Choosey Peahens Choose Evolution

I was reminded of how, in some species of pheasants, either Swinhoe's, or Lady Amherst, the hens preferentially seek out males that have the longest spurs, and apparently don't give much stock to plumage. In a study, researchers found that those pheasant cocks who had their spurs amputated mated with the fewest hens, while those pheasant cocks who had their spurs augmented with actual cowboy spurs mated with the most hens.

So that got me to thinking that perhaps now, during courtship, the peacock's tail serves simply to identify to the female that he is an anxious suitor, and that, in turn, the peahen is more interested in other features of the male, such as his vocalizations or dances. Has anyone examined whether or not a peahen would attempt to mate with a tail-less peacock?

In birds of paradise, I saw footage of a male Greater Bird of Paradise attempt to woo what he thought was a female, but it turned out to be an immature male examining him too closely in order to learn the correct mating dancing procedure. So, perhaps fantastic male plumage may serve more important roles as species and gender recognition?

It might be worth pointing out that the resident expert who reviews evolutionary literature for the ARN blog is one Dave Tyler. Dave is an expert in textiles and has publications in such prestigious journals as Stitch World (seriously)

http://www.hollings.mmu.ac.uk/~dtyler/

Dave's textiles experience provides him with the requisite background to not only shred evolutionary biology but also carve out a niche as a proponent of flood geology. Yup, he's a young earth creationist. However he argues that most of the geologic record isn't a record of the flood, but of the recovery from the flood, with the fossil record showing "recolonisation" by life. The flood occurred during the Pre-Cambrian. This revolutionary approach has resulted in important publications like:

Tyler, D., A post-Flood solution to the chalk problem, TJ 10(1):113, 1996.

This has earned him the ire of more mainstream YECs who accuse him of compromise:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0307recolonisation.asp

Nature News is reporting on another study into sexual selection (illustrated by the trusty peacock, of course), this time in yeast. The researchers claim that this allows them to accurately follow the spread of single alleles, something not possible in earlier studies.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081016/full/news.2008.1168.html

The paper in question is "D.W. Rogers & D. Greig, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI:10.1098/RSPB.2008.1146 (2008)". Perhaps a worthy subject of a future blog entry?

Darwinists need to think very hard about the way they do science. This is a clear example of how a Darwinian hypothesis has become accepted as scientific fact, yet now has been disproved by some rigorous empirical research. This is a falsified prediction. This means that numerous textbooks and web sites need to be revised.

So now I suppose we will see the DI sink millions into studies of peacock mating. After all, if they really thought that they were right about this, then shouldn't they be trying to do the research themselves? Why let the "Darwinists" have all the glory of disproving a small example of sexual selection when they could become famous for it? Why assume that others will be able to break the conspiracy of silence when they cannot? Oh well, at least we know how this paper got published.

Of course , assuming that they were actually able to demonstrate something significant about peaock mating, that would only leave 5 million other examples of selection to deal with.

One wonders if the DI will mention that.

Hawks said:

One wonders if the DI will mention that.

That would almost be like they really wanted to discuss the controversy.

I am going to take a stab at this, but I am not a statistician, so someone can comment if I screw it up. So they say that hens do not prefer cocks with elaborate plumage. So, I assume, (and this may be where I am wrong) that the null hypothesis was "there is no sexual selection for elaborate tail plumage"....they did their analysis, and arrived at an insignificant P value, so they had to report there is no selection. However, technically, a significant P value would have allowed them to reject the null hypothesis and say that there is sexual selection for elaborate plumage....but an insignificant P value DOES NOT PROVE THE NULL HYPOTHESIS TO BE TRUE...i.e. that hens do not really prefer elaborate plumage. Am I right or wrong about that?

The contact info for the the ARN is: PO Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069, 719-633-1772. The contact info for the Discovery Institute is: 208 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104, (206) 292-0401

Hawks said:

One wonders if the DI will mention that.

That would almost be like they really wanted to discuss the controversy.

So, I assume, (and this may be where I am wrong) that the null hypothesis was “there is no sexual selection for elaborate tail plumage”.…they did their analysis, and arrived at an insignificant P value, so they had to report there is no selection.

