Slashdot Mirror
The Red Queen
After laying our souls (and chromosomes!) bare in Genome, Ridley swiftly moves on to a topic that is variously fascinating and taboo: Sex. Every Slashdot user it seems wants more information about it. Ridley immediately tackles the Paradox of Sex: In an asexual organism, every individual of the species can create offspring. In sexual creatures (like people!), only the female can produce young. What's so great about sex then, that overcomes this obvious numerical handicap? In eleven brisk chapters, Ridley unravels the riddles with examples of how and why other species Do It (or Don't It), and what it all means.
Topics explored (though not claimed to be definitively explained) include mitochondrial DNA, dowries, the genetic foundations of harems, how males of a species could develop flagrant 'handicaps' like bright coloration or songs, monogamy, polygamy, adultery and a small species of New Zealand snail that suffers from a parasite named (I'm not making this up) Microphallus. One of the most compelling concepts is that a species' strongest competitor (and driving force behind their evolution) is their own kind, not their foes. In the end it is this argument, called The Red Queen (after a Lewis Carrol character that runs quickly but never gets ahead) that explains so much of our evolutionary hodgepodge of DNA and instinctive behaviour.
Around the world The Red Queen hustles, dissecting the environmental clues given by the mating rituals and biology of various species, asexual, sexual, heterosexual, hermaphroditic and otherwise, comparing them to Homo Sapiens, "the sexiest primate alive" (except for bonobos). As for humans, Ridley divulges how walking upright and our large brains are connected to our comparatively slow maturation, long lifespan and lack of hair. Always in the background is the unquestionable tenet: No one is descended from a celibate organism.
Ridley daringly takes on feminism and gender equality by pointing out that males and females DO differ genetically (duh!) and that in other species the effect of this difference is quite marked. Rather than degenerating into a misogynistic orgy of gender-bashing, he exposes the reasons why (among other differences) men might actually be better at reading maps and women might be more social. Both genders have to get along in order to continue the species, so understanding our differences may be a boon to all. While in the mood for controversy, Ridley delves into the reasons for the genetic-confounding phenomena of homosexuality in a species.
You don't need to have read Genome to read Red Queen, but if you have, you might find all of the puzzles fitting together into an even bigger picture, to be further sketched out in The Origins of Virtue and Nature Via Nurture. This book is not illustrated and probably won't help you get a date next weekend, but it might explain why you're instinctively attracted to those three young blondes at the bar. And why they're all more interested in the cinderblock quarterback of the football team. And despite what my inbox tells me, it has nothing to do with the size of a certain part of your anatomy, but rather the size of ... well, go read the book.
Table of Contents
- Human Nature
- The Enigma
- The Power of Parasites
- Genetic Mutiny and Gender
- The Peacock's Tale
- Polygamy and the Nature of Men
- Monogamy and the Nature of Women
- Sexing the Mind
- The Uses of Beauty
- The Intellectual Chess Game
- The Self-Domesticated Ape
You can purchase The Red Queen from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
What's so great about sex then, that overcomes this obvious numerical handicap?
;)
If you don't know, you're probably too young for me to explain it to you!
My journal has hot
By the way, I echo the recommendation -- reading this book profoundly changed how I think about evolution and genetics. The only comparably assumption-shattering biology book I can think of is Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
This book sounds pretty interesting. I wonder if it delves into human pornography, and the fact that humans (and other animals) get excited by looking at pictures of a member of the opposite sex.
Desmond Morris has a series on TLC called The Human Animal in which he describes in termendous detail how and why humans have sex. There's even a nipple in the show! Beyond the perversion of watching it simply because it talks about sex, its really interesting.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
...so that when I read "In an asexual organism I don't leave out an "ni", then procede to try to perform one myself.
males and females DO differ genetically
It has been noted that the difference between the XX and XY chromosomes in the human males and females amounts to about 3% of genetic material.
Note also that in general the human species only differs about 3% from chimpanzies.
From this some have inferred that a human male is more similar to a male chimpanzee than to a human female.
It has enough sex talk in it to satisfy your prurient interests. Not the gross squshy kind, but the clean, technical sex that will hit /.ers right in the honeypot.
Ooh baby... you extended my phenotype!
I'll assume this is some sort of dig on the idea of homosexual marriage. I'm not gay, but I'll bite.
