evolutionary directions. It is a subtle but crucial distinction which may slip by you if you don't have your wits finely tuned. The fundamental question is what exactly may drive, in a given population, females to become more or less active "choosers." And there I believe the environment does play the deciding role, but not in the usual "secondary" ways we tend to imagine it playing it: That is, inflexibly, FIRST some environmental change happens, THEN evolution moves a species into the new niches that have opened up (which would tend to drive most species toward outright extinction then to the adaptation we see driving most of species evolution). On the other hand, if, as I suggest, the evolution of species is driven primarily by the choosiness (or not) of the females... it opens up more room for species to literally "force their way" into the new niches. If you look at a fast-evolving species like the higher apes versus a very stable one like cockroaches, one may imagine that both share almost identical environments (or, on the other other hand, that cockroaches may have found a whole new environment when man and his usual filthy way of living came along just a coupla years ago). But cockroaches have not evolved lately to adapt to man's nasty habitations (apparently cockroaches' ancient habits simply go well with our sordid new homes). While, on the other hand, we have examples of man's "inexplicable" rapid brain-evolution, for example, in the face of no obvious environmental pressures for such rapid evolution (we don't really need trains, planes or automobiles). Like our chimp cousins, all we really NEED is a few nuts, a little shade, and a tree to scamper up into whenever a bad-tempered cow happens along. Why us then? Or, why haven't cockroaches evolved "clappers" to turn off the lights when we turn them on & send them scattering? Still: It may be that, ultimately, some environmental discomfort makes a crucial percentage of a species' females "unwilling to wait for her species' usual courtship rituals" upsetting the apple cart. My point is that THAT particular trigger happens in the females (that the species is not upset by the males' changes). And that it is the percentage of females so upset (and chasing males now rather than waiting to be chased) that drives "The Specific Mechanism of Species Differentiation." Certainly, as you can see, I do not try to contradict the Darwinian model of the environmental pressures being the root cause! > In members of the Hawaiian _Drosophila_, as in other members of their > family, mating involves complex rituals. Males stake out mating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that the females do not necessarily visit every lek possible, or even > every lek in the immediate vicinity before accepting a mate. This would make such a female (with little choice) almost completely neutral in my theory. > Under normal circumstances, this leads to some selective pressure > favoring the reproduction of only those males who can adequately > perform the mating ritual. And, as I said, the next generation of males would then tend to inherit the best genes for performing a ritual the next generation of females will find acceptable. Yes. This is guaranteed NOT so much by the male's performance as by the female's judging of "that whatever performance" as acceptable to her: She will produce a generation of females looking for a specific performance, AND a generation of males who will tend to give that performance more often than not. All's right with the world--the species will only experience evolutionary instability if, for some reason, the females suddenly begin to "choose" any old ritual instead of the "tried and true" ancient one. See. [Why should she suddenly change her "artistic" judgment? See above. Hint: "Something in the water."] > One of the normal f |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message