Anyone who took the time to read through Darwin's discussion of sexual selection
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-11.htmlshould have noticed how concerned he was with explaining away beauty. The issue of beauty seems to have haunted him for several years.
UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE: BEAUTY, HOW ACQUIRED.
The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.
That's from his earlier book.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-06.htmlIt's worth a careful read. Beauty, if it exists for its own sake, is absolutely fatal to Darwinism.
I wonder that this issue has received such little attention. I think we may profit by considering it.
Darwin, in the very next sentence, disavows the burden of proof.
I fully admit that many structures are now of no direct use to their possessors, and may never have been of any use to their progenitors; but this does not prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety.
One has to wonder what
would prove something was formed solely for beauty! Is Darwin serious? Why does he bring up the issue in the first place, let alone ramble about it for so many paragraphs if his argument is merely "you can't prove it"?
I suspect he knew better. Beauty for its own sake is what we observe. He who would explain it away has the burden of proof, it seems to me.
Keep in mind the chronology, and you may understand how/why he became so incoherent and self-contradictory in his explanation of sexual selection.
Not that he was making sense to begin with, mind you! Darwin's argument here is really amusing. If you haven't read it, I suggest it may be worth investing a few minutes.
On the other hand, I willingly admit that a great number of male animals, as all our most gorgeous birds, some fishes, reptiles, and mammals, and a host of magnificently coloured butterflies, have been rendered beautiful for beauty's sake.
If you compare this with his first statement on the subject, it is a concession of defeat.
Of course he keeps right on going, as if he can weasel out of it. Intentional double-talk, inadvertent truth, or plain old evosickness? You decide.
