The nature of genes

I believe in the selfish gene, I think. I heard or saw something about this somewhere, but I can't remember exactly where. But I don believe that the purpose of life is to perpetuate itself. Life adapts simply to be able to reproduce itself as long as possible.

This is not so hard to see if you think about the simple fact that if life did not reproduce, it would disappear. The only reason there still are cows or humans or dophins is because we keep reproducing.

Now, on a nature show on TV on the subject of breeding, it was shown that the disposition of dogs somehow was connected with their physical traits. The program centered on the fact that dogs, because of human breeding, now have the most diverse physical traits of any species. There are dogs as small as rats and as large as a small horse.

Compared to wolves, which are the genetic grandparents of our dogs of today, the diversity of physical appearance is amazing. Wolves look almost the same everywhere.

Clever, like a fox!

A russian scientist some years ago was asked to breed calmer, nicer foxes. It was a fur-corporation that wanted calmer foxes that would be easier to handle. The scientist accepted the challenge since he wanted to see if it was possible to breed these characteristics into the fox, which was a wild animal still.

And as the generations passed and the calmest, least aggressive foxes were selected to breed all the time, their physical appearance started to change. The colour of their fur turned from gray/brown to white with brown areas. Their ears started to droop, like many dogs ears do, and the tail went up. The recemblance to many dog breeds was uncanny. It was evident that somehow the mental traits of the calm foxes was somehow connected with the physical appearance.

Birds

Birds seem to rely on something similar. There is a kind of bird, which I think is called a Bluetit in England, I'm not sure, it sounds dangerously close to tits. :) But in sweden it is called "Blåmes" which is also a strange name. Anyway, it has a blue head. The blue color actually continues into the ultraviolet area and birds, who are able to see in ultraviolet, perceive it to be more or less prominent depending on whether the bird is a strong bird or not.

In studies, it has been shown that birds with prominent ultraviolet heads (of the bluetit family) have more kids than those with less prominent color. There is, somehow, a correlation between this physical trait and some other trait that makes the bird a good parent.

Conclusion

The conclusion seems obvious to me. I think that scientists probably have this one already figured, but I want to write it down anyway.

It seems to me like physical traits are connected with less obvious traits, so that they can be signalled to the opposite sex and lead to more successful offspring. In the case of the dogs, we have selected animals that normally would not make it in the wild, they are docile, friendly, curious and so forth. These animals do not survive and therefore make bad parents. But since we do not care, and the animals do breed we get the visual cues that signal the weaknesses for free, so to speak.

Visual cues and traits

But the visual cues themselves do not indicate strong or weak, they only signal if a trait is present or not. It is up to evolution to make the behavioural changes necessary to make the individuals choose partners based on these cues. That is, a trait that makes an animal aggressive against all other species may be advantageous in a surrounding containing only weaker animals, but if a stronger animal species comes along, this trait is no longer valuable and those that are less aggressive would be more likely to survive.

The reason for the peacock's plumage

Most likely it would be very difficult to see such a trait in an animal if it was not signalled somehow. I would therefore also conclude that most of the visual cues that exist in the wild, especially those that seem flamboyant and even inconvenient, signal some less obvious trait that makes the animal more likely to have successful offspring.

Of course, the sexual act itself is necessary for procreation, so also traits that make an animal more likely to be accepted as a partner will be advantageous, even if it is an hindrance elsewhere in life. But it cannot be a trait that is dangerous to the individual, or it is likely to be killed before it has the chance to procreate. The variables are many, but the end result is the same:

procreation. :-)