Customer Comments:
| Showing comments 1-5 of 25 | | NEXT » |
 Sexual adaptations: Compiling the evidence and how it relates to human evolution December 1, 2008
It wasn't until a few years after the publication of The Origin of Species (1859) that natural selection completely overhauled biology as the unification principle widely sought after to explain uniformity and diversity in living things, Darwin had himself uncovered a type of natural selection, sexual selection, mentioned it briefly in Origin but held back on explaining it fully because it would require more work to do so. The result was the 2 volume The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex published in 1871 that spanned nearly 700 pages. Here both volumes are presented in one.
Darwin and Wallace had co-discovered natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution. Wallace however had succumbed to supernatural explanations and had largely refused to accept that sexual selection could produce some adaptations. Maybe this was because he thought that some adaptations could be explained another way but Darwin had compiled enough evidence to suggest that sexual selection was responsible for many adaptations and was also thusly more evidence for his theory of natural selection. There was only one way to do this and that was to set about documenting as much as Darwin could on sexually selective traits. It is a mammoth undertaking and is primarily the book that got the ball rolling on explaining these adaptations.
As someone who has read this book I am surprised by how it is often wrongly misrepresented by creationists as a work of unabashed racism. Out of the 700 pages I found maybe a few lines that would today require some more elaboration to make the intention clear. That is for today, nearly 140 years since it was written and only 50 years after western civilization had abandoned segregation. Darwin's work is nothing short of 140 years ahead of its time during an era that was still working to abolish slavery. Still we are always going to have some individuals who do not understand this context (maybe deliberately) so reasons are given by way of a 21st century introduction (James Moore and Adrian Desmond in my edition). There is no excuse for the detractors to be ignorant about this matter, an issue that only appears in possibly several lines out of the hundreds of thousands that are here. So let's be done with that and move on to the science.
Darwin sets out by indicating homologous structures among organisms classed as different species. During correlation he also introduces vestiges as evidence of our origins. He then turns to mental powers and instinct, especially between humans and other primates, their ability to reason and use tools and awareness. Darwin directly implies that god belief could stem from evolution as does morality. He talks about social structures, especially with insects. He analyzes indigenous peoples (called savages back then) as evidence for descent and compares developments through variations, inheritance and their causes. The important point here is that the ultimate causes are the same for all living things including humans. Darwin looks at parts that we use and do not use, gives reasons for them, treats the topic of erect walking, canine teeth, skull shape, nakedness, our tail bone, brain expansion, our ranking in the animal kingdom, the various races and their extinctions.
Darwin then turns to sexual selection as an explanation for a variety of adaptations. He looks at polygamy, variability, proportions of males to females and the question surrounding this. Turning to the animal kingdom he looks closely at colours, dimorphism, structures for holding during mating, musical instruments (stridulating), pugnacity, adaptations for sexual conflict, courting, colour protection and differences in colour between males and females and mimicry. He covers all of these with birds, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, insects and mammals.
He expands on them in advanced chapters such as on the topics of building nests, parental care, laws of battle, dancing, seasonal variations, moults, female choice, exceptions to these observations, sex-limited traits, male and female role reversals, absence of weapons in females, weapons with both sexes, vocals, odours, hair, skin colour, spots and stripes.
Now that Darwin has firmly established sexual selection he then turns to humans, the differences between the sexes, commonalities, law of battle, mental powers, voice, beauty and marriage, exaggerations, beauty standards, bodily hair, skin colour and the final conclusion that man is descended from some lower form and is self evidence of his lowly origin.
Most of the book is devoted to comparing sexual traits between varieties of organisms. There are very clear illustrations (something Origin doesn't have) every few pages. The style is very much fact upon fact upon fact. There is a huge amount of footnotes on every page with Darwin referencing everything meticulously. There are lists of birds after amphibians after mammals after fish after insects. It is a globe sprawling nature walk. We are talking hundreds of pages on observed facts. Darwin even discusses behaviour in relation to animal signalling.
His description of sexual selection among organisms vastly outweighs the actual topic of the descent of man and makes it almost seem redundant but the purpose is clear. Once Darwin has established sexual selection with other organisms and shows how the adaptations appear he then applies the same criteria to humans and abruptly we emerge from the picture of an ape-type hominid ancestor. Sexual selection makes it all too evident why we appear the way we do. Ideas that our attributes are based on a divine representation for a sanctified existence have lost. We are shaped by our desires.
The beginning of human evolution understanding... February 24, 2008
0 out of 3 found this comment useful.
If you want to understand the human evolution, you might read the original though. Of course, there are some misunderstandings, then you might read considering the historical influence and personal conflicts of Charles Darwin. Essential for researchers on sexual selection.
 defies common sense July 14, 2007
2 out of 28 found this comment useful.
This book is totally boring and idiotic.
Only a fool would believe that our ancestors were gorillas. If you believe that we descended from gorillas and/or lizards, you probably also believe that The Earth revolves around the sun.
The Earth is stationary, just like it seems. The sun revolves around The Earth, just like the moon (except hotter). Use your noodle. It's common sense.
