Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books Media Book Reviews Science

The Red Queen 149

Posted by timothy from the weekend-activities dept.
XenonOfArcticus writes "I first came upon Matt Ridley when Slashdot reviewed Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Parts (here and here ). Ridley's finely-honed technical writing style could make a treatise on the Boston White Pages intriguing and enlightening, and his treatment of the human Genome was simply eye-opening. I had to have more, and went out immediately to order every Ridley book I could find. Luckily, The Red Queen and The Origins of Virtue were already available and his latest, Nature via Nurture was just hitting shelves. Prepare yourself for my ongoing Overview of Ridley in Three Parts." Read on for the rest of Xenon's review.
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
author Matt Ridley
pages 405
publisher Penguin Books
rating Excellent
reviewer Chris 'Xenon' Hanson
ISBN 0140245480
summary Why sex is the reason humans are at the top of the food chain.

After laying our souls (and chromosomes!) bare in Genome, Ridley swiftly moves on to a topic that is variously fascinating and taboo: Sex. Every Slashdot user it seems wants more information about it. Ridley immediately tackles the Paradox of Sex: In an asexual organism, every individual of the species can create offspring. In sexual creatures (like people!), only the female can produce young. What's so great about sex then, that overcomes this obvious numerical handicap? In eleven brisk chapters, Ridley unravels the riddles with examples of how and why other species Do It (or Don't It), and what it all means.

Topics explored (though not claimed to be definitively explained) include mitochondrial DNA, dowries, the genetic foundations of harems, how males of a species could develop flagrant 'handicaps' like bright coloration or songs, monogamy, polygamy, adultery and a small species of New Zealand snail that suffers from a parasite named (I'm not making this up) Microphallus. One of the most compelling concepts is that a species' strongest competitor (and driving force behind their evolution) is their own kind, not their foes. In the end it is this argument, called The Red Queen (after a Lewis Carrol character that runs quickly but never gets ahead) that explains so much of our evolutionary hodgepodge of DNA and instinctive behaviour.

Around the world The Red Queen hustles, dissecting the environmental clues given by the mating rituals and biology of various species, asexual, sexual, heterosexual, hermaphroditic and otherwise, comparing them to Homo Sapiens, "the sexiest primate alive" (except for bonobos). As for humans, Ridley divulges how walking upright and our large brains are connected to our comparatively slow maturation, long lifespan and lack of hair. Always in the background is the unquestionable tenet: No one is descended from a celibate organism.

Ridley daringly takes on feminism and gender equality by pointing out that males and females DO differ genetically (duh!) and that in other species the effect of this difference is quite marked. Rather than degenerating into a misogynistic orgy of gender-bashing, he exposes the reasons why (among other differences) men might actually be better at reading maps and women might be more social. Both genders have to get along in order to continue the species, so understanding our differences may be a boon to all. While in the mood for controversy, Ridley delves into the reasons for the genetic-confounding phenomena of homosexuality in a species.

You don't need to have read Genome to read Red Queen, but if you have, you might find all of the puzzles fitting together into an even bigger picture, to be further sketched out in The Origins of Virtue and Nature Via Nurture. This book is not illustrated and probably won't help you get a date next weekend, but it might explain why you're instinctively attracted to those three young blondes at the bar. And why they're all more interested in the cinderblock quarterback of the football team. And despite what my inbox tells me, it has nothing to do with the size of a certain part of your anatomy, but rather the size of ... well, go read the book.

Table of Contents

  • Human Nature
  • The Enigma
  • The Power of Parasites
  • Genetic Mutiny and Gender
  • The Peacock's Tale
  • Polygamy and the Nature of Men
  • Monogamy and the Nature of Women
  • Sexing the Mind
  • The Uses of Beauty
  • The Intellectual Chess Game
  • The Self-Domesticated Ape

You can purchase The Red Queen from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Red Queen More

The Red Queen

Comments Filter:

  • If you don't know (Score:5, Funny)

    by Surak ( 18578 ) * <surak&mailblocks,com> on Friday July 11, 2003 @02:46PM (#6417864) Homepage Journal
    What's so great about sex then, that overcomes this obvious numerical handicap?

    If you don't know, you're probably too young for me to explain it to you! ;)

    • Re:If you don't know (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You have to understand - to a Slashbot, this numerical handicap can be defined as "as long as there is any other male on earth, she will never reproduce with me". It is really insurmountable, as far as a Slashbot's concerned.

