Talk:Red Queen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] Exceptions To This Rule
"Obviously there are species which are exceptions to this rule, such as humans, seahorses, and penguins, amongst others" - Where is the evidence for this?
Anon - 13:31GMT 07/10/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.198.172 (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article, especially that section, is badly written; the rule being referred to is "males ... generally contribute little to the survival of offspring". Humans, seahorses, and penguins obviously don't fit that rule. But the "rule" is nonsensical, because in most species, including all asexual species, neither parent contributes anything to the survival of the offspring. Also nonsensical is "males ... bear no offspring directly" -- so what? That's like saying that the existence of cuckoos is a paradox because they don't build the nest. If there were any "paradox", it would be why females allow themselves to be parasitized by the male's spawn. But all of this illogic is swept away by taking a gene's eye view of evolution, which is the only view that makes sense since it is genes, not organisms, which survive (with modification). -- 71.102.136.107 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Polar bear
The Polar Bear example has been disproven, recently. Although the white fur would be good for camouflage, they don't use it. It turns out they prefer to sneak up on sleeping Seals and pounce on them. I can't think of a better replacement example though.
- What is the source? I think the non-sleeping seals would startle the sleeping seals if they caught a glimpse of a black or brown polar bear sneaking toward them. -- Kevin 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Is this a joke? Camouflage obviously confers a fitness advantage, regardless of what polar bears "prefer". Do you suppose that they are just white by coincidence? -- Jibal 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Playing card
>Isn't the Red Queen a playing card?
- No, the Red Queen would denote a single card. There are two red queens in a normal deck, the Queen of Hearts and the Queen of Diamonds. Red queen in this case refers to the character from Alice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_through_the_Looking_Glass
- The Red Queen in the story is a chess piece, but neither that, nor the fact that a red queen is also a playing card, is relevant to this article. And please sign your posts so folks can know who authored what silliness. -- Jibal 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Red Queen Hypothesis - non-Darwinian view
I have added a tag suggesting that Red Queen Hypothesis - non-Darwinian view be merged into this article. I'd also suggest that any POV material be removed from that article. Any discussion on the issue? Thanks, delldot | talk 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge i'd say --Lord Snoeckx 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sex doesn't require two genders
From the article, the hypotesis doen't take hemafrodites in consideration. Is that right? It is in fact about sex or about the 2 genders?
[edit] So... What is Red Queen?
Maybe it is just me, perhaps I have been misled as to what the Red Queen effect actually is, but I do not see any actual description of the effect in the article at all.
Right now there is a brief history of terms and then talk about evolution and sex. There are a few comparisons to arms races, which is how I tend to see Red Queen, but no actual description of the hypothesis or why Van Valen used the analogy of Red Queen.
Either that, or I am way off my nut. Simply put, I see the Red Queen effect as the principle behind the arms races (evolutionary or otherwise): an infinite chasm of one-uppence so that no one has the advantage for long which reduces the problem to the original problem and all of the work is akin to "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place". An external link that I believe has an excellent description: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/REDQUEEN.html MrHen
[edit] Assessment
I've given the article a B. It's slightly short, but well referenced and understandable. I've rated it mid importance as it's a slightly advanced topic, but still one you'll hear about fairly soon if you study biology. Richard001 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Book is worth a read
This article far to short to do the book, The Red Queen, justice.