The Lord created The Earth (and the heavens) out of sawdust, clay, dinosaur bones, and mud. He did so in six days, and slept on the seventh day. This occurred 6000 or 7000 years ago. Evolution could not have occurred in such a short period of time.
Wake up, you've been duped.
 Freed our minds for relativity December 11, 2006
1 out of 24 found this comment useful.
Just as "Origin of Species is misunderstood, I believe "Descent" to be also, although the latter is a more entertaining read. "Descent" fails to concentrate on man without deviating. It is a book of observations and study. It concentrates on how animal life, has, by sexual selection, brought forth the variety in the species we see today, through millions of years. Darwin covered his beloved pigeons in depth in "Origins" and continues at length on many other bird species in "Descent". I agree with him that all the different types of birds we see today probably came from one ancestor of the pigeon. This is called variation of kind. We see this in just about every living creature and flora. The problem arises when the next step is taken, the rise of one species turning into another (reptile to bird). Throughout the book Darwin does admit to this fact, but he still maintains that it must be, with much difficulty. He does hint to nature having some "power of thought", where does this come from? How does nature make these choices? Why did Darwin focus so on the black tribes: their practices, looks, sexuality, if he did not believe them a lower race? Of course he only hints at this, and his belief of evolving from apes is scant, but obvious. Does not the use of race to distinguish only separate? His theory on idiots as somehow lower is also disturbing. And what of the rudimentary parts and vestigial organs. As we progress in our scientific study we understand more on their uses, and there may be much we will never understand. In the end he gives a poor argument, and a convoluted book.
There is no doubt there is a tremendous amount of work that went into his book. It is a difficult and painful read, although there are many interesting and detailed observations. One does need to know his enemy. Darwin is not the originator of "evolution." There are many who came before him, since the dawn of time. He was influenced by numerous men of his time, some being more radical. Darwin was nothing new, he just maid it "hip." What he started has turned into the secular humanism the world has adopted. I don't think he meant for this disease to spread like it has. From his writings I understand him as an agnostic, but doubtful. I believed he struggled with the possibly of a deist. It is safe to say it was his only ambition till his dying day to prove "evolution" as proof of our existence. What of the missing fossil record?, he new they would be found. He was a confusing man.
150 years later and there still has been no intermediate fossils found to prove the case. In fact we are discovering more that validates creation.
Why don't we see a scale or a feather erupt occasionally on man? Is it because it is not in our DNA, and never was?
The theory of evolution caused Darwin to loose his faith and his experience has been repeated in countless lives. Evolution is an acid that eats away at the mind, a cancer.
One only needs to open the pages to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", to understand the futility of the evolutionary theory. The engines of life at the molecular level are so complex that there leaves no other possibility than a creator of the universe. There should be no excuse.
Wish you well
Scott
Freed our minds for relativity December 11, 2006
9 out of 115 found this comment useful.
Just as "Origin of Species is misunderstood, I believe "Descent" to be also, although the latter is a more entertaining read. "Descent" fails to concentrate on man without deviating. It is a book of observations and study. It concentrates on how animal life, has, by sexual selection, brought forth the variety in the species we see today, through millions of years. Darwin covered his beloved pigeons in depth in "Origins" and continues at length on many other bird species in "Descent". I agree with him that all the different types of birds we see today probably came from one ancestor of the pigeon. This is called variation of kind. We see this in just about every living creature and flora. The problem arises when the next step is taken, the rise of one species turning into another (reptile to bird). Throughout the book Darwin does admit to this fact, but he still maintains that it must be, with much difficulty. He does hint to nature having some "power of thought", where does this come from? How does nature make these choices? Why did Darwin focus so on the black tribes: their practices, looks, sexuality, if he did not believe them a lower race? Of course he only hints at this, and his belief of evolving from apes is scant, but obvious. Does not the use of race to distinguish only separate? His theory on idiots as somehow lower is also disturbing. And what of the rudimentary parts and vestigial organs. As we progress in our scientific study we understand more on their uses, and there may be much we will never understand. In the end he gives a poor argument, and a convoluted book.
There is no doubt there is a tremendous amount of work that went into his book. It is a difficult and painful read, although there are many interesting and detailed observations. One does need to know his enemy. Darwin is not the originator of "evolution." There are many who came before him, since the dawn of time. He was influenced by numerous men of his time, some being more radical. Darwin was nothing new, he just maid it "hip." What he started has turned into the secular humanism the world has adopted. I don't think he meant for this disease to spread like it has. From his writings I understand him as an agnostic, but doubtful. I believed he struggled with the possibly of a deist. It is safe to say it was his only ambition till his dying day to prove "evolution" as proof of our existence. What of the missing fossil record?, he new they would be found. He was a confusing man.
150 years later and there still has been no intermediate fossils found to prove the case. In fact we are discovering more that validates creation.
Why don't we see a scale or a feather erupt occasionally on man? Is it because it is not in our DNA, and never was?
The theory of evolution caused Darwin to loose his faith and his experience has been repeated in countless lives. Evolution is an acid that eats away at the mind, a cancer.
One only needs to open the pages to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", to understand the futility of the evolutionary theory. The engines of life at the molecular level are so complex that there leaves no other possibility than a creator of the universe. There should be no excuse.
|