If Evolution is true, marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is a result of natural selection and therefore is right and good.
Wouldn't homosexuality also be the result of natural selection and therefore right and good? If it was detrimental it would have been selected away and wouldn't exist, right? This is as opposed to continuing to exist across centuries and civilizations. Bigotry on the other hand, is rapidly growing obsolete in the modern age.
If Creation is true marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is from God and therefore is right and good.
If creation is true we've got a lot more to worry about than the proper definition of marriage. Also, the definition of right and good vary strongly across individuals despite their belief in creation. Some believe in the Bible, others the Koran, others the Torah. Some take their scripture literally, others with a grain of salt.
The Red Queen - named after a theory which is itself named for the 'Alice' character, who must run as fast as she can simply to keep pace with the world around her - fascinated from beginning to end. Looking at the evolution of sex, it is filled with intriguing facts, remarkable examples, and frequently alarming revelations. From why the peacock has that remarkable tail (it's probably to do with sexy sons) to why polygamy benefits females rather than males, the book is a real eye-opener. Once you've learned the secret of the lek, the local disco will never seem the same again. And, given that a man's testicular size is evidence that neither he nor his partner evolved for true monogamy, you may not find this book terribly reassuring. Polygyny, polyandry, incest, infanticide, and group-bonking bonobos: it may leave you thinking that, in comparison to even some of our closest relatives, we humans have very conservative sex lives indeed. And we may only have started doing it at all so that we don't fall prey to parasites! A great read, and real incentive to read anything else available by Matt Ridley.
There is no god
Marriage is a government certification that confers special privileges to certain citizens (including tax relief, coverage under health insurance, etc. etc.). I really don't give a damn about the argument of pro or anti homosexuality. If the government is going to allow marriage between a male and a female citizen, it should allow it for homosexual citizens also. What business is it of the government what gender you are? If the religious right is so disgusted by this notion that they would rather abolish government-recognized marriage, that is just fine with me...I don't think it is any of the governments business who you live/eat/sleep with.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
There's an interesting video interview with Matt Ridley where he talks about his latest book 'Nature via Nurture' on edge.org http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ridley03/ridley_in dex.html
I dunno about this paraphrasing. In it we're assumed to equate marriage as equal to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation with the assumption that it's a 1 to 1 relationship (1 man - 1 woman). Evolution does not enforce this paradigm. In all levels of animal life (including humans) monogomy is not an absolute. Some studies have shown that as much as 75% of married couples have had some instance of infadelity. So Evolution could as easily reinforce the concept of polygamy.
Additionally it's difficult to argue that "Creation" or more specifically "Biblical principles" define marriage solely in the context of 1 man - 1 woman. The bible is littered with references to polygamy and not once that I've read is that condemned. Therefore one could assume that based on biblical principles polygamy (1 man - X woman) is just as right and as good.
A secondary note is that marriage may be equated to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation but that sexual coupling is not limited to purpose. Coupling can be seen among same sex partners which in fact excludes procreation as well as opposite sex partners for the purpose of pleasure. This is seen time and time again across species. Some of these bonds could be seen as monogamous. How then do we define this behavior within the context of marriage?
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
The title of Ridley's book is a reference to Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass":
The last paragraph nicely sums up the view that in evolution, standing still means falling into extinction and just keeping one's place is a difficult proposition.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Evolution promotes that which enables a creature to breed more than others. That's it. There is no 'good' or 'true' in any moral sense.
I have wondered, though... how exactly are pro-gay genes promoted? I assume that they are recessive genes (no judgement here... just that gay folks are in the vast minority), and as such aren't likely to last long, since true homosexuality would prevent breeding, right?
Please no flames on this, I am not passing judgement (at least not negatively. I have zero problem with homosexuality)... it just seems to me that this trait would not have perpetuated, y'know?
I imagine the truth is more along the lines of the 'sexuality as a continuum' theory than any gay/straight binary condition...
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
The "religious right" does not (for the most part) have a problem with gay marriage, at least not where I live (btw I'm Orthodox, if that's relevant). The problem is the worry that churches will lose the right to not marry gays.
Not completely true...
First, in genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Sue, etc...
