Talk:The Ant and the Peacock

Isn't there an alternative theory which holds that altruism evolved because organisms evolve in groups, not in isolation with only their genes? 05:31, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Anti-radfem rant at the end
This could use cleaning up. While I'm all for poking fun at radfems who don't understand that their argumentum ad consequentum against evo psych is crazy, the last few paragraphs seem really rambling and off topic, bordering on a take-that. If we're poking fun at anti- evolutionist radfems who feel like reality is stepping on their toes, let's at least give better context and such. IDK, just seems low quality, bordering on vindictive.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.210.147.51 / talk / contribs

Peacock part 2
Given that other animals use display/creating a more visually impressive form to scare off predators or startle them enough to allow escape time could this not also apply to the peacock? 109.150.11.166 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not impossible, though you have to agree that the males and the females stand an equal risk of predation, and the females have failed to evolve any such extravagance. Thus, I think it likely that the feather displays have evolved to give a mating advantage, rather than a mimicry advantage. But what do I know? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily an either/or - can be an accidental benefit. 109.150.11.166 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are many possible evolutionary explanations for the tails (I take care not to say "reasons", as that would be teleological). From what I understand however, they are a so-called primary sexual characteristic (e.g. like beards are in humans), and further, the feather displays are involved in partner selection and mating rituals. So whatever their "ultimate" "purpose" (two terrible word choices), we atleast know they have a sexual function. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)