>>13631024>says "spurious" genes may increase survival fitness >now says he's using "spurious" ONLY to mean no increase in survival fitnessIf it correlates with genetic fitness it's not spurious.
A "too long tail" is not spurious, it does increase fitness, it's just not optimal and has diminished returns exactly like I said. Look at green line in graph, its always positive huh?
Do us a favor and stop breathing
>>13631165>evolution is blind and there is a hard limit to how much instinctual behavior (or anything, really) you can encode in genesNothing to do with what I said. This affects what I said in no way whatsoever.
>>13631209Do you really not know what natural selection is?
The "model" claims there is a genetic basis for the "runaway".. it has nothing to do with female birbs being more attracted to a trait bc they think other birbs find it attractive you pleb. If you look at the graph clearly the red line would not stop. At the extreme it implies females would be attracted to traits that stop their sons from reproducing 99% of the time.. Nat. s would select that out, obviously.
At least you tried, the other 4 morons said absolutely nothing of merit.
>>13631223Strawman. I never insisted this whatsoever. I claimed natural selection will eventually force the selection preference to the optimal if this model was the true driving cause, that sometimes does not happen in nature, obviously, which leaves us to beileve the model is wrong. It's insanely bizarre that birds would suddenly get genes for a selection preference towards a very survival-hindering trait that doesnt even exist yet, causing a huge mismatch in preference vs optimal fitness, but that is not a paradox.
There can definitely be long spans of time where this mismatch could exist, but it makes no sense to think it would stick around long enough for vastly elaborate ornamental features to develop. Nat selection would eliminate them.
