Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Monogamy May Have Evolved to Prevent Infanticide [or, maybe, GOD instituted it!]
Science Mag ^ | 7/30/13 | Michael Balter

Posted on 07/30/2013 5:48:37 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper

... 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.

Living in pairs, what researchers call social monogamy, has repeatedly evolved among animals, although in widely varying proportions among different groups. Thus, about 90% of bird species are socially monogamous, probably because incubating eggs and feeding hatchlings is a full-time job that requires both parents. But in mammals, females carry the babies inside their bodies and are solely responsible for providing milk to young infants—and only about 5% of species are socially monogamous.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.sciencemag.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: culturewar; evolution; infanticide; junkscience; marriage; monogamy; moralabsolutes; pseudoscience; religion; rkselection; sexpositiveagenda; smashmonogamy; smashthepatriarchy
Or, perhaps, man was created to be with one partner for life, created to rule for his Creator over the earth.
1 posted on 07/30/2013 5:48:37 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

monogamy and marriage developed to connect the father to the children

there will be witnesses that a baby came from a certain woman, but no witnesses that the father provided the seed for that baby unless he is married to the mother

it’s that simple


2 posted on 07/30/2013 5:52:17 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Just because it “evolved” doesn’t mean God didn’t create it.


3 posted on 07/30/2013 5:56:03 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS. (Romans 1:21-22)


4 posted on 07/30/2013 5:56:07 AM PDT by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Right. Paternity was everything.

Life was hard and with no guarantee that there would be security or enough to eat for all.

Hunting, farming, fighting the elements, fighting wild animals, or fighting each other... men worked VERY hard just to keep everyone safe and fed.

WHY would a man want to struggle like that for children not his own?

5 posted on 07/30/2013 5:56:26 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man that it forms." H. Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

According to the biblical account that WAS/IS “the Plan”.

But for centuries God “suffered” (allowed) polygamy - in the form of a man being able to have more than one wife (at a time).

Divorce for any cause was also “suffered” by God. Jesus said “because of the hardness of your hearts” - speaking of the people of Israel. Jesus went on to re-state the original plan and the NT goes on to uphold it without deviation.


6 posted on 07/30/2013 5:58:00 AM PDT by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
WHY would a man want to struggle like that for children not his own?

Yet some men do, willingly. (just all the new ones better look like daddy!)

7 posted on 07/30/2013 5:58:13 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I dunno?... the ancient Jews had multiple wives.

I do not believe Polygamy is a viable idea in modern culture, I am not a fan of Mormons (the new monogamous ones or the old and born again polygamous ones)after reading about how they were formed.

but if you look at the old testament of the Bible:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons....”

There are a lot more verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy, but I think that the above are sufficient enough to prove my point.


8 posted on 07/30/2013 6:01:47 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

You mean the article doesn’t mention God’s role? What kind of science is this?


9 posted on 07/30/2013 6:06:07 AM PDT by Misterioso (The neat thing about being a nonvoter is that you don't have to give a damn about all of this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

And what of other monogamous species? Or are scientists only supposed to look at animals that engage in same sex rape, incest, and rape rape?


10 posted on 07/30/2013 6:07:41 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

What about Polygamy in the Bible? Abraham, Isaac?, Jacob not to mention David, Solomon and many others.

I’m not promoting polygamy and would personally abhor it, but If we are going to say that God only endorses monogamy we have to look at biblical history.

The Old Testament, clearly illustrates examples of God condoning polygamy in the past.


11 posted on 07/30/2013 6:10:15 AM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I am sure that orphans were not cast away, but the whole idea of monogamy must certainly have had something to do with this.

Who knows what was done in prehistory, during ages or in cultures where resources were SO scarce that only ones own children were provided for?

I think societies worked that out case by case. I remember reading that some tribes regarded the widow of your brother as your own wife and HIS children would be YOUR responsibility as well as your own.

Even today in the Orthodox faith, godparents represent something more than an honorific status. I was and is STILL done with the expectation that, as in older times, godparents provide for the child in case parents are lost.

12 posted on 07/30/2013 6:10:59 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man that it forms." H. Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Will say just one thing ... Am an Uneasy Rider on this thread.


13 posted on 07/30/2013 6:13:24 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
It is easier to sort out familial obligations when the family tree doesn't look like a briar patch. It also makes it easier to determine who is related to who, at least closely enough that bad genetics aren't amplified--the results of which would be evident even before genetics were understood.

Whether people simply listened to scripture, or whether they had worked out that this was best, having codified it with rules for marriage made sense for a healthier population.

14 posted on 07/30/2013 6:21:56 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

its a wonder King Solomon had any time to govern!!


15 posted on 07/30/2013 6:22:29 AM PDT by wyowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Right, and I think too that people understood early on that the possibility of birth defects increased in children born to parents who were TOO closely related.

All sorts of marriage taboos were worked out to avoid this. Also, I think that the 'raids' (to steal women) and fighting between tribes was a way to expand the gene pool... even though primitive people didn't comprehend DNA.

16 posted on 07/30/2013 6:27:40 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man that it forms." H. Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I practice Mahogany(doesnt that sound kinky).


17 posted on 07/30/2013 6:31:15 AM PDT by amnestynone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wyowolf
its a wonder King Solomon had any time to govern!!

I suppose if Wilt Chamberlain had time to play championship basketball, Solomon could govern.

Wilt the ‘stilt’ early in his career, after his first 100 women.

18 posted on 07/30/2013 6:31:32 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

They may not have understood DNA, but they knew which would make desirable brides—provided, of course, they became assimilated. I think many American Indian tribes held captives as slaves for a time, and if they worked out, they could move up in status. If not, they stayed slaves, or...well, worms need to eat, too.


19 posted on 07/30/2013 6:33:44 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Kinda jives with the conclusion that the greatest danger to infants and toddlers is mommy’s boyfriend.


20 posted on 07/30/2013 6:46:51 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I believe God made man and woman to be what ever they have to be, that is why he laid down a few very specific rules, for instance for a man to lie with an other man as he would lie with a woman is an abomination.

There is no reason in the world for this to happen, on the other hand any one in their right mind should be able to see reasons for the plural marriages that took place.


21 posted on 07/30/2013 6:49:57 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Monogamy was “created” because it creates a familial environment that is the best platform for a mature, fulfilling, and happy life.

It gives the woman a sense of security. It keeps the man from bending to his natural will to have multiple (multiple) partners.

Each of the above individual instincts of the sexes, if not met or tempered, will lead to an unhappy, or unbalanced life.

Man is not monogamous, but Civilized Man is.


22 posted on 07/30/2013 6:53:14 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

There are a lot of men, today, who struggle for children not his own, and do it at the point of a gun.

It’s benignly called “transfer benefits”.


23 posted on 07/30/2013 6:55:15 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
Or, perhaps, man was created to be with one partner for life, created to rule for his Creator over the earth.

Indeed!

24 posted on 07/30/2013 6:59:12 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Thus, my opponent's argument falls.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

Funny how ‘Evolution” and “Nature” and “natural selection” “evolved” so many trillions of cells and millions of favorable behaviors all by “accident” and independent random changes in the DNA of quadrillions of random different creatures and plants and species, but there is no such thing as an ‘intelligent designer” ......


25 posted on 07/30/2013 7:00:37 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

r/K Selection Theory, which in humans produces Liberalism/Conservatism. Restrict resources, and force competition to get them and you get the K-strategy, like in wolves - Competitive/aggressive/protective, monogamous, high-investment parenting, later sexualization of young, and loyalty to the competitive in-group. Make resources freely available and eliminate competition, and the r-strategy emerges, as in rabbits with free grass - cowardly/competition-averse, promiscuous, single-parenting, earlier sexualization of young, and no loyalty to in-group. One strategy produces quality in an environment where only quality survives, while the other produces sheer numbers, in an environment where even the most mentally and physically defective can get food.

People don’t understand how our grasping this information terrifies Liberals. If Liberalism is just the r-selected reproductive strategy in humans, then Liberals aren’t hyper-intellectual, or the future incarnation of mankind. They are just the bunny-people - rabbit like r-strategists within our species who are too stupid to even recognize that what is motivating their cowardice, promiscuity, single-parenting support, earlier sexualization of young, and lack of loyalty to in-group is base urges, and not their brains or morals.

Also, understanding that resource availability will skew the proportions of strategies can be powerful as well. Hell, just recognizing how different Liberals are, and viewing them as aberrant outsiders in our species, who are programmed to have no loyalty to our in-group, is helpful.

God did make it this way. because this is how He created the world. But understanding His mechanism helps fighting Liberals, because it strips them of even the faintest shred of intellectual support for their position, hoisting them upon their own evolutionary petard.


26 posted on 07/30/2013 7:08:17 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

The alternative leads to violence and it probably wasn’t over children, in most cases. Early man didn’t grasp the concept of paternity. They fought over women and that led to instability and hunger all around.


27 posted on 07/30/2013 7:09:34 AM PDT by HomeAtLast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

The Bible also gives some great examples of the problems with multiple wives.


28 posted on 07/30/2013 7:21:51 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: teppe
"The Old Testament, clearly illustrates examples of God condoning polygamy in the past."