  • ADD Version (Score:1, Interesting)

    by stanmann ( 602645 )
    If Evolution is true, marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is a result of natural selection and therefore is right and good.

    If Creation is true marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is from God and therefore is right and good.
    QED Marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is right and good wherever we came from.

    • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Insightful)

      by feepness ( 543479 )
      I'll assume this is some sort of dig on the idea of homosexual marriage. I'm not gay, but I'll bite.

      If Evolution is true, marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is a result of natural selection and therefore is right and good.

      Wouldn't homosexuality also be the result of natural selection and therefore right and good? If it was detrimental it would have been selected away and wouldn't exist, right? This is as opposed to continuing to exist across centuries and civilizations. Bigotry on the other hand, is rapidly g

      • Re:ADD Version (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:23PM (#6418251)
        Marriage is a government certification that confers special privileges to certain citizens (including tax relief, coverage under health insurance, etc. etc.). I really don't give a damn about the argument of pro or anti homosexuality. If the government is going to allow marriage between a male and a female citizen, it should allow it for homosexual citizens also. What business is it of the government what gender you are? If the religious right is so disgusted by this notion that they would rather abolish government-recognized marriage, that is just fine with me...I don't think it is any of the governments business who you live/eat/sleep with.
        • Give this man a prize for thinking!
        • You say you don't think it's their business who you live/eat/sleep with, then why would you care if they allowed homosexual marriage? If you really don't think it's their business, you wouldn't take advantage of any of the supposed benefits of marrying in any case, eh?

        • Re:ADD Version (Score:2, Informative)

          by dreadnougat ( 682974 )
          The "religious right" does not (for the most part) have a problem with gay marriage, at least not where I live (btw I'm Orthodox, if that's relevant). The problem is the worry that churches will lose the right to not marry gays.
          • I can't agree with that. When Rick Santorum talked about the (then) pending Supreme Court decision on Texas' sodomy law, he worried about a host of other activities (bigamy, adultery, etc.) becoming free from prosecution as well.

            The conclusion you draw is made unworkable by the First Amendment, which prohibits government from telling religions what to do (in non-secular matters).

          • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Interesting)

            by stanmann ( 602645 )
            The Religious right(me) doesn't have a problem with a civil recognition of "gay civil partnership" or other social arrangements polyandry, polygyny, polygamy. The problem comes with calling that civil contract marriage. Well thats my position anyhow.
          • The problem is the worry that churches will lose the right to not marry gays.

            This just isn't true. The Catholic Church doesn't permit the remarriage of divorcees with living spouses. The US government does. Yet the Catholic Church cannot be forced to perform a wedding involving a divorced person.

            Religious and civil mariages are entirely separate institutions in the US, a fact masked by the fact that the vast majority of married people have both done. My mother and my stepfather were married in judge'
            • If you lived in Canada, you would see it in the media. Trust me on this one, the worry is there. Whether or not the fear is realistic is another matter, but the fear is there, in Canada.
              • I know, the worry is here, too. A lot of FUD is being spread deliberately by anti-gay ministers to their congregations. I'm just saying that the worry has no grounds in legal reality, at least in the US. There is simply no way a court in the US can force a religious body to perform a ceremony or alter its beliefs.

        • I agree with you to an extent but I also have a different view of it... to an extent.

          If the government didn't regulate marriages then who would? In the US we have a seperation of church and state and clearly we have more than one religion. Many religious organizations aren't so well organized as to be able to prevent polygamy.

          Why would you want to prevent polygamy?

          The main reason that I can see to avoid polygamy is for the pure and simple reason of simplicity. If you have children and you are married
          • The main reason that I can see to avoid polygamy is for the pure and simple reason of simplicity. If you have children and you are married to 3 spouses (4 parents) then who takes care of the children LEGALLY? If the kid gets in trouble who is ultimately responible (until they are 18).

            Then you get to the question of multiple multiple marriages. Imagine if you had 3 spouses and each of your spouses had 3 spouses. Then things get really unclear as to responsability for the children, property, vehicle ownershi
        • Not sure where you're from, but marriage in the U.S. doesn't provide tax relief to the couple.
          Only recently was the "Marriage Tax Penalty" eliminated (albeit temporarily) - or brought in line to allow the standard deduction to be exactly double that of those single folks.

      • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Interesting)

        by el-spectre ( 668104 )
        Evolution promotes that which enables a creature to breed more than others. That's it. There is no 'good' or 'true' in any moral sense.

        I have wondered, though... how exactly are pro-gay genes promoted? I assume that they are recessive genes (no judgement here... just that gay folks are in the vast minority), and as such aren't likely to last long, since true homosexuality would prevent breeding, right?

        Please no flames on this, I am not passing judgement (at least not negatively. I have zero problem with h
        • I have wondered, though... how exactly are pro-gay genes promoted? I assume that they are recessive genes (no judgement here... just that gay folks are in the vast minority), and as such aren't likely to last long, since true homosexuality would prevent breeding, right?

          A homosexual in a family group increases the adult/child ratio therefore improving care and survivability of the child. The family group passes on the recessive genes of the homosexual who does not reproduce.

          Interestingly a similar study
          • Quoth the poster:
            A homosexual in a family group increases the adult/child ratio therefore improving care and survivability of the child. The family group passes on the recessive genes of the homosexual who does not reproduce.

            What is this based on? Have there been such studies, or is this a case of 'people who don't have kids help others take care of theirs' ?
            • What is this based on? Have there been such studies, or is this a case of 'people who don't have kids help others take care of theirs' ?

              Purely a proposal of my diseased mind as far as I know. The similar idea about suicide I did read and was proposed by a "respected source" though I can't recall it. My wife is a mental health professional so this kind of stuff is always being discussed or lying around in journals.

          • Re:ADD Version (Score:2, Informative)

            by sd_jeff ( 515454 )
            Interestingly a similar study was done on suicide. It is a trait that reduced the population in difficult (depressing) times thereby leaving more resources for the group.

            This is an example of "group selectionism", which doesn't find much favor among professional biologists nowadays. Their reasoning is that it is easy for such groups to be invaded by mutants who "cheat".

            For example, in a population where everyone has a tendency towards suicide in lean times, any mutant that lacks suicidal tendencies wil
        • There are lots of guesses about this. They are, as yet, guesses. Since, self-evidently, homosexuality has evolved out, and yet homosexuals are undoubtedly reproductively disadvantaged (though not as much as might be believed), there must be some compensating advantage.

          One thing to note is that homosexuals seem to be disproportionately represented in the creative arts. That might be because such areas of society are more tolerant of unconventional behaviour. Or it might be that there is some correlation bet

      • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gillbates ( 106458 )
        Wouldn't homosexuality also be the result of natural selection and therefore right and good?

        Or alternatively:

        • Homosexuality is the result not of genetic predisposition, but rather of mental illness (which, BTW, was the prevailing notion in the psychological community until it became taboo to disparage homosexuality.) OR:
        • The fact that homosexuals would have self-selected themselves out of the gene pool long ago shows evolution to be false.

        Now I realize that these are quite unpopular and controversi

        • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Interesting)

          by feepness ( 543479 )
          I do, however, find it unfortunate when a rational debate about the subject becomes marred by name-callers when unpopular opinions are expressed. Even if you still come to a conclusion different from mine, you should at least be open to considering another's opinion. Referring to those who believe homosexuality is wrong as "bigots" tends to show a lack of openness to reason.

          I agree with you completely when speaking of foul-language, but the ideas expressed clearly met the exact definition of bigot [reference.com]. Aft

        • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tgibbs ( 83782 )
          Homosexuality is the result not of genetic predisposition, but rather of mental illness

          Calling something an "illness" is just semantics. Simply applying a pejorative term does not explain why homosexual behavior is so common, not merely in humans but in many other species. And by the way, vulnerability to real diseases, such as those caused by viruses and bacteria is influenced by genetic predisposition.

          The fact that homosexuals would have self-selected themselves out of the gene pool long ago shows

          • I agree that a gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality may propagate through the methods you mentioned; however, this is possible only because of the "side effects" of a given gene combination induce homosexuality.

