Evolution in Species of Harem-Forming Seals

Harpyja · 31st May 2010, 01:35 PM

I was reading Dawkin's Unweaving The Rainbow when I came across this.

Quote:

To the extent that the genes of a species have regular and recurring experience of subordinate bodies, we can expect to witness conditional strategies for 'making the best of a bad job.' In those species in which males pugnaciously defend large harems, we sometimes notice subordinate males employing alternative, 'sneaky' strategies. ... But for such an alternative male strategy to have been favored by natural selection, there must be at least a significant trickle of genes that have sneaked down the generations via stolen copulations. In our 'diary of a gene' language, then, at least some genes record subordinate males in their ancestral experience.

Earlier on he states that some 90 percent of copulations involve only 10 percent of males. So, what about the remaining 90 percent of males, which have to compete for a mere 10 percent of the "total copulation?" Wouldn't natural selection favor males capable of sneaking past the harem guards? After all, I'd imagine the costs of maintaining a harem to be high, well worth defending to the death - and there's still no guarantee that the pups are definitely going to be his.

MRC_Hans · 31st May 2010, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Harpyja

I was reading Dawkin's Unweaving The Rainbow when I came across this.

Earlier on he states that some 90 percent of copulations involve only 10 percent of males. So, what about the remaining 90 percent of males, which have to compete for a mere 10 percent of the "total copulation?" Wouldn't natural selection favor males capable of sneaking past the harem guards? After all, I'd imagine the costs of maintaining a harem to be high, well worth defending to the death - and there's still no guarantee that the pups are definitely going to be his.

Well, actually, many harem holding males divide their time more or less equally between eating and holding off competition. Sleeping comes third, and actual copulation only fourth.

Yes, it is quite costly, which is probably the reason not all species are harem-holding, and no species ever evolved a seriously skewed male/femal ration in birth.

Hans

calibos · 31st May 2010, 04:21 PM

The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies, the irony being that while the big bull sits back to enjoy what he thinks is a lesbien show, is in fact him being usurped by a metrosexual seal?

Wowbagger · 31st May 2010, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by calibos

The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies, the irony being that while the big bull sits back to enjoy what he thinks is a lesbien show, is in fact him being usurped by a metrosexual seal?

I once saw, on television, some species of jellyfish, or something, that did that. I don't remember what the species was. But, at least this sort of thing does happen, every now and then.

Harpyja · 31st May 2010, 05:59 PM

Well, you learn something new every day.

@calibos: Well, there would have been the possibly that the bull male would try to mate with said metro-seal. That would be a sight for sore eyes.

Wowbagger · 31st May 2010, 07:39 PM

I found the reference to what I was refering to, earlier:

It was actually an Australian giant cuttlefish. The mating behavior I described was featured in an episode of Life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(B...of_the_Deep.22

Uncayimmy · 1st June 2010, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Yes, it is quite costly, which is probably the reason not all species are harem-holding, and no species ever evolved a seriously skewed male/femal ration in birth.

What about ants, bees and alligators?

Harpyja · 1st June 2010, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

What about ants, bees and alligators?

Well, ants and bees don't quite hold a harem. Female seals don't seem to care either way which male rules the roost. And although male alligators do fight over females, I don't see any mention of them holding a harem. All three species mentioned have skewed male to the female ratios.

Alligators:

Quote:

The sex of the offspring is determined by the temperature in the nest and is fixed within 7 to 21 days of the start of incubation. Incubation temperatures of 86 °F (30 °C) or lower produce a clutch of females; those of 93 °F (34 °C) or higher produce entirely males. Nests constructed on leaves are hotter than those constructed on wet marsh and, thus, the former tend to produce males and the latter, females. The natural sex ratio at hatching is five females to one male.

Mark6 · 1st June 2010, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by calibos

The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies

I don't have the book handy, but "Dr. Tatyana's sex guide to all creation" describes a number of harem-holding species -- fish, mantis shrimp, and possibly some others, -- which have specialized "fem-form" males which do exactly that.

