5 ms·

The theory is that the woman would want the more hearty sperm, but also want the father who is more faithful and more able to provide. It's a sound evolutionary

The theory is that the woman would want the more hearty sperm, but also want the father who is more faithful and more able to provide. It's a sound evolutionary strategy.

return0 14y ago
How is it sound? Bearing the children of a male that is not a proven provider is more risky than bearing the children of a proven provider (the children will thus be more likely to be providers themselves). The sperm competition would be based solely on sperm motility which is a very poor indicator of evolutionary advantage.
- cma 14y ago
  What would favor having a proven provider son? A faithful proven provider son will produce at most 6 or 7 grandchildren for his mom, an unfaithful cheat might produce an order of magnitude more.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  It's not about competition at the sperm level, gene quality as a whole. An individual is attempting to maximize its own genes. So a woman mating with a more masculine man will give her offspring the advantage of having "alpha" genes. But alpha men are not usually strong providers as they have their pick of women and so they spread their genes widely and divide their resources (or withhold them altogether). Thus maintaining the solid provider as the adoptive parent makes up for this. Of course, a man (evolutionarily speaking) has no interest in raising another man's kids. So the woman has to be sneaky with the affair. If the deceit remains hidden, this setup is by far the best the woman can do. As far as having kids who are themselves not good providers, an alpha man's strategy is usually one of spreading his genes far and wide. If you're desirable enough, that may be a winning strategy for you.
  - return0 14y ago
    Alpha Males are by definition strong providers, since they get preferential access to food. Alpha females are very picky about who they mate with too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      >Alpha Males are by definition strong providers, since they get preferential access to food That doesn't follow. The male gets preferential access, but that doesn't mean he shares that access with his offspring. And even if he did, he would still have a larger than average number of offspring thus the amount each one gets may still be lower than the beta male's offerings to his own. Of course in practice whether the alpha is the best provider is determined by how the community is organized. In a alpha-male-with-harem setup, the alpha is the best provider. In other arrangements this isn't always the case.
flyinRyan 14y ago
Your version of evolution is pretty intelligent!
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Not sure if sarcastic, but optimized behavior and intelligent behavior will often look similar.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Of course I'm being sarcastic. The person I responded to was spouting evo-pshyc nonsense. Evolution has no "goals" or "strategies". What possible explanation could you have for something like this arising? How would you falsify a theory of its existence?
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      That person spouting nonsense was me! These "intelligent" behaviors arise through random chance and the successful ones stick around. I'm not sure how one could doubt that somewhat complex behaviors could arise through evolution while at the same time accepting that, say, the eye could. It's the same exact process. An evolutionary "strategy" is simply a behavior that an organism exhibits to enhance its survival. Don't get caught up in the anthropomorphic terminology, its just a convenience to aid understanding. Dawkins uses that exact phrasing in his books.
      - flyinRyan 14y ago
        >An evolutionary "strategy" is simply a behavior that an organism exhibits to enhance its survival. You're describing a rather complicated behavior (who's actual existence itself is controversial!) and describing how that came to be. That's just fantasy. There's no evidence that this happened, it's pure speculation. If the behavior even exists, it could have come about some totally other way. >say, the eye could. I accept that the eye exists and that it got there somehow. I'm not convinced that the arm chair speculation of how that might have happened is true. If we actually made one that would be stronger but still wouldn't conclusively prove that it happened that way. >Dawkins uses that exact phrasing in his books. Dawkins' books are also largely philosophical in nature, not scientific (which is why he gets blasted in the philosophical community, since his philosophy isn't even always sound and ignores tremendous bodies of work).
OverlordXenu 14y ago
You might want to give this a read: http://www.salon.com/1999/05/21/evolution/ http://www.salon.com/1999/05/21/evolution/

The theory is that the woman would want the more hearty sperm, but also want the father who is more faithful and more able to provide. It's a sound evolutionary strategy.

return0 14y ago

How is it sound? Bearing the children of a male that is not a proven provider is more risky than bearing the children of a proven provider (the children will thus be more likely to be providers themselves). The sperm competition would be based solely on sperm motility which is a very poor indicator of evolutionary advantage.

cma 14y ago
What would favor having a proven provider son? A faithful proven provider son will produce at most 6 or 7 grandchildren for his mom, an unfaithful cheat might produce an order of magnitude more.
hackinthebochs 14y ago
It's not about competition at the sperm level, gene quality as a whole. An individual is attempting to maximize its own genes. So a woman mating with a more masculine man will give her offspring the advantage of having "alpha" genes. But alpha men are not usually strong providers as they have their pick of women and so they spread their genes widely and divide their resources (or withhold them altogether). Thus maintaining the solid provider as the adoptive parent makes up for this. Of course, a man (evolutionarily speaking) has no interest in raising another man's kids. So the woman has to be sneaky with the affair. If the deceit remains hidden, this setup is by far the best the woman can do. As far as having kids who are themselves not good providers, an alpha man's strategy is usually one of spreading his genes far and wide. If you're desirable enough, that may be a winning strategy for you.
- return0 14y ago
  Alpha Males are by definition strong providers, since they get preferential access to food. Alpha females are very picky about who they mate with too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    >Alpha Males are by definition strong providers, since they get preferential access to food That doesn't follow. The male gets preferential access, but that doesn't mean he shares that access with his offspring. And even if he did, he would still have a larger than average number of offspring thus the amount each one gets may still be lower than the beta male's offerings to his own. Of course in practice whether the alpha is the best provider is determined by how the community is organized. In a alpha-male-with-harem setup, the alpha is the best provider. In other arrangements this isn't always the case.

flyinRyan 14y ago

Your version of evolution is pretty intelligent!

hackinthebochs 14y ago
Not sure if sarcastic, but optimized behavior and intelligent behavior will often look similar.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Of course I'm being sarcastic. The person I responded to was spouting evo-pshyc nonsense. Evolution has no "goals" or "strategies". What possible explanation could you have for something like this arising? How would you falsify a theory of its existence?
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    That person spouting nonsense was me! These "intelligent" behaviors arise through random chance and the successful ones stick around. I'm not sure how one could doubt that somewhat complex behaviors could arise through evolution while at the same time accepting that, say, the eye could. It's the same exact process. An evolutionary "strategy" is simply a behavior that an organism exhibits to enhance its survival. Don't get caught up in the anthropomorphic terminology, its just a convenience to aid understanding. Dawkins uses that exact phrasing in his books.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      >An evolutionary "strategy" is simply a behavior that an organism exhibits to enhance its survival. You're describing a rather complicated behavior (who's actual existence itself is controversial!) and describing how that came to be. That's just fantasy. There's no evidence that this happened, it's pure speculation. If the behavior even exists, it could have come about some totally other way. >say, the eye could. I accept that the eye exists and that it got there somehow. I'm not convinced that the arm chair speculation of how that might have happened is true. If we actually made one that would be stronger but still wouldn't conclusively prove that it happened that way. >Dawkins uses that exact phrasing in his books. Dawkins' books are also largely philosophical in nature, not scientific (which is why he gets blasted in the philosophical community, since his philosophy isn't even always sound and ignores tremendous bodies of work).

OverlordXenu 14y ago

You might want to give this a read: http://www.salon.com/1999/05/21/evolution/ http://www.salon.com/1999/05/21/evolution/