Also in genesis we also have where Abram (to be Abraham) takes Sari's (to be Sarah) maidservent and has a child with her. While it was acceptable of the time to do that, the rift caused through bitterness of Sari and the maidservent was an example of why it was a bad thing.
Also, David is punished for taking Bersheba (sp?) though she was already married, then killing the man (or having him killed by putting him in front of battle). The child is taken after it is born.
The story of Solomon in (kings/chronicles) implies that Solomon should not have taken multiple wives (two fold reason, they would drag him into their religion and it was wrong).
Also in Hosea, where Hosea is told to take a prostitute as a wife to demonstrate to Isreal how it is a whore to other gods we have another example of where taking multiple wives is wrong.
Also, Jesus makes not in the gospels that marriage is sacred and binding between a man and a woman when he is answering he scribes about the law on marriage.
Again, the the NT Paul also mentions that the man's body is the wive's and the wive's body is the man's, and they should not with hold from eachother. Note the singular.
So, its easy to take out of context that the Bible supports polygamy, but that is simpley not the case. God intended a single man and a single woman to be together.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
The Religious right(me) doesn't have a problem with a civil recognition of "gay civil partnership" or other social arrangements polyandry, polygyny, polygamy. The problem comes with calling that civil contract marriage. Well thats my position anyhow.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Bonobos are very bisexual, have sex frequently (VERY frequently--several times a day) mostly just for pleasure, females run the show, female-female sex is very common, and men must beg or earn sexual pleasure from the females.
They are the closest animals to humans (genetically speaking) walk upright fairly often, similar size, etc.
Once you've studied bonobos for awhile, you start to get the feeling that about 99% of our sexual taboos are strictly cultural, developed over time as a function of the need for societal control, either to limit disease propagation or to assert power hierarchies, probably to keep a large pool of females available for the wealthy patriarchs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Or alternatively:
Now I realize that these are quite unpopular and controversial notions, but it seems to me that either of these alternatives would explain why homosexuality exists. If people could stop for a moment, discard their irrational prejudices, and think about the data, they might still come to some rather unpopular (for the moment, at least) conclusions about homosexuality.
I'm not trying to troll, so don't bother getting angry. I do, however, find it unfortunate when a rational debate about the subject becomes marred by name-callers when unpopular opinions are expressed. Even if you still come to a conclusion different from mine, you should at least be open to considering another's opinion. Referring to those who believe homosexuality is wrong as "bigots" tends to show a lack of openness to reason.
One last note: Just because it occurs in nature doesn't mean it is good. The preying mantis murders her husband after seducing him - would anyone suggest that murder is "right and good" because beligerence is found in other species?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Locusts and ants are different, as are other animals because they reach an equalibrium with their environment. This may be more of the case with animals such as deer because if they consume too many of their resources they die off because there isn't enough food to support them. Insects like locusts may consume and move, consume and move, but they have such a short life-span compared to us and compared to other animals that I think their impact is lessoned.
Humans have had a population explosion that just keeps going and going and going- eventually we will reach a critical mass and then things like the black plague and war happen. The only thing that enables this planet to sustain so many humans is our technology- maybe that is what will keep us going into the 22nd century.
Maybe your company is able to find resources where others have not, but what about resources like oil that take thousands of years to create? We will have used up all the oil in only a couple hundred years (starting around the late 1800s to the 2000s)
Maybe the Green organizations are over-hyped, but there is some credability to their claim. Also- wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? There is no point in being wasteful. Reduce, reuse and recycle.
You never know, you know.
this is a great book. especially interesting is the part about how women choose mates. it talks about how a survey in the UK revealed that women with extra-marital affairs are actually more likely to conceive on the days they sleep with their lovers.
basically, women choose a husband based on his abilities as a provider. but they frequently choose a sex partner based on his physical attributes. the idea is that their offspring will have great physical attributes, but will be raised (unwittingly) by the nice-guy, caretaker husband. doesn't make as much sense now with paternity testing, but interesting nonetheless.
another cool part is how ridley explains the promiscuous history of men. the idea that men lust after hordes of young (even underage) women is frowned upon by society, but makes perfect evolutionary sense considering the males' goals-- he is looking to fertilize as many women as possible, preferrably young women who are at the height of their fertility.
I think everyone should read this book. the insight into human relationships is immense.
