5.

Sexual Selection

How does it work

Darwin brought in the concept of sexual selection, in which one
sex’s preference in selecting the mate determines the evolution.
Usually it is the male who competes for the attention of the
females. This process has profound effect in molding the male
appearance and behavior as well as the male-female divergence.
Though the phenomenon is noticed in very diverse classes of
animals, birds perhaps provide the most spectacular examples.
Sometimes it is just the way the male bird sings which attracts the
female, as in cuckoo. Or it is a particular embellishment like the tail
of the peacock that does the same. To begin with, some female
birds preferred this trait in their male partner selection. With
generations, this process got more pronounced because in the
successive generations male’s more pronounced trait got preferred
while the female’s bias toward this pronounced trait also got
magnified. The gene creating the pronouncement of the trait in the
male are transmitted to his sons and daughters. Though this will be
realized in the sons, the daughters too will carry this for their sons.
Similarly the gene for the bias towards the trait in the female also is
transmitted to her sons and daughters. Though this will be realized
in the daughters, the sons too will carry this for their daughters.
Gradually those who prefer the trait will increase in number and
they will have more mates they prefer.

Let us look at a particular case in some details, and ask the

question why the peacock has developed such an exotically
embellished tail. In the beginning there was a peahen in which a
mutated gene caused her to prefer a peacock with slightly
embellished tail as its mate. In the local population of the peacocks
there would be variations in the tail adornment. One of these could
serve as an answer to the preference of our peahen. The children of
this mated pair inherited the gene of their mother to prefer a male
mate with embellished tail. As we can assume that such a gene will
be expressed only in the females, the daughters were attracted to
the similar embellishment in their mates when their turn came. The
sons, though they themselves had nothing to do with such desire,
carried the gene all the same. Thus both the daughters and the
sons transmitted the gene to their children. These children will
receive the gene both from their mother and father, because it is
more likely that their father is a son of a similar pair (or at least a
mother). Thus their attraction to embellished tail will be reinforced.
If we now use the same arguments for the gene to have such an
embellished tail in case of a peacock, the gene will be inherited in
the next generation both from the father and mother, and the son 1
The whole thing causes a runway process which almost gets out of
hand resulting in such exceptional endowment as that in peacock and
many others – in in other birds and other animals. Richard Dawkins in
his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ ascribed this to the correlation
between the two traits – one of preferring the long adorned tail and
the other to have such a tail. Females who prefer long-tailed males
tend to have mothers that chased long-tailed fathers. As a result they
carry both sets of genes in their bodies. In this way the genes of long
tails and the preference for long tails become linked. The degree of
preference for long tails and the tail length itself may therefore
become correlated, tending to increase together. The more the tail
lengthens the more long tail is desired. Any slight initial imbalance
between preferences and tails may set off an explosion in tail length.
Such a runway process may ultimately be stabilized by practical
reasons such as impediments in mobility, vulnerability to predators
etc.
How come a whole species can be characterized by these traits? This
happens because members of these species which never had these
mutated genes for preferring long tail or having abnormally long tail,
did not join the process at all. Those members who did join in the
runway process over generations would not normally mate with those
who did not. Eventually there will be a mismatch between the sperm
cell and egg cells of these two groups and the long-tailed group would
become a separate species altogether.

The wider field of sexual selection

Female mating preferences are widely recognized as being
responsible for the rapid and divergent evolution of exceptional traits
in male, like the ones mentioned above in case of birds. Most of these
are ornamental – exaggerated external body features. For example,
other such adornments are impressive horns of some animals;
massive, often many branched antlers of elks, stags (male deer) etc;
manes of male lions; etc. Even Giraffe’s long neck is now thought to
be one such sexually selected adornment that was selected by
females in males, but in this case because of the correlation female
themselves developed long necks too. Behind the preferences some
secondary reasons too may have acted blindly genetically. Thus
horns, antler, even the long neck of giraffe etc. improved the fighting
ability of the males against competitors in mating, a proof of strength
which the females would like to have in their progeny. Similarly
modern research has shown that some ornamental characteristics
such as bright colors in plumage and other adornments, impressive
antlers etc. may show better health, disease resistance, a more
efficient metabolism – features that would benefit the progeny of the 2
female.
Why are the birds more prolific candidates for sexual selection – many
species of birds having those magnificent colorful plumages, tails,
head gears and other embellishments. Inter-sexual selection of which
we are talking here can be an alternative to intra-sexual selection,
meaning competition and fighting among the males over having
access to females. Perhaps because of the light body structure fights
between male birds may be ineffective and impracticable. Instead, the
females here do the selection inter-sexually, and adopt a variety of
strategies for that. These include i) colorful embellishments about
which we have already discussed. ii) Songs of male bird to attract the
females. As a secondary purpose the song also provide an important
way to protect territory for the male bird announcing to all potential
male competitors not to dare into its territory. iii) Some male birds
make exquisite nests and show this off to the females trying to
impress them iv) Some male birds perform complicated and
spectacular courtship dances in front of the female, often also
displaying the bright plumages created by sexual selection. All such
strategies might have been evolved through sexual selection.
We have seen the consequences of the runway effects of the sexual
selection. The same can create monstrously absurd features that, in
harder times, may help cause a species’ extinction as has been
suggested as the reason for the extinction of Irish Elk with an over-
sized antler.

Survival vs reproduction
More recent trends in evolution theory recognizes that the theory
must deal with other aspects of fitness besides simple adaptation for
survival, in particular with the complexities of animal behavior. As a
result Darwin’s own idea of sexual selection, which remained
neglected till 1950s, has become important since then. The more
current view emphasizes not survival but reproduction, the successful
transfer of genes to the next generation. As survival seems essential
to reproduction, the two processes are complementary rather than
antagonistic. But to the current researchers of evolution the
reproductive competition leads to more interesting questions than the
survival issue.
The flamboyant colors and displays of birds like peacock are bound to
attract predators and endanger the survival of the male bird. Yet the
advantage of attracting the female seem to outweigh the adaptive
disadvantage.
The other form of sexual selection the intra-sexual are among the
males through fighting to get access to the females, also present a
puzzle. Often it seems that the apparent advantages of all-out
aggression are not manifested in the actual behavior shown. The
relentlessly fighting male may not be the one spreading the most 3
genes after all. John Maynard Smith (1982) tried to trackle the
decision-makers. This shows how the sexual dividends of fighting
differs in different circumstances. In a population of ‘doves’ who avoid
combat, a single ‘hawk’ who fights at every opportunity terrorizing the
population, will be at a sexual advantage; and hawk genes will
increase in frequency. But in a population of hawks, a single dove may
be at an advantage, because the hawks are too busy fighting to
reproduce successfully. The dove gene will then increase in frequency.
Thus there will be an “evolutionary stable strategy” for the species in
which a balance of hawks and doves is maintained. In such cases
selection does not promote purely aggressive instincts, but works to
maintain a balance of different characters in the population.

Dimorphism through sexual selection

Though in theory sexual selection can be made by either sex in the
animal world, it is mostly the females who select their sexual mate.
One reason that is given is that if the certainty of transmitting one’s
genes is the driving factor in evolution, the females are in a more
certain state. They ‘know’ for sure that the children on whom they are
investing a lot, are carrying their own genes. Males would offset the
relative uncertainty about the propagation of their genes, by being
willing to mate more than the females choose to do. This is why males
have to entice the females and compete, more than the other way
round; and the females are in a better position to select.
Sex differences directly related to reproduction are called primary
sexual characteristics. Traits which are not so directly related but are
amenable to sexual selection by the opposite sex and gives an
advantage over its rival (such as in courtship) are called secondary
sexual characteristics. These could be size difference, exotic horns,
antlers, manes, color, plumages, tail, neck etc. The peacock’s
exquisitely patterned long tail is a familiar example. Similarly even an
insect can also display such secondary sexual characteristics. The
ferocious horns sported by the male Rhinoceros Beetle is a classic
example given by Darwin in his book. Most of these represent a
difference of external characteristics between males and females of a
species, and is called sexual dimorphism.
The size dimorphism has always been quite common in animal, the
males usually being much bigger. It is believed that sexual selection
both inter-sexual and intra-sexual has to do a lot about it. But the size
dimorphism in other direction is also known. The shell dwelling cichlid
fish has the greatest dimorphism of the former kind – the males being
up to 30 times bigger than the female. The opposite extreme is seen
in spiders where females much larger the males are common.

4
Sexual selection in human
While we notice so many instances in the animal world where many
traits can be regarded as secondary sexual characteristics selected
through sexual selection over evolutionary generations, what would we
say about such changes in human. Men being a part of the evolution of
life, the idea is inescapable.
Darwin conjectured that the male beard, as well as the relative
hairlessness of human compared to nearly all mammals, have been the
results of sexual selection. There are, however, alternative theories too
for explaining the hairlessness. Darwin reasoned the relatively more
hairlessness of female body is due to selection by males at a remote
time in the past when the males had overwhelming selection power.
But nonetheless it affected the males too due to genetic correlation
between the two sexes.

Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionist today, has hypothised that

many of the human activities which we place in the culture and
civilization actually have some genetic origin too. But these are not
tied to survival benefits; rather these are adaptations that have been
favored through sexual selection. These include humor, music, visual
art, verbal creativity etc. The hypothesis regards these as essentially
courtship adaptations. Recently a research involving 10,000 people in
37 cultures from six continents showed that women tend to rank the
desired traits in their partners in the order: kindness, intelligence, self-
confidence, accomplishments, reputation, health, vigor, reliability and
handsomeness. Men ranked the traits they desire in their partner in
two stages; physical beauty and bodily secondary sexual
characteristics in the first stage; and then roughly the similar trait as
the women do in the second stage; and ultimately they consider both
sets together. Many human artifacts such as clothing could be
considered as subject to sexual selection. Thus while in other animals
secondary sexual characteristics are confined to external bodily
embellishments, songs and dances, and facilitations such as nest
building, according to Miller and others these extend to abilities in art
and culture in the case of human. Also Homo sapiens have a rather
rare arrangement in which both sexes must compete for partners and
both in turn must choose. The trait-runway of sexual selection here is
in an unusual two-way mode.

The new idea of Miller and others argues that perhaps the greatest
such exaggeration of all, the powerful outsize human brain, is the most
prominent runway produced by sexual selection. This is why man and
women overshot the mental capacity they needed to be competent
hunter-gatherers. In the runway sexual selection the change ever
accelerated to produce brains capable of creating mathematics, 5
spacecraft design and fabulous music compositions. Without sexual
brain evolved further in human for language capability. Human, on
average, know many more words than necessary for communication.
Miller (2000) has proposed that this redundancy is due to individuals
using vocabulary to demonstrate their intelligence and competence to
their mates. Experiments have proved that male do make more use of
low frequency words (more unusual) when in a courting mindset,
meaning that the greater vocabulary is used as a sexual display and
was originally evolved for this purpose (Rosenberg and Tunney 2008).
Of course the greater vocabulary, an achievement of the more
powerful brain, went on to be used in greater overall language and
literature creativity by both men and women. Another hypothesis
suggested recently is that one likely candidate trait in women to have
a runway potential to be selected by men is the neotony (child-like
appearance and personality). One reason was to retain into adulthood
the child-like, flexible brain crucial for the acquisition of language, and
learning skills related with language. It is reasonable to suggest that
the trend became a focus of sexual selection taken in further in one
sex under strong selection from the other. Another reason for selecting
neotony is to have a partner with protective and nurturing impulses (as
to the children). A child-like face causes such an involuntary response
in adults. One would therefore like to have such neotony in one’s
children so that they can attract protective and nurturing partner in
their adulthood. Therefore, the sexual selection is toward propagating
the gene for neotony.

Q. What do you mean by the runway change by sexual selection? Why

is it reinforced more and more in successive generations?

Q. The sexual dimorphism of size has been quite common in the apes;
and their known common ancestors, including ancestors of men, also
had this characteristics quite a lot. Why has this size dimorphism all
but vanished in human beings?

. With human the strength and success in the male part of the family
group no longer depended on the body size, but rather on the skills,
weapons, tools, etc. With the standing posture of the early hominids,
and the release of hand for doing things and carrying children, male
too were taking part in the child rearing, while the females were taking
part in food gathering and processing – providing for the family. The
usefulness of the size diphormism was too drastically reduced to be
selected by women. Moreover, the sexual selection was no longer a
monopoly of the females.

Q. For describing sexual selection we often say that the female selects
or chooses the male with the focused trait for strength, disease
resistance etc. Does she really do the choosing consciously by 6
A. No, genetics does not work that way. We use the word ‘select’ in our
language as if it was a considered choice. But in reality it is by an
impulse embedded within the DNA, as a gene for liking a certain trait.
The selectors inherited the gene from their ancestors and does not
have much control over it. This makes them instinctly to make the
choice. The situation is somewhat different when it comes to human,
because though the genes are still a big influence on their choices,
those are not the only factors involved. Much depends on their culture,
education, upbringing and free will – things which we call our nurture.

Q. A description of how the sexual selection takes place and gets

enhanced generation after generation for the long tails of peacock has
been described above. Can you describe in the same way the
hypothesis that abilities in music, humor, visual art etc. in human, have
been evolved through sexual selection.

Hints. Assumptions are that in the remote past at the dawn of human
civilization, or even much before that, males and females within human
groups could mix together and work together and could choose their
mates. Among the various variations in the individuals of the group
some members had more innate abilities in humor, music etc. or some
form of precursor of those qualities. It so happened that some
members also had a particular liking for these qualities in their
potential sexual mates – again an innate tendency created by some
mutation in the genes.

Q. What will happen if a man decides to marry a partner only with a

strong liking of European modern fashions. Will this give rise to a
sexually selected preponderance of European fashion-loving women
soon? Why?

A. It may start a preponderance if friends of the person concerned are

so influenced by the choice, that a whole trend is set up to marry
partners with such speciality. But that will be a cultural influence, not a
genetic one. There is actually no chance of creating a sexual selection
on this in the evolutionary sense. Evolution becomes significant over a
time of at least tens of thousand of years, not a few years to keep pace
with a particular modern fashion. In fact, it is believed by a great many
biologists that almost all our genetical shaping took place in our
hunter-gathers ancestors in the past.