Originally posted by NemesioI'm not sure how relevant this is; presumably evolution works by 'the fittest' having a tiny statistical edge in reproduction, rather than exclusive breeding rights.
What leads you to believe that evolution is still taking place in
humans? I see all sorts of people whom I would not describe as the
'fittest' spreading their seed and having children.
Originally posted by royalchickenIt is also dependant on what the criteria for 'fittest' is. With the advent of technology and the complexity of social structure it is no longer the obvious adaptations like muscle build or looks that are desireable, but also non-phenotypical traits that govern the selectivity of breeding. These days traits like selfishness or empathy may be as important as the ability to find food used to be and as such we may be evolving in emotional or social ways which in turn will affect the gene pool in future generations.
I'm not sure how relevant this is; presumably evolution works by 'the fittest' having a tiny statistical edge in reproduction, rather than exclusive breeding rights.
Originally posted by NemesioI won't go round and round on this as I am still awaiting your masterwork on this issue that you promised on FW. Humans and the other primates parted their evolutionary ways 5-10 million years ago; analysis of primate social behavior is next to useless in my view in attempting to understand human behavior (even if primate behavior was uniform in this regard which it is not). We know quite a bit about human behavior, and the "alphamale getting all the chicks" model is atypical to say the least as a social structure in Man. Any anthropological study of primitive tribes shows this. Your original assertion was that this model was the "natural" one in the human species and I would submit that there is NO evidence to support this assertion. What evidence we have of Man's social structure from earliest times refutes this notion.
Ahem:
A) I was using the term as a 'figure of speech.' Yes. I know where ancient man wandered.
2) I am astounded that you would say 'no evidence.' When we discussed it, it became obvious
that there are different theories surrounding this issue and each theory has a corpus of literature
supporting itself and attacking each other. Surely in you ...[text shortened]... in between alpha- and betamales), too, wouldn't
have similar biological influences.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile humans became a separate species 5-10 million years ago,
Humans and the other primates parted their evolutionary ways 5-10 million years ago; analysis of primate social behavior is next to useless in my view in attempting to understand human behavior (even if primate behavior was uniform in t ...[text shortened]... Man's social structure from earliest times refutes this notion.
this does not entail the utter rejection of one of the most basic
biological principles: the competition to spread seed. It is a
fundamental evolutionary concept that the most ideal male will
compete with other males to spread his seed with the most ideal
female. That this concept magically disappeared when humans
became a distinct species is questionable.
You say that studies on primate social behavior are next to useless
when trying to understand human behavior. How different do you
think 5/10 million-year old human's behavior is from other primates?
Did the evolution to that point entail the utter dismissal of previously
existing behavioral models or social structures? No, of course it didn't.
As for the 'alphamale getting all the chicks,' are you telling me you
don't see this in high schools or single bars? I know that you are wont
to describe this behavior as purely social, but I think that when we can
see an analogy between human behavior and 95% of the rest of the
animal kingdom's behavior, the idea that this behavior is socially
driven with no biological influence seems improbable.
An anthropological examination of many tribal communities, wherein
young males compete in various trials in order to ascend in social
status, show that the more desirable males end up with the more
desirable females (generally, the male gets to 'pick' his bride --
please recall that female children were often thought of as property
to be exchanged).
This is sexual competition. You may want to claim that it is purely
social, but I disagree, as do other biologists. I feel the roots of this
sexual competition are in our 'nature.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by Officer Dibble
decision today in the uk's supreme court (or the "law lords" as we prefer to call them, in honour of gilbert & sullivan i think):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4492345.stm
Interesting and at the same time a disturbing article.
The famous "The End Justifies The Means" policy.
Originally posted by NemesioYour understanding of evolution is primitive. There is no evolutionary concept "that the most ideal male will
While humans became a separate species 5-10 million years ago,
this does not entail the utter rejection of one of the most basic
biological principles: the competition to spread seed. It is a
fundamental evolutionary concept that the most ideal male will
compete with other males to spread his seed with the most ideal
female. That this concept magi ...[text shortened]... ther biologists. I feel the roots of this
sexual competition are in our 'nature.'
Nemesio
compete with other males to spread his seed with the most ideal
female"; all males, no matter how "beta" tend to attempt to procreate. Whether they are successful or not relies on factors inherent in the species; nice plumage is important for birds, but of little use in Man.
Your original post asserted that humans acted like primate societies with "alpha" males getting as many sexual partners as desired and "betas" getting nothing. Please cite ANY study of human societies where this occurred. No, humans do not set up their social structure like gorillas. How different is human behavior from primates? I don't see them designed cosmological models or Model T Fords. Why would the behaviors of our distant cousins have anything to do with our behavior?
Please stop changing your argument; either our social structure is patterned after gorilla with an alpha male getting all the mates and the rest getting no mates or not. That young men compete to get laid doesn't prove jack; please show that it is our "nature" that only "alpha males" spread their seed as that was your original premise in this thread. And that, my friend, is complete BS.
Originally posted by no1marauder
There is no evolutionary concept "that the most ideal male will
compete with other males to spread his seed with the most ideal
female"; all males, no matter how "beta" tend to attempt to procreate.
All males in all species attempt to procreate. The ones who succeed
are the ones who end up shaping the next generation.
Whether they are successful or not relies on factors inherent in the species; nice plumage is important for birds, but of little use in Man.
There are countless studies about 'desirability' in mates. Symmetry, body
proportion, size, healthy-appearing skin, and so forth all play a subconscious
role. Many people believe that, because these studies show cross-cultural
uniformity, that these traits are desirable.
In tribal societies today, we see males higher up on the social ladder
getting the pick of the women and we see males lower down trying to get
higher up. In polygamous times, the higher up you were, the more women
you had. I didn't mean to suggest that only one person ever mated, but that
the 'more alpha' you were, the more seed you passed to more women who
were 'more alpha' as well. This is carried over to today, but with different
criteria.
I don't see this as a coincidence. I see it as directly related to other, similar
primate behaviors.
Nemesio
P.S., I found this lengthy article. The beginning seems interesting as it address
the notion of our changing the 'rules of evolution' from gene-based to meme-based.
I haven't read more than a few paragraphs, so I don't know where its going, but
it's worth a glance.
http://www.arthurmjackson.com/w1a.html