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."
and killing offspring is directly opposed to the core of evolutionary theory
Unless those offspring are in direct competition for food and reproductive access with your offspring. Then it makes a lot of sense evolution-wise.
Clearly you didn't read the article. The very study linked in the summary specifically compared 230 primate species, some of which are socially monogamous and some of which are not. And it explains why it *hasn't* evolved among all of the fairly similar species in the study using a model based on the infanticide rate.
There are almost certainly things to be picked apart in the study, but you need to understand the basic premise before you can start on that track.
Because there's no "design" to evolution. Whatever works, works. And there's not one "right" way to evolve. There's no reason for a feature that evolves in one species to independently evolve in other species (although it's possible.)
assert(birth_date<time-86400)
Just because someone else has a different hypothesis doesn't mean this one is wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Can you explain why you *didn't* get into a car accident in the last month? What was it that you did that nobody else who got into a car accident last month did, to cause you to avoid all the accidents that could have happened?
You could say that Bill was drunk, or Alice was texting, and that's why they got into car accidents, but that doesn't explain how every single person that drove drunk or texted while driving didn't get into an accident.
What kind of explanation were you expecting?
Birds clearly have an advantage by being able to fly. If I said "Flying is not advantageous, because if it was, all organisms would have evolved to be able to fly", would that be convincing to you?
Here is a quote from Euripedes a writer from Ancient Greece where they had polygamy:
A second wife is hateful to the children of the first; A viper is not more hateful.
How does monogamy change who is in competition with whom? There is no evolutionary mechanism to enforce monogamy. From a purely genetic standpoint there is no benefit to monogamy for a strong male.
Articles like this are just freeze dried beef pasta boiled up in 100 gallon vats and thrown to the neckbeards who gobble it up while slathering vaseline and yanking each other off.
Shit isn't even pretending to be science any more. It's just some asshole in a lab coat leading a revivial in a Kentucky tent.
The argument is that your statement about a strong male being better off without monogamy seems right but isn't, because if strong males fail to stick around and ensure the children they conceived survive to reach adulthood and carry on the cycle, it won't happen, and their "strong" genes will be wiped from the face of the earth.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Perhaps not. Maybe the mods objected to the misogyny.
I'd like to hypothesize that a lot of people are hung up on finding an evolutionary answer for everything. Sometimes things just happen in a species without there being an evolutionary advantage. Species are not hyper optimized. Sometimes things are just side effects. Sometimes I get a feeling that people like to anthropomorphize evolution, replacing a deity that designs with specific reasons and goals with a system that does the same thing. Especially with very fuzzy things like behavior.
Ie, I've heard people discussing the reason for grandmothers. This is a silly concept, unless your view of evolution is that it is a system that optimizes organisms. Maybe grandmothers exist because humans live longer than they used to, no need for a hand waving explanation. Others want to have an evolutionary "reason" for homosexuality. Yes, it's not a nice thought to think that it's a biological mistake, but it's certainly easy enough to think that it is because some genes are expressed at a certain time that caused various hormones to be produced at a particular time in development, and as a side effect of this slight variance in timing you end up with an organism that does not fit the standardized phenotype. May as well ask what the evolutionary advantage of preferring red heads over blondes is.
Humans are extremely complex, in a chaos system way. We have plenty of attributes that are not optimal for reproduction of the species, but they exist because they don't kill us off. But evolution is dumbed down for teaching purposes, even in undergraduate classes. People still recite "survival of the fittest" as if it's some sort of law. Others talk about "higher" species or "more evolved", which is nonsense.
As for monogomy, research among cultures around the world do show a consistent view that is "mostly" monogamous. Ie, serial monogamy with occasional cheating on the sly. That's universal. Yes, there are examples of cultures with polygamy, but even in those societies the polygamy is rare and when it occurs it is due to societal pressures (ie, a severe shortage of one gender, usually men due to wars), and at other times is restricted to just high class members of society (ie, to have more than one wife is proof that you are wealthy).
Yeah, yeah, misogyny is the buzz-word of the day ... which really means "if you challenge anything that could be construed to challenge a woman in any way for any reason, I'll pull out the misogyny card so that I don't need an argument". The term is about as robust as "discrimination" (which means "to choose"). The power of words...
Anyway, a friend of mine taught in Papua New Guinea for about 10 years back in the 80s. He lived there for that time (other than the occasional holiday). He was not a missionary - he was there for education programs. This is roughly what he told me a few years back (and re-confirmed when I asked him again)...
The men tended to stay with the men, the women tended to stay with the women. There was only a loose "sexual" association between men and women - and the offspring (when the men got randy) belonged to the community rather than a couple. The kids would go with whatever adult they wanted to stay with, sometimes months at a time. Over time, this social structure was forcibly changed by the missionaries to reform these hethens.
Now, this social structure was not monogamous in ANY sense of the word and involved little or no infanticide. Interestingly, it mimics (loosely) some aspects of Indonesian culture, although Indonesian culture has also been "westernised" to a degree, although I did see this sense of "community" that you don't get in the west ... front doors left open, people just coming and going into other's houses, kids staying at other families' house for weeks at a time - it was amazing to see.
Feel free to call me a misogynist too, since it's popular to throw buzzwords around. Whenever I hear the "m" word, my "wanker alert" light goes off.