Harpyja · 1st June 2010, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

I don't have the book handy, but "Dr. Tatyana's sex guide to all creation" describes a number of harem-holding species -- fish, mantis shrimp, and possibly some others, -- which have specialized "fem-form" males which do exactly that.

I should pick up the book today. Thank you. Although, since I use my father's library card, that will require a bit of explaining.

Uncayimmy · 1st June 2010, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Harpyja

Well, ants and bees don't quite hold a harem. Female seals don't seem to care either way which male rules the roost. And although male alligators do fight over females, I don't see any mention of them holding a harem. All three species mentioned have skewed male to the female ratios.

Alligators:

I was referring to the second part of his statement, "no species ever evolved a seriously skewed male/femal ration in birth."

MRC_Hans · 1st June 2010, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by calibos

The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies, the irony being that while the big bull sits back to enjoy what he thinks is a lesbien show, is in fact him being usurped by a metrosexual seal?

Well, you seem to forget the females. There is another thread where it is discussed how young women often enjoy the company of elderly (and homosexual) men (I can attest to the former), but human sexuality is about much else besides reproduction. Animal females, otoh, are generally interested in mating with the male with the best reproduction success, which is, in the case of harem-forming animals, exactly the alpha male. Some female-smelling, female-looking male will not have a snowball's chance in hell with the females, even if he sneaks by the alpha-male.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 1st June 2010, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

What about ants, bees and alligators?

Ants and bees have a roughly equal ratio of active males and females, but the workers are biolgical females. I don't know about allogators, but the OP was about seals, so I was sort of assuming we were in the realm of mammals. I think when it comes to lizards and fish (not to mention insects), bets are partially off, because their sex is often determined by other things than chromosomes. I know some fish are able to change sex even when adult.

Hans

Uncayimmy · 1st June 2010, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Ants and bees have a roughly equal ratio of active males and females, but the workers are biolgical females.

What do you mean by active? Don't some of them have colonies that are either male or female oriented?

Quote:

I don't know about allogators, but the OP was about seals, so I was sort of assuming we were in the realm of mammals. I think when it comes to lizards and fish (not to mention insects), bets are partially off, because their sex is often determined by other things than chromosomes. I know some fish are able to change sex even when adult.

You referred to "no species" and evolution, which is why I asked. I didn't realize you were limited it to a genus or whatever.

Harpyja · 1st June 2010, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

What do you mean by active? Don't some of them have colonies that are either male or female oriented?

I think they meant sexually active. Which may or may not be true, that's just my impression.

MRC_Hans · 2nd June 2010, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

What do you mean by active? Don't some of them have colonies that are either male or female oriented?

Not to my knowledge, but I'm not a specialist. Most ant colonies insects have:

Queens, which are active females.
Females, which are also active, in that they mate. However only few (down to 1 per colony) achieve queen status.
Males, active, in that they mate.
Workers, which are normally biological females, but not sexually active.

Bees are a bit different because all females are born alike, but through special diat some become queens, while the rest become workers. All the males become drones which fly out to try to spread the genes of the colony and then perish.

Quote:

You referred to "no species" and evolution, which is why I asked. I didn't realize you were limited it to a genus or whatever.

No, but this is often the problem with discussions like this: It starts with a rather general question, and people tend to give general answers, - which then prove to have unexpected complexities. Since the OP really asked about seals, I suppose I should have restricted myself to .... seals.

Hans

quarky · 2nd June 2010, 08:08 AM

Some whale species have a very bizarre mating strategy. The males have to cooperate; some using their bodies as the bed that will keep the female from being pushed away as she is 'mounted'. The last male to mate her has the best 'shot' at reproduction, as the vast amounts of ejaculate actually force out the previous guy's spoodge.

Its very convoluted, by human standards. Imagine if something analogous happened at a singles bar!

ZirconBlue · 2nd June 2010, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by quarky

Its very convoluted, by human standards. Imagine if something analogous happened at a singles bar!

I don't have to imagine. I've seen that movie.

Bob Klase · 2nd June 2010, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by calibos

The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females

Mutations happen by random chance. Whether a mutation would be useful or how useful a mutation would be has no bearing on whether or not that mutation occurs.

Only after a mutation happens does natural selection take over and determine if the mutation is useful. So the answer to that question is really just 'because the mutation(s) necessary for that trait to evolve just haven't randomly happened yet and may never happen no matter how useful that trait might be.

You could just as easily ask why some species of rabbit haven't evolved the ability to fly- flying would certainly be useful to rabbits trying to escape their predators.

Uncayimmy · 2nd June 2010, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Not to my knowledge, but I'm not a specialist. Most ant colonies insects have:

Queens, which are active females.
Females, which are also active, in that they mate. However only few (down to 1 per colony) achieve queen status.
Males, active, in that they mate.
Workers, which are normally biological females, but not sexually active.

Bees are a bit different because all females are born alike, but through special diat some become queens, while the rest become workers. All the males become drones which fly out to try to spread the genes of the colony and then perish.

I'm no specialist either. This article refers to male and female dominated ant colonies and how switching queens can change it. I recalled hearing about it and found something to confirm my recollection. I have no point other than evolution sometimes takes interesting paths.

Quote:

No, but this is often the problem with discussions like this: It starts with a rather general question, and people tend to give general answers, - which then prove to have unexpected complexities. Since the OP really asked about seals, I suppose I should have restricted myself to .... seals.

It's no big deal. Sometimes these things lead to interesting asides.

Unlike a Bull · 2nd June 2010, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Harpyja

I was reading Dawkin's Unweaving The Rainbow when I came across this.

Earlier on he states that some 90 percent of copulations involve only 10 percent of males. So, what about the remaining 90 percent of males, which have to compete for a mere 10 percent of the "total copulation?" Wouldn't natural selection favor males capable of sneaking past the harem guards? After all, I'd imagine the costs of maintaining a harem to be high, well worth defending to the death - and there's still no guarantee that the pups are definitely going to be his.

I thought the non-harem having male tended to be a younger male that maybe didn't have a good job and lived in a crappy apartment. You know, the kind of male that copulates, but it's usually with younger females who don't know any better or else with older females who only want him for copulation but don't really want any strings or anything. But when the young male grows up and graduates college, gets a decent job and maybe a place that's not roach infested the females will realize he's not a total loser and he ends up with a harem of his own. Isn't that how these kinds of things work?

Harpyja · 2nd June 2010, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Unlike a Bull

I thought the non-harem having male tended to be a younger male that maybe didn't have a good job and lived in a crappy apartment. You know, the kind of male that copulates, but it's usually with younger females who don't know any better or else with older females who only want him for copulation but don't really want any strings or anything. But when the young male grows up and graduates college, gets a decent job and maybe a place that's not roach infested the females will realize he's not a total loser and he ends up with a harem of his own. Isn't that how these kinds of things work?

That answer was so good that I want the truth to be yes.

John Jones · 2nd June 2010, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I once saw, on television, some species of jellyfish, or something, that did that. I don't remember what the species was. But, at least this sort of thing does happen, every now and then.

Cuttlefish.

quarky · 3rd June 2010, 06:01 AM

Cuddle fish? That's disgusting.

nescafe · 3rd June 2010, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by quarky

Cuddle fish? That's disgusting.

Awww. Who wants four hugs?

quarky · 3rd June 2010, 09:13 AM

check out the amazing cuttle fish:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/science-...ripes-20129376

Wowbagger · 3rd June 2010, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by John Jones

Cuttlefish.

Yes, I made note of that in Post #6.

John Jones · 3rd June 2010, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Yes, I made note of that in Post #6.

D'oh!

31st May 2010, 01:35 PM	#1
Harpyja Irrepressible Buzzard Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 636	Evolution in Species of Harem-Forming Seals I was reading Dawkin's Unweaving The Rainbow when I came across this. Quote: To the extent that the genes of a species have regular and recurring experience of subordinate bodies, we can expect to witness conditional strategies for 'making the best of a bad job.' In those species in which males pugnaciously defend large harems, we sometimes notice subordinate males employing alternative, 'sneaky' strategies. ... But for such an alternative male strategy to have been favored by natural selection, there must be at least a significant trickle of genes that have sneaked down the generations via stolen copulations. In our 'diary of a gene' language, then, at least some genes record subordinate males in their ancestral experience. Earlier on he states that some 90 percent of copulations involve only 10 percent of males. So, what about the remaining 90 percent of males, which have to compete for a mere 10 percent of the "total copulation?" Wouldn't natural selection favor males capable of sneaking past the harem guards? After all, I'd imagine the costs of maintaining a harem to be high, well worth defending to the death - and there's still no guarantee that the pups are definitely going to be his.
	__________________ "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." - 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

31st May 2010, 01:39 PM	#2
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by Harpyja I was reading Dawkin's Unweaving The Rainbow when I came across this. Earlier on he states that some 90 percent of copulations involve only 10 percent of males. So, what about the remaining 90 percent of males, which have to compete for a mere 10 percent of the "total copulation?" Wouldn't natural selection favor males capable of sneaking past the harem guards? After all, I'd imagine the costs of maintaining a harem to be high, well worth defending to the death - and there's still no guarantee that the pups are definitely going to be his. Well, actually, many harem holding males divide their time more or less equally between eating and holding off competition. Sleeping comes third, and actual copulation only fourth. Yes, it is quite costly, which is probably the reason not all species are harem-holding, and no species ever evolved a seriously skewed male/femal ration in birth. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

31st May 2010, 04:21 PM	#3
calibos Scholar Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 61	The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies, the irony being that while the big bull sits back to enjoy what he thinks is a lesbien show, is in fact him being usurped by a metrosexual seal?
calibos Scholar Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 61

31st May 2010, 04:31 PM	#4
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	Originally Posted by calibos The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies, the irony being that while the big bull sits back to enjoy what he thinks is a lesbien show, is in fact him being usurped by a metrosexual seal? I once saw, on television, some species of jellyfish, or something, that did that. I don't remember what the species was. But, at least this sort of thing does happen, every now and then.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

31st May 2010, 05:59 PM	#5
Harpyja Irrepressible Buzzard Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 636	Well, you learn something new every day. @calibos: Well, there would have been the possibly that the bull male would try to mate with said metro-seal. That would be a sight for sore eyes.
	__________________ "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." - 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

31st May 2010, 07:39 PM	#6
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	I found the reference to what I was refering to, earlier: It was actually an Australian giant cuttlefish. The mating behavior I described was featured in an episode of Life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(B...of_the_Deep.22
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

1st June 2010, 12:36 AM	#7
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Yes, it is quite costly, which is probably the reason not all species are harem-holding, and no species ever evolved a seriously skewed male/femal ration in birth. What about ants, bees and alligators?
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

1st June 2010, 06:47 AM	#8
Harpyja Irrepressible Buzzard Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 636	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy What about ants, bees and alligators? Well, ants and bees don't quite hold a harem. Female seals don't seem to care either way which male rules the roost. And although male alligators do fight over females, I don't see any mention of them holding a harem. All three species mentioned have skewed male to the female ratios. Alligators: Quote: The sex of the offspring is determined by the temperature in the nest and is fixed within 7 to 21 days of the start of incubation. Incubation temperatures of 86 °F (30 °C) or lower produce a clutch of females; those of 93 °F (34 °C) or higher produce entirely males. Nests constructed on leaves are hotter than those constructed on wet marsh and, thus, the former tend to produce males and the latter, females. The natural sex ratio at hatching is five females to one male.
	__________________ "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." - 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

1st June 2010, 07:01 AM	#9
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Originally Posted by calibos The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females, to sneak past the big dominent bulls so they can have their way with all the ladies I don't have the book handy, but "Dr. Tatyana's sex guide to all creation" describes a number of harem-holding species -- fish, mantis shrimp, and possibly some others, -- which have specialized "fem-form" males which do exactly that.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

1st June 2010, 12:53 PM	#10
Harpyja Irrepressible Buzzard Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 636	Originally Posted by Mark6 I don't have the book handy, but "Dr. Tatyana's sex guide to all creation" describes a number of harem-holding species -- fish, mantis shrimp, and possibly some others, -- which have specialized "fem-form" males which do exactly that. I should pick up the book today. Thank you. Although, since I use my father's library card, that will require a bit of explaining.
	__________________ "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." - 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

1st June 2010, 01:31 PM	#11
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by Harpyja Well, ants and bees don't quite hold a harem. Female seals don't seem to care either way which male rules the roost. And although male alligators do fight over females, I don't see any mention of them holding a harem. All three species mentioned have skewed male to the female ratios. Alligators: I was referring to the second part of his statement, "no species ever evolved a seriously skewed male/femal ration in birth."
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

1st June 2010, 01:36 PM	#13
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy What about ants, bees and alligators? Ants and bees have a roughly equal ratio of active males and females, but the workers are biolgical females. I don't know about allogators, but the OP was about seals, so I was sort of assuming we were in the realm of mammals. I think when it comes to lizards and fish (not to mention insects), bets are partially off, because their sex is often determined by other things than chromosomes. I know some fish are able to change sex even when adult. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't. Last edited by MRC_Hans; 1st June 2010 at 01:37 PM.

1st June 2010, 02:03 PM	#14
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Ants and bees have a roughly equal ratio of active males and females, but the workers are biolgical females. What do you mean by active? Don't some of them have colonies that are either male or female oriented? Quote: I don't know about allogators, but the OP was about seals, so I was sort of assuming we were in the realm of mammals. I think when it comes to lizards and fish (not to mention insects), bets are partially off, because their sex is often determined by other things than chromosomes. I know some fish are able to change sex even when adult. You referred to "no species" and evolution, which is why I asked. I didn't realize you were limited it to a genus or whatever.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

1st June 2010, 08:58 PM	#15
Harpyja Irrepressible Buzzard Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 636	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy What do you mean by active? Don't some of them have colonies that are either male or female oriented? I think they meant sexually active. Which may or may not be true, that's just my impression.
	__________________ "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." - 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

2nd June 2010, 07:18 AM	#16
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy What do you mean by active? Don't some of them have colonies that are either male or female oriented? Not to my knowledge, but I'm not a specialist. Most ant colonies insects have: Queens, which are active females. Females, which are also active, in that they mate. However only few (down to 1 per colony) achieve queen status. Males, active, in that they mate. Workers, which are normally biological females, but not sexually active. Bees are a bit different because all females are born alike, but through special diat some become queens, while the rest become workers. All the males become drones which fly out to try to spread the genes of the colony and then perish. Quote: You referred to "no species" and evolution, which is why I asked. I didn't realize you were limited it to a genus or whatever. No, but this is often the problem with discussions like this: It starts with a rather general question, and people tend to give general answers, - which then prove to have unexpected complexities. Since the OP really asked about seals, I suppose I should have restricted myself to .... seals. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

2nd June 2010, 08:08 AM	#17
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Some whale species have a very bizarre mating strategy. The males have to cooperate; some using their bodies as the bed that will keep the female from being pushed away as she is 'mounted'. The last male to mate her has the best 'shot' at reproduction, as the vast amounts of ejaculate actually force out the previous guy's spoodge. Its very convoluted, by human standards. Imagine if something analogous happened at a singles bar!
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd June 2010, 08:45 AM	#18
ZirconBlue Sole Survivor of L-Town Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA, Earth Posts: 11,323	Originally Posted by quarky Its very convoluted, by human standards. Imagine if something analogous happened at a singles bar! I don't have to imagine. I've seen that movie.
	__________________ Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards.

2nd June 2010, 10:50 AM	#19
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by calibos The question is why haven't some males evolved into looking and smelling like females Mutations happen by random chance. Whether a mutation would be useful or how useful a mutation would be has no bearing on whether or not that mutation occurs. Only after a mutation happens does natural selection take over and determine if the mutation is useful. So the answer to that question is really just 'because the mutation(s) necessary for that trait to evolve just haven't randomly happened yet and may never happen no matter how useful that trait might be. You could just as easily ask why some species of rabbit haven't evolved the ability to fly- flying would certainly be useful to rabbits trying to escape their predators.

2nd June 2010, 02:16 PM	#20
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Not to my knowledge, but I'm not a specialist. Most ant colonies insects have: Queens, which are active females. Females, which are also active, in that they mate. However only few (down to 1 per colony) achieve queen status. Males, active, in that they mate. Workers, which are normally biological females, but not sexually active. Bees are a bit different because all females are born alike, but through special diat some become queens, while the rest become workers. All the males become drones which fly out to try to spread the genes of the colony and then perish. I'm no specialist either. This article refers to male and female dominated ant colonies and how switching queens can change it. I recalled hearing about it and found something to confirm my recollection. I have no point other than evolution sometimes takes interesting paths. Quote: No, but this is often the problem with discussions like this: It starts with a rather general question, and people tend to give general answers, - which then prove to have unexpected complexities. Since the OP really asked about seals, I suppose I should have restricted myself to .... seals. It's no big deal. Sometimes these things lead to interesting asides.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

2nd June 2010, 02:52 PM	#21
Unlike a Bull Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 188	Originally Posted by Harpyja I was reading Dawkin's Unweaving The Rainbow when I came across this. Earlier on he states that some 90 percent of copulations involve only 10 percent of males. So, what about the remaining 90 percent of males, which have to compete for a mere 10 percent of the "total copulation?" Wouldn't natural selection favor males capable of sneaking past the harem guards? After all, I'd imagine the costs of maintaining a harem to be high, well worth defending to the death - and there's still no guarantee that the pups are definitely going to be his. I thought the non-harem having male tended to be a younger male that maybe didn't have a good job and lived in a crappy apartment. You know, the kind of male that copulates, but it's usually with younger females who don't know any better or else with older females who only want him for copulation but don't really want any strings or anything. But when the young male grows up and graduates college, gets a decent job and maybe a place that's not roach infested the females will realize he's not a total loser and he ends up with a harem of his own. Isn't that how these kinds of things work?
Unlike a Bull Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 188

2nd June 2010, 07:19 PM	#22
Harpyja Irrepressible Buzzard Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 636	Originally Posted by Unlike a Bull I thought the non-harem having male tended to be a younger male that maybe didn't have a good job and lived in a crappy apartment. You know, the kind of male that copulates, but it's usually with younger females who don't know any better or else with older females who only want him for copulation but don't really want any strings or anything. But when the young male grows up and graduates college, gets a decent job and maybe a place that's not roach infested the females will realize he's not a total loser and he ends up with a harem of his own. Isn't that how these kinds of things work? That answer was so good that I want the truth to be yes.
	__________________ "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." - 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

2nd June 2010, 07:23 PM	#23
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,719	Originally Posted by Wowbagger I once saw, on television, some species of jellyfish, or something, that did that. I don't remember what the species was. But, at least this sort of thing does happen, every now and then. Cuttlefish.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,719

3rd June 2010, 06:01 AM	#24
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Cuddle fish? That's disgusting.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

3rd June 2010, 08:09 AM	#25
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by quarky Cuddle fish? That's disgusting. Awww. Who wants four hugs?
	__________________ If only there were brain condoms for those of us who practice unsafe lex. -- Complexity

3rd June 2010, 09:13 AM	#26
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	check out the amazing cuttle fish: http://news.yahoo.com/video/science-...ripes-20129376
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

3rd June 2010, 09:53 AM	#27
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,531	Originally Posted by John Jones Cuttlefish. Yes, I made note of that in Post #6.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

3rd June 2010, 10:14 AM	#28
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,719	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Yes, I made note of that in Post #6. D'oh!
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,719