= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
philh comments on You can't signal to rubes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (115)
Of course those things are different from sexual selection. Comparing a trait that can be signalled, to a mechanism by which traits can be magnified, is a type error.
I'm not saying that "sexual selection" and "costly signalling" are the same hypothesis, I'm just saying they aren't competing. One attempts to explain how a trait gets magnified, the other attempts to explain why.
It looks as though the post you were responding to was wrong to treat these as incompatible hypotheses.
No doubt, peackock tails are magnified by sexual selection, costly and illustrating parasite resistance. However, though compatible, these explanations do compete with each other a little - for example, when explaining particular features of the tails.