No. Beauty isn't making scientists rethink evolution. It's great to see more public discussion of sexual selection, but can we stop w. the iconoclasm. Fisher's runaway theory is literally textbook stuff
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution via
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution, via
Thank you so much to everyone who has read and shared my recent essay on the evolution of beauty I've noticed some patterns in the many emails & comments I've received, so I'm going to address some of those questions and concerns in this thread
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
Biologists are not only rewriting the standard explanation for how beauty evolves; they are also changing the way we think about evolution itself
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution. Some interesting stuff, but deeply confused: It's genes that are selected, so celibacy=death. In gene-centered viewpoint, sexual selection is just a type of nat. sel, albeit w surprising positive feedback.
Sexual 👏🏼 selection 👏🏼 IS 👏🏼 a 👏🏼 form 👏🏼 of 👏🏼 natural 👏🏼 selection.
"Sometimes beauty is the glorious but meaningless flowering of arbitrary preference."
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
This article tackles Darwin's idea of sexual selection, featuring interviews with Richard Prum, Molly Cummings and Mike Ryan. Interesting take. Not a fair portrayal of Prum, imho. How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
How Clickbait-y Titles Are Making Scientists Rethink Reading NYT Articles That Are Otherwise Not So Bad
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution via
In How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution, in the magazine tells a very similar story to what might be titled How Diets Should be Making Scientists Rethink Obesity and Fat Accumulation. Or so I think.
Here’s my Q: why did folks pay so little attention to sexual selection when Darwin insisted all along that it was essential to understanding evolution? via
How beauty contributes to natural selection Example 3838372 that headline writers shouldn't be allowed near articles about science
How beauty is making scientists rethink evolution: The extravagant splendor of the animal kingdom can’t be explained by natural selection alone. So how did it come to be? — Very nice New York Times longread
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution via
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
I wonder: Can “beauty” be defined unambiguously? If not, can beauty even be a subject of scientific research? Shouldn’t the real subject “the evolution of arbitrary conventions“?
Really interesting. How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
Beauty as a driver of evolution; what a comforting thought. How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution via
This gorgeous piece from the New York Times takes a deep dive into the concept of “beauty” and how it’s begun to challenge what we think about evolutionary adaptations.
Some apparently nonadaptive forms of sexual selection (peacock's tail) may reflect quirks of our neural hardware and perception ... perhaps beauty is not a proxy for evolutionary fitness.
"Beauty, they say, does not have to be a proxy for health or advantageous genes. Sometimes beauty is the glorious but meaningless flowering of arbitrary preference."
The nature of beauty: How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
Very nice read!How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution via
“If an animal thrived despite the burden of an unwieldy or metabolically expensive ornament, then that animal had effectively demonstrated its vigor and proved itself worthy of a mate.“
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution The extravagant splendor of the animal kingdom can’t be explained by natural selection alone — so how did it come to be?
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution via
It's Friday. Read this. Enjoy life.