<...>
> Some biologists argue that 'sexual selection' is part of the struggle
> for existence, the genes struggle to spread themselves. Sexual selection
> does explain a lot of things like why males are larger than females, how
> the peacock got its feathers etc.
there are people walking down the street who argue that they are the prince(ss) of atlantis. do you therefore believe them?
a theoretical justification of an arbitrary outcome for which there is no control group, whether synchronic or diachronic, isn't science. which is fine, but please be so good as to cite these people thus: 'some folks think that...'
actually, i fudged: there are *thousands* of control groups for (e.g.) peacocks--other species of birds. how do your 'bi- ologists' account for the fact that the males of these spe- cies *don't* have preposterous tails? they don't: instead they quietly sweep the control groups that don't support their theory under the rug or say, 'well, that's a different species, isn't it?' oh, ok, sure: the theory works except for when it doesn't, i.e., 99.999% of the time.
> Darwinians believe that what is good for an individual or a species
> is what contributes to its fitness i.e. its ability to survive and avoid
> extinction.Period.
<GONG> the theory of natural selection is predicated on the theory that *diversity of specific formation* is the engine of selection: what is good for the species is *variation* be- tween individuals. the specific traits of an individual may or may not coincide with what's good for the species--ergo, individual and species are *not* interchangeable.
> Male sexuality is more problematic because the orgasm is not
> seperated from reproduction, the height of sexual pleasure occurs during
> ejaculation a primary and direct adjunct of intercourse and
> reproduction. Maximal pleasure is linked with the greatest possibility
> of fathering offspring so it is adaptive.
unless it's not.
cheers, t