Great tits
Drew
So why does the broader stripe on a great tit endow it with superior
powers of intimidation and greater 'pulling power'? And why
therefore do even broader stripes not get selectively bred in? Is it
perhaps an obfuscation artefact to detract attention away from the tits
which really *are* bigger and stronger, and thereby putting the brakes
on too-successful extinction? But what happens when you get a big butch
tit which also has a broad stripe?
Could the same argument be applied to skinny chaps who are hung like a
horse?
Best
Norman
ultimate DNA degradation is a design feature and not a design fault it
doesn't mean that much of what Darwin said was wrong.
Here I think I would fall back on classical Darwinism. If as Drew
suggests, inter-champion breeding would produce increasingly broader
stripes then ultimately the bird would change colour and just become
black instead of yellow and black and then what indicators would the
female have in selecting the fittest male? The species (always in the
broader sense) is yellow with a black stripe down its front.
I would suggest, from a layman's point of view, that there is a
correlation or link between the 'fitness' gene and the black
pigment gene. For birds which are not champions, the black pigment is
gradually selected out depending on the strength of the 'fitness'
gene.
Great tits, like all other species will breed until their natural
habitat and food supply is saturated and then they will only breed to
replace the stock.
What I am suggesting is that rather than selectively breeding a hyper
tit with modified food and habitat needs, the great tit breeds as
strong as it can in order to maintain what it already has and prevent
incursions into its territory from other species. If a hyper tit were
to emerge it would do so gradually over many millennia so as not to
destroy the great tit community. If a hyper tit were to emerge
overnight, so to speak, which destroyed the great tit community it
would not have sufficient presence to prevent the great tits habitat
being plundered by other species.
If you have experienced any of these films that your mither or 98 year
old granny would be SHOCKED at you seeing then you will realise that
there is not always a correlation between physical attributes and
intellectual fitness. If this were not so then all the Cajuns would
have black skin by now.
Best
Jerry
It could be that females tits with a narrow gene dive straight in on
broad striped males
- and vise versa
When it comes to human endowments, there is always the codpiece, and by
the time the lass has realized her error ... it is probably too late.
Drew
contribution, regardless that reading Origin of Species one finds
oneself moaning "Get to the bleedin point". Any beef which I have
is with those who came after who have failed to expand the principle,
placing it upon a pedestal and culpably blocking any advancement.
Science is littered with many such examples.
Can the great tit stripe be adequately explained by literal Darwinism
though? I think not. I'd also suggest that your musings on the
subject Norman are indeed hyper-Darwinism, and your interesting
suggestion Jerry also hints at this. So take an even more bizarre case
of the peacock's tail feathers. As a pure survival feature, on the
face of it it makes no sense. But apply 'our' enhanced Darwinism
and there is at least an avenue. Perhaps too there is also the element
of 'it doesn't seem to matter a damn', as in human eye colour.
However, extrapolating from that can bring one back to my original
broad stripe hypothesis, in that mating desirability sometimes centres
upon apparently irrelevant features. Hence 'men prefer blondes'.
This has (as far as I know) zero contribution to species enhancement
and serves as a distraction from breeding big butch humans who would
subsequently destroy their environment. Difficult to see how peacocks
have the near potential to destroy their environment but the mere
observation that they have sustained their existence for tens of
thousands of years tends to point to them converging upon a successful
level of development, albeit that (or perhaps because) they are
burdened by what would appear to be a decided impediment.
Curiously my Grandmother (Nannie we call her) was not aware until
recently of the male's attraction to the great tit. Again though, I
would point to antagonistic distraction rather than Desmond Morris's
bum emulation theory. Either that or we just like great tits.
You speak of the codpiece with apparently intimate knowledge Jerry?
Best
Jerry
'Citation Thinkers'
- basically people who regurgitate old stuff rather than try to move
forward
Rather like Bible quoters
Possibly human males are less attracted to huge butch females as a form
of self preservation
- curiously women tend to have less physical self control ...
The peacoks fan is a sttrange development, it might have some self
defense function, exaggerating its size - or maybe the 'eyes' confuse
predators.
The codpiece stuff was picked up .. I think, from Shakespeare
- it also applies to some suits of armour
Norman
the electric greens of the mallard duck compared with its dingy brown
female. It is the males who do the courtship displays and the females
who sit around and give the thumbs up or thumbs down.
With humans it has switched the other way round. It is the females who
almost fit into a dress or maybe not; who spend hours in the
hairdresser and use perfume to attract the male.
Males on the other hand just put their trainers on, make a feeble
effort to wipe the beer stains off their T shirt and are ready to go
out.
Why should this be?
Best
Drew
weird. Makes absolutely no sense under classic Darwinism. As for the
female of our species, it is oft said that wumin dress up for wumin,
not for attracting males. I kinda tend to agree. Then there are the
strict Muslim 'prisoners' who simply have no avenue whatsoever for
parading to males, yet within confines, those women display to each
other.
One may 'admire' from a distance the perfectly adorned female, but
which would you be more inclined to approach? I don't think I am
alone in being more comfortable making preliminary engagements with a
lass un-dolled up. When however a relationship is established, it's
rather super when one's mate is dressed to kill. But she already has,
so where's the logic in that? On one of my trips there was a lass who
was never seen without a layer of colours. Pretty gorgeous. Early one
morning I saw her unadorned, but it was curiously arousing, like she
was naked. Only then did I get 'interested'. After that ......
maybe it was my codpiece which did the trick.
In so called primitive civilisations the situation is often reversed.
It's the males who go in for face and body painting, feathers and
boas. Perhaps this may say something about Essex lads with their stupid
hair does and lashings of expensive cheap aftershave.
Best
Jerry
When I worked in the tour operating company we had a floor of 300
reservation girls, and they all dressed to kill.
Of course there was a degree of natural selection as the pay was low,
but the holiday benefits were very, very, generous.
I've noticed that girls are very aware of each others haircuts.
Generally nowadays males in the West do not go in for that much
adornment, but historically, and in the 60's and 70's they were right
peacocks.
In the middle east I've seen some classy dames, you get a sense of
affluence from the glimpse of silk stockings and the intricate henna
patterns on their hands.
On a plane, I once met a canny woman who had spent a long time in
Saudi, she said the men were pigs, but the women did not care as they
were into each other.
I'm not so sure about rubbing the beer stains off the t-shirt, most
males I know consciously dress to identify themselves - in a rather low
key way.
I think I'll keep my eyes open and see whether I can identify a pattern.