This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← How 'Secondary' Sex Characters Can Drive The Origin Of Species

How 'Secondary' Sex Characters Can Drive The Origin Of Species - Comments

VanYoungman's Avatar Comment 1 by VanYoungman

Don't let the OT Forum people read this.

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:21:00 UTC | #229134

stephensmith's Avatar Comment 2 by stephensmith

"... the four O. taurus populations Moczek and Parzer studied in the U.S. (North Carolina), Italy, and western and eastern Australia, exhibit substantial changes in both horn and genitalia length ... ."

So, which of the four has the biggest genitalia? As someone who lives in North Carolina, I have a lot of prestige riding on this one.

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:51:00 UTC | #229153

bamafreethinker's Avatar Comment 3 by bamafreethinker

So that's why the devil is in such a bad mood... long horns!

God politely asks Satan; "Do you want long horns or a lo..."
Satan impatiently interrupts; "Long horns, long horns!!!
God replies; "But that means that you'll have a sho... "
"Just give me the damned horns!" shouts Satan as his face turns a bright shade of red.
"Okay, you little prick" says the maker with a smile.

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:52:00 UTC | #229155

Saerain's Avatar Comment 4 by Saerain

So we should really stop referring to arousal as being 'horny' but rather perhaps 'short-horned' or 'hornless'.

No, I don't like those. Suggestions?

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:05:00 UTC | #229161

adrianpatrick's Avatar Comment 5 by adrianpatrick

Interesting article. And I'm finding some parts of it strangely comforting :)

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:14:00 UTC | #229166

beeline's Avatar Comment 6 by beeline

A similar kind of process has been talked about in bird song, but I can't remember where I heard it.

It only takes a minute change in a bird's song for certain females to be 'turned off' by it, and therefore prevent them mating. And if those songs - or the physical equipment for rendering them - changes sufficiently, you have a group of birds that only mates with 'its own kind'. A new species.

Doesn't really matter whether it can breed with the others; if it doesn't then that's where speciation occurs right there.

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:03:00 UTC | #229213

bamafreethinker's Avatar Comment 7 by bamafreethinker

For she doted upon their paramours [lovers], whose flesh [genitals] is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [semen] is like the issue of horses. - Ezekiel 23:20 KJV


Some of the reasoning behind the Abrahamic religions' treatment of women as property, as apposed to them being free agents, seems to be driven by penis envy : )

An insecure bunch of men on so many different levels.

If you can't win a woman's heart with your charm, hygiene, personality, physical condition, age, etc... then use religion and its arsenal of tools. But what you end up with is a jealous, untrusting, insecure, man who is afraid to even let his property go out in public - a living hell for both parties.

The long horned beetle must be constantly on watch to make sure a fleshier male doesn't sneak in and win the heart of one of his lady beetles. In a free beetle society, the female could just pick the one she finds more attractive - whether he be long horned or long membered.

What survival (reproductive) advantage does long horns (alone) have though? Larger horns are usually accompanied by bigger muscles and physical size which have a more intuitive survival (and hence reproductive) advantage; or is this simply the result of being placed in a more (or less) competitive environment?

EDIT: And we can speculate that the race of people described in Ezekiel above, survived and who's offspring still exist and thrive as modern day actors in the porn industry. Why don't the fundies use this passage as proof that the bible is inspired - no wait... it's because Christians don't watch porn isn't it? : )

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:14:00 UTC | #229225

Rob Schneider's Avatar Comment 8 by Rob Schneider

Beeline,

So... my disgust at mating with certain segments of the human population makes them a separate species? Chickus Obesicus?

By that standard there are billions of species being formed and dying every day. Also by that standard, the number of human sub-species in the world is inversely proportionate to the number of beers I have consumed.

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:18:00 UTC | #229231

Luthien's Avatar Comment 9 by Luthien

Hey, that explains all those men with the big fancy cars...

For the record, my bloke doesn't even own a car *smug grin*

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:32:00 UTC | #229243

kraut's Avatar Comment 10 by kraut

"So... my disgust at mating with certain segments of the human population makes them a separate species? Chickus Obesicus?"

No, it makes you a seperate asshole.

But each to his taste. I like my women well rounded.

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:39:00 UTC | #229596

Rational_Skeptic's Avatar Comment 11 by Rational_Skeptic

Luthien beat me to it.

My guy drives a sub-compact ;-)

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:26:00 UTC | #229619

oasis-al-reason's Avatar Comment 12 by oasis-al-reason

WOW! it works really fast, mine got rid of his fancy wheels just last month and already the effects are astounding.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:31:00 UTC | #229656

King of NH's Avatar Comment 13 by King of NH

I drive a Honda Metro (a 49cc, 100mpg scooter). I did feel a little, um, girly I think is the scientific term. Now I know why my wife thought it was a good buy (and I thought she was concerned with the environment, or at least gas prices).

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:13:00 UTC | #229665

root2squared's Avatar Comment 14 by root2squared

Well, all I have to say is

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:13:00 UTC | #229698

PJG's Avatar Comment 15 by PJG

I do wish the writers of articles like this would stop saying things like

This means, Moczek and Parzer say, that the marked divergences they observed in O. taurus's horn and copulatory organ size must have occurred over an extremely short period of time -- 50 years or less.

without an explanatory note regarding the approximate number of generations involved - or an analogy with the equivalent time in human generations. It really feeds into the "super-evolution" nonsense and enables creationists and ID advocates to say, "there you are, this microevolution can happen really fast". Creationists tend to be so anthropocentric that they don't realise that 50 years in beetle terms is many hundreds of thousands of years in human terms or that "very fast" can mean in geological time rather than their YEC biblical time frame.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:48:00 UTC | #229703

Ishruul's Avatar Comment 16 by Ishruul

Even if we get more and more evidence with easy to grasp explanation, to IDiots, it doesn't mean crap. Only another trick to test their faith.

On the other hand, if god was to show up someday, they'll certainly try to kill him anyway, because he'll be an abomination to their church or something similar.

Big horn, little genitalia! Big faith, little brain!

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:37:00 UTC | #229709

PJG's Avatar Comment 17 by PJG

Even if we get more and more evidence with easy to grasp explanation, to IDiots, it doesn't mean crap. Only another trick to test their faith.


True, to a point, but there seem to be two sorts of creationists.

The ones who are so indoctrinated that nothing will move them (because anything that tests their faith has... by definition, in their minds ... been sent to test their faith) are beyond hope.

However, the other group are the ones who simply don't understand evolution and I believe they can be educated.

It seems a shame to give the creationists more material to quote-mine and otherwise misrepresent.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:00:00 UTC | #229722

debaser71's Avatar Comment 18 by debaser71

I know what sexual selection is I just don't see the need to separate it out from other selection processes. They are all related. And when people focus on sexual selection as if it explains everything, I tune out.

Anyway, obligatory creationist mockery now. "But we don't see beetles turning into fish!!!"

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:53:00 UTC | #229743

bamafreethinker's Avatar Comment 19 by bamafreethinker

I've often wondered if sexual selection might have a great deal to do with why humans look so much different from the other apes. As for me, the less a woman looks like an ape (less body/facial hair, rounder butt, etc.), the more sexually attractive I find her. A "monkey butt" on a woman is a major turn-off for me - not sure why. Could that be a significant factor that drove us to look like we do? Once we were able to think of ourselves as superior to apes, perhaps looking ape-like was a real turn off sexually? A relatively hairless body may have its disadvantages in most climates, but if turns us on, we figure a way to survive without it - like a peacock overcomes the cost of his elaborate feathers? Just a thought.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:29:00 UTC | #229754

stephensmith's Avatar Comment 20 by stephensmith

"I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." - Daniel 7:8

Just had to throw that in to all this discussion of horniness.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:55:00 UTC | #229775

lbq's Avatar Comment 21 by lbq

Is this new? I thought this was pretty self-evident decades ago. But we should of course pat the scientists on their heads for finally discovering sexual selection, even if it took them 137 years after Darwin published his theory (Descent of Man)

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:56:00 UTC | #229777

Beachbum's Avatar Comment 22 by Beachbum

Not that I had given it much thought when I was 4 or 5 years old, but before I became a self proclaimed anti-theist at age 6, I noticed a direct (be it inverse) connection between religiosity and sexuality.
7. Comment #242075 by bamafreethinker

Some of the reasoning behind the Abrahamic religions' treatment of women as property, as apposed to them being free agents, seems to be driven by penis envy : )


I am sure that I do not have to bring up the patriarchal foundations of religions, Abrahamic and otherwise. My question is, how much does bamafreethinker's point and the horned beetle species Onthophagus taurus' male copulatory organ evolution have to do with the long history and incredible survivability of superstition?

The French have a saying,"search for the female" as a key motivator of men. Could this all boil down to size does matter? Or. How to keep a woman, when you smell like camel dung.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:06:00 UTC | #230067

Danno Davis's Avatar Comment 23 by Danno Davis

A "very exciting mechanism" indeed.

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:21:00 UTC | #230375