Subject: [Tweeters] Bright Blue Tits Make Better Mothers (link)
Date: Dec 18 17:29:42 2007
From: ravenintherain - ccorax at blarg.net


Devorah Bennu wrote:
> Hello Tweeties,
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/12/sexual_selection_favors_bright.php
>
> So, in short, it appears that both the females and the
> males are selecting each other -- something I've often
> suspected in monochromatic species.
>
> Devorah
> GrrlScientist
> Central Park, NYC
>
Thanks for the link. That's an interesting article, though it left me
feeling a little distressed that they took away the nests from the poor
mothers; but, then, some research biologists do much, much worse all the
time. The article hit an area in which has puzzled me for quite a while
and has particularly come to the fore recently because I am in the midst
of reading David Sibley's Guide to Bird Life and Behavior.

The authors of some of the sections talk about birds, especially male
birds, selecting mates in order to get their genetic material into the
gene pool and, by implication, improve said pool. This seems to me to
be pretty anthropomorphic thinking and not to reflect the reality of
either birds or humans. It reminds me of a joke that has been making
the rounds, which in itself seems to be a confabulation of the Parables
of the Talents and The Wise Virgins. In curtailed form it goes as
follows: a wealthy man has three possibilities for marriage and wants to
pick the right woman, so he gives each of them $10,000 to see what they
will do with it. Each of them uses the money to do something nice for
the man. So which one does he choose? The one with the largest breasts.

Does selecting for large breasts mean the man is selecting to strengthen
mothering and the gene pool? Maybe, but it's at least as likely that
he's trying to get back to his mother, or he wants a "trophy wife," or a
number of other possibilities. The only thing we can say for sure is
that he is what is commonly called a "breast guy." It seems to me that
the only thing that we can say about the male blue-tits is that they are
"blue guys." They like blue, the brighter and more intense the better.
The fact that healthier broods may emerge from brighter blue mating
might indicate good genetic choice or it might indicate that bluer is
better taken care of than less blue, in the way that humans who are
deemed beautiful by their group are better taken care of than those
deemed homely or ugly.

I'm not bringing any of this up to gainsay the research reported in the
article, but to suggest that we all curtail our anthropomorphism in
talking about birds. We might say that the consequences of male
blue-tits selecting for blue means that they get a healthier mate, but
it was not a conscious choice for genetic superiority but for blueness,
just as we don't know why the guy in the joke selected for big breasts.
My resistance to anthropomorphism, aside from its lameness in scientific
discourse, is that it opens the door to what I consider the fallacy of
"creative intelligence." The "creative intelligence" enthusiast will
say that there is an intelligence guiding the blue-tit's choice toward
improving the species and fostering the development of the universe.
Maybe so, but I doubt it. Every genetic choice that goes unchecked in
the long run, ends up on the dustbin of genetic extremism or as "cattle."

So far as I can see, blue-tits are blue because they're blue because
they're blue because they're blue, as we are all here because we're here
because we're here etc.

If you got this far, thanks for reading.

Dale

--
Dale Chase
(AKA ravenintherain)
Seattle, Washington
ccorax at blarg.net