Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
FYI Guys...
Darwin Revisited:
Females Don't Always Go for Hottest Mate
May 5, 2006; WSJ.com
At first glance, the "sexy son hypothesis" makes perfect sense. According to this pillar of evolutionary biology, a female who chooses a high-quality male will have sons who inherit dad's allure. They, too, will therefore have their pick of females, allowing mom to hit the jackpot: grandmotherhood.
But when scientists followed male flycatchers whose dads were real catches (as judged by a forehead patch that is this bird's equivalent of perfect abs), they found no such thing.
The sons "did not inherit their father's ... mating status," the Swedish researchers wrote in the February issue of American Naturalist. As a result, mom got fewer grandkids than did females who settled for less-attractive males. The studs were so busy mating they had no time to raise offspring, causing their health and fecundity to suffer. Homelier birds were better dads, raising sons who had more mating success.
Poor Darwin. After he developed his theory of how organisms change through variation and natural selection, his thoughts turned to sex. Because females have few eggs (compared with males' limitless sperm), their best strategy is to select the highest-quality males for mates, he wrote in 1871. That way, their progeny also would have superior traits. The offspring would survive and reproduce better, making mom's fondest wish -- to become a grandmother -- come true. (In evolution, success means reproduction, not only for you but for your descendants unto the nth generation, too.)
The theory of sexual selection -- that females choose males with the best genes, causing those genes to become more prevalent in succeeding generations -- is invoked to explain why peacocks have rococo tails and bucks have huge antlers. Neither trait has real survival value, but females choose males that have them, exerting selective pressure for ever-showier versions.
Or so textbooks say. Just as Darwin's theory of natural selection is under attack by America's religious right, his less-known theory of sexual selection is catching flak from some biologists. "In a number of species, reproductive behavior does not conform to Darwin's theory of sexual selection," says biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University. "The idea that females choose the genetically best males is wrong. Instead of choosing mates who will increase the genetic quality of their offspring, females make choices that will increase their number of offspring."
As in the flycatcher study, mating with "sexy" males isn't necessarily the way to a plethora of descendants. True, in species where males contribute nothing but genes to offspring, this strategy may work. But biologists are finding more and more examples where females benefit from a different strategy.
Female crickets mate with just about any male that asks, for instance. Through promiscuity, not choosing the "best" male, they increase the genetic diversity of their offspring, improving the chances that some will survive no matter what pathogens and enemies the kids encounter.
Other females are not as enamored of sexy traits as theory claims. While big-antlered red deer are busy fighting each other to show a female who has the best rack, the doe sneaks off to mate with less well-endowed stags. Female red-winged blackbirds are not easily impressed, either. Having the most macho plumage has no detectable effect on how many offspring a male sires, David Westneat of the University of Kentucky reported in American Naturalist this week.
Nor is flaunting their charms and competing against other males necessarily the best reproductive strategy, as Darwin thought. In some species, cooperation can bring greater success. Bluegill sunfish, for instance, form trios of one small female, one large territory-holding male and one small male that infiltrate that territory when the female releases her eggs. That lets the little scrawny guy, despite the lack of female-attracting heft, become a dad.
Such strategies, Prof. Roughgarden says, show that "each kind of male has its own way of going about its life. Each works out fine." As she and colleagues wrote in February in Science, "animals cooperate to rear the largest number of offspring possible."
Another problem with sexual selection is that it fails to explain the persistence of, shall we say, homely males. If females choose the male with the best traits, as claimed, then after enough generations every peacock should have a tail to die for. But they do not. Every flock has studs and duds. "Shouldn't all the tails be great?" asks Prof. Roughgarden.
Other scientists are not ready to jettison sexual selection, calling it (as biologist Jerry Coyne did in a review) "powerful and largely correct." But some aren't so sure. Primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (pronounced "herdy") calls it "ill-advised" to "give precedence to [females'] quests for supposedly the 'best' genes" when they choose a mate.
Mating can indeed be a competitive sport (see: spring break). But many traits that attract females have nothing to do with good genes. For mysterious reasons, females just developed an attraction for them. Men on a quest for perfect abs can take that as fair warning.
Females Don't Always Go for Hottest Mate
May 5, 2006; WSJ.com
At first glance, the "sexy son hypothesis" makes perfect sense. According to this pillar of evolutionary biology, a female who chooses a high-quality male will have sons who inherit dad's allure. They, too, will therefore have their pick of females, allowing mom to hit the jackpot: grandmotherhood.
But when scientists followed male flycatchers whose dads were real catches (as judged by a forehead patch that is this bird's equivalent of perfect abs), they found no such thing.
The sons "did not inherit their father's ... mating status," the Swedish researchers wrote in the February issue of American Naturalist. As a result, mom got fewer grandkids than did females who settled for less-attractive males. The studs were so busy mating they had no time to raise offspring, causing their health and fecundity to suffer. Homelier birds were better dads, raising sons who had more mating success.
Poor Darwin. After he developed his theory of how organisms change through variation and natural selection, his thoughts turned to sex. Because females have few eggs (compared with males' limitless sperm), their best strategy is to select the highest-quality males for mates, he wrote in 1871. That way, their progeny also would have superior traits. The offspring would survive and reproduce better, making mom's fondest wish -- to become a grandmother -- come true. (In evolution, success means reproduction, not only for you but for your descendants unto the nth generation, too.)
The theory of sexual selection -- that females choose males with the best genes, causing those genes to become more prevalent in succeeding generations -- is invoked to explain why peacocks have rococo tails and bucks have huge antlers. Neither trait has real survival value, but females choose males that have them, exerting selective pressure for ever-showier versions.
Or so textbooks say. Just as Darwin's theory of natural selection is under attack by America's religious right, his less-known theory of sexual selection is catching flak from some biologists. "In a number of species, reproductive behavior does not conform to Darwin's theory of sexual selection," says biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University. "The idea that females choose the genetically best males is wrong. Instead of choosing mates who will increase the genetic quality of their offspring, females make choices that will increase their number of offspring."
As in the flycatcher study, mating with "sexy" males isn't necessarily the way to a plethora of descendants. True, in species where males contribute nothing but genes to offspring, this strategy may work. But biologists are finding more and more examples where females benefit from a different strategy.
Female crickets mate with just about any male that asks, for instance. Through promiscuity, not choosing the "best" male, they increase the genetic diversity of their offspring, improving the chances that some will survive no matter what pathogens and enemies the kids encounter.
Other females are not as enamored of sexy traits as theory claims. While big-antlered red deer are busy fighting each other to show a female who has the best rack, the doe sneaks off to mate with less well-endowed stags. Female red-winged blackbirds are not easily impressed, either. Having the most macho plumage has no detectable effect on how many offspring a male sires, David Westneat of the University of Kentucky reported in American Naturalist this week.
Nor is flaunting their charms and competing against other males necessarily the best reproductive strategy, as Darwin thought. In some species, cooperation can bring greater success. Bluegill sunfish, for instance, form trios of one small female, one large territory-holding male and one small male that infiltrate that territory when the female releases her eggs. That lets the little scrawny guy, despite the lack of female-attracting heft, become a dad.
Such strategies, Prof. Roughgarden says, show that "each kind of male has its own way of going about its life. Each works out fine." As she and colleagues wrote in February in Science, "animals cooperate to rear the largest number of offspring possible."
Another problem with sexual selection is that it fails to explain the persistence of, shall we say, homely males. If females choose the male with the best traits, as claimed, then after enough generations every peacock should have a tail to die for. But they do not. Every flock has studs and duds. "Shouldn't all the tails be great?" asks Prof. Roughgarden.
Other scientists are not ready to jettison sexual selection, calling it (as biologist Jerry Coyne did in a review) "powerful and largely correct." But some aren't so sure. Primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (pronounced "herdy") calls it "ill-advised" to "give precedence to [females'] quests for supposedly the 'best' genes" when they choose a mate.
Mating can indeed be a competitive sport (see: spring break). But many traits that attract females have nothing to do with good genes. For mysterious reasons, females just developed an attraction for them. Men on a quest for perfect abs can take that as fair warning.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Current Events Quiz for March
1. Chief Executive Dick Kovacevich received a $7 million bonus for 2005 from which major U.S. bank?
Bank of America
Chase
Citicorp
Wells Fargo
2. What country did Rolling Stone magazine enter for the first time this month with a new edition?
Australia
China
India
Japan
3. AT&T’s planned acquisition of BellSouth comes with a pretty high price tag -- $67 billion, and according to AT&T’s chief financial officer, how many jobs?
None
7,500
10,000
15,000
4. What major airline has decided to take the gloves off and go wing-to-wing with low-cost Southwest Airlines on flights out of Love Field in Dallas?
American
Coninental
Delta
United
5. BlackBerry users are finally letting out a collective breath after Research In Motion Ltd., the maker of the handy little e-mail device, announced Friday it has settled its long-running patent dispute with NTP for $612.5 million. In what state is NTP based?
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Virginia
6. Toledo, Ohio-based supplier Dana Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection for its U.S. operations. In what business does Dana operate?
Auto parts
Bakery foods
Electronics
Steel
7. What was the best-selling new product of 2005?
Budweiser Select
Gillette M3Power razors
Slim-Fast’s Optima diet line
Tide with a touch of Downey
8. AK Steel Holding Corp. played hardball with workers after their contract ran out, operating a plant with salaried and replacement workers after locking out nearly 2,700 union employees. Where is the AK plant located?
Ashland, Ky.
Erie, Pa.
Middletown, Ohio
Rockport, Ind.
9. Starbucks has announced it will start buying coffee for its Blue Bourbon brand from which central African country?
Central African Republic
Chad
Rwanda
Zambia
10. What company recently announced it will spend $300 million to build a new plant in Vietnam?
GM
Intel
Kimberly-Clark
Nestlé
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11099319/
Bank of America
Chase
Citicorp
Wells Fargo
2. What country did Rolling Stone magazine enter for the first time this month with a new edition?
Australia
China
India
Japan
3. AT&T’s planned acquisition of BellSouth comes with a pretty high price tag -- $67 billion, and according to AT&T’s chief financial officer, how many jobs?
None
7,500
10,000
15,000
4. What major airline has decided to take the gloves off and go wing-to-wing with low-cost Southwest Airlines on flights out of Love Field in Dallas?
American
Coninental
Delta
United
5. BlackBerry users are finally letting out a collective breath after Research In Motion Ltd., the maker of the handy little e-mail device, announced Friday it has settled its long-running patent dispute with NTP for $612.5 million. In what state is NTP based?
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Virginia
6. Toledo, Ohio-based supplier Dana Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection for its U.S. operations. In what business does Dana operate?
Auto parts
Bakery foods
Electronics
Steel
7. What was the best-selling new product of 2005?
Budweiser Select
Gillette M3Power razors
Slim-Fast’s Optima diet line
Tide with a touch of Downey
8. AK Steel Holding Corp. played hardball with workers after their contract ran out, operating a plant with salaried and replacement workers after locking out nearly 2,700 union employees. Where is the AK plant located?
Ashland, Ky.
Erie, Pa.
Middletown, Ohio
Rockport, Ind.
9. Starbucks has announced it will start buying coffee for its Blue Bourbon brand from which central African country?
Central African Republic
Chad
Rwanda
Zambia
10. What company recently announced it will spend $300 million to build a new plant in Vietnam?
GM
Intel
Kimberly-Clark
Nestlé
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11099319/
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Why Reality TV shows sucks...
The Bachelor' Couple Say Romance Is Over
Humphrey Bogart said it to Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca" and now Dr. Travis Stork can say it to Sarah Stone: "We'll always have Paris."
Stork, an emergency room physician, chose Stone, an elementary school teacher, in the finale of ABC's "The Bachelor: Paris" last week.
The couple told The Tennessean in a joint interview Monday they are no longer a couple.
Stork, 33, said the rules that prohibited them from dating or being together in public between the end of the show's taping in November and the Feb. 27 finale were hard on their relationship.
The France-set "Bachelor" deployed 25 women to vie for Stork's affections during a series of glamorous dates. The season began in January.
"You're in Paris and you're part of this incredible experience, this fantasy world, and then suddenly you come back to Nashville, and living in the same city I think we thought was going to be a great thing," he said. "But instead, you're forced to pretend you don't know someone, for essentially the last four months.
"The reality is that we were in this fantasy world. And now that we're back in Nashville, over time when you're not allowed to see someone, you grow apart."
Stone, 26, said, "I definitely think it would've worked out differently" if she and Stork had met and dated under different circumstances.
"We wouldn't have had all the baggage that comes from being on this show. It would just be the two of us being able to hang out and get to know each other in a normal situation," she said.
Both said they remain single and unattached and that they had no regrets about doing the show.
"Through this time, we realized that it was a great experience in Paris and that we're so lucky to have met one another in Paris, and we'll never forget that," Stone said. "And we both agree and know that we'll be friends forever."
Asked if they might reconnect romantically after publicity has died down, both just laughed.
Humphrey Bogart said it to Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca" and now Dr. Travis Stork can say it to Sarah Stone: "We'll always have Paris."
Stork, an emergency room physician, chose Stone, an elementary school teacher, in the finale of ABC's "The Bachelor: Paris" last week.
The couple told The Tennessean in a joint interview Monday they are no longer a couple.
Stork, 33, said the rules that prohibited them from dating or being together in public between the end of the show's taping in November and the Feb. 27 finale were hard on their relationship.
The France-set "Bachelor" deployed 25 women to vie for Stork's affections during a series of glamorous dates. The season began in January.
"You're in Paris and you're part of this incredible experience, this fantasy world, and then suddenly you come back to Nashville, and living in the same city I think we thought was going to be a great thing," he said. "But instead, you're forced to pretend you don't know someone, for essentially the last four months.
"The reality is that we were in this fantasy world. And now that we're back in Nashville, over time when you're not allowed to see someone, you grow apart."
Stone, 26, said, "I definitely think it would've worked out differently" if she and Stork had met and dated under different circumstances.
"We wouldn't have had all the baggage that comes from being on this show. It would just be the two of us being able to hang out and get to know each other in a normal situation," she said.
Both said they remain single and unattached and that they had no regrets about doing the show.
"Through this time, we realized that it was a great experience in Paris and that we're so lucky to have met one another in Paris, and we'll never forget that," Stone said. "And we both agree and know that we'll be friends forever."
Asked if they might reconnect romantically after publicity has died down, both just laughed.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Comic of the Week
It is safe to say that a) US are scared of Arab people or b) Americans are better authorites at the ports than Arab people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
