[skywhopper]

Fair enough. I guess I should have said the the text of the article uses an outdated, narrow, and confusing definition of natural selection, which is a great way to sow uncertainty and doubt about how evolution works.

Sexual selection definitely produces some interesting effects, but it's still a form of natural selection. This article portrays it as the opposite. I think it's far easier to understand the outcomes of sexual selection if you realize that reproductive success is the only thing that matters. And the factors that influence reproductive success vary widely. It's important to not get eaten, die of disease, starve to death, or die young. But for organisms that reproduce sexually, it's even more important to be able to find a mate. An organism that lives twice as long but reproduces just once is far less successful than an organism that lives half as long but reproduces twenty times. The whole idea that sexual selection is somehow at odds with natural selection instead of just being one of many selection pressures, is deeply confused.

[mirimir]

> The whole idea that sexual selection is somehow at odds with natural selection instead of just being one of many selection pressures, is deeply confused.

Well, sexual selection is distinguishable, because it's not about the environment or other species, but about interactions between sexes. I mean, consider ducks. How does the penis-vagina arms race have any relevance to overall fitness? Indeed, it seems more like a bug in the sexual reproduction app.

But on the other hand, human consciousness and language are arguably products of sexual selection. And they have increased fitness. So maybe it's most useful to consider sexual selection as just another source of variation, grist for the mill of natural selection overall.