To What Extent, If Any, Are Humans Evolved for Monogamy?

[Sunstone]

To what extent, if any, are humans evolved for monogamy?

What, if anything, does the size of human testicles in relation to their sizes in other apes tell us?

What, if anything, does the shape of the human penis tell us?

What, if anything, does sexual dimorphism tell us?

What, if anything, does lewisnotmiller tell us?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To what extent, if any, are humans evolved for monogamy?

What, if anything, does the size of human testicles in relation to their sizes in other apes tell us?

What, if anything, does the shape of the human penis tell us?

What, if anything, does sexual dimorphism tell us?

What, if anything, does lewisnotmiller tell us?

Evolved is an interesting way to put it. Do you hypothesise that we were designed for polygamy in a previous form?
Personally, I see monogomy as more cultural/societal than biological, but there are few cultures supporting single females with multiple male partners, so perhaps there is something more biological involved.

As for lewisnotmiller, the guy is an F***ing clown who eats too many Big Macs, so just ignore him.
(yes...I saw your other thread...lol)

 

[Sunstone]

Evolved is an interesting way to put it. Do you hypothesise that we were designed for polygamy in a previous form?

There seems to be an increasing body of evidence from the sciences that humans have been relatively promiscuous through-out the bulk of our time on this planet. The evidence comes in a number of forms, but the gist of it is that several scientists have hypothesized on the basis of the available evidence that, during most of our evolution, we were relatively more promiscuous, and less monogamous, than we have been in the past few thousand years.

 

[Riverwolf]

I suspect it varies, especially now. Regardless of the past, I think civilization's near-universal emphasis on monogamy for the past several thousand years has naturally selected into higher populations people who are more wired for monogamy than polygamy. But polygamy didn't get selected out of existence from taboo; it just found other ways to manifest.

I certainly support the de-taboo-izing of polygamy.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect it varies, especially now. Regardless of the past, I think civilization's near-universal emphasis on monogamy for the past several thousand years has naturally selected into higher populations people who are more wired for monogamy than polygamy. But polygamy didn't get selected out of existence from taboo; it just found other ways to manifest.

I certainly support the de-taboo-izing of polygamy.

So far as I understand the biology, a few thousand years is unlikely to have been long enough to have done much in the way of selecting for monogamy unless the selective pressure was remarkably intense.

 

[Riverwolf]

So far as I understand the biology, a few thousand years is unlikely to have been long enough to have done much in the way of selecting for monogamy unless the selective pressure was remarkably intense.

Considering the taboo against polygamy, and that it's not a few thousand but closer to 8 thousand (assuming, of course, a correlation with the Agricultural Revolution), it seems pretty intense to me.

 

[Sunstone]

Considering the taboo against polygamy, and that it's not a few thousand but closer to 8 thousand (assuming, of course, a correlation with the Agricultural Revolution), it seems pretty intense to me.

Although there are faster cases of evolution of traits, I was taught in my biology courses to think in terms of at least 10K years for a fairly simple change to become widespread. Of course, I don't know what current thinking is on that. The last bio course I took was 35 years ago.

By the way what do you think would be the selection pressure for some kind of genetic based monogamous behavior? It wouldn't be sufficient that people were compelled to be in monogamous relationships, of course.

 

[Riverwolf]

Although there are faster cases of evolution of traits, I was taught in my biology courses to think in terms of at least 10K years for a fairly simple change to become widespread. Of course, I don't know what current thinking is on that. The last bio course I took was 35 years ago.

By the way what do you think would be the selection pressure for some kind of genetic based monogamous behavior? It wouldn't be sufficient that people were compelled to be in monogamous relationships, of course.

All I said was that I think it's largely the reason why there's a lot of people who are compelled to be in such relationships these days. I didn't say they replaced or even outnumber naturally polygamous people.

Besides, I think I heard once that the famous peacock tail feathurs came into existence 2000 years ago (ish), and over that time, selected out ones who didn't have them. However, I don't remember the source.

 

[Sees]

I think even 2000-1500 years ago monogamy was only just starting to become universal for people who had the resources and luxury to do otherwise. When I was digging up my avatar/status quote I reread some of Germania and it gives the impression of surprise in the Germanic tribes standard of monogamy - mentioned not knowing others like them in that regard. The Romans being Romans, that is probably a huge variety of polygamous peoples being held in contrast.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

To what extent, if any, are humans evolved for monogamy?

What, if anything, does the size of human testicles in relation to their sizes in other apes tell us?

What, if anything, does the shape of the human penis tell us?

What, if anything, does sexual dimorphism tell us?

What, if anything, does lewisnotmiller tell us?

I think monogamy is perfectly possible but only under certain conditions. The society has to advance monogamy for instance and consider it a great taboo to commit adultery or having multiple partners. The second thing necessary for monogamy and the main aspect of it is that both of the persons need to have a great sense of understanding for eachothers wishes and desires. otherwise this thing will end in a divorce or adultery.
Almost all of the penises are perfectly designed for intercourse with a female. The vagina in its unaroused state is quite small and only through arousal and stimulation becomes large and adjusts to the size of the male. I dont think that there is any man (apart from micro-penis mutation) who has a small penis in this sense. The testicles produce lots of sperm each day. i believe that 1 day production of sperm outweighs the production of a womans eggs for her entire lifetime (that would be around 500 eggs during one life) even outproducing 100 females just with 1 day.

 

[Sunstone]

I think monogamy is perfectly possible but only under certain conditions. The society has to advance monogamy for instance and consider it a great taboo to commit adultery or having multiple partners. The second thing necessary for monogamy and the main aspect of it is that both of the persons need to have a great sense of understanding for eachothers wishes and desires. otherwise this thing will end in a divorce or adultery.
Almost all of the penises are perfectly designed for intercourse with a female. The vagina in its unaroused state is quite small and only through arousal and stimulation becomes large and adjusts to the size of the male. I dont think that there is any man (apart from micro-penis mutation) who has a small penis in this sense. The testicles produce lots of sperm each day. i believe that 1 day production of sperm outweighs the production of a womans eggs for her entire lifetime (that would be around 500 eggs during one life) even outproducing 100 females just with 1 day.

Yes, but you haven't addressed the question in the OP. Nice rambling disjointed discourse on your innermost feelings regarding monogamy, though.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Yes, but you haven't addressed the question in the OP. Nice rambling disjointed discourse on your innermost feelings regarding monogamy, though.

Humans are not evolved to be monogomous. Our ancestors didnt know what marriage was or what monogamy was either. They most likely had many partners as to produce many children, like the other primates. Marraige is a fairly recent construct (speaking of broad human evolution).
I think one can evolve into whatever he desires to. If you want to evolve into a sexually monogamous creature you just have to practice it your whole life. And if your children are going to do the same, your descendant line will be more inclined to be monogomous. Somebody just has to start it and let it become tradition. If you want your children to be fit and mascular you have to practice fitness your whole life as to have your children gain at least a tiny bit of genetical advantage out of it. Just as our ancestors always sought become more wise it has carried on to this generation and we keep advancing mentally with each generation.

 

[Helvetios]

I think one can evolve into whatever he desires to. [...] If you want your children to be fit and mascular you have to practice fitness your whole life as to have your children gain at least a tiny bit of genetical advantage out of it. Just as our ancestors always sought become more wise it has carried on to this generation and we keep advancing mentally with each generation.

The fitness thing is an example of Lamarckian inheritance, or the idea that traits acquired during an organism's lifetime can be passed down to its offspring. This is a misconception and was replaced by the much more accurate theory of evolution championed by Darwin and others.

Your next example of wisdom being passed down is different. Ideas and memes can certainly be communicated to the next generation, but this is no more an example of evolution than a child inheriting a genetic advantage for physical fitness purely due to a parent going to the gym a lot.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The fitness thing is an example of Lamarckian inheritance, or the idea that traits acquired during an organism's lifetime can be passed down to its offspring. This is a misconception and was replaced by the much more accurate theory of evolution championed by Darwin and others.

Your next example of wisdom being passed down is different. Ideas and memes can certainly be communicated to the next generation, but this is no more an example of evolution than a child inheriting a genetic advantage for physical fitness purely due to a parent going to the gym a lot.

This is why it has to be practiced generation through generation. Are you honestly saying that we cant guide evolution or that what one does in this life has no bearing of how your offspring will evolve? Do you think that if people lived in, lets say, africa that their skin wouldnt have become black due to the extensive sun there? or that people living in asia wouldnt gain their characteristic from their environment? Are you saying that if you develop a mental illness during your life that this illness wont be passed on to your children?

 

[Helvetios]

I'm saying a few things. For one, you could have picked better examples. There are many things that could influence offspring besides the parents' DNA, such as the mother's health (physical and mental) during pregnancy, whether or not she consumes drugs and alcohol at the time, etc. Guided evolution I perfectly possible; it's called artificial selection and we have done this by breeding and domesticating animals. Since evolution typically occurs on such a large scale and takes a long time, it is unreasonable to think that we also control our own evolution. I'm speaking of biological evolution here, not a metaphysical/mental kind.

Re: mental illness, people can and do inherit vulnerabilities towards developing mental health issues, occasionally appearing at birth but often appearing later in life. This is due to a combination of factors such as inherited mutations in DNA, the species present in the gut microbiome (the 6lb of bacteria that live in your gut), whether or not the mother was depressed during/after pregnancy (indicates a higher risk for the child), abnormal hormone levels when the fetus is developing, problems with the fetus's gene expression during development, and many others. Since you mentioned genetics, I assumed you meant that a given change made during an organism's lifetime could change the offspring's DNA.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I'm saying a few things. For one, you could have picked better examples. There are many things that could influence offspring besides the parents' DNA, such as the mother's health (physical and mental) during pregnancy, whether or not she consumes drugs and alcohol at the time, etc. Guided evolution I perfectly possible; it's called artificial selection and we have done this by breeding and domesticating animals. Since evolution typically occurs on such a large scale and takes a long time, it is unreasonable to think that we also control our own evolution. I'm speaking of biological evolution here, not a metaphysical/mental kind.

Re: mental illness, people can and do inherit vulnerabilities towards developing mental health issues, occasionally appearing at birth but often appearing later in life. This is due to a combination of factors such as inherited mutations in DNA, the species present in the gut microbiome (the 6lb of bacteria that live in your gut), whether or not the mother was depressed during/after pregnancy (indicates a higher risk for the child), abnormal hormone levels when the fetus is developing, problems with the fetus's gene expression during development, and many others. Since you mentioned genetics, I assumed you meant that a given change made during an organism's lifetime could change the offspring's DNA.

Okay thank you for agreeing with me. What makes you think, if all of these qualities can be inherited, that monogomous sexuality or fitness cant?

 

[Helvetios]

I'm not agreeing, just clarifying what evolution is and isn't. Note that all of these qualities influence the environment of the developing fetus, which is hugely important for overall health. As for factors in mental health like gut bacteria, that's partly influenced by diet and location. Normally small changes in species composition don't make a big difference, but the presence or absence of certain species (and the molecules they secrete, the food they eat, the species they compete with, all right next to an important component of our nervous system) can have radical effects on overall human health.

The examples I mentioned are notinherited in the same way that genetic material is inherited and should be thought about differently.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I'm not agreeing, just clarifying what evolution is and isn't. Note that all of these qualities influence the environment of the developing fetus, which is hugely important for overall health. As for factors in mental health like gut bacteria, that's partly influenced by diet and location. Normally small changes in species composition don't make a big difference, but the presence or absence of certain species (and the molecules they secrete, the food they eat, the species they compete with, all right next to an important component of our nervous system) can have radical effects on overall human health.

The examples I mentioned are notinherited in the same way that genetic material is inherited and should be thought about differently.

Okay so you dont actually believe that when somebody decides to be monogomous his entire life and his children passing on this tradition that it will have an impact on the evolution of this family? Or that if a couples decides to be having the most fit lifestyle that it doesnt pass on to their decedants? How does thist reflect with your own statement that even pigs and other animals were domesticated and became what they are today through lifestyle? Where do you disagree with me then?

 

[Helvetios]

My mention of domesticated animals was in response to you asking if humans could guide evolution. These animals are examples of artificial selection (as opposed to natural selection which occurs in nature) because the humans who domesticated them were selecting for (keeping and favouring offspring with) certain traits such as docility, easiness to train, fat/muscle content, size, quality and quantity of milk/eggs/wool, strength, loyalty, and others. These are largely influenced by genetics, and since molecular evolution is defined as heritable change through changes to DNA, what we did to these animals can also be classified as guided evolution. What happened to pigs wasn't just a 'lifestyle' change, it had direct consequences for their heritable material (DNA) because humans were so clearly breeding them to display certain traits more than others, essentially favouring certain DNA sequences over others.

I said nothing about sexual lifestyle so don't say I did. That will wait for a different post since I have some things offline to attend to this morning. And you are also conflating changes in lifestyle with evolutionary consequences. Please don't.

You may be confusing physical fitness with evolutionary fitness. Physical fitness refers to size, strength, endurance, and so on; it is acquired and influenced by an organism's level of physical activity. A dog (or human) who runs a lot will be more physically fit than one who lies around all day. Evolutionary fitness is entirely different: the ability to survive to reproductive age and produce offspring who can do the same. It is often influenced by physical fitness to escape predators, but an evolutionary fit organism does not inherently depend on physical fitness to exist. Likewise, a physically fit organism could be sterile and therefore have low evolutionary fitness.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

My mention of domesticated animals was in response to you asking if humans could guide evolution. These animals are examples of artificial selection (as opposed to natural selection which occurs in nature) because the humans who domesticated them were selecting for (keeping and favouring offspring with) certain traits such as docility, easiness to train, fat/muscle content, size, quality and quantity of milk/eggs/wool, strength, loyalty, and others. These are largely influenced by genetics, and since molecular evolution is defined as heritable change through changes to DNA, what we did to these animals can also be classified as guided evolution.

I said nothing about sexual lifestyle so don't say I did. That will wait for a different post since I have some things offline to attend to this morning.

You may be confusing physical fitness with evolutionary fitness. Physical fitness refers to size, strength, endurance, and so on; it is acquired and influenced by an organism's level of physical activity. A dog (or human) who runs a lot will be more physically fit than one who lies around all day. Evolutionary fitness is entirely different: the ability to survive to reproductive age and produce offspring who can do the same.

So you disagree with me on what parts exactly?