Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism: Adultery Rationalized

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-01-03-infidelity-study_x.htm

Some men cheat on their partners. So do some women. Now researchers say it is more than a wandering eye that might cause a woman to stray.

This conclusion was based on two studies of college men and women using questionnaires where the test group was asked how they felt (how scientific) about other men/women outside of their steady relationships.

Studies from the University of California-Los Angeles and the University of New Mexico-Albuquerque suggest an evolutionary tendency toward infidelity during ovulation, which is the most fertile part of the menstrual cycle. The studies suggest the propensity is more likely if women don’t view their partners as sexy. [They needed a study for this???]

“Something biologically wakes up around high fertility and says, ‘Is your romantic partner the best sexual partner for you, given that you’re likely to conceive?’ ” says Martie Haselton, assistant professor of communication and psychology at UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

Along those evolutionary lines, men more than women desire a variety of sexual partners because genes carrying that trait were passed along in men, Haselton says.

The one thing the article didn’t make clear is whether they actually analyzed (selfish?) genes responsible–if only indirectly–for “men more than women desir[ing] a variety of sexual partners” or if they’re just extrapolating an evolutionary reason for human behavior.

Comments
"I’d be more interested in pushing things back a bit and hearing how Sexual dimorphism arose in the first place, under a Darwinian model." Specialisation. If one half of the species can focus on producing sperm, and the other can focus on incubating the resultant zygote, it means that neither half needs to have a full complement of equipment. That's just good design (evolutionary or otherwise).Corkscrew
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
I'd be more interested in pushing things back a bit and hearing how Sexual dimorphism arose in the first place, under a Darwinian model. If the mechanism by which a trait is inhereted is that it conveys a survival advantage to the possessor, then why are we not all self-fertile hermaphrodites, like earthworms? Dimorphic sexuality - male and female - has no reason to ever arise under evolution since every organism would already have within itself the seeds of its own survival.Bombadill
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
By the way, the bit about "kin selection" in the wiki article on fitness is a bunch of crap. It's one of a plethora of ad hoc modifications made to Darwinian theory to explain its failed predictions. If it was all about similar gene sets in genetically close individuals then you have to come up with yet another ad hoc modification to explain symbiosis. Kin selection is no more or less than a mutually beneficial relationship between individuals of the same species. If you want some really cool insight into this consider it in light of Nash Equilibrium in an N-person game where the object of the game is to maximize the number of offspring and the players are any number of physically interacting organisms of the same or different species. On the remote chance someone reading this isn't familiar with Nash Equilibrium read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibriumDaveScot
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
Can someone please help me. I once read an an article on genetic manipulation of a type of rodent. The rodents are super faithful and only stick to one partner. The scientists deactivated a gene that cause the males to .. eh .. stray. Does someone perhaps have the link? I don't think the study makes any claims as to if evoltion gives you reason to commit adultery. Fact is, adultery is a VERY common thing in our lives. The explanation as the WHY there might be a tendency seems very rational. Or do you propose as an alternative that "the devil tempts them"? Or then, were they designed to commit adultery?Thunar
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
Neotoma "But what fittest actually means is those individuals whose offspring survive long enough to successfully reproduce." BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!! Wrong. What fittest actually means is those individuals who produce the most offspring. If you use the word survive in the definition of "fittest" then the phrase "survival of the fittest" becomes a stupid tautology "survival of the survivors". I'm sure you didn't want that, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29 DaveScot
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
woctor "This research hardly “rationalizes” adultery. It merely offers a reason that adultery is tempting to people." Au contraire! Rationalizing adultery is exactly what it does. No need to feel guilty about cheating - evolution programmed you to cheat! Cheating is nature's fault. Patrick made a perfectly valid point.DaveScot
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
DaveScot: I am assuming, then, that my questions above count as trolling? Some of them were okay but you're in "time out" until you stop flooding the blog with so many comments. Come back in a couple of days and slow it down. I promise the blog will still be here and evolution will still be the biggest hoax in the history of science. blipey
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
Hey Trent, Are the study references available online? If not can you provide the full citation? Excellent point, woctor. Most people believe that "survival of the fittest" means who is the stronger/fiercer, etc. But what fittest actually means is those individuals whose offspring survive long enough to successfully reproduce.Neotoma
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
I actually was the an RA for the project at UNM and helped run the expirement. The questionair was only one part of a lot different elements tested (including genetic) and the actual expirement is just one in a series of MANY that point to the cyclical effects women's fertility have on what they find attractive and how the mating strategies they use. I would suggest reading the actual studies by Gangestad and Thornhill (Garver is the other author I believe) rather then a summation from USA today, aren't you guys the ones always talking about how the simplicfication of the media hides the real science?Trent
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
If pseudo-science has no place in the classroom, then Darwinism in general (RM&NS, gradualism, etc., as an overarching and thorough explanation for the complexity and diversity of living systems), and evolutionary psychology and behaviorism in particular, should easily qualify for elimination from the curriculum. Evolutionary psychology is transparently a Himalayan-sized pile of silliness, and reflects on the underlying silliness of the general theory.GilDodgen
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
woctor wrote: "We are not obligated to give in to temptation simply because it exists, and there is no inconsistency when a Darwinian decides not to commit adultery because it would hurt his or her partner, the marriage, or the children. Evolution gave us brains, after all, and brains are useful for overriding desires when sating them would lead to problems in the long run." So if, using our brains, we determine with a very high degree of confidence that neither our partner, nor our marriage nor our children will be hurt is there any reason in Darwin's world why we should not give in to this temptation? (I do a lot of international business travel, and it would be quite easy for me to get away with a great deal. I know others who actually have done so.) In fact, wouldn't I more effectively perpetuate the survival of my genes if I have as many kids as I can around the world? Wouldn't neo-Darwinism predict that successful adulterers with travel benefits would more successfully reproduce than faithful stay-at-home guys?russ
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Yes, Red Reader, gotta love the circular reasoning. Presuppose it's true and then force-fit the evidence into the presupposition.Bombadill
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
NDE theorists have taken an ugly turn. Having built a theory that really is pure fantasy--life from non-life, random complexity, Mother Nature:Creator of the Universe--now they are *exploring* the implications of their theory. In the study from USA Today, Darwinist bats start with the conclusion they want--a "scientific" rationalization for promiscuity--and find in Darwinism a convenient authority to support the conclusion they already have. What? You don't believe it? This quote from Dr. Witt's site quoting Jonathan Rosenblum of THE JERUSALEM POST: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361067333&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter "By contrast, Darwinists proceed by assuming the truth of the theory and then seeking empirical support. Studies of the fossil record that fail to buttress the theory are deemed "failures" and never published. The search for Darwinian common "ancestors," according to Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History, proceeds on the assumption that those ancestors exist and then selecting the most likely candidates." Just one more example, but now on the personal moral level.Red Reader
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
mmm, yes Darwinism does a fantastic job of explaining digital code in the cell, the abrupt appearance of novel body plans in the fossil record, altruism, propositions, errr... wait, it doesn't explain any of these things, sorry.Bombadill
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
Piggy-backing onto Jon Jackson's last post, I would agree that Darwinism explains EVERYTHING. And, thus, it explains nothing. I liken Darwinism explaining everything to the hi-tech bubble in the stock market at the end of the nineties: a sign that the 'real world' is about to take over from the bubbling enthusiasm of the masses.PaV
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
It also explains monogamy. In fact part of the problem with Darwinism is that it explains everything. It's kind of like God in that.Jon Jackson
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply