Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Content Type
      Content Type
      Clear All
      Content Type
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
262 result(s) for "Marsh, Jason"
Sort by:
Why does inbreeding reduce male paternity? Effects on sexually selected traits
Mating with relatives has often been shown to negatively affect offspring fitness (inbreeding depression). There is considerable evidence for inbreeding depression due to effects on naturally selected traits, particularly those expressed early in life, but there is less evidence of it for sexually selected traits. This is surprising because sexually selected traits are expected to exhibit strong inbreeding depression. Here, we experimentally created inbred and outbred male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Inbred males were the offspring of matings between full siblings. We then investigated how inbreeding influenced a number of sexually selected male traits, specifically: attractiveness, sperm number and velocity, as well as sperm competitiveness based on a male’s share of paternity. We found no inbreeding depression for male attractiveness or sperm traits. There was, however, evidence that lower heterozygosity decreased paternity due to reduced sperm competitiveness. Our results add to the growing evidence that competitive interactions exacerbate the negative effects of the increased homozygosity that arises when there is inbreeding.
Sexual selection expedites the evolution of pesticide resistance
The evolution of insecticide resistance by crop pests and disease vectors causes serious problems for agriculture and health. Sexual selection can accelerate or hinder adaptation to abiotic challenges in a variety of ways, but the effect of sexual selection on resistance evolution is little studied. Here, we examine this question using experimental evolution in the pest insect Tribolium castaneum. The experimental removal of sexual selection slowed the evolution of resistance in populations treated with pyrethroid pesticide, and also reduced the rate at which resistance was lost from pesticide-free populations. These results suggest that selection arising from variance in mating and fertilization success can augment natural selection on pesticide resistance, meaning that sexual selection should be considered when designing strategies to limit the evolution of pesticide resistance.
Darwin and the Problem of Natural Nonbelief
Problem one: why, if God designed the human mind, did it take so long for humans to develop theistic concepts and beliefs? Problem two: why would God use evolution to design the living world when the discovery of evolution would predictably contribute to so much nonbelief in God? Darwin was aware of such questions but failed to see their evidential significance for theism. This paper explores this significance. Problem one introduces something I call natural nonbelief, which is significant because it parallels and corroborates well-known worries about natural evil. Problems one and two, especially when combined, support naturalism over theism, intensify the problem of divine hiddenness, challenge Alvin Plantinga's views about the naturalness of theism, and advance the discussion about whether the conflict between science and religion is genuine or superficial.
Quality of Life Assessments, Cognitive Reliability, and Procreative Responsibility
Recent work in the psychology of happiness has led some to conclude that we are unreliable assessors of our lives and that skepticism about whether we are happy is a genuine possibility worth taking very seriously. I argue that such claims, if true, have worrisome implications for procreation. In particular, they show that skepticism about whether many if not most people are well positioned to create persons is a genuine possibility worth taking very seriously. This skeptical worry should not be confused with a related but much stronger version of the argument, which says that all human lives are very bad and not worth starting. I criticize the latter stance, but take seriously the former stance and hope it can be answered in future work.
Do the demographics of theistic belief disconfirm theism? A reply to Maitzen
In his article entitled ‘Divine hiddenness and the demographics of theism’ (Religious Studies, 42 (2006), 177–191), Stephen Maitzen draws our attention to an important feature that is often overlooked in discussion about the argument from divine hiddenness (ADH). His claim is that an uneven distribution of theistic belief (and not just the mere existence of non-belief) provides an atheological challenge that cannot likely be overcome. After describing what I take to be the most pressing feature of the problem, I argue that a hidden premise causes Maitzen to overlook a Molinist solution. The upshot is a softening of the atheological import of the demographic data.
Creating and Raising Humans: Essays on the Morality of Procreation and Parenting
It used to be widely held that procreation does not need a justification, that its moral permissibility is simply obvious. But things are different now. And the change is largely due to a number of arguments from Benatar, Shiffrin and Velleman. In response to this background my dissertation offers the beginnings of the first systematic defense of procreation, one that consists in four articles. Along the way it draws some implications for parenting, for bioethics, for normative ethics, and for political philosophy.Article one presents a novel argument that our lives may be much more valuable than we think, one that stems from an overlooked connection between lotteries, value and the non-identity problem. Article two explores the relationship between happiness research and procreation and blocks an argument that our lives are much worse than we think, not good enough to start. Article three argues that certain leftover problems in our attempt to justify procreation create a new argument for the doctrine of procreative beneficence and reveal that strict deontologists should probably become moderate deontologists – at least if they wish to justify creating persons. Article four formulates a new challenge for moral and political philosophy about the extent to which parents may transmit rejecting and potentially harmful attitudes to their sexual minority children. Here I show that the way in which parents reason about rejection has bearing on whether they should create.
Does death penalty bring closure?
Jason Marsh: Death penalty for Tsarnaev may seem a punishment that can bring closure, but research shows it's not that simple He says studies show it usually doesn't end grief, and can make it worse; forgiveness holds better chance of bringing peace