Social Question

mazingerz88's avatar

When did human males and females start to be discriminating with choice of mate?

Asked by mazingerz88 (18343 points ) 2 weeks ago

Who do you think were more picky when choosing one’s sexual partner, men or women-?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

54 Answers

ZEPHYRA's avatar

Women.

ragingloli's avatar

When? As soon as sexual reproduction evolved.
Who? Females. A quick glance at nature reveals this. It is almost always the males that have to compete for the privilege of mating. It is usually also the males that wear all the colourful “makeup”.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Since the beginning of recorded time and before. Choice of mate (for the tribe or for the species) goes back to animals and earthworms and such. And it seen up and down the animal kingdom, from monkeys to lions to peacocks to humans.

At all levels, it’s all about strength of the breed and evolutionary biology. Keeping the herd strong by mating the strongest male with the strongest female. It’s about fecundity and virility – productive females build a stronger clan.

If anything, current pairing behavior is a step backwards on the evolutionary scale, because we mate for other reasons – not just the benefit of the tribe. We mate based on personality, which on the evolutionary scale does not move mankind forward..

dappled_leaves's avatar

@elbanditoroso Yet again, mate choice is not always about the “strength” of anything. Sexual selection is about anything from strength to beauty to ability to care for young, or anything else. People hear the phrase “survival of the fittest” and think that evolution is about who can beat up who, but it is not about that at all. Evolutionary fitness is about how many offspring one leaves. If you’re the prettiest male, and that leads to you leaving more offspring than the other guy, then it is your prettiness that makes you fit. It doesn’t matter how physically strong you are. This is not only a feature of “current pairing behaviour”; it has always been this way.

marinelife's avatar

Women have more to worry about: support for children.

But people have always been picky even instinctively.

majorrich's avatar

Women ultimately hold the power when it comes to procreation. Instinctively selecting those traits in the male she models will produce healthy, viable offspring. Often tht ends disastrously, But there have been studies of why females will cheat on the marriage construct searching for the right genes.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

The reason the males are more colorful than the females in every part of the animal kingdom except for humans (our females are much prettier than our males) is… predators.

It is the males’ job to lead a predator away from the family. This the colorful male.

JLeslie's avatar

@Dan_Lyons I have never heard that before. I don’t know if I buy it.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

I first heard it on a Jacques Cousteau underwater show from the 70s. He pointed out that all the colorful fish were males, while the more drab fish were females. He then explained how the males protect the females and the family.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Dan_Lyons And therefore, you extrapolate from one species of fish to “every part of the animal kingdom”. Okey dokey.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Why don’t you go out and observe nature as I have done over these last 35 years before you decide on what point I chose to extrapolate @dappled_leaves

Symbeline's avatar

@Dan_Lyons In butterflies, the male always has larger wings, and the colors are brighter than that of the female’s. The female’s body is larger, so it can contain the eggs. But butterflies won’t lead predators away, they make dances and try to ’‘impress’’ the female, as it were, with their colors. (although this must vary on different kinds of butterflies)

The colors on butterfly wings are their own defenses; it can confuse and frighten would be predators. Sometimes there are patterns on the wings that look like faces and trumps a predator. And the less colorful butterflies have drab colors that allow them to camouflage with bark, leaves and whatnot. But in insects, the male fucks the female and leaves, there is no ’‘family’’ involvement. Don’t know nothing about fish, but what you explain doesn’t work in the insect kingdom. (mostly as you encompass the fish thing for everything)
Perhaps for insects who live in colonies like ants or bees, but usually the whole group is its own defense.

hominid's avatar

@elbanditoroso: “If anything, current pairing behavior is a step backwards on the evolutionary scale, because we mate for other reasons – not just the benefit of the tribe. We mate based on personality, which on the evolutionary scale does not move mankind forward.”

There is no “backward” and “forward” in evolution.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@hominid well, perhaps I should have worded it as “regressing to previously used evolutionary development mechanisms that had been supplanted and replaced millions of years ago”.

Same difference. Mankind is losing species survival skills.

dappled_leaves's avatar

Yep, this is why I love Fluther. The voices of armchair googlers drown out those of the professionals every time.

ragingloli's avatar

Mate selection based on personality instead of physical impressiveness slowly weeds out aggressiveness from the gene pool.
Over generations, this will make humanity more peace loving, wars will be less prevalent, and ultimately, the probabilty of humanity destroying itself in a self inflicted nuclear holocaust diminishes.This increases the long term survivability of the species.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

^^ I sincerely hope you’re right.

longgone's avatar

@Dan_Lyons You consider 35 years of observing nature a long time? “Nature” is pretty huge.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@longgone Yes, 35 years is quite a long time observing nature when the observer is not yet 60

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Dan_Lyons Wait… do I remember correctly that you don’t even think evolution is a real thing?

Dan_Lyons's avatar

No @dappled_leaves you are once again incorrect. I know exactly how we came about and why all things were made with the capability to evolve.

I sere evolution in action every day out here in my work space. It is such an obvious reality as to make me wonder what kinds of idiots inhabit this world who can’t see reality in front of their very noses.

@Symbeline ” But butterflies won’t lead predators away,”

Yes they do.

Response moderated
dappled_leaves's avatar

@Dan_Lyons “I see evolution in action every day out here in my work space.”

Ahhh… so you’re working with fruit flies. :)

Dan_Lyons's avatar

;)

No @dappled_leaves I work out in the ocean. There is interbreeding occurring here between different shell species which my shell expert friends claim is impossible, and yet I see the result on a weekly basis.
Yes, evolution is very real and many scientists are completely unfamiliar with the true scope of the evolutionary process.

ragingloli's avatar

@Dan_Lyons
Are their offspring fertile?
Humans do that do, you know. That is how you get mules, hinnies and ligers.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@ragingloli I’m not sure if the new subspecies offspring is fertile or not. they won’t let me observe them that closely for that long a period in the wild.

longgone's avatar

@Dan_Lyons “Yes, 35 years is quite a long time observing nature when the observer is not yet 60.”

That’s pretty much my point…

Symbeline's avatar

@Dan_Lyons Can you elaborate on butterflies using distraction display? Can you give me an example of a species of butterfly that does this? I’ve heard of it done by a lot of birds, but never butterflies. I could certainly be wrong of course, but if you are so sure of it you must have an example or two.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

I just saw it happen two days ago, @Symbeline
\
If that were the case @longgone then there are no scientists anywhere on earth with much more experience. Are you seriously trying to make a point?

longgone's avatar

@Dan_Lyons You can’t call yourself a scientist just because you have “experience” “observing nature”.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@longgone Just what do you think science is?

longgone's avatar

@Dan_Lyons I could copy/paste a definition – or make one up – but neither option would help us understand each other. You are welcome to post your own definition if you would like to educate me.

In my opinion, your argument of having observed nature enough to even begin to understand it is ridiculous. I consider most anecdotal “evidence” unhelpful. You don’t, and that’s okay – you have a point to prove. Consider that anecdotes are not necessarily the best way to convince an opponent.

Your logical fallacy is…

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@longgone All science is is merely observing nature, coming up with some theories and testing them until you have an hypothesis.

Give me a break, anyone can be a scientist if they just open their eyes and think.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Dan_Lyons I don’t have much time for this today, so I’ll just leave a few things here.

First, science is not the same as observation.

Second, I struggle with trying to imagine what species you could have observed evolution taking place in, within the space of a few days. That is extraordinarily unlikely, if you are observing species that are visible with the naked eye. From the small clues you have dropped here, it kind of sounds like you’ve seen some individual organisms (what kind?) and are concluding that you’ve found new species. Or something. Please elaborate if you are going to use this as evidence for something.

Third, when you say, “All science is is merely observing nature, coming up with some theories and testing them until you have an hypothesis.” this is backward. In scientific experiments, one comes up with a hypothesis, then after a vast amount of testing in which the hypothesis continues to be upheld, one has a theory. This is why that pesky phrase “Evolution is just a theory” shows a lack of understanding of what a theory is.

Finally, I am having trouble understanding why you say on this thread that “I know exactly how we came about and why all things were made with the capability to evolve.”, while on another thread, you say “We are not descended from apes, swimming or swinging. The hypothesis is preposterous.” Are you aware that humans have evolved? If you refuse to believe it, why are you even answering the OP’s question?

Dan_Lyons's avatar

“I know exactly how we came about and why all things were made with the capability to evolve.” And “We are not descended from apes, swimming or swinging. The hypothesis is preposterous.” These two statements are not mutually exclusive. I do not understand your inability to make the obvious connection.

I know how we came about and we did not evolve from the ape/chimpanzee monkey branch of the animal kingdom. There is as yet no proof of this observation being scientifically valid.

Of course humans are evolving. I already stated that all life is created in such a way as to evolve.

I do not, however, believe we evolved from chimps, although perhaps you did @dappled_leaves

As for what species I observed evolution taking place, for one I noticed it taking place between the Mulberry Drupes (drupa morum) and the Brilliant Drupe (drupa rubusidaeus).

I have also observed obvious characteristics of different species in species who should not be creating offspring together (according to alleged scientists).

hominid's avatar

@Dan_Lyons – Sometimes sarcasm is difficult to read if it’s missing fluther’s sarcasm symbol (~).

If you are serious, are you really saying that you are a creationist? Young earth or old earth?

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@hominid The creator of the universe made all things to evolve. The earth is over 14 million years old, and quite possibly it is billions of years old.

Why? Do you think the earth was created in 6 days?

hominid's avatar

@Dan_Lyons – So you believe that the universe was “created” over 14 million years ago with x number of species that have been evolving since “creation”, and you reject our current scientific understanding on the origins of species – and the relevant science (DNA, etc)?

This is probably not the thread to expand on this, so I apologize to the OP. But this is fascinating. I’m really curious.

ragingloli's avatar

Sounds like the “adaptation only” type of creationist.
‘god created kinds, and while animals can evolve, they can only evolve within their kinds. One kind of animal can not become another kind.’
Fails to define “kind”, and fails to provide a mechanism that prevents a “kind” from becoming another.
Nothing new under the sun in that regard.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Dan_Lyons Thanks, what you are saying is a little clearer now.

Your statements about evolution are still a bit confusing, however. When you say, “I noticed it taking place between the Mulberry Drupes (drupa morum) and the Brilliant Drupe (drupa rubusidaeus).” are you saying that you saw one known species evolve into another known species? This is not actually how evolution works. Nor would it happen in a day, as you seemed to have implied in a previous post. Can you described what you saw, and why you think that was evolution?

And as to “I have also observed obvious characteristics of different species in species who should not be creating offspring together,” it’s hard for me to understand what you’re talking about without knowing why you think they “should not be creating offspring together” and how the “alleged scientists” disagree. I’m going to guess they don’t expect different species to be producing offspring together, so do they think these characteristics are normal for those species, whereas you think they are unusual? In order for evolution to occur at all, there must be variation in the expression of the characteristic or trait. How can you know that what you observed was not simply part of the spectrum of possible expressions for that trait?

I am asking these questions because you seem to be citing yourself as an authority on evolution, whereas you utterly dismiss ideas that represent the scientific consensus. I don’t know whether you’re right or wrong about the snails. But when you provide details, it sounds like you lack an understanding of how evolution works. And you provide few details.

Symbeline's avatar

And you provide few details.

Indeed. :p

I just saw it happen two days ago, @Symbeline

Dan_Lyons's avatar

@dappled_leavesThis is not actually how evolution works.”

So evolution does not work by a species garnering new characteristics which, over time, it keeps and soon it becomes the norm for that species? Do tell?

