Specifications
Miller, Geoffrey, Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the
Evolution of Human Nature,
Doubleday, New York, 2000.
Reading
This was read a long time ago, but I notice I forgot to write a
review. This review is being written February 19, 2007. The book
was from the library, but I have gotten a copy for my library.
Review
This is a very good book. The author
notes that Darwin, in proposing evolution, did not just propose the
famous "survival of the fittest" theory, but also proposed that
evolution could be furthered by mate selection. That is, if an
individual cannot attract a mate for whatever reason, then it would
have the same evolutionary effect as if the individual had been
killed.
But evolution by mate selection is much
more random than natural selection. That is, two identical
populations can exist side by side, and generate wildly different
evolutionary results. For example, the common ancestor of homo
sapiens, and chimpanzees. One grew up to be chimps, and the other
people, even though the environmental background was the same.
In the book he references peacocks as
his prime example. That is, peacocks are noted for a large tail, but
the tail serves no purpose. In fact, it is a liability. That is, if
one is attempting to catch a peacock, then the tail is what you grab
for. A much smaller tail would have served better for survival. But
the fact is that peahens prefer big tales, so mate choice dictates
the tails will be big.
Similarly, men prefer women with
breasts. Therefore, women have them, even though they serve no
purpose. (Female chimpanzees have mammary gland in exactly the same
place as people, but no breasts.)
This can explain language. Language
became so complicated so that a person could make themselves
attractive to the opposite sex by talking. Therefore, humor has a
purpose - it is to attract mates. Similarly, art has the same
purpose - he notes that some species of birds have an artistic
sense, and build specialized nests which are very colorful, but never
used. The only use is to attract females (in this species).
He points out that there is no survival
advantage to one species being slightly more intelligent than
another. That is, the cost of the brain in energy is more that it
would provide in additional hunting capability. Therefore, if
survival were the only consideration, people couldn't exist. But
they do. Of course, once a certain threshold was reached,
intelligence allowed people to survive quite well. He would view
this as a "sexual adornment" which ultimately proved useful.
He calls sexual choice evolutions R&D
devision. That is, it allows nature to try new things that don't
have any immediate benefit.
To a large extent, anything that
creationist use to "prove" that God created people or animals can
be explained by this theory. Of course, one can also view this as
the way God works.
|
|