Posted on 11/30/2016 7:28:24 PM PST by JimSEA
Why do some animals have extravagant, showy ornaments -- think elk and deer antlers, peacock feathers and horns on dung beetles -- that can be a liability to survival? Charles Darwin couldn't figure it out, but now a Northwestern University research team has a possible explanation for this puzzling phenomenon of evolution.
The researchers developed a mathematical model that made a surprising prediction: In animals with ornamentation, males will evolve out of the tension between natural selection and sexual selection into two distinct subspecies, one with flashy, "costly" ornaments for attracting mates and one with subdued, "low-cost" ornaments.
"Ornamentation does persist in nature, and our quantitative model reveals that a species can split into two subspecies as a result of the ornamentation battle that occurs over time," said Daniel M. Abrams, an associate professor of engineering sciences and applied mathematics in the McCormick School of Engineering.
Evidence from nature agrees. The researchers studied available data on animal ornaments, such as deer antlers, peacock feathers, brightness of certain fish and tail length of some birds, from 15 species. They found the same distribution pattern of ornament sizes across many of the species: The animals often split into the two subgroups predicted by the model, one showy and one subdued, with very few in the middle.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
They are going to have a hard time explaining the cold crunch that is on the way using man made theory.
Wow! A mathematical model that “proves” Darwinism? What will they think of next? A mathematical model that “proves” anthropocentric global warming if atmospheric CO2 increases?
Do they have a model yet that “proves” that the laptop PC and Internet will evolve from crushed up Windows OS CDs and crushed up PC and router parts mixed with seawater and blasted with lightening for hundreds of millions of years?
You’ll doubtless recall that the models of gravity, light and radiation that Einstein and others discovered and which have proven explanatory are mathematical. In fact the atomic bomb was a result of math based models that described facts.
Of course, I’m sure you know that mathematical models did lead to the internet and electronics you ridicule. Models that work are behind all of this. Don’t be so afraid of math that you have to ridicule it. Or perhaps the Japanese faked the bomb.
Cassowary’s are the most dangerous bird in the world.
I learned that from the Far Cry 3 video game.
:)
For the peacock, there is an evolutionary explanation. The male plays no role in raising the chicks. He is only there to supply sperm. As such, the flock only needs one exceptional male.
To have survived with such an ungainly tail, he had to be exceptionally strong, fast, and disease-resistant. Those genes will be passed along to his daughter chicks. The pea hen is looking for the male who will give her the most-fit daughters.
And then we have The Mummers.
It is explained by the decline in solar activity since 2000, cessation of sun spots.
We know that two parent opposite sex families have better life outcomes regardless of race or income. That’s why married two parent black families have poverty rates of 9% while single white women is 22%, and the child is 3-4 times more likely to drop out of school, flunk a grade, become an addict or homeless or mentally ill when there is no father in the home regardless of race or income. The odds of bad outcomes just go up when there is no married grandfather or uncle to provide some stable and constant male role modeling and discipline.
The so called racial disparities in crime and other poor life outcomes are in marriage rates, not racism. Whites didn’t make blacks go from 25% illegitimacy rates in the 1950s to 75% now. But Democrat social policies encouraged it, which is why for poor white women, half the babies are illegitimate now, too.
For starters:
1. The facts you mention are not associated with a high level of emotional investment in the way religious beliefs are (religions such as Christianity or Darwinism). That is, there’s a category difference between factual belief and heartfelt belief.
2. Natural selection is made into more than just a mechanism—it’s treated (often without the evolutionist fully realizing it on a conscious level) as though it has agency.
So, according to your theory, ANY and ALL mathematical models are correct, you know, BECAUSE they are mathematical models? No possibility whatsoever of a “climate change” model or some BS Darwin model being wrong because the assumptions built into the model are wrong?
Oh, and I’m quite familiar with mathematical models by the way: i’ve helped code some of them, so i have to say, your snotty nastiness was good for a chuckle this morning.
No. math is a language. It can obviously be right or wrong. Specifically, in these cases a modeling language. If you write nonsense I’m math you get nonsense. Same as the English you are using to spout crap right now. I was polite. But if you code then you are being a jerk because we are not in the same room. As I’ve often said, if you don’t want me to post here, take up your case with Jim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.