If any sexual union breeds fitness, why should any male care what happens after he moves on? The team apparently did not consider that a universal non-biological entity, namely conscience, might give all religions and tribes “pressure” to stay faithful. “In the United States,” Strassman found, “frequent church attendance and belief that the Bible is the word of God were the two most robust predictors of lower rates of self-reported extra-partner copulations.” This fact appears to have struck secular materialists as surprising. Strassman seemed especially fond of the scientific term cuckoldry, which, incidentally, is etymologically related to cuckoo.
If any sexual union breeds fitness, why should any male care what happens after he moves on? The team apparently did not consider that a universal non-biological entity, namely conscience, might give all religions and tribes “pressure” to stay faithful. “In the United States,” Strassman found, “frequent church attendance and belief that the Bible is the word of God were the two most robust predictors of lower rates of self-reported extra-partner copulations.” This fact appears to have struck secular materialists as surprising. Strassman seemed especially fond of the scientific term cuckoldry, which, incidentally, is etymologically related to cuckoo.
Incorrigible storytelling: Given the questionable success by evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists to describe their living fellow humans, therefore, it would seem the height of presumption to propose why unseen ancestors would use marital faithfulness as an evolutionary strategy eons ago. Yet that is exactly what Sergey Gavrilets proceeded to attempt in his PNAS paper, “Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding” in which he freely admitted at first, “How such a transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding could be achieved is puzzling.” Indeed, he showed that four current models of such a transition are “not feasible under biologically relevant conditions”; i.e., Darwinism cannot account for it. Having trampled his predecessors’ models, he sallied forth:
Incorrigible storytelling: Given the questionable success by evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists to describe their living fellow humans, therefore, it would seem the height of presumption to propose why unseen ancestors would use marital faithfulness as an evolutionary strategy eons ago. Yet that is exactly what Sergey Gavrilets proceeded to attempt in his PNAS paper, “Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding” in which he freely admitted at first, “How such a transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding could be achieved is puzzling.” Indeed, he showed that four current models of such a transition are “not feasible under biologically relevant conditions”; i.e., Darwinism cannot account for it. Having trampled his predecessors’ models, he sallied forth:
“Then, I show that the transition can happen if one accounts for male heterogeneity, assortative pair formation, and evolution of female choice and faithfulness. This process is started when low-ranked males begin using an alternative strategy of female provisioning. At the end, except for the top-ranked individuals, males invest exclusively in provisioning females who have evolved very high fidelity to their mates. My results point to the crucial importance of female choice and emphasize the need for incorporating between-individual variation in theoretical and empirical studies of social dilemmas and behaviors.”
“Then, I show that the transition can happen if one accounts for male heterogeneity, assortative pair formation, and evolution of female choice and faithfulness. This process is started when low-ranked males begin using an alternative strategy of female provisioning. At the end, except for the top-ranked individuals, males invest exclusively in provisioning females who have evolved very high fidelity to their mates. My results point to the crucial importance of female choice and emphasize the need for incorporating between-individual variation in theoretical and empirical studies of social dilemmas and behaviors.”
Yet his 4-part composite theory begs the question of how and why females had “evolved very high fidelity to their mates” or what “female choice” refers to in a mindless, biological process that would seem incapable of inventing an investment strategy without intelligent design. Gavrilets’ new model leaves one wondering what his wife or partner might say upon approaching a mating episode with, “this is my investment strategy in female provisioning” – if she had any female choice in the matter.
Yet his 4-part composite theory begs the question of how and why females had “evolved very high fidelity to their mates” or what “female choice” refers to in a mindless, biological process that would seem incapable of inventing an investment strategy without intelligent design. Gavrilets’ new model leaves one wondering what his wife or partner might say upon approaching a mating episode with, “this is my investment strategy in female provisioning” – if she had any female choice in the matter.
It gets so tiring to read the latest barf (i.e., technicolor yawn) emanating from the evolutionary psych and anthropology literature. What do they know that will not be overturned by the next study? How much is political correctness determining the procedure, let alone the outcome, of the findings? Do they do any better than fortunetellers at a sideshow? Why does anyone listen to these pukers, who with a mighty heave-ho try to throw their cookies farther than the last guy? It’s clear these “studies” offer little more than predigested evolutionary ejecta as sacrifices to Charlie, knowing the media will pick it up and regurgitate it faithfully for special delivery to the feet of the Bearded Buddha.
