Culture Darwinism Evolutionary psychology Intelligent Design

Fighting over wives: Darwinism fits human conflicts into mold, chops off what doesn’t fit

Spread the love

From Sal Perkins, describing indigenous Panamanian customs at MEL:

I first heard about the fights at Mi Lucha from my fellow expats in Volcan. The legend they perpetuate is that these impromptu street-boxing matches between Ngäbe men are for each other’s wives. Specifically, the wife of the loser can go with the winner of the fight if she so chooses. It’s not obligatory, they swear, but she often does. It’s Darwinism in action, they argue: She chooses the winner because he’s proven to be a stronger mate who can likely provide for her better. “The great thing about living in Volcan is if you get tired of your wife, you can just go down to the bar and pick a fight with one of the Ngäbe, take a jab on the chin, fall down and not get up,” a 70-something Georgian named Alex once joked to me. “Then the Ngäbe guy wins your wife from you.”

Yes, but…

When I ask Rios whether or not the men at Mi Lucha are fighting for wives, he shakes his head no. “The Bible says that husband and wife are one for their whole lives.”

Thirty-three-year-old agricultural worker Miguel Carrasco has stronger ties to the Comarca. The most apparent piece of evidence: There’s a faded bruise under his eye from a fight a week ago at Mi Lucha. “Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but I never fight for wives; I’m too good-looking to have to fight for wives,” he jokes. “Most of the time the fights aren’t over women, anyway. Only about one out of three are. Most of the fights are over disrespect or problems from the Comarca. The men see each other at the bar and fight. And some young men fight for fun and for pride.”

It’s similarly common for the wives to instigate the fights, he says, pointing to a few Ngäbe women standing with their arms folded in the parking lot of the bank across the street from Mi Lucha. “If the husband drinks all the money away, she might get mad because they can’t buy food. She will go into the bar and find another man. She will provoke the fight, and even if her husband wins, she goes with the loser of the fight because she doesn’t want to be with her husband anymore.” More.

So we need not get shots for Panama; we could see and hear the same things at Duffy’s Bar and Grill on weekends…

See also: Trying to rescue social Darwinism from Darwin’s sinking ship? Floundering. Either Darwinian theory is any use in science or else it isn’t. The answer is getting clearer all the time.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Fighting over wives: Darwinism fits human conflicts into mold, chops off what doesn’t fit

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “It’s Darwinism in action, they argue: She chooses the winner because he’s proven to be a stronger mate who can likely provide for her better.”

    a few notes as to the false notion of sexual selection:

    Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
    Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
    Philip S. Skell
    Excerpt: “Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Brangelina Fever Gets Its Own Darwinian Just-So Story – Jonathan Witt – September 29, 2016
    Excerpt: What about all those zany things on the nature shows so impractical that natural selection would never vote them on to the next round of mother nature’s great big unmerciful game of Jeopardy? Well then, Darwinism has just the little beauty you’re looking for. That’s right, folks, sexual selection — natural selection’s winsome, whimsical, and wondrous assistant. Sexual selection is where, say, peahens prefer the peacocks with the bigger tail feathers, never mind how impractical those tails might become for running and flying. Presto! Peacocks have evolved whimsically enormous peacock tails.
    Together, natural and sexual selection can whip up a just-so story or any biological marvel you want to throw at them.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03177.html

    The counterintuitive role of sexual selection in species maintenance and speciation – Maria R. Servedio – April 2014
    Excerpt: Speculation on the role of sexual selection in driving speciation and species maintenance traces back to the beginning of the explosion in sexual selection research seen in the past few decades (e.g., refs. 3, 4, 22, and 28). The more that this putative relationship is explored, however, the more tenuous it appears to be (e.g., refs. 10 and 11). Here we show that when sexual selection is isolated in a pure Fisherian form, it inhibits species maintenance in one of the situations in which its role seemed clearest, when the trait under sexual selection is also locally adapted. Furthermore, sexual selection is lost in this Fisherian system if preference strengths themselves are allowed to evolve.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea.....4111.short

    Two Darwinist Conundrums – May 13, 2014
    http://crev.info/2014/05/two-darwinist-conundrums/

    Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue – (July 7, 2011)
    Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU’s Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that’s not the case.,,,
    ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,,
    For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. “In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite,” said Heng.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161037.htm

    How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a “male and female” to reproduce? If evolution were true – doesn’t it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn’t they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? “Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems.”
    Dr. Graham Bell – In his book, ‘The Masterpiece of Nature’

    Another whack at the “sex paradox” – July 1, 2014
    Excerpt: The article is most informative about tests done on the various theses but in the end (they state). And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....x-paradox/

