Talk:Sperm competition
|
|
The original article was utter bollocks. So I rewrote it. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I created the article with the evolutionary psychology of rape as my frame of mind. If larger ejaculate load in response to infidelity or suspicions of infedility is not to go under sperm competition, then where should it go? Mbac 15:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- First we need to establish the basic principles of sperm competition, which I think I have reasonably done by defining it and giving a bit of history. Thanks for making me write the article :) I'm coming at it from a evolutionary biology point of view of course, but a straight biological one rather than a anthropogenic one. If you can provide citation for that claim about heavier ejaculates, then that would be good. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"However, sperm are costly to produce" ... ??
Is there a reference for this? It doesnt sound plausible that manufacturing sperm would require more calories/energy than e.g. brushing one's teeth.
- perhaps, but I can't find a citation justifying the above claim re costliness of sperm production. Sounds like a belabored rationale for a pet sociobiology theory.
- Firstly, what's wrong with sociobiology (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml)? Sperm competition is an accepted paradigm that is over thirty years old and just because you might not like the implications of socibiology doesn't mean that they're not right and supported by the evidence. Dunc|☺ 09:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK Mr. Smartypants, explain how sociobiology dictates that sperm are biologically costly to the sperm-producing organism. Why should sperm be more costly to produce than e.g. blood cells or snot? My point being that the original statement in the article sounds like a belabored post-hoc rationale for a pet theory and should have a clear citation backing it up rather than some general non-specific references.
- Ok, so you can't explain it, just say so. Don't be unnecessarily obtuse.