Darwin’s theory is questioned
Implications regarding sex and gender are not only being questioned in the political and religious realms of society, but are being questioned in the world of science.
Darwin’s theory of sexual selection now faces an opposing perspective, created by ecologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University after studying homosexual and transgenderal tendencies in animals and plants.
Roughgarden’s revision to Darwin’s theory is called social selection, and suggests that humans are not the only organisms that use sex and gender for purposes other than reproducing. Though each theory shows evidence, neither have been proven.
“Sexual selection theory is now open to criticism on a logical basis,” said Aldo Compagnoni, a doctorate student studying wild land resources. “Darwin’s theory, that everyone held as an axiom, is probably criticizable from this other point of view.”
USU graduate students invited Roughgarden, who is one of the most well known theoretical ecologists today, to speak Wednesday evening and Thursday afternoon about her findings, said Lauren Ducas, a doctorate in plant physiological ecology.
Darwin’s theory of sexual selection states “males of almost all animals have stronger passions than females,” and that the female is usually more “coy.” Lastly, the theory states that females choose attractive males who are “vigorous and well armed.”
“It’s a reasonable hypothesis, no doubt about it,” Roughgarden said.
She said it isn’t entirely fair to criticize Darwin’s extensive work; however, the trail that dictates Roughgarden’s research has led back to repeated holes in his theories.
Assuming that the theory of social selection finds ample evidence, Ducas said: “There is low scientific literacy in evolutionary concepts in the U.S. The acceptance of evolution by natural selection is probably even more limited in the more conservative states, including Utah. Social selection could be seen as more controversial in conservative areas than sexual selection, but any concept from evolutionary biology is probably controversial to very conservative people.
“There are three categories of problems with Darwin’s theory,” Roughgarden said. “The first issue is whether or not distinction between males and females is clear, and the answer is no.”
About 95 percent of all species are composed of sexual organisms that produce different gamete sizes depending on their gender – males producing sperm and females producing eggs – and the sizes for each do not vary, Roughgarden said.
Flowers contain both male and female parts and clown fish switch gender roles as they age. Other species of fish can change gender roles in a brief period of time, she said.
“I think sex role reversal is one of the big problems – and the plot thickens,” Roughgarden said.
The second gap in Darwin’s theory is that male organisms do not all have the same personality traits. Roughgarden used the example of white collared and black collared birds who participate in Lek Mating, which has been observed by scientists as promiscuous. She said the female bird prefers mating with two males who react differently to the situation.
Third, scientists have observed homosexual mating amongst a variety of animals including lions, gorillas, birds, elephants and others, Roughgarden said. It is often neglected that animals may have friendships amongst each other, she said.
“This is not hostility,” Roughgarden said, referring to homosexual relationships between animals. “This whole concept of mating is quite beyond sexual selection.”
As far as females seeking males with the best genes, Roughgarden said her perspective can be viewed through the paradox of a lek.
“Hypothetically, imagine there was a genetic hierarchy,” she said. “You go to a bar and try to shack up with the guy with good genes.”
She said there is no way of knowing whether the male has genes that promise good health, intelligence and a number of other qualities.
“Social selection begins with the issue of what is the behavior all about in the first place,” Roughgarden said. “Darwin was wrong in interpreting that we only wanted to find a male for offspring.”
Compagnoni said at first he was skeptical of Roughgarden’s criticisms toward Darwin’s sexual selection theory, but realized after her lecture that her ideas were logically sound.
“Her theory, methods and criticisms against the typical Darwin theory are, I think, extremely exciting intellectually,” Compagnoni said. “Maybe she is wrong, but we don’t have a clear enough mind to say that. But, that is what science is all about.”
All of Roughgarden’s research and findings concerning her theory of social selection is contained in her book, “The Genial Gene: De-constructing Darwinian Selfishness.”
– catherine.meidell@aggiemail.usu.edu