I do, however, find it unfortunate when a rational debate about the subject becomes marred by name-callers when unpopular opinions are expressed. Even if you still come to a conclusion different from mine, you should at least be open to considering another's opinion. Referring to those who believe homosexuality is wrong as "bigots" tends to show a lack of openness to reason.
I agree with you completely when speaking of foul-language, but the ideas expressed clearly met the exact definition of bigot. After all, if those ideas don't, what does? When is it ok to use the term? I don't think the term applies to you, since I think you appear somewhat more discerning.
I took the exact assumptions the poster used (Evolution is true, therefore...) and (Creation is true, therefore...) and refuted them. To have done differently would have been significantly off topic. I have ALL SORTS of problems with evolution that are not relevant to the logical fallacies exposed in the original post and I honestly doubt the original poster is interested in that sort of discussion.
I'll bite -- what's his theory?
AFAIK, the evolutionary origin of bipedalism is a completely unsolved problem. There have been various theories, but none of them really hold water. A popular idea for a long time was that it allowed us to have our hands free for tool use, but now we know that bipedalism evolved a million years before big brains and tool use. (Australopithecus was basically a human from the neck down, a chimp from the neck up.) It can't be explained by the ability to get your eyes high off the ground and see far away, because chimps and gorillas can stand up too when they want to look around. It's probably not efficient locomotion, because the most efficient walkers and runners are quadrupeds like dogs and horses. (There were some experiments that purported to show humans walked more efficiently than chimps, but they were flawed.)
There was also a theory by Lovejoy that bipedalism was the result of sexual selection, and maybe that's what the story is referring to. The Lovejoy theory was that females were choosing who to mate with, and males, in order to get laid, were using their hands to bring tasty food as gifts to the females. The problem with this theory is that austrolapithecines had strong sexual dimorphism -- males were about 50% bigger than females. This kind of dimorphism is typical of species where the male controls a harem, defending it against other males.
Find free books.
Interestingly a similar study was done on suicide. It is a trait that reduced the population in difficult (depressing) times thereby leaving more resources for the group.
This is an example of "group selectionism", which doesn't find much favor among professional biologists nowadays. Their reasoning is that it is easy for such groups to be invaded by mutants who "cheat".
For example, in a population where everyone has a tendency towards suicide in lean times, any mutant that lacks suicidal tendencies will probably leave more offspring. This is because the mutant's kids enjoy the same benefits the regular suicidal folk enjoy (fewer members in group to divide limited resources) without paying the costs which are only borne by the regular individuals (higher probabilty of killing themselves).
Over several generations, fewer and fewer members of the population will be suicidal as the descendants of that mutant "cheater" become more relatively numerous.
The only way an "altruistic" gene can spread is if it is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) that can coexist with other alleles in the population. In other words, it's structured in such a way to guard against cheaters or find some way of cohabiting in a stable manner with other strategies in the local population's gene pool.
Somehow I doubt, rkz, that you are also Gilly Collinson from North Yorkshire who wrote this review on Amazon.co.uk over two years ago, and are just duplicating it here for the edification of us all.
Mod the parent down. Moderators, please stop smoking the crack.
this is a sig.
Calling something an "illness" is just semantics. Simply applying a pejorative term does not explain why homosexual behavior is so common, not merely in humans but in many other species. And by the way, vulnerability to real diseases, such as those caused by viruses and bacteria is influenced by genetic predisposition.
The fact that homosexuals would have self-selected themselves out of the gene pool long ago shows evolution to be false
Except that there are many, many ways in which genes that favor homsexual behavior can be maintained under natural selection:
1) Heterozygote advantage: A gene may promote homosexuality when homozygous, but confer a reproductive advantage on heterozygotes (similar to the way heterozygotes for sickle cell anemia are resistant to malaria).
2) Nepotism: Homosexuals could propagate their genes by assisting their blood relatives.
3) Sex-specific effects: A gene could, for example, confer enhanced reproductive success when present in females, but homosexual behavior when present in males, or vice versa.
4) Multi gene effects: A gene might might induce homosexual behavior when present with certain alleles of other genes, but confer enhanced reproductive success when present with different alleles.
Apologies in advance for the yucky HTML that LaTeX2HTML produced in those days. If I can find the original source, I'll see if I can generate a usable PDF.
(And let me fix a few of the broken links in that before I hit the submit button).
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky