From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:44:48 GMT


In <Brsrpo.Gny@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

Below is an illustration of why a Christian should utterly reject evolution.
It is also an example of how much of what is called science and or education
is a crime against the family and taxpayers in general.

Andy Peters has relegated the holy institution of monogomaous  marriage to some evolutionary
happenchance, which may not be universal for humans, and is the subject of some scientific
debate as to why it came about in the first place.  Of course, Mr. Peters is
certainly correct, if there were such a thing as evolution.  His assertions
would certainly be valid.  


>In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:

>>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
>>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
>>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.

>Sorry to interrupt here, but I figured at least Seanna might
>appreciate some actual _biology_ here, rather than Chuck's twisted
>version of evolution (I know from experience that Chuck doesn't
>care).  Chuck remains deluded about mating behavior in non-human
>animals, assuming that polygamy is universal.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>While monogamy is relatively rare among animals, it is far from
>nonexistent.  What are the conditions under which monogamy will
>evolve?  The following specific explanations for the 
>evolution of monogamy are from [1] (the ellipses replace specific
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>examples and further explanation):

>  "1. Monogamy evolves because male help is essential to female
>      success. [...]
>   2. Monogamy evolves because the polygyny threshold is never
>      reached in a species [the p.t. is the point at which a
>      female is better off mating with already mated males, i.e.
>      because they have better territories, than with bachelor
>      males. -ap] [...]
>   3. Monogamy evolves because female aggression prevents males
>      from achieving polygyny. [...]
>   4. Monogamy evolves through male defense of individual females.
>      [...] In these species, males show no parental care. [...]"

>I don't know what the currently-accepted explanation is for human
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>monogamy, but I would suspect it is some combination of 1 and 2
>(though number 3 seems to be supported by some personal observations
>of mine :-).  The point is that there is no reason within the
>evolutionary framework to expect that monogamy wouldn't have arisen.

>It should also be noted that in a lot of "monogamous" species
>(birds have been studied most), extra-pair copulations (i.e. "affairs")
>have recently been documented, both through behavioral observations
>and DNA fingerprinting.  This also fits in very nicely with a lot
>of observed human behavior.

>-- 
>* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
>* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
>*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
>* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins