Re: Do other species feel love?

JTEM wrote:
Arkalen <skiz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Huh ? You're the one that used the argument that
it was "unusual in an animal species" as evidence
that "there's no need for monogamy".

Funny, but I would have guessed that the fact that
there's no need for monogamy would be self
evident.

I mean, this is talk.origins. We are speaking in
evolutionary terms... right?

If you want to think of it socially....

Humans are social animals, and society requires
rules. But, there's no reason to ever assume that
"monogamy" has to be one of those rules.

in western society -- and in many other societies
as well -- children have historically been viewed
as belonging to the man. Yes, in recent times
(extremely recent in the grand scheme of things)
our views have gotten a little blurred, but it's still
pretty true.

If that ONE thing wasn't the case, it's doubtful
that our views on marriage & families would
look anywhere near similar.

This is not to say that civilization would have
collapsed, or that we'd all be humping knot
holes in trees right now, but a great deal we
take for granted (couldn't imagine any other
way) simply wouldn't exist... most likely high
on that list: Monogamous relationships.

You seem to believe I am talking about humanity. I'm not. You're right, monogamy isn't that common in primates, or mammals for that matter, and in particular human societies run the gamut of mating systems (though polyandry is very rare apparently).
I'm talking about in living things in general, and there *are* species that are monogamous, especially socially monogamous. Humans are a bad examples but many species aren't, especially among birds.

A single monogamous species would prove that for
that species at least, it turned out to be necessary.
Hardly. It wouldn't prove it was necessary. It wouldn't
even prove it was optimal. Your mistake here is in
assuming that HOW things turned out was somehow
a predetermined goal.
How do you figure that ? HOW things turn out is usually
what turned out to be adaptive in that environment.

Not necessarily, no. You're assuming that the
environment is acting on every single feature, when
there's every reason to believe otherwise.
Didn't I address that ? Of course evolution doesn't act on every single feature. But if the feature is important and very different from the alternatives, then it's unlikely to be evolutionarily neutral. Therefore if we see it it was probably adaptive. Monogamy seems drastic enough to me to be included among those important features.
Secondly,
you're also forgetting that we're talking about a SOCIAL
and not BIOLOGICAL adaptation.
And ? If social adaptations weren't subject to natural selection they would be extremely varied in different populations of the same species. They're not. Fire Ants build huge cities, Wonga Pigeons are monogamous, Gorillas are polygynous, Bonobos spend their time having sexual orgies... Humans vary but they seem to be the exception.
So you could argue that YOU require monogamy so that
you could move within a society, feel comfortable within
it, you can't claim that society needs monogamy.
Plenty of societies don't have it!

Societies need rules. But, the specific rules aren't quite
as important. Sparta, for example, flourished for hundreds
of years with social rules that appear insane to us today.

Again, Humans aren't the only species in the world that have mating systems. Some people when they talk about "monogamy" are talking *gasp* in GENERAL. In fact the OP specifically talked about OTHER SPECIES, so you're completely off topic.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Love
    ... > dynamics in a particular species, based on their habitat, diet etc. ... invest a lot of resources in each, while r selected animals have many ... According to the parental investment theory, ... > Monogamy is not a universal trait though, it exists in species where it ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution and Love
    ... >> dynamics in a particular species, based on their habitat, diet etc. ... > invest a lot of resources in each, while r selected animals have many ... > According to the parental investment theory, ... >> Monogamy is not a universal trait though, it exists in species where it ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution and Love
    ... The choice of polygamy vs monogamy in species may be based on group ... Polygamy as an evolutionary strategy has the advantage that it allows ... individuals to spread their genes in a large number of offspring. ... Monogamy is not a universal trait though, it exists in species where it ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution and Love
    ... > The choice of polygamy vs monogamy in species may be based ... initiating romantic attraction between people. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Do other species feel love?
    ... to monogamous) bonding of opposite sexes of the same species. ... given the high incidence of marital infidelity, ... Even within widely varied estimates of infidelity, humans still tend ... toward monogamy. ...
    (talk.origins)