Geoffrey MillerVerified account

IIRC, Fisher 1915 introduced both runaway and good genes theories, but JBS Haldane in the 30s hated both theories (for socialist reasons!), and sort of buried Fisher's best ideas. At least so I argued in Mating Mind.

The problem with runaway is that it is a violation of the logic of good genes.

A male with attractive traits gets laid, passes down genes for those same traits to males who will in turn get laid. Females get plenty of descendants because of their sexy sons. Sounds like pretty good genes to me. Then good ol' natural selection keeps things from goin too crazy

That is absolutely the answer if you accept a null hypothesis of arbitrary mate choice. It shouldn't simply be taken for granted that a trait is adaptive; it should be proven, & often the evidence in this realm is quite weak. 1/2

Natural selection will begin to override aesthetic evolution when a resultant decrease in survival exceeds whatever direct (male) and indirect (female) genetic benefits have accrued merely from males satisfying females' (arbitrary) aesthetic preferences 1/x

As to the video above, the *very first sentence* is "How can we distinguish when a trait is the product of adaptive evolution versus DRIFT?". We are not discussing genetic drift. It also seems dubious to claim that traits with the above criteria are *necessarily* adaptive. 2/x