On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>> Not quite that simple: reproductive success, as all
>> serious evolutionary theorists contend, is more than
>> just fertile women cranking out babies!
>
> Yes, there are refinements, but that's the core of it.
> I wasn't, however, going into all the refinements.
> The fine-tuned definition of reproductive success
> wasn't my topic. I was just pointed out that there is
> plausible SB explanation for male preference for
> fertile-appearing women.
>
No, that's not the core of it. Evolutionary theory contends that traits that enhance reproductive success are more likely to emerge and persist in a species. High fertility is not tantamount to reproductive success; it is not even a prerequisite of reproductive success!
Compare:
A highly fertile female of a species has many offspring, but does nothing to care for them and nothing to encourage others to care for them, and most die before reaching reproductive age
vs.
A less fertile female has fewer offspring, cares effectively for the offspring, creates social ties that ensure that others care for the offspring, and all offspring successfully reproduce
Given this scenario, the "core" factor that determines reproductive success is clearly not fertility, sociobiological bromides notwithstanding. Moreover, this has been well documented in many species in various ecological niches: low fertility females often achieve higher levels of reproductive success than high fertility females.
Sociobiologists' fixation on fertility is a good example of their superficial understanding of evolutionary theory.
Miles