AG has found a fatal flaw in one of the Just-So stories that naturalists tell, that is, they’re either saying that creatures in fancy dress get sexually selected while the ones in sweats and sneaks don’t; or else they’re saying creatures in quiet camouflage don’t get noticed and eaten. So which is it? I can think of cases where both are true — swanky male goldfinches vs little grey-brown sparrows that look like dead leaves. C’mon naturalists, I’m waiting.
______
https://abstrusegoose.com/604
Haha! I’ve wondered that same thing myself. Maybe the female birds just selected something they thought was pretty. I mean, not all sexually-selected traits have to improve survival. Just so long as they don’t *significantly* decrease it.
Look at us humans. We have selected away the baculum and selected in the “permanently inflated” (evolutionists’ term not mine) mammary tissue. Iirc, we’re the only mammals with those traits and they don’t seem to improve or decrease our chances of survival. Also, what’s the deal with long hair on the head? Isn’t that just us humans too?
Anyway. Fascinating questions to ponder with no real answers. Abstruse goose FTW (again)