Hi Chris,
It wasn't my plan to respnd to this post, because I don't invest a lot of energy in debating people whom I think are wrong on the internet. I am losing interest in this debate primarily because it seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that you have difficulty in extracting information from written material. But it also seems weird not to respond when there is conversation which includes references to me. I encourage the moderators to split this thread since it has drifted so far off topic.
I'll do my best to respond to each point, but I haven't figured out how to separate your quotes in response to my previous quotes, so my comments have been removed and readers will have to refer back to your last response for them.
So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.
That sounds like something I have heard of before, but I can't place it... Can you help me out here?
You realize that you're talking about using an unproven axiom here, right? Sure, it might make things easier, but it's not necessarily going to give an accurate explanation.
And yet the species you're using isn't human. It isn't even directly related to humans. Nor is it in the same temporal situation as when said trait developed in humans. I also point out that there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition.
This is something you'll never know given your own statements at the start of your post.
Frustrating to say the least. It's more accurate to say that your statistical probability of arriving at an accurate answer is rapidly approaching zero given then number of missing links (pardon the pun) and rather expansive temporal difference in situations today and that 6 million years ago.
How does one even measure statistical probability when there is a time differential of 6 million years?
Since we're talking about modern humans now can I assume that there is something concrete on which they based this conclusion? I have seen various figures for the emergence of modern homo sapiens (between 55,000 and 100,000 years ago). Or do you mean something else by "modern human"? In any event 100,000 years is a lot less than 6 million so perhaps there's more evidence for what you're talking about. Or perhaps there's some actual record of this behavior once writing developed? That way we wouldn't have to rely on hypotheses that are untestable. We'd only have to worry about the anecdotal evidence of the written record.
I also note that even here you can only refer to scientists having a "tentative conclusion." That's rather less than I would hope for given the absolute statement that was made by elder999.
This is only even possibly true if you have a denuded concept of human sexuality. I don't even have to step outside the merely biologicsal to posit that your explanation here is unnecessary since the emotions are, properlly speaking, part of the biological make-up of an organism. Sexual characteristics can develop, in other words, to enhance the emotional aspect of sexual intercourse not just the procreative aspect (although that would certainly be primary). In other words, it's completely to be expected that species that can engage in sexual congress without the need for the female to be "in heat" would have these characetristics because they're going to spend mroe than a bit of time engaging in that behavior. The procreative aspect remains, of course, and those traits are passed on because they are beneficial to procreation. But the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them (which is why you'll often see women with guys who are complete losers, I might theorize LOL).
Yes, now that you mention it he might have said that instead of making a blanket statemet and expecting people to blindly accept it.
Actually it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true.
In fact, now that you mention it, I do wish more scientists would add those two statemets whenever they are saying anything to the media. It would save so much time and prevent many otehrwise fine people from making complete asses of themselves, IMHO.
I'm completely fine with continuing it here. Thread drift is inevitable. If you desire to take things to PM, though, you can.
Pax,
Chris
In response to "scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen"...regrettably, there are many natural objects or phenomena that simply can't be measured or observed directly. For instance, there is evidence for "dark matter" in astrophysics. At this time we dont have the ability to directly observe it, but its gravitational influence on visible matter can be observed and measured. The presence of dark matter answers a lot of questions that have bothered physicists concerning how galaxies behave. Not all physicists support this hypothesis, but most do, until something better comes along which explains these phenomena more adequately. In the same vein, evolutionary biologists often cannot observe directly the evolution of particular traits, because of an incomplete fossil record or an unresolved phylogenetic tree. At this point, we can either throw up our hands and run home crying to momma, or we can use the tools at our disposal to try and address the question. Those tools are based both in logic (deductive and inductive reasoning) and in technology (statistics, genetics, functional morphology, reproductive physiology). Because the recursive scientific method is an effecient way to reduce big confusing questions down to testable hypotheses, and because science is subject to hyper-critical peer review, science is the best approach available for learning about the natural world. It is not at all like religion, where people are asked to accept things on faith. In this case, I argued that sexual promiscuity in our evolutionary past was probable, because the *well-documented morphological correlates to that behavior* are present in modern humans and in our closest living relatives. You suggested a less parsimonious explanation for that trait being present in humans, ie. I believe you suggested (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that human males have large testicles because they need to service their female partner throughout the month (no visible signs of estrus). This is actually a clever idea, and I give you full props for it.
However, human males could have testicles the size of grapes and accomplish this chore on a regular basis throughout the month, just as monogamous gibbons do. Large testicles are required when a very high rate of sperm production is required, ie. several matings a day. Also, in species where the male engages in sperm competition with other males, they make different types of sperm...some sperm impregnate the female, while other types are evolved to form a glutinous "sperm plug" which prevents entry by ejaculates deposited by later males. Human sperm does this.
Later, you argue that my non-human primate examples are bogus, because they are not in the human evolutionary lineage. I stand by what I stated earlier, that this is a common comparative phylogenetic approach. I cannot give you a crash-course in phylogenetics. I respectfully suggest that you do some reading in this area, and perhaps we can talk again later. At this point however I feel that you don't have the background to assimilate my arguments. Please don't take this as an insult or an evasion, it truly is not intended that way.
You then make the point that "there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition." However, I think that both I and the original poster have been referring to a period during hominid evolution when culture was not developed, in the sense that you and I and anthropologists view "culture". There are some indications of cultural idiosyncracies with respect to tool use in pre-human hominids, and then an explosion of cultural artifacts when modern humans were fully established. But there is a muddy area in there, between 200,000 and 40,000 years ago, when the anatomical differences between Homo sapiens and other sympatric hominids were not pronounced, and some anatomically modern human sites don't have culturally significant artifacts associated with them. So it may or may not be true that the human condition is a cultural condition.
Later you mention that "perhaps there's some actual
record of this behavior once writing developed?" My response to this is to look at modern human societies. Formal polyandry is rare, but extra-pair copulatory behavior is common in every society that has been studied, and this is supported by genetic parentage assignment. This, of course, is not identical to the "gang bangs" that we've been discussing, but it does suggest that human monogamy is just as rare as it is in the animal world.
You also state that "the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them." I absolutely agree with this, and with your argument that human psychology plays a huge role in the expression of sexuality. Off the cuff, I think that human sexuality is equal parts culture, biologically-based mate choice, psychological perception of the current situation, and chance. There are factors (biological or psychological) which may encourage a human female to be faithful to her mate (he is "sexy" to her and she wants to have offspring with him; she doesn't want to violate her own self-identity; she is afraid of disease or discovery), and there are factors which may encourage a female to cheat (her mate is a good provider but not "sexy" to her; she feels like she never had a chance to sample other males; she is feeling old or unattractive and wants the thrill of sexual attention from a new conquest).
You then argue that "it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true." I would rephrase the caveat to state "Perhaps modern humans had gang bangs in the forest; there is evidence to suggest human female promiscuity, but the jury is still out until the fossil record is more complete and extensive behavioral genetic research has been accomplished in the area of human sexuality and mate choice." Interestingly enough, scientists have discovered a gene (the receptor gene for the neuropeptide arginine vasopressin) which is associated with infidelity in human males, based on previous work done on monogamous and polygamous species of voles. So we may be closer than we think to answering this question, because phylogenetics can be performed with single genes just like morphological traits, and the "record" is preserved in our genomes.
I can't believe how much time I've spent on this discussion. Frankly, I wish it would die, not because it isn't interesting but becuse it takes time away from other things. For instance, my yellow belt test in kenpo which is happening this Saturday!
Jenny