You're a Mormon, right? Don't know if you learned that in your church, but it is absolutely wrong.

Because something exists in the Old Testament doesn't make it "condoned by God." David committed murder and adultery; were they condoned by Him?

God didn't approve of divorce because He handed down guidelines on when it was & wasn't permitted. Just as Jesus said, divorce comes from the hardness of man's heart. It has nothing to do with God's original plan, which was one man joined to one woman.

Deuteronomy 17:17 expressly forbids multiple wives for kings. Why would God approve them for anyone else? Also, in the New Testament, marriage partners are always referred to in the singular---"husband" and "wife". Never more than one wife.

29 posted on 07/30/2013 7:23:06 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

you’re preachin’ to the choir.

after 32+ years of marriage, I think 1 one wife is probably more than enough.

if for some reason I was no longer married for whatever reason, I will not do it again....the kids are grown and I do not need any more....I will chance ticking off the creator with a less than biblically accepted relationships with members of the opposite sex.


30 posted on 07/30/2013 7:28:04 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Look at all of the aboriginal tribes around the world that we have knowledge of that that had/have monogamy as the family basic.


31 posted on 07/30/2013 7:31:47 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

College students sit in dorm rooms smoking weed to come up with hypotheses like these.


32 posted on 07/30/2013 7:38:58 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Seems the Ghetto displays the opposite. They all want to be babby daddys to a dozen Ho’s.

Also, if this is an overriding instinct enough to cause man to become monogamous, why do Homosexuals persist, and also desire marriage?

Three obvious examples in action today that the theory ignores to speculate in things long past defining the present.


33 posted on 07/30/2013 7:40:36 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

“... 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.”

I file this in the same folder where evolution explains my wife’s shopping habits. The omni-theory strikes again. Some of the things that pass as science these days, funded by taxpayer dollars, is astounding.


34 posted on 07/30/2013 7:44:40 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger

How does something like this “evolve”? Survival of the infant depends on the behavior of the parent?

pure bunk


35 posted on 07/30/2013 7:55:21 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
If we are the chance products of Darwin's undirected processes from our purported ape-like ancestors, what possible convictions could any of us have regarding our own "certainties". Even Darwin wondered what are the standards of objective truth for the "convictions of a monkey's mind"?

“Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
- Charles Darwin

36 posted on 07/30/2013 7:59:14 AM PDT by Heartlander (It's time we stopped profiling crazy ass crackers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Heavenly created or not, it provides such profound biological advantages to offspring that it is a superb idea.

However, do not fall into the trap of assuming that monogamy and marriage are the same thing. Because socially enforced marriage is “monogamy plus” providing far more advantages to the husband, wife and offspring than just monogamy.

Look at it biologically. “Basic reproduction” means that males have the prerogative to make offspring with as many females as possible. Females have the double prerogative to get the best sperm available, but with monogamous animals, the best provider male to help raise her offspring.

And when there are many males, these are not likely the same male.

However, socially enforced marriage offers the man the advantage of a guarantee that his DNA will go to at least *some* offspring; it offers the woman a guarantee that if she compromises on having the same sperm donor and provider male, that the provider will stay with her.

And if offers the huge advantage to their children that they will be raised on a “life success” track, instead of a more animalistic “survival” track.

However, marriage is not easy and requires two things to be successful. The first is that it *must* be socially enforced, that once married, both people must be regarded as “hands off” by other people.

And second, that the dowry, or involuntary marriage, is forbidden. These two things subvert the entire idea of marriage, such as marrying an old man to a preadolescent girl, and couples not marrying out of sexual attraction and breeding selection, but for other reasons, usually financial.


37 posted on 07/30/2013 8:27:25 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Be Brave! Fear is just the opposite of Nar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I understand.


38 posted on 07/30/2013 8:38:11 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
Seems the Ghetto displays the opposite. They all want to be babby daddys to a dozen Ho’s.

True, but not a sustainable cultural model once the outside subsidies dry up.

Also, if this is an overriding instinct enough to cause man to become monogamous, why do Homosexuals persist, and also desire marriage?

Homosexuals don't desire marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Homosexuals desire acceptance and respectability, and think that imposing their lifestyle on those who are not homosexuals, even to the point of parody of normalcy will somehow make them acceptable or respectable. Homosexuality is not a sustainable cultural model, either. If strictly practiced, there can be no future in it.

What's the other example? I only counted two, both deeply flawed and reliant on parasitic or predatory relationships with more normal family-based cultures to sustain themselves. Both are similar in their selfish pursuits of the individual's desires, and not behaviours which are conducive to the survival (or generation) of progeny. Neither is a sustainable cultural paradigm.

39 posted on 07/30/2013 9:14:48 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson