Artikkeli: seksuaalivalinta vs. peliteoria?
Tälläinen uutinen sattui silmään:
Overthrowing Darwin's Number Two Theory, Researchers object to the theory of sexual selection and replace it with game theory.
Abstraktikin löytyy, mutta alkuperäiseen tietelliseen artikkeliin tarvitsee jo käyttöoikeudet.
Keskustelua aiheuttanut artikkeli: Roughgarden J, Oishi M, Akcay E. 2006. Reproductive social behavior: cooperative games to replace sexual selection. Science 311(5763):965-9
"To make an analogy with humans, the number of children a couple can raise to adulthood is more influenced by the income of the family rather than the genetic makeup," Akcay said. "We think that in most species, this is what is going on: Males and females choose each other for ecological benefits rather than superior genetic makeups."
Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago professor of ecology and evolution,"Joan E. Roughgarden is wrong. [Darwin's] theory is powerful and largely correct. Yes, there are nuances of behavior that require special explanation, or that we don't yet understand. But nobody, least of all Darwin, ever claimed that evolutionary biology is characterized by ironclad laws. Our field is not physics. Nevertheless, some generalizations, such as the pervasive competition of males for females, can be powerful and useful."
Robert Dorit, a biology professor at Smith College, said there are problems with sexual selection theory and that Roughgarden's paper will likely open an important dialogue. "The value of a new hypothesis is not really whether it's right or wrong, it's whether it's sort of stimulating and productive. She's sort of thrown down the gauntlet. She's not nibbling at the edges of established evolutionary theory. She's really targeting a pretty important component of the sort of neo-Darwinian argument"
En ole itse nähnyt alkuperäistä artikkelia, eikä siitä varmaan olisi minulle mitään hyötyäkään, mutta onko täällä jollain painavaa sanottavaa aiheesta?