“ Part of this problem may stem from the fact that Miller bifurcates natural and sexual selection into two distinct processes. This is problematic considering that, in humans particularly, there may exist a close connection between sexual and natural selection owing to humans becoming ecologically dominant at some point in our past. As such, other conspecifics began influencing our evolution much more directly. Therefore, “survival” selection will probably start to look a lot like sexual selection because the dominant environmental feature influencing hominid reproductive success, particularly in the realm of social cognition, was other hominids. ” –John D. Wagner, Department of Anthropology , University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
“ Miller’s thesis is simple, yet profound: perhaps the human mind evolved as a result of sexual selection, essentially the equivalent of the peacock’s tail, except that in our case, much of the choice works both ways: males choosing females as well as females choosing males. Miller gets wonderful intellectual mileage out of this notion, pointing out, for example, that the brain itself, as an energetically expensive organ as well as one that is highly vulnerable to mutational damage, serves as an ideal fitness indicator. Similarly with the brain’s products, and not just obviously useful behavior of the sort that contributes to survival selection, but also those uniquely human characteristics that have so bedeviled sociobiological explanation: art, music, poetry, creativity, all of which seem unlikely to contribute to fitness. ”- Barash, D. P. (2002). What's A Brain For? Human Nature Review . 2: 187-194.
“ Miller's main claim to our attention lies in his assertion that ''the human mind's most distinctive features, such as our capacities for language, art, music, ideology, humor and creative intelligence,'' are due more or less exclusively to mate choice. With his highly mechanistic view of evolution, Miller has to construe art as a puzzle for evolutionary biologists since this activity does not serve any obvious utilitarian function. We are assured, however, that all falls into place when we think in terms of sexual selection. For art, it turns out, is part of the ''extended phenotype'' of human beings: it is one of those characteristics that, while not being physical, still affect individual reproductive success. ”-Ian Tattersall, Author of “Becoming Human” and “Extinct Humans”, American Museum of Natural History