Talk:Sexual selection

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon evolution.svg

This Evolution related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


'natural selection acts on traits which increase fitness, whereas sexual selection favors any adaptation which enhances mating success, or the number of copulations.'

Nonsense.. when one considers that the definition of increased 'fitness' actually means success in mating. So natural selection is equal to sexual selection. Tautology rules ok eh? Dirk Steele (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User removed the picture of the naked woman with the snarky comment implying the even a creationist would succumb to sexual attraction. She said that the pic wasn't necessary. NONE of the snark on RW is necessary. But it's funny and makes a point by being funny. If the picture of the naked woman wer completely out of context on a page about, say, teleportation, I would agree that it served no purpose. But it does here. And snark is just part of what we do. Indy (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

aside from the image and caption having nothing to do with the topic of the article, you are a twat. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
This image is NSFW and should somehow be marked as such I think. But aside from that, I don't quite understand how the picture of the naked lady highlights the idea of creationists being attracted to "new" phenotypes that are not already established in humans - what am I missing? -Yisfidri (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The image was originally marked as such, but when LGM deleted the image/file, she deleted the category assignment as well, so when the image got put back it wasn't there. I re-marked it. The idea is that whiteness, according to AIG's argument, should itself be considered a new phenotype, and therefore should be highly unattractive. The naked lady is used to parody that.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
If you have to explain the joke and also the joke risks being NSFW, it's just not a particularly good joke or a picture. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It was labeled as such, and at least one other user also thought it was funny.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean some people find strike-out funny, doesn't justify pointless (and this case, it's NSFW, there are people out there that rather not want to view it!) use of it in of itself. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
There are settings, detailed in our images help page, that allow people to see NSFW images. Otherwise, those images are filtered by default (see Help:Images) . Therefore, NSFW images are an opt-in proposition and basically nobody is going to view these images without trying to do so.Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. I don't think it's worth the hassle for a sake of a forced joke but if you insist then. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The article is written from a mostly academic perspective and I have seen people debating creationists use it as a reference. You ruin the article by citing that unneeded image. This is Not ED or a low-brow Wiki. People use these articles for a real purpose in learning about this topic. Using images like that destroys decent articles like this. Please do not re-add it. John66 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
On a side note the lady was unattractive. John66 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

We here have an SPOV which includes snarky. There is absolutely nothing that precludes different sections of an image from having different tones. We are not an encyclopedia and should not be treated as one.Summa Atheologica (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)