Of course this did not happen in a day. I did observe that it had happened, and that took me less than ten minutes.

I clearly said that one of the shells had acquired some of the characteristics of another shell species which the alleged shell experts tell me is impossible.

If you are finding this hard to understand perhaps you should first read up on the subject or go out and make your own observations and then come to your own conclusions without depending on what some alleged scientist has written in a book.

The Mulberry Drupe has a very closed aperture. The Strawberry Drupe has a wide open aperture. I discovered, every now and then, Mulberry Drupes with the open aperture of the Strawberry Drupe.

ragingloli's avatar

So you did not actually see them mate.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

No @ragingloli I did not. But the characteristics as stated are so obvious as to beg the question.

ragingloli's avatar

They could just as well be natural variations among population, and have nothing to do with interbreeding. You are jumping to a conclusion based on the flimsiest of evidence.
What you should instead do is grab some of these shells, do a genetic analysis, compare them to the genetic makeup of ‘normal’ members of the species, and check for genetic material from the other shell species that you suspect to have interbred.
That is what is called science.
Just looking at the shell’s phenotypical characteristics and then saying “ha, it must be because they fucked that other shell species” is not science.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Dan_Lyons “So evolution does not work by a species garnering new characteristics which, over time, it keeps and soon it becomes the norm for that species? Do tell?”

Not exactly. A species cannot “garner new characteristics” that were not already within the spectrum of possible expressions for that trait. You cannot mate one species with another and end up with an offspring with traits that one parent was incapable of producing. This is the very definition of a species: a species can only produce fertile offspring with others of its own species.

What you saw was likely exactly what @ragingloli and I described: an individual expressing a form of the trait that is possibly rare, but not impossible, for that species. Seeing one individual with that trait is not evidence of evolution. For that, you would have to show that there is a shift towards the new form of the trait in the whole population, or some sustainable portion of the population. You need not even do it through genetic analysis, but you would need to show that it is happening in great numbers, over time.

Paradox25's avatar

With the advent of technology comes an increased sense of entitlement. Many women think they’re entitled to someone, and a brilliant someone (aka for impossible standards) just because they’re women. The media and parents re-enforce these standards into their girls too. Many men think they’re entitled to brilliant women (aka for hot babe) because they’re assertive, successful or think too highly of themselves.

Both men and women have been willing participants in this cycle of ‘patriarchy’ and sense of entitlement for a long time now. Obviously these issues have major roles when trying to answer what you’re asking, because it all comes down to gender roles, and what created them.

I think as technology changes so do people’s attitudes. The current model of the nuclear family and many gender roles like man being the sole bread winner, women being the sole nurturer, man chasing women, etc were more recent constructs that developed within the past few centuries. Rigid gender roles drastically increased with the advent of the industrial revolution, and of course people become pickier as a result. Online dating is the epitome of pickiness, which proves a good deal of my points here.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

On the other hand @dappled_leaves & @ragingloli it could just as easily be that the parents of the anomaly did indeed breed across sub-species lines.

ragingloli's avatar

@Dan_Lyons
You are missing the point.
Being that you are supposed to TEST your hypothesis.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

My dear Loli, I would never consider removing these critters from their habitat nor would I commit any harm to the original occupants therein.
Unfortunately, I have been cursed with a superior intellect crossbred with an aquarian rising and find as often as not that many of my original theories have proven the test of time and therefore my assumption that present and future hypotheses will prove equally fruitful seems adequate to me; adding the insights I have plus the rarity of the physical evidence suggesting cross breeding rather than mutation (the mutated critter will begin to appear more and more common as the sub species proliferates) so far is my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

ragingloli's avatar

Superior intellect, huh.
Ego, more like.
You think you are so fucking brilliant that you do not have to prove or test your assumptions or consider any challenge to them.
You are not a scientist, you are a charlatan.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Charlie Chaplin was totally cool dude, thanks.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther