Which "wild guess" are you talking about?Originally Posted by Ecurb
Which "wild guess" are you talking about?
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Except that monogamy is not a complex, culturally instituted behavior. All humans practice it. This alone tells us that it is not only a social/cultural construct.
What exactly are you arguing in your rambling post? That love is a byproduct of some other adaptation? That's the only sensible argument you could make, and it is possible. That's what I assume you mean by questioning whether monogamy has adaptive value.
And yes, you sarcastic ***, monogamy can increase chances of sexual reproduction. We are not talking about individual men here. We're talking about what behavior natural selection would favor.
Any woman would laugh at any of you for having this conversation (excuse me ladies who have posted- insert foot). Even if the conversation is between me, myself, and I-diot.
You appear to have no understanding whatsoever of natural selection, cyberbob. Individual genes (carried by individual humans) are the unit of natural selection. The "good of the species" theory one occasionally hears about on TV is bunk.
Not "all humans" practice monogamy. Acceptance of polygamy is very common in human societies (although, of course, not all members of those societies practice it). More traditional socities accept polygamy than not (and, given our divorce rates, even modern Western societies practice a form of serial monogamy, which is a kind of polygamy).
I suppose, since divorce is so widespread, it must have "adaptive value", too (according to cyberbob). Hmmm. Which is it? Does monogamy have adaptive value? If so, why is it becoming increasingly rare? Does serial polygamy have adaptive value? How about watching TV? That's becoming common, these days. Does it have "adaptive value"? If so, watching "Seinfeld" had, at one time, more adaptive value than watching any other TV show.
I know that genes are the units of natural selection. I've read The Selfish Gene too. And I never said anything about the good of the species.
By all humans I mean people all over the world, not every individual human. Just like sexuality in general is a trait that all humans possess, but not every individual libido is identical.
Once again you're confusing what individuals do versus what a species does. Most species of insect, for example are not monogamous. Lions are not monogamous. We're talking about monogamy in a species.
Monogamy evolved in humans because it increased their chances of reproductive success (I'm NOT talking about an individual man, who would certainly benefit from having sex with a lot of women).
I'm not even going to dignify your argument about divorce with a response. It's as stupid as asking why, if sexual reproduction came about as an adaptive trait, do humans use condoms?
Nice series of posts, cyber.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
I have assumed no such thing, I am a biologist by training. There is ample research on the evolutionary and physiological causes of monogamous behavior. It can be correlated in animals with the vulnerability of offspring, and high commitment to offspring. Moreover, for humans specifically, our low seminal production relative to other primates is suggestive of a strategy of mate exclusion, rather than a strategy employed by polyamorous chimps, which is to overwhelm the seminal fluids of other males by producing loads and loads of your own. Monogamy is not complicated, we can study it in animals. Looking at the monogamous behavior of mole rats, we find that the part of the brain when ablated that removes monogamous behavior (and this has to be evolutionary because it is the sole mating strategy employed by mole rats, unless you think there are constructed religious practices causing this behavior amongst them) is the same part of the brain stimulated during sexual relations between humans.
If a trait is neutral or maladaptive we would not expect widespread distribution of these traits in our population. Evolution provides us a framework in which humans function, social behaviors can complicate the issue, but it is just ridiculous to act as if evolution can not be used to explain human behavior.
Well I never used that reasoning, so this is irrelevant.
I also said that there are competing selective pressures favoring both polygamous and monogamous behavior in humans. They are both adaptive under the right circumstances. If you have few resources and need to exclude mates, then a harem will not work for you. If you have the ability to sequester more females, you will be polygamous.
Moreover, sexual dimorphism in humans, which is much more pronounced than in other primates, seems connected to heavily to a strong importance of sexual selection (which we also see in serially monogamous birds).
