>>4160497This is cope made by AI, yes, I know you asked AI this question because I have done so myself, in no circumstance should a negative trait survive to the next generations, even if it's outweighed by some hypothetical positive trait, the point is natural selection and sexual selection work in tandem, natural selection removes the peacocks with feathers too burdening, meanwhile sexual selection removes the peacocks with far too few feathers, thus you get that sweet spot, notice how a peacock with less to no feathers is, undeniably, much more likely to survive than one with feathers, this does not stop sexual selection from selecting against a "positive trait", because, again, sexual selection has a completely different view of what is a "good" trait.
>>4160500"Good genetics" is a VERY vague term, neither you nor the AI can narrow it down, I understand what it's trying to mean doe, more complex features that come out flawless show that the genetic coding behind those features is also flawless, but note that this has NOTHING to do with survival fitness or whether those features are even a positive thing to begin with! Now stop using the AI to think for you.
>>4160503Yes
>>4160506I'm mean to people in this site, why are you acting so sensitive geg
>>4160507Some traits do arise out of a genuine survival fitness, big hips for females is quite among mammals since it helps the female birth children - thus it is both selected in sexual and natural selection, this isn't the case for all traits, however, just like the example I gave with the Peacock, or how certain crab species have a large, almost unusable claw for the sake of mate seeking, the objective is to stand out and attract the opposite sex.
>>4160519Already raped this argument, you've just gotten TRVTHNVKED
Ghost replies have been enabled on all boards. /meta/ has been added for meta discussion.