Coevolution Of Sexual Display And Desire

Loading Session...

Session Information

Species across the tree of life have evolved costly sexual displays, from elaborate courtship dances to intricate color patterns. They have also evolved preferences for mates with these displays. Accounting for such extravagance is part of the explanatory agenda of evolutionary biology. One candidate explanation is aesthetic evolution by mate choice (also called a Fisherian runaway process). This is the idea that the evolution of extravagant sexual ornaments and behavioral displays is driven by the arbitrary and often non-adaptive preferences of potential mates. This idea was first proposed by Darwin in The Descent of Man (1871) and later developed by Lande (1981) and Kirkpatrick (1982), but it has always been a minority opinion among evolutionary biologists. We propose a symposium to critically evaluate the aesthetic evolution hypothesis. Is it better-supported than good genes hypotheses? What are its implications for evolutionary theory? What assumptions does it make about sexual conflict, competition, and cooperation? The four papers in our symposium explore these questions.

Biology Symposium

02 Nov 2018 03:45 PM - 05:45 PM(America/Los_Angeles)

Venue : Virginia (Fourth Floor Union Street Tower)

20181102T1545 20181102T1745 America/Los_Angeles Coevolution of Sexual Display and Desire Species across the tree of life have evolved costly sexual displays, from elaborate courtship dances to intricate color patterns. They have also evolved preferences for mates with these displays. Accounting for such extravagance is part of the explanatory agenda of evolutionary biology. One candidate explanation is aesthetic evolution by mate choice (also called a Fisherian runaway process). This is the idea that the evolution of extravagant sexual ornaments and behavioral displays is driven by the arbitrary and often non-adaptive preferences of potential mates. This idea was first proposed by Darwin in The Descent of Man (1871) and later developed by Lande (1981) and Kirkpatrick (1982), but it has always been a minority opinion among evolutionary biologists. We propose a symposium to critically evaluate the aesthetic evolution hypothesis. Is it better-supported than good genes hypotheses? What are its implications for evolutionary theory? What assumptions does it make about sexual conflict, competition, and cooperation? The four papers in our symposium explore these questions. Virginia (Fourth Floor Union Street Tower) PSA2018: The 26th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association office@philsci.org

Add to my Schedule

Presentations

The Place of Sexual Selection in the Extended Synthesis

Philosophy of Science 03:45 PM - 04:15 PM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/02 22:45:00 UTC - 2018/11/02 23:15:00 UTC

John Dupre (University of Exeter)
This paper will reflect on the curious absence of sexual selection from contemporary criticisms of the Modern Synthesis, and on how sexual selection might best be incorporated into these critical revisions of the Modern Synthesis. In particular, it will be argued that ideas of mate choice fit closely with recent discussions of biological agency, e.g., by Denis Walsh. It will also be argued that sexual selection can be better understood in the context of proposals, including by the present author, to interpret evolution within a process ontology, specifically as an important mode of stabilisation of lineage processes.

Presenters

Mate Choice Mechanisms and Null Hypotheses

Philosophy of Science 04:15 PM - 04:45 PM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/02 23:15:00 UTC - 2018/11/02 23:45:00 UTC

Karen Kovaka (Virginia Tech)
This talk contrasts two primary mechanisms of sexual selection. In the first mechanism, potential mates select for traits that are accurate signals of mate quality. The second mechanism is an aesthetic one in which potential mates select for traits they find aesthetically pleasing. Scientists disagree about the relationship between these two mechanisms and about which, if either, should be the null hypothesis in sexual selection research. I offer an account of the relationship between the two mechanisms and argue that neither should be the null hypothesis in sexual selection research.

Presenters

Evolutionary Implications of the Subjective Experience of Animals

Philosophy of Science 04:45 PM - 05:15 PM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/02 23:45:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 00:15:00 UTC

Richard Prum (Yale University)
Philosophical discussions of the existence and implications of subjective experience have focused mainly on humans, but these issues have rich and diverse implications for the process of organic evolution. Following Nagel, I view the subjective experience of animals as irreducible, emergent phenomena. Animal subjectivity interacts with social, sexual, and ecological choices to create a novel locus of evolutionary agency. Subjective evaluation by individual animals constitutes a distinct and potentially independent criterion of success that is conceptually differentiable from the survival and fecundity components of natural selection.

Presenters

Aesthetic Evolution: A Feminist Critique

Philosophy of Science 05:15 PM - 05:45 PM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/03 00:15:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 00:45:00 UTC

Sara Weaver (University of Waterloo)
I offer a feminist analysis of the aesthetic evolution hypothesis. I examine the concept of sexual coercion in the sexual selection literature, particularly the recent literature on aesthetic evolution by mate choice. I argue that sexual coercion should be understood to include both direct forms of coercion, such as physical force, as well as indirect forms, such as social arrangements that preclude the exercise of choice. This broader definition makes it easier to see the ways in which both male and female animals may make use of sexual coercion.

Presenters

362 visits