However, technically, a significant P value would have allowed them to reject the null hypothesis and say that there is sexual selection for elaborate plumage.…but an insignificant P value DOES NOT PROVE THE NULL HYPOTHESIS TO BE TRUE…i.e. that hens do not really prefer elaborate plumage. Am I right or wrong about that?

To be accurate, the Access Research Network may not necessarily be the same as the Discovery Institute. Those two groups just happen to both support Intelligent Design. Dave Wisker might want to correct the entry above, lest the Disco dudes accuse us of libeling them.

SteveF said: Yup, he’s a young earth creationist. However he argues that most of the geologic record isn’t a record of the flood, but of the recovery from the flood, with the fossil record showing “recolonisation” by life. The flood occurred during the Pre-Cambrian

Probably the main point to consider in the Discovery Institute's pea fowl fiasco is that natural selection is a given. If any of their fellows deny the existence of natural selection in nature they are the basket case types. Even Wells likely acknowledges that natural selection is a fact of nature. This is all just smoke. It is just part of their general obfuscation scam. It is really pointless for them to argue it, but they do it anyway because the rubes can be fooled and lied to about it.

There is no way that they can deny that natural selection is a fact of nature, so all the smoke is to confuse the ignorant into thinking that the argument is about something else. It is just the general strategy of the dishonest switch scam that they are currently running on any rube stupid enough to have believed them about the "science" of intelligent design.

If they actually had any valid arguments they wouldn't be rambling on about pea hens.

Ron Okimoto

Dave WIsker said: Dale writes:

To be accurate, the Access Research Network may not necessarily be the same as the Discovery Institute. Those two groups just happen to both support Intelligent Design. Dave Wisker might want to correct the entry above, lest the Disco dudes accuse us of libeling them.

Oh dear, you're right! I keep forgetting--when looking at ARN's 'Featured Authors" link-- that there may be other Michael Behes and Paul Nelsons and William Dembskis and Mark Hartwigs and Charles Thaxtons in this world that aren't DI Fellows.

http://www.arn.org/infopage/magnuson.htm Meet Tom Magnuson Tom has been volunteering his time as the “In the News” editor for ARN since November 2003. His vocation is a meteorologist (no jokes please). Yes, it is nice having a job when you are wrong “all the time” and still get paid. His avocation has been cosmic and life’s origins for the past 21 years.

Stanton said:

Hawks said:

One wonders if the DI will mention that.

That would almost be like they really wanted to discuss the controversy.

If that were true, then I have delightful Nevada beachfront property to sell you.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/science-needs-a-new-superhero/ Carl Sagan died in 1996, yet he still lives in the hearts of those who knew him, whether personally or as the public celebrity he became. Now the time has come for science to move on and find a new superhero, someone who can command both the public respect that Sagan did and challenge society for the better. Although Sagan was an agnostic who championed skepticism, he did not come across as openly hostile towards all religion, as Richard Dawkins does. Such hostility, even if justified, can turn gentle souls away from science. So who can possibly succeed Carl Sagan? Who can be the champion of reason, rationality, and tolerance for all? I will. And so can you. And you, you, you, you and you, if only you just care to be as dedicated to science and to the welfare to humanity as Sagan was. I have championed the philosophy of Honorable Skepticism as my tribute to Sagan. But the best way to honor him is not merely to keep playing his COSMOS series and talking about what he did, but to make our own contributions to science, to EXCEED Sagan’s work, to become superheros of science ourselves. We are not expected merely to blindly follow what Sagan taught, for he was by no means infallible. Because he was human as we, we can carry his vision forward, and we will do it by eliminating the concept of “sacred cows” and seeking change to improve our societies, regardless of what short-term and localized interests get stepped on. They deserve it! And we cannot afford to appease those interests anymore. Having a global and long-term perspective is what will save us, not any religion or political ideology.

Dale Husband said: Well, this is ironic:

http://www.arn.org/infopage/magnuson.htm Meet Tom Magnuson Tom has been volunteering his time as the “In the News” editor for ARN since November 2003. His vocation is a meteorologist (no jokes please).

If anti-Evolutionists are so down on the power of selection among competing agents to bring about general improvement, and simultaneously so up on an overarching intelligence guiding things behind the scenes, why do most of them seem to align with political ideologies that champion a free-market?

Wheels said: If anti-Evolutionists are so down on the power of selection among competing agents to bring about general improvement, and simultaneously so up on an overarching intelligence guiding things behind the scenes, why do most of them seem to align with political ideologies that champion a free-market?

Where's FL?

Wheels said: If anti-Evolutionists are so down on the power of selection among competing agents to bring about general improvement, and simultaneously so up on an overarching intelligence guiding things behind the scenes, why do most of them seem to align with political ideologies that champion a free-market?

Science Avenger said: All pathetic detail aside, they simply want to believe what they believe.

tresmal said: Where's FL?

. In a study, researchers found that those pheasant cocks who had their spurs amputated mated with the fewest hens, while those pheasant cocks who had their spurs augmented with actual cowboy spurs mated with the most hens.

So that got me to thinking that perhaps now, during courtship, the peacock's tail serves simply to identify to the female that he is an anxious suitor, and that, in turn, the peahen is more interested in other features of the male, such as his vocalizations or dances. Has anyone examined whether or not a peahen would attempt to mate with a tail-less peacock?

Dale Husband said: To be accurate, the Access Research Network may not necessarily be the same as the Discovery Institute. Those two groups just happen to both support Intelligent Design. Dave Wisker might want to correct the entry above, lest the Disco dudes accuse us of libeling them.

The contact info for the the ARN is: PO Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069, 719-633-1772. The contact info for the Discovery Institute is: 208 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104, (206) 292-0401

@SteveF
"Dave Tyler. Dave is an expert in textiles and has publications in such prestigious journals as Stitch World..."

Is that why he keeps us in stitches?!

Takahashi et al. (2008) discussed the discordance between studies and suggested that missed observations of mating and small sample sizes of previous studies may play a part, claiming that their study had ‘the longest observation with the largest sample size among peafowl studies’ (Takahashi et al. 2008, page 1214). We agree that the number of copulations observed is critical to a meaningful analysis of variance in mating success. However, Takahashi et al. (2008) saw only 268 copulations in 7 years, which amounts to ca. 38 copulations per annum from 20 to 37 territorial males observed in any 1 year. In contrast, Petrie & Halliday (1994) saw 116 copulations in 1 year (1989) from observations of 30 territorial males (almost three times as many).

Takahashi et al. (2008) found an unusually low skew in male mating success. The most successful male obtained only 14.9-31.4% of copulations per year whereas in earlier studies these values were consistently higher (36.4% in Petrie et al. 1991; 32.3% in Yasmin & Yahya 1996; 37.5% in Loyau et al. 2005a). In the population studied by Takahashi et al. there appeared to be a low consensus among females about whom to mate with, an unusual finding in a lekking species. Could that be a result of low variation in train morphology which does not allow peahens to distinguish between the different potential mates?

Dave,

Yours is a great post. I'm not surprised that a YEC like Tyler would miss the statistical implications. As for your recent replies, I am glad you've emphasized the importance of sample size, which Tyler has clearly missed.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Dave Wisker said: They also comment on the low variation (Dale Husband should appreciate this):

Takahashi et al. (2008) found an unusually low skew in male mating success. The most successful male obtained only 14.9-31.4% of copulations per year whereas in earlier studies these values were consistently higher (36.4% in Petrie et al. 1991; 32.3% in Yasmin & Yahya 1996; 37.5% in Loyau et al. 2005a). In the population studied by Takahashi et al. there appeared to be a low consensus among females about whom to mate with, an unusual finding in a lekking species. Could that be a result of low variation in train morphology which does not allow peahens to distinguish between the different potential mates?

Furthermore, there appear to be an important aspect of Takahashi’s study (at least one) that was not even addressed in your blog essay. (I’m double-checking but I don’t see it there.)

Takahashi points out that grown of the peacock’s train is dependent on the absence of oestrogen rather than the presence of testosterone. She says this undermines the assumption that the train is a sexual signal. “Until now, who cared that the peacock’s train was under oestrogen control? Takahashi says

Takahashi et al. (2008) also challenged the idea that the peacock’s train might be an indicator of good genes, despite strong evidence supporting that hypothesis (Petrie 1992; Møller & Petrie 2002; Loyau et al. 2005b; Petrie et al. in press). They asserted that since the peafowl is a galliform bird, the train is likely to develop in the absence of oestrogen and consequently is unlikely to be an indicator of male quality (Hagelin & Ligon 2001). Therefore, they expected females to discard this trait in mate choice. According to Takahashi et al. (2008) the female preference for the male’s train is supposed to have been ‘lost or weakened’. If so, it implies that this preference existed at some point and thus may still exist. Eyespots have independently evolved in several taxa (birds and butterflies) and it is likely that such a trait originally evolved through the exploitation of a sensory bias (Ryan 1990) which would also account for the ‘hypnotic effect’ of the train on peahens described by Ridley et al. (1984). The coexistence of the heritability of female preference (through the sensory bias) and the heritability of the train’s development (Petrie et al. in press) provides strong support for the idea that the train evolved through Fisher’s runaway process (Fisher 1930). At some point, as the train became an extreme trait, it presumably crossed a threshold and started to impose costs on the bearer, with only the better quality males being able to grow and display the more ornamented trains. Some results already support this last point (Møller & Petrie 2002; Loyau et al. 2005b). According to this scenario, the train has evolved as a Fisherian trait and is maintained as a good genes indicator, whatever the hormonal control. In other galliform species the development of the train may never have reached the threshold, leading to a loss of ornamental traits and associated display behaviours (Kimball et al. 2001). Therefore, we do not see why the form of hormonal control of train expression negates previous findings and know of no evidence to suggest why it should.

Sort of on topic; check out the display feathers on this dinosaur at Tet Zoo

Ron Okimoto said: [snip] This is all just smoke. It is just part of their general obfuscation scam. It is really pointless for them to argue it, but they do it anyway because the rubes can be fooled and lied to about it. [snip] Ron Okimoto

As has been stated so often here, if the IDIOTs really wanted to change minds, they’d do the research.

My question to FL is, why is this "important"?

It's not even relevant, frankly.

the mechanism of what causes the plumage changes is interesting, but simply isn't relevant as to whether or not it is an example of sexual selection.

I guess whenever these morons see the word "sex", they think that necessitates it must be related to the physiology of sex itself.

sexual selection is merely a subset of natural selection, where mate choice acts as the selective pressure instead of predation or competition, etc.
There's nothing that necessitates the physiological mechanism of how mate choice acts on a trait to be in any way related to sexual physiology itself.

this is the problem when debating these moronic creationists. They know so little of how biological systems actually work, that their responses often fall in the "not even wrong" category.

Henry J said:

As has been stated so often here, if the IDIOTs really wanted to change minds, they’d do the research.

Ah, but the trouble with research is that it's apt to produce conclusions that weren't what the researcher was looking for.

Ichthyic said: ... this is the problem when debating these moronic creationists. They know so little of how biological systems actually work, that their responses often fall in the "not even wrong" category.

Ichthyic said: My question to FL is, why is this "important"? It's not even relevant, frankly.

To creationists, its all shinola.

yeah, they do like to project, don't they?

still, my point is that there is little reason to even waste time repeatedly refuting the "not even wrong" stuff. doing so just plays their game.

all one need do in a forum like this is simply link to the correct information for those who actually wish to learn. honest questions coming from that are then worth answering, but we never see these from creationists.

so when someone like the ridiculous FL spouts off, he's so far wrong it's simply not worth the effort to engage. rather, just post a link to a decent review of the current knowledge on the subject, and either ignore or boot the morons.

for sexual selection, there was a good review article published just a couple of years back in TREE:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4JMM5HV-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dba0ce56f74a3924b975d80f60f0bb5a

I know it requires a purchase if you don't have access to a library (or a subscription to TREE - which I would highly recommend), but if one is really interested in the subject, it's worth the effort and dollars to get and read the article.

which of course lets me put in yet another plug for open source journal efforts.

http://www.doaj.org/

and there are at least a few freely accessible worthwhile articles on the subject, too:

http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=searchArticles&q1=sexual+selection&f1=all&b1=and&q2=&f2=all

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Which lady?

Ichthyic said: To creationists, its all shinola. yeah, they do like to project, don't they? still, my point is that there is little reason to even waste time repeatedly refuting the "not even wrong" stuff. doing so just plays their game. all one need do in a forum like this is simply link to the correct information for those who actually wish to learn. honest questions coming from that are then worth answering, but we never see these from creationists.