Sexual selection can be far stronger than natural selection and drives weapon extremes

Evidence

Sexual selection differs from most forms of natural selection in ways tailor-made for pushing traits to their extreme. For one thing, sexual selection can be a lot stronger than natural selection. Whenever a small subset of males monopolizes access to large numbers of females, the disparity in reproductive success skyrockets. A few victorious males sire dozens or even hundreds of offspring, while the overwhelming majority of males sire none. When payoffs for success are high enough, weapons can evolve to really big sizes. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 177

Categorization

• XREF: Core Darwinian sexual selection concept connects to the earlier knight tournaments and to similar weapon-competition arguments in later chapters. — connects to: Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry; Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations; Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (+25 more)

Related

• Sexual selection drives weapons to extremes because payoffs for winners are enormous. (similarity 0.96)
• Reproductive success, not survival, drives the largest animal weapons (similarity 0.94)
• Sexual selection is uniquely directional because the social environment itself evolves with the weapons (similarity 0.92)
• Sexual selection stays directionally constant while physical natural selection oscillates (similarity 0.92)
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons (similarity 0.91)
• Social competition environments evolve in tandem with weapons, unlike fluctuating physical environments (similarity 0.91)
• Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry (similarity 0.90)
• Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations (similarity 0.90)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.89)
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit (similarity 0.89)
• Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (similarity 0.89)
• Each weapon-size increase resets the competitive baseline, ratcheting populations upward (similarity 0.89)
• Markets and battlefields select among rifle designs like natural selection acts on weapons (similarity 0.88)
• Species with huge weapons often show weak current selection on them. (similarity 0.88)
• Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races (similarity 0.88)

Broader Connections

• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection #contradicts (0.85) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 850
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. #expands (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 387
• Social competition environments evolve in tandem with weapons, unlike fluctuating physical environments #corroborates (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 182
• Animal weapons evolved to extremes far beyond practical size #corroborates (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 2
• Sexual selection stays directionally constant while physical natural selection oscillates #corroborates (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 185
• Weapons evolve only when reproductive benefits exceed costs #qualifies (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 199