Re: Social evolution of hominids
Paul Crowley (pcrowley@indigo.ie)
Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:22:45 GMT
susansf@netcom.com (Susan S. Chin) wrote:
>Evolutionarily speaking, there's not a great incentive for males of the
>species to mate with only one female for life.
IIf that's the best way to ensure that your progeny grow up
to be physically strong and of high status (thereby ensuring
a high probability of further reproductive success) then,
evolutionarily speaking, it will be the best possible
incentive.
Also remember that then (as now) it was the ones with high
social status that survived famines - and had more
"illegimate" offspring.
>Monogamy does make more sense for the female, since her reproductive
>resources, unlike that of the male, is fixed. Promiscuity would not
>produce more offspring, just confusion.
As a possible additional aspect, I heard several years ago,
that a study of mothers in India showed that those who had
children by several men had a much higher rate of
miscarriage and early infant death. It was suggested that
the woman's immune response found it easier to cope with
successive infants by the same man. An impregnation with a
different set of DNA meant starting again with the
equivalent of a first pregnancy.
Has anyone else heard this? Or know anything to confirm or
deny?
Paul.
|