The theory of evolution is without doubt one of the finest-recognized scientific theories round. However after speaking with quite a few researchers within the subject of sexual choice, I learned that every one of Prum’s friends are well aware of his work and that many already settle for among the core tenets of his argument: particularly that natural and sexual selection are distinct processes and that, in at the least some instances, beauty reveals nothing about an individual’s health or vigor.
Such claims sometimes verge on the ludicrous: The philosopher Denis Dutton has argued that individuals around the globe have an intrinsic appreciation for a sure kind of landscape — a grassy discipline with copses of timber, water and wildlife — as a result of it resembles the Pleistocene savannas where humans advanced.
This idea is sometimes crudely known as the theory of “survival of the fittest.” It was proposed by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species in 1859 and, independently, by Alfred Wallace in 1858—although Wallace, unlike Darwin, said the human soul shouldn’t be the product of evolution.
In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who comply with in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary ideas of the Darwinian concept in its broader sense; and right here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a sure end by a kind of pure selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.