Last edited by OrphanPip; 08-16-2011 at 09:44 PM.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
OrphanPip writes, "If you have the ability to sequester more females, you will be polygamous." Really? I'll bet some people who "have the ability to sequester more females" are polygamous, and some are monogamous, and some are serially monogamous. Once again, OrphanPip, you're just making this stuff up.
You say you are aware of the logical error I pointed out earlier (" I have assumed no such thing")-- but so many people fall into that error that it's an easy mistake to make. What is the evidence that monogamy or polygamy or serial monogamy have "adaptive benefits"? Apparently (based on your post) the evidence is that they exist. Humans (according to Orphan, and I have no reason to doubt it) produce less semen than apes. But why does this suggest that monogamy has adaptive value? How could it possibly suggest that? Isn't it likely, instead, that either monogamy or polygamy (cultural constructs) developed first -- and then it was advantageous to produce less semen (because males weren’t wasting scarce resources on unnecessary semen production)? Under what possible scenario does the production of less semen suggest that monogamy has adaptive advantages?
I'll grant that the human reproductive strategy (even to a greater extent than most mammals) is to produce fewer offspring, and spend more resources caring for them. Even here, though, simply stating this fact is insufficient to suggest that this strategy is adaptively advantageous. Surely, in order to demonstrate the adaptive value of a behavior we have to compare it to another behavior and measure the results.
OrphanPio further states, "There is ample research on the evolutionary and physiological causes of monogamous behavior. It can be correlated in animals with the vulnerability of offspring, and high commitment to offspring." Really? Then why have most human societies (historically, although not today), in which offspring are vulnerable and parents committed, allowed polygamy?
OrphanPip goes on to say, “If a trait is neutral or maladaptive we would not expect widespread distribution of these traits in our population. Evolution provides us a framework in which humans function, social behaviors can complicate the issue, but it is just ridiculous to act as if evolution can not be used to explain human behavior.” Of course it is true that humans (like other animals) are affected by evolutionary pressures. No reasonable person would deny that. However, the extent to which evolution can “explain human behavior” is unclear. It would be ridiculous to assert that the difference between two people -- living in the same community and having the same resources – one of whom is monogamous and the other polygamous – can be “explained” by evolutionary pressures. How could it?
In addition, although OrphanPip “would not expect widespread distribution (of neutral or maladaptive traits) in our population”, his expectations are likely to be disappointed. For example, both atheism and theism are widespread in modern America. Is one adaptive and the other maladaptive? Are both neutral? Good grief, this position is so ludicrous it hardly bears refutation. Of course neutral and even maladaptive traits often become widespread (especially when these “traits” are cultural instead of biological)! Here OrphanPip, despite claiming to understand the logical error I pointed out earlier, is making the EXACT MISTAKE I was inveighing against. If A, then B does NOT suggest if B, then A. How hard is that to understand?
I have some other minor quibbles with Pip’s post. For example, I don’t believe that sexual dimorphism is more pronounced in humans than in other primates. I’ve seen baboons, for example, where the males are more than twice the size of the females, and look very different. Sexual dimorphism in baboons is more pronounced than in humans, and the same is true in many other primates. Among our closer relatives, I know that Orangutans and Gorillas exhibit at least as much sexual dimorphism (in terms of size, at least) as humans. Male Orangutans are twice the weight, on average, of females, for example.
Just to clarify my position: if a behavior (rather than a gene) enhances descendant leaving success, and if the behavior is passed down from parents to children (whether genetically or culturally – like language, for example, is passed from parents to children), then the prevalence of that behavior will tend to increase. This is the fundamental postulate of Darwinian Evolution (biologically, if not culturally), and I fully grant that it is correct.
However, if the frequency of a behavior has increased, we cannot assume that the behavior has adaptive value (i.e. has increased because of it’s tendency to increase descendant-leaving success). Making that assumption would be a horrendous logical error, as anyone versed in logic will be well aware. In addition, it’s obvious -- based on common sense. The behavior of watching TV has increased dramatically in America in the last 60 years, and it would be silly to assume that TV-watching has adaptive value. Monogamy, polygamy and serial monogamy are, of course, specifically involved in reproduction and child rearing – so it makes sense that they would be affected by their adaptive benefits or failings more than watching TV is. Nonetheless, the same logical principles apply.
No, I am not. I am pointing out that different reproductive strategies do not need to be mutually exclusive. They can be adaptive under different conditions. We have physiological processes that contribute to promoting monogamous behavior, and competing ones that contribute to polyamorous behavior. Our brain physiology has not appeared over night due to cultural trends. It took millions of years and generations of hominids prior to the emergence of humans and after. Cultural conditions are part of what makes a gene adaptive or maladaptive. It all depends on the context.
I did not say lower semen levels are suggestive of adaptive benefits of monogamy. We begin with the hypothesis that humans have undergone selection to favour monogamous behavior. We can then formulate predictions from that hypothesis off the basis of human physiology and observations of other monogamous animals. A low semen production is evidence of a monogamous lifestyle, and supports the fact that hominids have been using sequestering of females as a mating strategy for a long time. Kinds of sexual dimorphism is another prediction, as we see decorative features associated with monogamous birds. We can predict that we would share physiological traits, like brain activity associated with pair bonding, with other monogamous animals. These predictions are all satisfied. They suggest a long period of monogamy long before the development of complex cultural notions could have occurred, prior to the development of language.
No that is not what adaptive means. Adaptive or maladaptive are context specific. Sickle cell trait is adaptive in places where malaria is endemic, it is maladaptive in Sweden. For an organism already committed to low birth rates and high commitment to offspring, monogamy has clearly adaptive advantages. Moreover, as I have said, monogamy being adaptive does not mean that conditional mating strategies can not be adaptive as well, which is why we see wide ranging behaviors. Hell, if we look MHC gene differences correlate with degrees of infidelity, we are more likely to cheat on those more genetically similar to us. The point to which our mating behavior is biologically determined is far greater than people want to admit. Natural selection is more complicated than X gene being more adaptive than Y gene, so X gene will become dominant. In reality it never quite works that cleanly.
Like I have said, the behaviors are not mutually exclusive. It pays to be monogamous under certain circumstances, it pays to be polygamous under certain circumstances. We also have to take into consideration the sexual dimorphic issues of selection. Males and females carry mostly the same genes, but certain genes can be highly maladaptive in one sex in comparison to the other. For example, female fecundity, which is pretty adaptive for females, has been connected with male homosexuality, which may be neutral or slightly maladaptive depending on the social forces. Possibly, the maladaptive aspects of male homosexuality are not significant enough to offset the benefits of the female fecundity genes.
Why couldn't it? Ranges of behavior exist amongst even simple organisms, we are not all clones of each other. Culture effects evolution, and evolution effects culture. Monogamy can be explained as adaptive, which explains why we see it amongst other animals and in human populations. A long history of monogamy explains several physiological features of human beings. It is possible that one of our hominid ancestors was more strictly monogamous than current humans.
Oh please, this is a strawman. Our brain physiology, sexual dimorphism, and mating strategies are closely intertwined with our genetics. Our sexual urges are biological realities, and not ideas. An idea can hardly be referred to as a trait anyway. It is entirely possible that there are genes that predispose people to certain belief patterns which can be adaptive or maladaptive under certain context. Maladaptive traits, even when cultural, will not persist over several generations, when competing adaptive traits exist. Of course, it is more complex than that, because these things take time, and genes that are consistently maladaptive can take several hundred generations to be bred out of a population, or even more in significantly large breeding populations like the current human one.
We have to take into account the immediate evolutionary history, without looking too far distant. Several hominid fossils show little sexual dimorphism, our close relatives the chimps and bonobo show little sexual dimorphism. Something happened along the way in hominid development that started to push the development of sexual dimorphism. We have two ways to explain sexual dimorphism, intrasexual and intersexual. Intrasexual examples can be large horns in rams, used for contest over mates. The strength of male gorillas probably derives from male intrasexual competition. The other aspect is the sexual selection, or intersexual aspects. This can be as radical as some kinds of moths that produces paralytic toxins for the sole purpose of raping females, to the bright feathers of male peacocks. The form of female sexual dimorphism in humans suggest a strong role of mate selection, like what we see in a lot of monogamous birds. We do not expect this much in polygamous animals, because the male would just mate will not be choosy with his women. However, when you are only going to mate with one woman, you are gonna be far more choosy.
Last edited by OrphanPip; 08-17-2011 at 04:18 PM.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
I don't think we're ever going to agree, OrphanPip, mainly because you appear not to understand what I've written. I agree with almost everything you wrote in your last post -- however, where I disagree (and the crux of the disagreement) is as follows:
Pip writes:First, if humans have undergones selection to favour monogamous behavior wouldn't the single thing that we SHOULD be able to predict from that fact (by far more than any other thing) is that humans PRACTICE monogamous behavior. But they don't! We don't! Our ancestors didn't! Monogamy to the exclusion of other marriage systems is very rare in human societies.We begin with the hypothesis that humans have undergone selection to favour monogamous behavior. We can then formulate predictions from that hypothesis off the basis of human physiology and observations of other monogamous animals. A low semen production is evidence of a monogamous lifestyle, and supports the fact that hominids have been using sequestering of females as a mating strategy for a long time.
Less significant, low semen production might reasonably be correlated to sequestering females -- but NOT TO MALE MONOGAMY! So I'll grant that low semen production might be correlated to FEMALE monogamy, but not to male.
Of course OrphanPip is correct that environments change, that culture constitutes part of the environment, and that traits can be adaptive in some environments and not in others. In fact, he gave a very informative lecture about that, and I agree with it all.
I'll grant that our mating behavior is probably partially determined by evolutionary pressures. Are these pressures biological or cultural? Let's look at one example: the so-called human "universal law" is an incest taboo (which OrphanPip mentions as possibly genetically influenced). Yet, in many simpler societies, a person was required to marry his or her cross-cousin, and prohibited from marrying his or her parallel cousin. (Cross cousins are father's sisters children, or mother's brother's children.) How (one wonders) does this well established, common, and well-known fact square with the biological explanation (which is that close relatives are more likely to have less healthy children)? Isn't a cultural explanation (also evolutionary) more consistent with these facts? Indeed, the cross and parallel cousins are identically close genetically to their potential spouse. The difference is economic and political -- the cross cousins are in different clans (whether the society is patrilineal or matrilineal); the parallel cousins are in the same clan. The family creates more allies through exogamous marriages. Here is just one example of how a cultural explanation, specifically applied to marriage customs and rules, is more consistent with the facts than a biological or genetic one. (By the way -- I'm not arguing with OrphanPip here -- he's said nothing to make me think he would disagree -- I'm just giving my own little lecture as a trained anthropologist.)
Since I was a cultural anthropologist, I don't know if Orphan's discussion of diminished sexual dimorphism in ancestral humans is accurate -- but he seems pretty knowledgable and I'll take his word for it (although I don't buy that it's related to monogamy). Obviously, continual sexual receptivity in women (which is different from most mammals) is the biological trait most commonly cited as being a female tactic to keep fathers around to help rear the kids.
As for cultural or biological traits being selected against within "several generations" -- I'd suggest that's only the case when the traits are extremely deleterious to descendant leaving success. Most cultural traits are relatively neutral (like the "watching TV" example I gave earlier) and the impact -- if any -- is slow.
yes actually love exist......we most of the time its invisible
Love shows itself to exist.yes actually love exist......we most of the time its invisible
That must be a relief to know.
Love is a sorrow.
For some, but not most.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote