Slashdot Mirror
Monogamy May Have Evolved To Prevent Infanticide
sciencehabit writes "Human males and females have a strong tendency to live together in monogamous pairs, albeit for highly varied periods of time and degrees of fidelity. Just how such behavior arose has been the topic of much debate among researchers. A new study comes to a startling conclusion: Among primates, including perhaps humans, monogamy evolved because it protected infants from being killed by rival males."
Sometimes a bitch just needs to have an abortion.
Article is flamebait.
why it hasn't evolved in lots of other species.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What a fragrant load.
Humans are not brought into heat by the absence of young, and killing offspring is directly opposed to the core of evolutionary theory, which rewards the widest possible range of mates to guarantee diverse genetic combinations and the maximum chances for survival and spread of strong genes.
It's getting to the point where all you have to do is add "evolved" as the verb in any half-assed guess, and the neckbeards shout "amen!"
Science is a fucking religion.
primates tend to be in bands and they all protect each other. Mogamy happen because it takes a long time to rise the offspring, and it needs the support of both the female and male, and Love was one of the reward mechanism. See Helen Fisher's talk http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_in_love.html
Males who abandoned their offspring tended not to see their genes spread further. Seems quite obvious. What's actually puzzling is that so many species thrive *without* monogamy.
Been there, done that.
If anything humans are polygamous. A third cheat and the reason the other two thirds don't is because of social, financial and other consequences or just aren't attractive enough to get someone to cheat with.
It takes a female chimpanzee 4 to 5 years to teach her offspring enough to survive. During that time, she does not come into heat. Humans, on the other hand, can have babies about once a year. A single female could not raise them all on her own without some help. Today, we call that helper a husband and father. Monogamy means more babies.
Don't stop where the ink does.
The current fortune is perfect for this thread:
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James
Just beautiful.
And infidelity has evolved to ensure that you will have many adult males willing to defend your own offsprings.
That "just so" story gets me in the feels, therefore it isn't evo-psych STEMlord oppression.
Interestinly, Negroes, like the othe lower apes, are very promiscuous. They will rut and breed with anything. They are lazy and shiftless, and like the cuckoo, deposit its brood in another's nest, which is to say, the state. "Git dat green" say the Negro. "Git dat green". Fat negro women, with their bulbous buttocks make a career of squeezing out little monkey children as fast as they can say "Git dat green". They are the proverbial welfare queens with a dozen pups by a dozen different men.
Monogamy evolved because it makes great furniture.
I believe evolution happens, both historically and currently, and on scales both grand and small.
But I'm tired of so-called scientists making news stories out of un-testable speculations about how something or another could have been a factor in our evolutionary past.
That kind of speculation is for late-night living-room talk, not scientific journals.
Family takes a lot of resources. Poor man could afford only one female and women had no choice to begin with. Rich man could afford more women and they certainly did.
It makes sense in a strange way.
"Human males and females have a strong tendency to live together in monogamous pairs"
As much as they have a strong tendency towards not being able to afford harems.
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
This is the most obvious explanation, and is so much a common sense that I'm surprised it wasn't "prooved" already since forever.
This is merely another variation on the very old theme of humans needed more co-operation than their ancestors.
"Be sexually faithful or your children die" is a harsh bargain, but such are the stakes in evolutionary biology.
The headline of horribly stupid because it identifies and ascribes intention and foresight to a process where those qualities are by definition absent. It's the village idiot's view of evolution and is as useful as thinking that the sun decides to rise each morning in order to warm the earth.
Monogamy didn't evolve to do X or Y or to prevent Z. It's one of many traits that allowed its carriers' offspring to endure.
I always suspected Mormons were a less-evolved form of humans. Good to see we finally have proof.
What about all the parents that want to kill their own kids?
What the propaganda's author forgot to take into consideration is the fact that women do not go into estrus or heat. They cyclically ovulate. The whole reason any male animal who is observed to kill another member's of its species offspring is to send the female back into HEAT as a result. This would not be the result for a human, so the premise that the author made for himself to confirm (bias), is flawed on its face. Never mind the methodology!
"Human males and females have a strong tendency to live together in monogamous pairs" [citation needed]
This seems to be nothing more than a soft science trying to co-opt a hard sciences basis to gain some validity. Monogamy didn't evolve in a biological sense in humans for any reason... we're not monogamous. If we were, there would be no attraction to anyone other than our mate, period; not because we choose to be honorable and respect our mate, but because there would be no attraction... ever.. in any way.
This is some social scientist trying to explain a social quirk of a few of our societies, and has nothing to do with the Theory of Natural Selection, or real science.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Being a father of 4, I love those whipper snappers like crazy, even when being annoying, noisy, crying, mean. Other people's kids? Little turds can go the hell if they act like that. Shut them up and get the them the F outta my face. Of course I never say that to anyone and have the higher level thinking to take a step back and get some sympathy. But the initial instinct is there, hating other peoples' childrens' antics. Perhaps a latent instinct still at play.
means having one wife too many.
Monogamy means the exact same thing.
And welcome to Slashdot ! Enjoy your visit ...
My co worker, who studied biology, mentioned another point to consider - the size of the humans skull.
The skull of a newborn is big. It is as big is can get without causing mortal damage to the mother at birth, but, apparently, it is not 'big enough', as it is still growing...
So on the one hand, a human infant needs a lot of protection and care for a long time (as it's brain and skull are still growing), but on the other, the mother is very weak for a substantial time after birth (due to the difficulty of delivering a baby with such a big skull). She could certainly use a helping hand, preferably in the coming years, but certainly in the coming days.
They did a statistic among many primate species. But the conclusion that this applies to humans is propably wrong:
The closest relatives of humans - chimps and bonobos - don't live in monogamous pairs.
Humans share genital features and gender relative body size with bonobos and chimps but not with monogamous primates like gibbons.
And pure hunter gatherer societies that exist know don't live monogamous.
It is very likely that monogamy in humans was triggered by agriculture. It really doesn't make much sense for a population living in small communal groups without property.
http://www.sexatdawn.com/
The research presented in the article might be sound for monogamous primates, but that group of animals does not include humans.
Your false assumption is that monogamy is a norm and not a recent western civilization cultural abstract idealized contrivance not representing reality, or did I just repeat myself?
What a load of crock, there is not a single bit of scientific evidence in the form of DNA, fossils or anything else that can even come close to proving evolution exists at all. The whole theory of evolution is of a universe/world/species that are evolving out of control and that through death the fittest survive. That theory alone suggests that extinction for every species would have happened long ago.
God created everything, created Adam and Eve to enjoy marriage just as God created man and woman to only marry one another, once, for life. Thus raise children there in.
Anyone who says evolution is real is clinically insane or scared of the real truth. God created man and thus mans actions have consequences before an almighty God and evolution is a means to filter God out of the picture and try to remove eternal consequences that they have before God.
Not a single mention of the bonobos.. Check out the book "sex at dawn" gets into this on a much deeper level
The title makes it sound like there was some end result that evolution was looking for. Evolution doesn't work that way. If the end result happened to be that there was less infanticide and therefore made it more likely for the species to survive, then that was an evolutionary success. As a result, the monogamous tendency would be more likely be passed on to the next generation. Evolution isn't a conscious entity that said to itself... "hrmm.. how do I reduce infanticide?? I know... let's try monogamy".
1. Monogamy reduces the spread of STD's
2. Energy requirements...Have you seen how much energy males of other species put into obtaining and then defending a "harem"? With energy requirements increasing to support evolving gray matter, it would make sense to reduce energy use in other areas.
3. Physical requirements...A male that has a female spends less time fighting other males, and is more likely to be in better physical shape to last long enough to raise young, etc.
4. Education...A male that has a female spends less time fighting, and can focus more time on learning tools, raising/teaching young, etc.
5. Time requirements...Males of other species last at most what, three years defending a "harem"? A one to three year "peak" does not seem to line up with where humans ended up.
I agree that monogamy in theory would reduce pressure on offspring by competing males. But I think some combination of other things such as those above may be more important.
People getting real butthurt over nothing.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
...you kill my kid and my wife and I fucking kill you slowly and painfully. Albeit, both parties still lose.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Nothing about this is said in the Bible, the only science manual you need.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.