    Not only is sexual selection wrong, but the overall concept of ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. natural selection, is shown to be wrong even for algae:

    Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014
    Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
    Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case.
    “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
    The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,,
    The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,,
    Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.
    “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
    http://www.livescience.com/452.....f-bts.html

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    A natural barrier to lateral gene transfer from prokaryotes to eukaryotes revealed from genomes: the 70% rule
    Chuan Ku & William F. Martin
    BMC Biology, 201614:89, 17 October 2016 | DOI: 10.1186/s12915-016-0315-9
    http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.c.....016-0315-9
    Abstract
    Background: The literature harbors many claims for lateral gene transfer (LGT) from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Such claims are typically founded in analyses of genome sequences. It is undisputed that many genes entered the eukaryotic lineage via the origin of mitochondria and the origin of plastids. Claims for lineage-specific LGT to eukaryotes outside the context of organelle origins and claims of continuous LGT to eukaryotic lineages are more problematic. If eukaryotes acquire genes from prokaryotes continuously during evolution, then sequenced eukaryote genomes should harbor evidence for recent LGT, like prokaryotic genomes do.
    Results: Here we devise an approach to investigate 30,358 eukaryotic sequences in the context of 1,035,375 prokaryotic homologs among 2585 phylogenetic trees containing homologs from prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Prokaryote genomes reflect a continuous process of gene acquisition and inheritance, with abundant recent acquisitions showing 80-100 % amino acid sequence identity to their phylogenetic sister-group homologs from other phyla. By contrast, eukaryote genomes show no evidence for either continuous or recent gene acquisitions from prokaryotes. We find that, in general, genes in eukaryotic genomes that share ?70 % amino acid identity to prokaryotic homologs are genome-specific; that is, they are not found outside individual genome assemblies.
    Conclusions: Our analyses indicate that eukaryotes do not acquire genes through continual LGT like prokaryotes do. We propose a 70 % rule: Coding sequences in eukaryotic genomes that share more than 70 % amino acid sequence identity to prokaryotic homologs are most likely assembly or annotation artifacts. The findings further uncover that the role of differential loss in eukaryote genome evolution has been vastly underestimated.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    In BIO-Complexity, a New Model for Human Ancestry
    Ann Gauger November 7, 2016
    Excerpt: The key assumption that distinguishes our model from the standard ones is that we assume that the first pair started out with heterogeneous chromosomes — four distinct sets, two sets for each individual. The standard population genetics models work backward assuming everything starts from a single point. We are proposing that things started out different, not the same, with diversity present from the beginning in the genomes of the starting first pair.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03261.html

    Genetic Modeling of Human History Part 2: A Unique Origin Algorithm
    Ola Hossjer, ¨1* Ann Gauger2 , and Colin Reeves3 – Nov. 4, 2016
    Excerpt Conclusion: In this paper we proposed a mathematical model for simulation of human genetic data based on the assumption that the worldwide human population originates from one single couple. The main idea is to build an ancestral recombination graph backwards in time for all sampled individuals. The model is very flexible and allows for different demographic scenarios, with time varying population sizes and possible migration between geographic subregions. Reproduction is based on a dioecious and diploid framework where males and females are treated separately, so that different mating scenarios are possible. The model also incorporates ordinary recombination events, gene conversion, neutral mutations, and age structure in terms of overlapping generations. An extension of the model with mixed forward and backward simulation allows for balancing selection as well. One particularly important parameter is the created diversity, which makes it possible to obtain a substantial amount of genetic diversity for nuclear autosomal and X-chromosome DNA, during a relatively short period of time.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2016.4

    Of note: ‘heterogeneous chromosomes’ is basically the same assumption that Dr. Robert Carter made in his (cruder) model and, from what I recall, the model worked out fairly well with only a few minor hitches. Perhaps this more refined model will overcome those minor hitches:

    The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! – Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos
    Excerpt: In Figure 5, I display a theoretical allele frequency curve for the human “population” at Creation.,,,
    When Adam and Eve start having children, they are going to be given a random set of the alleles within the parents. In the case of two heterozygous individuals,,,,
    ,,,As detailed above, one of the arguments from BioLogos is that there has not been enough time to accumulate the mutations found among people today if we came from Adam and Eve. A corollary to that is, we could not survive that kind of mutation load. As I said above, however, this is assuming Adam had no heterozygosity, which is ridiculous.
    http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

    CMI has an excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand;

    The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) – 2011 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ

    Here is a bit more recent video

    THE NON-MYTHICAL ADAM AND EVE by (Dr. Robert Carter) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_nMuq_lH4

    Verse:

    Acts 17:26
    “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.”

Leave a Reply