Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SCIENTISTS ARE COMING closer to understanding the evolutionary reason behind monogamy, with two new studies exploring different advantages of the practice that pairs mates for the long haul.
A leading theory had been that men stuck around to help raise children. But both studies, one in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the other in Science, determined that dads become involved parents later, after they’d already begun being monogamous.
“Paternal care evolves after monogamy is present and seems to be a consequence, rather than a cause, of the evolution of monogamy,” said University of Cambridge zoologist, Dieter Lukas.
“Once it does evolve,” he noted, “it provides a clear benefit to the female.”
However, the two teams differed in their conclusions about what brought the males and females to stay together in the first place.
In the PNAS study, the British and New Zealander researchers found the practice of monogamy helped fathers protect their vulnerable young from being murdered by rival males.
According to the researchers, females try to delay having more babies while they’re still in the throes of tending to a slowly developing infant. Rival males, then, try to kill the baby to induce the mother to conceive again, with them.
To reach this conclusion, the researchers, from University College London, the University of Manchester, Oxford University, and the University of Auckland, gathered data on some 230 primate species.
They plotted the species on a sort of family tree, reflecting the evolutionary relationship between them.
Through statistical analysis of the tree, the team was able to determine a timeline of which different behaviours evolved together over time, and which appeared first.
According to this timeline, infanticide from rival males drove fathers to stick around to protect their young, leading to the switch from multiple mating partners to just one.
But a second study by University of Cambridge researchers in Science used a different method to come their conclusion that monogamy appeared as a result of competition.
“Where females are widely dispersed, the best strategy for a male is to stick with one female, defend her, and make sure that he sires all her offspring,” said Tim Clutton-Brock.
By classifying some 2,500 mammalian species as either solitary, socially monogamous, or group living, they found monogamy tended to appear in species whose food sources were spread out, like meat and fruits, where the animal has to range over wide distances to find enough.
These species, which included several types of rodents, many kinds of primates and some carnivores, including jackals, wolves, and meerkats, also tended to have low density of females and low levels of home-range overlap.
But unlike in the PNAS study, the University of Cambridge researchers said they did not include humans in their analysis, and they are skeptical their results apply to homosapiens.
“Humans are such unusual animals, depending so excessively on culture, which changes so many of the ground rules of evolution,” Clutton-Brock added.
- AFP, 2013
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The main drive for monogamy is to avoid having more than one mother in law…
True
And pmt,…
“Bigamy is having one wife too many, monogamy is the same thing” – Oscar Wilde
A man with two wives is a bigamist. A man with three wives is a bigger mystery!
I didn’t choose to be monogamous, I’m just lazy and ugly.
Nice one steve!! :-D
I like monogamy, I’d also like a harem.
I’m confused, have I evolved or not?
What’s mahogany got to do, got to with it….who needs a heart when a chair can be broken…..Oooooo
Bada bing yall!!
Oh my God can’t make mind up is that a good or bad joke, I’m smiling
Monogamy evolved so fathers could lay lovely timber floors. Case closed.
Most accurate comment so far.
As opposed to laying lovely limber wh*res
This line of reasoning (the first one) doesn’t work. It assumes that the beta male is actually able to prevent the alpha from getting at “his” female. This is the opposite of what we know – the whole notion of “alpha” is that he can impose his dominance on the rest of the group.
Alternative explanation: economics. A particular society realises that the beta males are all either fighting over a very small surplus of females, or looking after only themselves, which they can do pretty well on a 10 hour week. To counteract this, the society agrees that everyone will restrict themselves to one partner. The big winners from this are the beta males, who all get a mate. But women also win from this – they now have a permanent provider whose interests are largely aligned with hers. The alpha males are worse off, though they still get the first pick.
But the biggest winner is the *group* as a whole, since it is now spending much more of its collective resources on productive, and probably collaborative, behaviour. As a result, it is likely to be more successful than the groups which don’t employ this method.
A very interesting comment Emily. In fairness this is a great topic and gets the mind working overtime :)
Excellent EmilyElephant. Very clear logic there.
As I read this article, I was wondering if it was searching for yet another reason why mankind could turn its back on promoting monogamous male/female relationships. We do seem great at justifying our social behaviours, divorce, abortion and euthanasia. Its always good to be able to hook ideas onto, animal behaviour, human rights, choice or freedom.
The three deadliest words in the world today are “its a girl”. There are now 200 million females missing because of the gendercide associated with abortion.
So we may be about to experience a shift in our evolution again, how will our patterns change. The emergence of gang rapes is ominous. The emergence of the belief among females that abortion serves them. Meanwhile men wash their hands of all responsibility associated with sexual activity. It looks like a fair deal for men, but sure we’ve allowed women a “choice”. Someone is being fooled.
Did you ever consider that you might not always be right Paddy?
“The emergence of gang rapes..”?!!!
Like gang rapes haven’t been present in human history up until now?!!!! Wtf?
What point are you trying to make Paddy?
Just want to say I agree re : choice. The true choice is one to take the pill and limit sexual partners to those you are happy about. Does seem like a bit of cotton wool being pulled that it’s sold as a woman’s right. Wrong place to talk about it here though.
@ Robin Pickering
Not only do I consider it, but I’m aware I’m often wrong.
@ Ross Stewart
Ross the gang rapes of the past, were mostly associated with war. The emergence of widespread gang rapes as a social phenomena, is relatively new. The scarcity of brides and the devaluing of marriage are probably influencing factors.
@ R
The separation of sexual activity from procreation, which really got underway in the 1930′s, is the biggest influencer of society today. It certainly changes marriage, and the relationships between men and women. It therefore is a big mover in the evolution of man/woman relationships, and as such relevant to the article (I think).
Paddy you do realise that primitive man did not have a concept of “marriage” that we do today.
Also it is not beyond the realms of possibilities that primitive man had sex for fun much as we do today. Given the lack of contraception or understanding of menstrual cycles this would often result in procreation – not by choice.
@ Alan Burke
Alan, marriage is the commitment of one man to one woman, and to the best of my knowledge that has been the prominent situation for all recorded history.
It is true that the sex was the initiation of marriage, as indeed it is today; but in those times, as today, the women had a significant choice in whom they would choose to mate with. And mating changed everything. The emergence of a child, the primal hormonal bonding with their offspring, the desire in men to protect, the nature of woman to nurture, shaped the relationship. The outside marriage liaisons, were frowned upon, as they destabilised the society. The understanding of the link between children and sexual activity was well known from the start by mankind. They were just prehistoric, not stupid.
Paddy the concept of marriage did not exist. Yes relationships did exist but these were nit based on an unfaltering commitment and were not solely heterosexual as you describe.
The ultimate goal of sexual relations is procreation however sex was practised purely for pleasure by countless civilisations and was not always solely between 2 people.
Therefore your assumption that “marriages” between a man and woman with a view to raising a child existed in ancient civilisations is ignorant of what we now know to be true.
This strikes me as an odd reply Robin… Paddy states the article got him wondering… And I found his thoughts interesting to ponder myself. Not because I believe he’s right but because I’m trying to figure out what I think is right myself. Has Paddy come across as autocratic on previous posts or am I missing something? His is just a voice as any on a comments thread. Btw I’m not trying to be antagonistic just curious :)
Divil I can answer that. Paddy is extremely autocratic on Journal. He aggresively promotes his Catholic Voice mindset and has shown an inability to revise his opinion or to engage in factual, rational debate.
@ Alan Burke
Ah! Alan. The old men were married to men idea. Well certainly in recorded history, the rest is purely speculation, men/men and women/women relationships were tolerated in some societies, but they were never viewed as marriage. And marriage, between a man and a woman, was seen as vital for society, and the care of children.
You should be more careful brandishing insults, such as labelling someone else ignorant. I am well aware of the asocial activities of the Greeks and Romans. But the norm and prevalent practice, was one man with one woman and their children. P.S. I don’t consider you ignorant, just biased, like myself.
Paddy I’ve that your concept if marriage did not exist in primitive man.
Labelling you ignorant is not meant as an insult but merely a factual comment following assesment of your many comments on various topics on The Journal.
The fact that you believe historical sexual relations between man and woman to be “the norm” highlights this ignorance, even further that you brand the Greeks and Romans as asocial
In what way do you see me as biased? Towards what cause?
@ Thedivilyaknow
Glad your enjoying a variety of views. I have strong views myself, but I hope I’m not autocratic. Alan blames me for not changing my views under the light of his wisdom; and yet for some strange reason, the illuminance of my arguments have not once got him to change his mind, but I’m not surprised. It always a dangerous position to take when we believe all “factual, rational debate”, is coming only from ones self.
Allow me to clarify.
Paddy is a religious extremist who cannot see beyond that in his precious bible. As an example during recent debates on gay marriage you have failed to recognise fact and science, instead offering no argument against other than “but the bible says”.
My opinions do and have changed upon receipt of new information e.g. I was once against abortion however having viewed fac5s and case studies I now support it.
I was also once a Roman Catholic however upon reading the bible and studying the history if the religion I am now atheist.
In short – my opinions are open to change and yours are not. Again this shows your assertion to be ignorant of what we know to be true.
Paddy might indeed be biased but at least he can argue coherently
Am I guilty of incoherance in argument?
You’re a bit late for the old abortion debate Paddy. That was yesterday, and as usual your side lost.
@ Alan Burke
Just for some clarity, as various expressions have current meanings. I am a person who takes their faith seriously, but I am not a “religious extremist”, which means in today’s context, ill shoot or bomb you if you don’t agree with me. Alan you are way over the top.
In none of my discussions on the redefinition of marriage, or any of the other debates, have I started with “as the bible says”. This Alan is projection at its best.
Alan, you promote all the liberal agendas here, for as long as I have read you, and in that you, have been just as unchangeable as me.
@ John Everyman
True John, we lost the battle, but we will continue to defend life, wherever we can. Who knows, perhaps society will some day say, what were we thinking! I’d like to congratulate you, but that would be disrespectful to the children whose lives will be lost.
Ah Paddy playing the noble martyr; fighting on valiantly with his broken sword and spent arrows against the armies of darkness.
Surely your church has enough martyrs Paddy, or rather people who had a martyrdom complex.
“disrespectful to the children whose lives will be lost..”
sensationalist – should read ‘unborn foetuses whose lives will be lost’
or ‘potential children whose lives will be lost’
Paddy given that your views are not those of society (as you have said above) do you then not consider yourself to be asocial, much the same as you have deemed the greeks and romans?
Marriage is a constantly changing concept. The idea that changes now are a departure from an ancient tradition is a fallacy.
Specifically, one-man-one-woman marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. Polygamy is still practised in Islam, and was adopted from the custom in Arabia at the time of Mohammed. The Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives and the OT repeatedly mentions concubines without comment. Even a couple of hundred years ago in these islands, the conception of marriage was very different – just read Jane Austen or Elizabeth Gaskell.
I also do not understand how you deem my views to be unchangeable given that they are liberal.
I promote open-mindedness, scientific method and informed opinions of which all 3 are by definition open to change.
Are you honestly arguing that gang rapes never happened? Of course they did – the victims was just shamed into silence. Similar with childhood sexual abuse.
And if you’re arguing for “traditional marriage” which existed to 1990 – where women could be legally raped by their husbands – then I have no idea how you can call that empowerment to women. Marriage has evolved from a property agreement to a more recent understanding of a partnership – and that’s a good thing.
@ John Everyman
Your imagery is interesting, although inaccurate.
@ Ross Stewart
They are not potential humans, but humans with potential.
@ Alan Burke
I didn’t say the Greeks and Romans were asocial, I said relationships other than marriage were considered asocial, as they were self serving only, and did not procreate, a valued outcome.
@ Emily Elephant
It is true polygamy was widely practiced, usually another form of mans exploitation of women; today we have contraceptives and abortion as tools of the ongoing exploitation.
How is family planning exploitative? It’s been an essential tool which has allowed women to become educated and economically self-sufficient, not forcing them to be forced to spend their entire fertile period on household labour – it’s a bit rich for a man to try to tell me that I’m exploited by measures which allow me to get a higher education.
@paddy
Twisting my words now- potential children, not potential humans. They are not children. They are foetuses. Human foetuses. You do yourself a huge disservice by twisting words and using sensationalist phrases.
“I am well aware of the asocial activities of the Greeks and Romans”
Can you clarify this statement then?
Also can you answer the questions I’ve asked of you in the above thread or will you continue to resort to your usual tactics of avoidance and ignorance?
@ Ross Stewart
I know what you said Ross, but I quoted it in the form it is usually used. To me they are children, all offspring, conception to death are children of someone. But I’m not rehashing that now.
@ Alan Burke
Alan, if there is a specific question you wish me to try and answer, then please ask again. I would appreciate if you confined yourself to one question, otherwise I’m likely to interpret it as you letting off steam!
Given that your views are not shared by the majority of society (as you mentioned above) do you consider yourself to be asocial, in the same vein as you dubbed the Greeks and Romans?
@ Alan Burke
Is that what you want clarity on, I thought I had clarified that. There is first of all no way of knowing if my views are majority or minority. As I have already said it was the Greeks and Romans who considered the minority of man/man relationship as asocial. It was asocial because it was not for the benefit of society, just lust expressed in a way that did nothing for society, no offspring.
So having a minority view is not what makes you asocial, but living a selfish life, which does not help society.
As for the Greeks and Romans, overall they were a very social bunch, a drink of wine, a nice bath, feed a few Christians to the lions; yeah great crack.
Paddy I think those referenda and recent opinion polls on abortion legislation show your views in that regard to be in the minority.
Procreation is not the only benefit relationships can bring to society. The freedom of having a homosexual relationship in Rome or Greece can bring happiness to people also. Is happiness of population not infinitely more valuable to a society than procreation?
Paddy likes to bring up the Christians being thrown to the lions but neglects to mention that the Empire was a christian state for far longer than it was a pagan one.
From the new Christian capital at Constantinople, the Christian emperors sent forth their armies to pillage and burn until the city fell to the Turks in 1453.
Though now commonly remembered as the Byzantine Empire this state continued to call itself the Roman Empire and it’s christian troops marched under the ancient slogan which read “For the Senate and People of Rome.”
The Empire’s crimes lay as much at the feet of Christianity as they do at the feet of the old religion.
By the way, there is zero contemporary evidence of the Romans (or Greeks) feeding Christians to the lions. Seems to be a Hollywood invention, possibly based on the Daniel OT story.
Emily I think Paddy gets his history lessons from Hollywood anyway, given his lack of knowledge on the history of marriage that you have pointed out above.
So Paddy, lust without offspring is selfish and does nothing for society?
Wow, I’d hope your children aren’t childless, otherwise christmas dinner might be awkward..
@ Alan Burke
We have such a different understanding of situations, I’m sure we could go on ad infinitum, but lets not.
Happiness is certainly a factor, but not higher necessarily than procreation. Happiness is often the result of procreation. You view does not address the 65% of marriages worldwide that are arranged. They are not arranged just for happiness, but more so for propagation of the family. The happiness you mention is not of benefit to society, but children are valued by all societies.
@ Ross Stewart
Least there be any misunderstanding, it can be considered as lust only when the possibility of children is deliberately blocked. The act is them in itself, self serving, without the possibility of its natural outcome.
Children are not valued by all societies Paddy.
In China procreation will be to the detriment of society due to overpopulation.
In the RCC they most definitely do not value children given the top level cover up of widespread child abuse.
You seem quite fond of making sweeping generalisations without having done your homework and yet again you are failing to answer questions or reply to points put to you.
Either debate and at least attempt to defend/support your argument or refrain from posting.
@ Alan Burke
The true mark of a non debater. Lets throw in the abuse issue. Alan if you are only interested in throwing muck, just say it. Don’t pretend to be a debater.
Where is the abuse Paddy?
I merely commented in your inability to debate with anyone. You’ve done it again by deflecting from the points I made to try claim a personal attack?
Pleaee quote where I abused you.
“Where females are widely dispersed, the best strategy for a male is to stick with one female, defend her, and make sure that he sires all her offspring,” said Tim Clutton-Brock.
Maybe this explains the pro-choice assertion that most pro-life folks are pesky men who want to control womens bodies. And perhaps pro-choice men are subconsciously expressing the “infanticide from rival males” side of nature.
So there ya are now, it’s seems it’s not the stupid silly churches or controlling patriarchy after all, it’s behavioural science related to evolution and genetic advantage.
@Alan Burke:
Surely Paddy is a mass debater.
Am I the only one that kept reading Clutton-Brock as Buttock…forgive me its early
Have you just finished with Christian Gray? Or has he just finished with you? :-) Or maybe you’re still going?
Evolution doesn’t happen for a reason. It doesn’t need a reason. Living things don’t evolve to suit their environments. All evolutionary change is just random mutation which proves either beneficial or harmful to the recipient, or neither! Many species simply evolve themselves out of existence!
Yes it’s called Natural Selection.
Species evolve to suit new surroundings/foods etc, however if one species evolves “better” than another then the weaker one eventually dies off.
Species don’t evolve to suit their surroundings. Mutations happen randomly and sometimes the mutations are beneficial to that species in that environment and sometimes they are not. Yes, over time, the populations with the better mutations will flourish while others diminish, but the main points are that evolution is not caused by environment and that evolution is not always a good thing, since it leads species to extinction on a staggeringly frequent basis.
I suggest you read up on the ‘domed’ and ‘saddleback’ tortoises on the Galapagos Islands Robin, both are from the same lineage but on separate islands. On one island, Espanola, the foliage is on plants higher off the ground, (as it is arid) and the saddleback has a very long neck and curve on it’s shell to enable it to reach this source of food. On the other island, Santa Cruz, vegetation is at ground level and the ‘domed’ tortoises have short necks, both tortoises are from the exact same genetic lineage, however, one adapted to it’s environment over time as required. This is just one example of how a species adapted to it’s environment.
A fine example Gaius
Thanks Alan,David Attenborough’s BBC documentary ‘The Tree of Life’ is a good crash course in evolutionary adaptation for those who lead very busy lives and don’t have the time to get through textbooks!
Indeed Gaius I have spent many an evening glued to Attenborough on Netflix
I think I’m being misunderstood and perhaps I am also misunderstanding you myself.
Are you suggesting that there is cause and effect happening with evolution?
What I’m trying to point out – maybe not successfully – is that evolution doesn’t RESPOND to environment. DNA is wholly unaware of its environment. It can’t force itself to mutate (evolve) to confer an advantage. It can’t evolve itself at all. It just happens. Very occasionally, a mutation (evolution) proves beneficial, confers an advantage and this leads to greater survivability, which leads to greater frequency of that mutation in a population.
Gaius, the turtles are a good example of evolution, but they didn’t evolve that way ‘because’ of their environment – they just evolved, their evolution suited their circumstances and they survived, while others did not.
Would you Adam and Eve it ?
I think that these scientists have been watching to many Wild Life channels.
I’ll ask you th3 same as I’ve asked Paddy – what point are you trying to make?
Tee hee hee. You said Pnas…
have your say