Well, DUUUHHHH !!!
Posted on 04/25/2009 8:57:12 AM PDT by steve-b
The article did not seem to support the headline.
The "cost" to produce the first single sperm is the same or higher (mens death rate is higher) than the cost to produce the first egg.
But boy, the sperm sure flow freely after that first one...
This sounds like a gross oversimplification to me. The theory is not that you have two groups, each with a distinct mating strategy but rather that mating strategy can be defined along a continuum, from choosy to promiscuous. Females cluster more at the choosy end than males, but it is nonetheless expected that some will be promiscuous. By contrast, the average male is less choosy, especially when it comes to short-term relationships. That doesn't mean that it would be unexpected to find some males who are in fact quite choosy and loyal.
And the mating habits of fruit-flies has WHAT??? to do with the social and biological conditions, and conditioning that has arranged HUMAN mating habits??? Nada.
Human monogamy is rooted in HUMAN biology, from the reproductive system, to the length of human pregnancy, to the vulnerability of the female during pregnancy, to the length of human infancy, to the vulnerability of mother-and-child during infancy, to how all those predicates [especially when you consider humans living many ages ago] lead to the optimum individual, and societal, survival with paired, bonded, units of males and females working jointly to husband their resources primarily for THEIR unit, with increasing influence, from increasing success, on those resources NOT being spent by either party of the pair, producing offspring, outside that pair and thereby having obligations and commitments that diminish what is being husbanded for their primary family unit. What does this have to do with fruit flies? Nada.
"Dr. Brown and colleagues examined the general universal applicability of Bateman's principles. To test one of Bateman's assumptions, they collated data on the variance in male and female reproductive success in 18 human populations. While male reproductive success varied more than female reproductive success overall, huge variability was found between populations; for instance, in monogamous societies, variances in male and female reproductive success were very similar."
This statistical "very similar" variances [among monogamous societies], is a statistical pointer to greater STABILITY, in how "reproductive choice" is being made; which tells you something about WHY "natural selection" in the independent human social evolution has chosen monogamy - stability.
"The researchers also examined factors that might explain variations across human populations that are not in keeping with the prediction of universal sex roles. "Recent advances in evolutionary theory suggest that factors such as sex-biased mortality, sex-ratio, population density and variation in mate quality, are likely to impact mating behavior in humans," concludes Dr. Brown. "The insights gained from this new perspective will have important implications for how we conceive of male and female sexual behavior."
While they ignore what is in front of them, both historically and currently - successful vs failed civilizations and social systems. As if humans in their own life times are unable to see that stability and success most often go together. How to explain why they ignore the obvious?
-------------------
From an adjacent report on the same web page:
"Same species, different genders … And now, a new high-tech scientific study reveals the differences between men and women may really start at the top. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania used a high-tech imaging method to scan the brains of 16 men and 16 women. The subjects were placed inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine, or fMRI."
"Researchers then purposely induced moderate performance stress by asking the men and women to count backward by 13, starting at 1,600. Researchers monitored the subject's heart rate. They also measured the blood flow to the brain and checked for cortisol, a stress hormone."
"When the scans were completed, neuroscientists consistently found differences between the men's stressed-out brains and the women's. Men responded with increased blood flow to the right prefrontal cortex, responsible for "fight or flight." Women had increased blood flow to the limbic system, which is also associated with a more nurturing and friendly response."
YET, the "gay activist" agenda, ignores this scientific evidence, and many other evidences of gender differences [in addition to the obvious reproductive system differences], from physical brain and mental activity, to hormonal responses and emotional life,
AND attempts to tell us that a monogamous relationship between two women is the same as a monogamous relationship between two men and both are the same as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - not simply EQUAL [in some legal benefit way] but SAME, as in marriage. NOT.
It is truly liberalism that is a religion and unscientific.
Well, DUUUHHHH !!!
” “Recent advances in evolutionary theory suggest that factors such as sex-biased mortality, sex-ratio, population density and variation in mate quality, are likely to impact mating behavior in humans,”
“sex-biased mortality”...men die younger than women.
“sex ratio”...more men than women or vice versa.
“population density”....more opportunity for both sexes.
“mate quality”...speaks for its self.
All this suggested “by recent advances in evolutionary theory”? Whatever did anyone know before these recent advances?
Yeah, this sounds like some really, really tough work. Waste some time, generate a few monographs, pocket a few grants, repeat as necessary.
Universal pattern:If your a 1 to 5 you ain’t any tonight
If your a 7 to 10 you get all you want
Looks do count
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
They said of Maggie Thatcher that men take a fight away from their home, while a woman will wait till it threatens her threshold. Maggie was the exception to the rule. I think women are traditionally more home or nest oriented. This may have some impact on the variety of opportunity available to them. Local social norms of morality also would influence biological drives.
The research suggests that human mating strategies are not likely to conform to a single universal pattern
Baloney.
In every instance booze plays a part. In some cases more so than others ;-)
How do you extrapolate from fruit flies to humans? That is just not good science!
for most human males, the greatest evolutionary influence on sexual patterns was the development of the opposable thumb.
But, I am not a fruit fly.
If you are going to study human sexuality shouldn't you study people?
This seems to be a contradiction. Choosiness and competiiveness are not mutually exclusive.
Don’t female fruit flies lay a multitude of eggs comparable to the numbers of sperm in human emmission?
I just do not see any correlation regarding numbers between fruit flies and humans.
The whole concept of comparing human behavior with fruit flies’ regarding selection and number of sexual partners is a non-sequitor.
The healthy human male emits countless sperm with each ejaculation, while the human female has an average of only one egg to fertilize each month. The choosiness of human females is based on this numerical inequity. However, the female fruit fly lays a great multitude of eggs, completely disconnected in statistics from the human female’s fertility and gestation per offspring.
How did a study of fruit fly behavior ever correlate to humans’? It is the sad state of “science” in this modern world. The thought processes involved are no more advanced than those of witch doctors in primitive societies. The only difference is the technology used, but the application and conclusions are laughably flawed.
Behavioral “science” is an anti-social hobby of tittering repressed clueless perverts, not a serious pursuit of true intellectuals. My conclusion, based on no study whatsoever, but just as valid as anything I’ve read in this report, is that the scientists studying human reproduction have produced an average of .07 children in their lifetimes, whereas I have 4 sons.
Who ya gonna listen to?
If the answer is me, then I’ll produce (yet again) — this time a realistic study of human sexual behavior based on the experience of a sexual human being.
I agree with you. I don't know where the author got this idea. Choosy yes, but non-competitive, no.
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.