Re: Evolution and Love
- From: William Morse <wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:25:22 -0500 (EST)
"Kartik Rajan" <rajan.kartik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:dmnem7$2ud5$1
@darwin.ediacara.org:
> The choice of polygamy vs monogamy in species may be based on group
> dynamics in a particular species, based on their habitat, diet etc.
> Polygamy as an evolutionary strategy has the advantage that it allows
> individuals to spread their genes in a large number of offspring. Such
> individuals store thir 'eggs' in a number of 'baskets' and pass their
> genes on to the next generation by virtue of numbers.
> In monogamous species, the individuals of both sexes contribute more or
> less equally in bringing up their offspring. The males parent less
> offspring and store all their eggs in one basket so to speak. They
> invest considerably more in each offspring.
You are intermingling two different concepts - K vs. r selection, and
relative parental investment. K selected animals have few offspring and
invest a lot of resources in each, while r selected animals have many
offspring and invest few resources in each.
According to the parental investment theory, animals with much greater
total female parental investment are polygynous, those with equal male
and female parental investment are monogamous, those with greater male
parental investment are polyandrous. But you can have an animal that is K
selected but polygynous (e.g. deer ), or an animal that is r selected but
monogamous (e.g. some of the cichlid fishes)
> Some believe, love is an evolutionary adaptation that ensures that in
> monogamous species both individuals, stay together. This ensures that
> their offspring are adequately cared for till they mature.
> Monogamy is not a universal trait though, it exists in species where it
> offers an advantage over polygamy based on their surroundings,
> behaviour, diet etc.
> I dont know if anyone has actually checked if polygamous animals
> 'experience' feelings of love, but they probably dont as love is most
> likely characteristic of pair bonding monogamous species.
Statements about what feelings other animals experience can only be
informed conjecture, at least until our understanding of neurobiology is
a heck of a lot better than it is today. But many animals appear to
"love" their children; dogs show something like "love" to their masters;
and many animals show signs of friendships that are very akin to "love".
So while I agree that love is characteristic of pair bonding monogamous
species, I think an emotion very similar in character exists among other
species.
Yours,
Bill Morse
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolution and Love
- From: Glen M. Sizemore
- Re: Evolution and Love
- References:
- Re: Evolution and Love
- From: Kartik Rajan
- Re: Evolution and Love
- Prev by Date: Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- Next by Date: DNA and Alleles
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution and Love
- Next by thread: Re: Evolution and Love
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|