[Marxism] Clitoris, orgasm and Darwinism

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  "Ian Angus" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


It is a common error to assume that everything that has evolved must,  by
Darwinian theory, have evolved to maximize the species' chances of
reproduction, survival etc. That simply isn't so, and the theory of
evolution by natural selection does not require it.

Many features have evolved for reasons not directly connected to
survival, often as side-effects of other changes.

Take sickle cell anemia. Obviously a genetic predisposition to a fatal
disease is not advantageous. But it happens as a side-effect of another
genetic adaptation that is beneficial -- resistance to malaria.

^^^^^
CB: The way you state this is not the best. Selective advantage must be
stated in _relative_ terms, relative to the environment and to the
"competing" traits . A given trait can be relatively advantageous in one
environment and disadvantageous in different environment. Just so with the
sickle cell trait.  Heterozygosity for sickle cell gene is advantgeous
relative to homozygous no-sickle cell gene in an environment that has
malaria bearing mosquitos. In an environment without such mosquitos ,
heterozygosity for sickle cell gene is _not_ advantageous ( See study by
Frank Livingstone on West Africa; no not that Dr. Livingstone).

Everybody is speculating in the case of these traits which arise tens of
thousands of years ago ( unlike heterozygous sickle cell gene)  The only
thing that is obviously advantageous for humans in just about all
environments from way back when is heightented sociality,  culture and
language.

The key prize is not "survival" but production of fertile offspring.
Survival is important indirectly in that it is necessary for the individual
to survive long enough to reproduce fertile offspring.

Your last paragraph is a good point , wellsaid, however, a good argument
against the necessity of a conscious, anthropomorphic being designing
species.

^^^^^

In the case of the clitoris, it seems possible that it evolved because
men and women are the same species -- the genetic shift that led to
orgasms in men did the same in women, as a side effect.

An even more obvious case of a useless feature is male nipples, which
(in most cases) have no sexual or other advantage at all. Men have them
because women have them, because we share most of our DNA. And since
they are not DIS-advantageous, natural selection doesn't work against
them.

Some features promote survival. Some are side-effects of features that
promote survival. Some are accidents that "just happened" but continued
because they are harmless.

What's more, some traits are actually harmful to a species --
eventually natural selection will eliminate them, but "eventually" can
be a very long time, much longer than our species has been here.

In short, Natural selection does not produce perfectly designed,
totally rationally-designed species, and no evolutionist thinks it
does. In fact, one very strong argument against "intelligent design" is
the fact that most species are badly designed -- not what an
intelligent designer what do, but exactly what one would expect from
selection of features produced by random genetic drift.

^^^^^^

CB: Well said. Good point against conscious, anthropomorphic design of
species.

^^^^^^^^

Ian Angus

--
Ian Angus
Socialist History Project
www.socialisthistory.ca



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism