Mike:
I never heard this about Darwin. Perhaps they were talking about
his adding "sexual selection" to "natural selection." In natural
selection, a trait persists because it allows the animal to survive,
thrive & reproduce in a particular environment. The environment, iow,
selects. In "sexual selection" the opposite sex selects which genes will
reproduce, as when females choose males with bright feathers or big
antlers. This would explain why peacocks carry these massive feathers
that make no sense if only natural selection were operating (though you
can think of sexual selection as a sub-type of natural selection). I
heard a creationist on TV claim that the male peacock feather proved
Darwin's theory of natural selection was wrong. I also read (in a
non-technical book) that the concept of sexual selection was slow to
catch on because (1) it shows females in control of selection, and (2)
the mathematics of sexual selection are nearly impossible to model. It's
complex because you have to deal with both female genes that prefer
males with certain characteristics, as well as the incidence of that
trait in the males, and a whole bunch of complex mathematical equations
tracking the interaction. I believe the sexual selection idea is from
Darwin's 1981 _Descent of man and selection in relation to sex_. This
may not be what the students were referring to, but it's an interesting
topic none the less. Geoffrey Miller wrote a popular book (The Mating
Game??) a few years back making the case that our cultural activities
(theatre, poetry, rock n roll) was our version of peacock feathers, and
our giant brain arose as result of sexual selection (i.e. you don't need
brains like ours to track and capture antelope!).
============================================
John W. Kulig
Professor of Psychology
Plymouth State College
Plymouth NH 03264
============================================
"Nothing is more American, nothing is more patriotic than speaking out,
questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable" General
Welsey K. Clark, 24 September 2003.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:03 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Subject: Student Question Re: Darwin
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm hoping someone can help with this one.
>
> Started a lecture today in Intro Psych on Evolutionary Psychology
> and Behavioural Genetics by introducing and discussing Darwin's theory
> of evolution. It certainly made for some interesting class
discussion,
> in that, there are a handful of students who openly admit they do not
> believe it, and even one student has offered to bring in a Christian
> Science publication, "Creation" or something for me to read!
>
> Anyway, another student asked me after class if it is true that Darwin
> later in life renounced his entire theory. She had heard this
somewhere.
> I have not heard it, and don't anything about it. Is is true, false,
> some combination?
>
> Thanks for all and any help!
>
> Mike Lee, MA
> Department of Psychology
> University of Manitoba
> Winnipeg, MB Canada
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