            Or, more simply, homosexual traits can be passed on when the primary role of a gene is something other than homosexuality. However, it follows from logic that one who is strictly homosexual (as opposed to bisexual) would never pass on their genes to the next generation. Hence, a

            • I agree that a gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality may propagate through the methods you mentioned; however, this is possible only because of the "side effects" of a given gene combination induce homosexuality. Or, more simply, homosexual traits can be passed on when the primary role of a gene is something other than homosexuality. However, it follows from logic that one who is strictly homosexual (as opposed to bisexual) would never pass on their genes to the next generation. Hence, a "str

              • However, if God is all that homophobic, it is difficult to understand why He would have made homosexual behavior so common in numerous animal species, since nonhuman animals presumably are not subject to original sin.

                What separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom is that man has both free will and moral knowledge. Because of such, God expects better behavior from us than from animals - while a dog may eat its own feces out of carnal curiousity, such behavior would be undignified, and outrigh

                • What separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom is that man has both free will and moral knowledge. Because of such, God expects better behavior from us than from animals - while a dog may eat its own feces out of carnal curiousity, such behavior would be undignified, and outright life-threatening for a human. The differences in design between humans and animal species mean that behavior suitable for animal species is undignified and wrong when practiced by humans.

                  Actually, the "design" of h

                  • It sounds like what you are saying is that humans are "designed" to share the same natural behaviors as other closely related animals, but are then commanded not to indulge in them.

                    It is the struggle to overcome the desires of the flesh which makes mankind more dignified than animals. An animal has no freedom, no free will - it can do only what it's carnal desires dictate. And this is the problem with homosexuality in humans - in order to engage in homosexuality, a person presents himself as a slave to

                    • It is the struggle to overcome the desires of the flesh which makes mankind more dignified than animals. An animal has no freedom, no free will - it can do only what it's carnal desires dictate. And this is the problem with homosexuality in humans - in order to engage in homosexuality, a person presents himself as a slave to his carnal desires, giving them free reign over his mind and body. Rather than living in freedom, as he was designed, he lives in slavery to his desires, with dignity scarcely above t

                    • By your argument, the vast majority of people who have never in their lives felt even the slightest physical attraction to their own sex are somehow less "dignified" than the minority who do and struggle against it.

                      Yes, that's my point - there is more dignity in one who overcomes their desires (regardless of their sexuality) than there is one who lives in subjugation to them. For some reason, however, the homosexual community seems oblivious to this.

                    • Yes, that's my point - there is more dignity in one who overcomes their desires (regardless of their sexuality) than there is one who lives in subjugation to them. For some reason, however, the homosexual community seems oblivious to this

                      Why should homosexuals be any different from heterosexuals in this respect? After all, for a person with heterosexual desires, overcoming one's desires would mean having exclusively homosexual sex, or not having sex at all. But most people with heterosexual desires "live

      • Wouldn't homosexuality also be the result of natural selection and therefore right and good? If it was detrimental it would have been selected away and wouldn't exist, right?

        Murder and deceit still exist as well. They are evil behaviors and yet have not been selected away.

        If creation is true we've got a lot more to worry about than the proper definition of marriage.

        Yes- we'd have to worry about how we are going to continue making ourselves to be gods when the truth has been revealed.

        • Again, I was responding in the vein of the original poster's argument, nothing more and nothing less. Whether I believe in creation or evolution is irrelevant to the fact that the original argument contained logical fallacies. In fact, your post SUPPORTS mine in that it further points out inaccuracies in the original line of thinking.

          At this point I'm thinking the original post was a damn good troll.

    • Re:ADD Version (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, uhwuh?

      Perhaps you've forgotten your history where at least two of the three primary monotheistic religions have traditions of polygamy. Christains probably have it in their origins too, and the US is just repressed enough that I haven't encountered discussion of ancient christain polygamy in the popular press (yet) - mormons don't count because they are a new sect.

      Therefore, it is pretty clear that polygamy is from God and not monogamy.

    • Re:ADD Version (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nhavar ( 115351 )
      I dunno about this paraphrasing. In it we're assumed to equate marriage as equal to sexual coupling for the purpose of procreation with the assumption that it's a 1 to 1 relationship (1 man - 1 woman). Evolution does not enforce this paradigm. In all levels of animal life (including humans) monogomy is not an absolute. Some studies have shown that as much as 75% of married couples have had some instance of infadelity. So Evolution could as easily reinforce the concept of polygamy.

      Additionally it's difficul
      • The Bible declares monogamy to be God's design:

        "And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:23 24

        "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made t

      • Re:ADD Version (Score:2, Informative)

        by FroMan ( 111520 )
        Not completely true...

        First, in genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Sue, etc...

        Also in genesis we also have where Abram (to be Abraham) takes Sari's (to be Sarah) maidservent and has a child with her. While it was acceptable of the time to do that, the rift caused through bitterness of Sari and the maidservent was an example of why it was a bad thing.

        Also, David is punished for taking Bersheba (sp?) though she was already married, then killing the man (or having him killed by putting
        • There are a few problems here. First read the context of what I stated. If one is to argue in either direction there is an argument BOTH ways and evidence to support such either through direct evidence or direct omission.

          If as I said there are no direct condemnations of polygamy then one can argue that by omission polygamy is allowed.

          For instance one could argue that the scriptures you bring up do nothing to OMIT polygamy. The scriptures more specifically relate to greed - for example David covetting anot
      • The Old Testement is largely a history, in it you will find a lot of "good guys" doing bad things. Nobody is perfect. I don't know how you get that polygamy is a biblical principle any more than eating, drinking, war, and death are...
    • If Evolution is true, marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is a result of natural selection and therefore is right and good.

      You are assuming that an exclusive, monogamous pair-bond is the method that has been 'selected', it is not. Human pair bonds are accompanied by *very* common and predictable patterns of adultery. Male and female patterns are quite different reflecting their different roles and stakes in reproduction. There is also evidence to suggest that, historically, males have set up harems whenever circumsta

    • If Creation is true marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is from God and therefore is right and good.

      This is foolish in two ways:

      1) Natural selection has no morality. That which survives is not morally better than that which dies out.

      2) Studies reveal that a monogomous relationship between 1 female/1 male is actually rare in nature. Most species are promiscuous or cheat on their spouses, just like us. Homesexuality is also rather common.

  • Red Queen is a much earlier book than Genome (Score:5, Informative)

    by isomeme ( 177414 ) <cdberry@gmail.com> on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:02PM (#6418042) Journal
    The review (while otherwise good) implies that Genome predates Red Queen, when in fact the former came out in 2000 and the latter in 1995.

    By the way, I echo the recommendation -- reading this book profoundly changed how I think about evolution and genetics. The only comparably assumption-shattering biology book I can think of is Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life.

    • Re:Red Queen is a much earlier book than Genome (Score:5, Insightful)

      by frozenray ( 308282 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:35PM (#6418352)
      > The review (while otherwise good) implies that Genome predates Red Queen, when in fact the former came out in 2000 and the latter in 1995.

      You're right, The Red Queen predates Genome. The Viking edition is from 1993, by the way - 10 years of scientific research have passed since then, and I would very much appreciate an updated edition taking into account the new insights gathered since then.

      See this [slashdot.org] older post of mine for some remarks on Ridley's books.

      By the way, I echo the recommendation -- reading this book profoundly changed how I think about evolution and genetics. The only comparably assumption-shattering biology book I can think of is Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life.

      Reading Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and Ridley's "The Red Queen" was a disturbing and exciting experience for me, because it shattered many beliefs I held about mankind and society. I have since read many more books on the subject, and here are a few I can recommend if you're interested in contemporary scientific views on evolution and related fields of study:

      Matt Ridley: The Origins of Virtue (*)
      Steven Pinker: How the Mind Works, The Language Instinct
      Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable
      Geoffrey Miller: The Mating Mind

      (*) with a caveat: he lets his political views influence his writing a little too much in this one

      • I've read the Red Queen, and The Selfish Gene, so I'll have to check those out.
        Otherwise, I would also recommend:
        Desmond Morris: The Naked Ape
        Daniel Dennett: Darwin's Dangeroous Idea
        (Dennett is a philosopher, and thus looks at the logic more than the science, but it is still an excellent work. He has another excellent book, that has much less to do with evolution and genetics: Consciousness Explained.)
    • While I've read none of the books mentioned in the parent, if you're interested in this topic you should try The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. Wright attempts to explain human nature including sexual behaviour, monagomy, polygamy, friendship, altruism, jealousy, etc, from an evolutionary psychological perspecitive. Essential his thesis is that there is a fundamental human nature driven by our genes, and he uses this to try to explain day-to-day human experience.

      All in all, it's a balanced, very interes

    • Re:Red Queen is a much earlier book than Genome (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "The only comparably assumption-shattering biology book I can think of is Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life"

      SJG is not quite so fondly thought of among evolutionary biologists (see reviews of his book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by people like John Maynard Smith).

      My recommendations for related reading posted under a threat by that name.

    • For another book which may challenge your assumptions about our evolutionary process, physiological features and sex, I would strongly recommend The Descent of Woman by Elaine Morgan. For me this has probably had the greatest impact of any book that I have ever read.

      The author makes you reconsider the prevailing idea that the apes came down from the trees and turned into Tarzan. Read this and you may conclude that your bare skin evolved as the result of much different environmental factors. The author

  • Sex (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nycsubway ( 79012 )
    This book sounds pretty interesting. I wonder if it delves into human pornography, and the fact that humans (and other animals) get excited by looking at pictures of a member of the opposite sex.

    Desmond Morris has a series on TLC called The Human Animal in which he describes in termendous detail how and why humans have sex. There's even a nipple in the show! Beyond the perversion of watching it simply because it talks about sex, its really interesting.
    • >I wonder if it delves into human pornography, and the fact that humans (and other animals) get excited by looking at pictures of a member of the opposite sex.

      Yes. Actually, it does.

    • Re:Sex (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 )
      > Desmond Morris has a series on TLC called The Human Animal in which he describes in termendous detail how and why humans have sex. There's even a nipple in the show!

      So? I've got two of the damn things right here on my own chest. Pretty useless if you ask me.

      And nipples get shown during the weightlifting, swimming, or bodybuilding sporting events televised every weekend, to say nothing of all the "beach" sitcoms and dramas on the major networks every night. Nipples on TV? Big freakin' deal.

      Oh

  • I need another coffee... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:05PM (#6418071) Journal
    ...so that when I read "In an asexual organism I don't leave out an "ni", then procede to try to perform one myself.

  • A few percent (Score:5, Funny)

    by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:05PM (#6418073)
    males and females DO differ genetically

    It has been noted that the difference between the XX and XY chromosomes in the human males and females amounts to about 3% of genetic material.

    Note also that in general the human species only differs about 3% from chimpanzies.

    From this some have inferred that a human male is more similar to a male chimpanzee than to a human female.

    • Re:A few percent (Score:3, Informative)

      by morganx ( 651950 )
      The human species is actually closer to 99% identical to chimps genetically. It's recently been discovered that the Y chromosome has more genes on it than was thought, which would indicate human males are actually closer-related to male chimps than to human females and vice versa. Go figure. There is an article about it here. [marshill.org]
    • Chimps are genetically similar to humans indeed... Thankfuly chimpanzees do not drive. Otherwise they'd have no idea how to get where they were going, would not stop for directions, and would be weaving all over the road with their left blinker on.
    • The figure I've seen is that chimps are 99.5% similar to humans genetically. That means they probably belong in our own genus. Before the DNA studies, it was thought that chimps were more similar to gorillas than to humans, but now we know they're actually much closer to humans in terms of genetics and evolutionary history. There's also a serious scientific question (I'm /not/ making this up) as to whether humans and chimps could reproduce together.

      • Re:A few percent (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        There's also a serious scientific question (I'm /not/ making this up) as to whether humans and chimps could reproduce together.

        Instead of paying someone in a white coat to try to figure this out by staring through a microscope and injecting blue fluid into countless vials, I imagine it would be fairly inexpensive to resolve that question empirically.

        But, darn it, whenever I'm around the chimp, I get so nervous and don't know what to say.

  • recommended related reading (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mattblanchard ( 551123 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:11PM (#6418130)
    If you've never read it, I highly recommend The Selfish Gene [world-of-dawkins.com] by Richard Dawkins.

    It has enough sex talk in it to satisfy your prurient interests. Not the gross squshy kind, but the clean, technical sex that will hit /.ers right in the honeypot.

    Ooh baby... you extended my phenotype!

    • I have read both books and would highly recommend them. Actually the Red Queen answers some questions left open by Selfish Gene. The basic thesis of Selfish Gene is that its gene's selfish desire to replicate that drives evolution. Dawkins explains it perfectly and I am not going to try to replicate his reasoning here. However this leads to a problem: why does sex exist? If you have 4 creatures, A, B, C and D, and A and B reproduce asexually while C and D need a partner, from a selfish point of view A and B

    • Re:recommended related reading (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm using Ridley's Nature via Nurture as a recomended supplemental text for my 3rd year university course in genetics and behaviour.

      FWIW, here's my suggested reading list for those interested in the topics covered by The Red Queen.

      Dawkins: Extended Phenotype
      Cronin: The Ant and the Peacock
      Segerstrale: Defenders of The Truth

      Another highly recommended book on behavioural biology, but in a slightly different vein

      Sapolsky: The trouble with Testosterone

  • A fascinating book that enthralls as much as a nov (Score:4, Informative)

    by rkz ( 667993 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:16PM (#6418187) Homepage Journal
    The Red Queen - named after a theory which is itself named for the 'Alice' character, who must run as fast as she can simply to keep pace with the world around her - fascinated from beginning to end. Looking at the evolution of sex, it is filled with intriguing facts, remarkable examples, and frequently alarming revelations. From why the peacock has that remarkable tail (it's probably to do with sexy sons) to why polygamy benefits females rather than males, the book is a real eye-opener. Once you've learned the secret of the lek, the local disco will never seem the same again. And, given that a man's testicular size is evidence that neither he nor his partner evolved for true monogamy, you may not find this book terribly reassuring. Polygyny, polyandry, incest, infanticide, and group-bonking bonobos: it may leave you thinking that, in comparison to even some of our closest relatives, we humans have very conservative sex lives indeed. And we may only have started doing it at all so that we don't fall prey to parasites! A great read, and real incentive to read anything else available by Matt Ridley.

  • Matt Ridley interview (Score:4, Informative)

    by akuzi ( 583164 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:23PM (#6418254)
    There's an interesting video interview with Matt Ridley where he talks about his latest book 'Nature via Nurture' on edge.org http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ridley03/ridley_in dex.html
  • Is this where the "Red Queen" in resident evil got her name?

    • Re:Resident evil reference (Score:4, Informative)

      by frozenray ( 308282 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @03:53PM (#6418543)
      > Is this where the "Red Queen" in resident evil got her name?

      The title of Ridley's book is a reference to Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass" [literature.org]:


      [...] Just at this moment, somehow or other, they began to run.

      Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying `Faster! Faster!' but Alice felt she could not go faster, thought she had not breath left to say so.

      The most curious part of the thing was, that the trees and the other things round them never changed their places at all: however fast they went, they never seemed to pass anything. `I wonder if all the things move along with us?' thought poor puzzled Alice. And the Queen seemed to guess her thoughts, for she cried, `Faster! Don't try to talk!'

      Not that Alice had any idea of doing that. She felt as if she would never be able to talk again, she was getting so much out of breath: and still the Queen cried `Faster! Faster!' and dragged her along. `Are we nearly there?' Alice managed to pant out at last.

      `Nearly there!' the Queen repeated. `Why, we passed it ten minutes ago! Faster! And they ran on for a time in silence, with the wind whistling in Alice's ears, and almost blowing her hair off her head, she fancied.

      `Now! Now!' cried the Queen. `Faster! Faster!' And they went so fast that at last they seemed to skim through the air, hardly touching the ground with their feet, till suddenly, just as Alice was getting quite exhausted, they stopped, and she found herself sitting on the ground, breathless and giddy. [...]

      Alice looked round her in great surprise. `Why, I do believe we've been under this tree the whole time! Everything's just as it was!'

      `Of course it is,' said the Queen, `what would you have it?'

      `Well, in out country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'

      `A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

      The last paragraph nicely sums up the view that in evolution, standing still means falling into extinction and just keeping one's place is a difficult proposition.
  • In sexual creatures (like people!)

    Whoa, slow down there cowboy!
  • //Red Queen Reference from Resident Evil//

    Just a side note, the red queen was added in the movie and is not featured in the PS or GC consoles.

    /mod_up

  • bonobos deserve strong mention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @04:21PM (#6418823)
    Bonobos are very bisexual, have sex frequently (VERY frequently--several times a day) mostly just for pleasure, females run the show, female-female sex is very common, and men must beg or earn sexual pleasure from the females.

    They are the closest animals to humans (genetically speaking) walk upright fairly often, similar size, etc.

    Once you've studied bonobos for awhile, you start to get the feeling that about 99% of our sexual taboos are strictly cultural, developed over time as a function of the need for societal control, either to limit disease propagation or to assert power hierarchies, probably to keep a large pool of females available for the wealthy patriarchs.
    • Bonobos are probably the most sexual primates. They use sex the same way we shake hands. Females practice "GG (genital-to-genital) rubbing" with each other as way of strengthing interpersonal bonds (they have *enlarged* equipment). Also, they are the only other primates (i think) besides humans that practice face-to-face sex on a somewhat consistent basis.

      Unfortunately, their native habitat is being destroyed and they are endangered. The parent post is totally correct in saying they are very close to
    • It is frequently stated that these creatures are supposed to be the closest genetically to humans (whatever a percentage means--at various times in history all sorts of 'similarities' have been used as the basis for bad science in practically every field): however, do not over look that they are even more geneticaly similar to other species than they are to humans, and those other species which are closer to them have different various behaviors. So it would seem, as often is the case, that the comparison o
  • I thought this a book about a gay Indian.

  • great book (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    this is a great book. especially interesting is the part about how women choose mates. it talks about how a survey in the UK revealed that women with extra-marital affairs are actually more likely to conceive on the days they sleep with their lovers.

    basically, women choose a husband based on his abilities as a provider. but they frequently choose a sex partner based on his physical attributes. the idea is that their offspring will have great physical attributes, but will be raised (unwittingly) by the nice
  • Finally, a strategy guide for Sim-Ant!

  • Reductionist (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The problem with both Dawkins and Riley is that they don't account for the validity of intermingling the levels of analysis. Not doing so is a failure of scientific methodology. The social dimension of human behaviour is not isolatable simply by observing other species or genetic behaviour without further explanation. You can argue for 'selfish' behaviour on the genetic level, but that doesn't link it to 'selfish' behaviour on the human level without further explanation.

  • walking upright (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Friday July 11, 2003 @06:35PM (#6420263) Homepage
    As for humans, Ridley divulges how walking upright and our large brains are connected to our comparatively slow maturation, long lifespan and lack of hair.
    I'll bite -- what's his theory?

    AFAIK, the evolutionary origin of bipedalism is a completely unsolved problem. There have been various theories, but none of them really hold water. A popular idea for a long time was that it allowed us to have our hands free for tool use, but now we know that bipedalism evolved a million years before big brains and tool use. (Australopithecus was basically a human from the neck down, a chimp from the neck up.) It can't be explained by the ability to get your eyes high off the ground and see far away, because chimps and gorillas can stand up too when they want to look around. It's probably not efficient locomotion, because the most efficient walkers and runners are quadrupeds like dogs and horses. (There were some experiments that purported to show humans walked more efficiently than chimps, but they were flawed.)

    There was also a theory by Lovejoy that bipedalism was the result of sexual selection, and maybe that's what the story is referring to. The Lovejoy theory was that females were choosing who to mate with, and males, in order to get laid, were using their hands to bring tasty food as gifts to the females. The problem with this theory is that austrolapithecines had strong sexual dimorphism -- males were about 50% bigger than females. This kind of dimorphism is typical of species where the male controls a harem, defending it against other males.

    • In 95, the theory was that being upright helped with temperature regulation, allowing a larger brain. An upright stature presents a smaller profile to the noon-day sun, and it allows the back of the neck to open up, providing more radiative space. At some point in hominid evolution, we developed a pair of holes in the occipital lobe one on each side, where a pair of large veins emerge, allowing hot blood from the brain to cool as it travels down the back of the neck.

      I don't know how the theories have cha

  • Origins of Virtue review (Score:3, Informative)

    by Charles Dodgeson ( 248492 ) <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:30AM (#6422528) Homepage Journal
    I am a co-author of a review essay on one of Matt Ridley's other books, Origin of Virtue. It was published in Managerial and Decision Economics in 1998. On-line copies of a draft of the review can be found here [goldmark.org].

    Apologies in advance for the yucky HTML that LaTeX2HTML produced in those days. If I can find the original source, I'll see if I can generate a usable PDF.

    (And let me fix a few of the broken links in that before I hit the submit button).

  • In sexual creatures (like people!), only the female can produce young.

    (a) Millions of seahorses around the world are reading this and saying "what are we, chopped liver"?

    (b) Saying "only the female can produce young" is a bit moronic anyway when you were just talking about asexual reproduction, where one thing really can produce young. The whole point of sexual reproduction is that neither can produce young alone.

    It is true that in most species the female body has a much more significant role as a host

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close