It seems as though the concealed oestrus theory (Alexa Hewes, 3rd
March) might be a little naive, either that or based on Lamarkism!
The problems: For a start this assumes that no oestrus chemicals ever
existed because it is unlikely that even the most determined female
could have consciously disguised them, especially before the days of
Channel No5! Secondly and most importantly, even if conscious
disguising behaviours could adequately disguise oestrus, Alexa assumes
that these conscious disguising behaviours could realistically be
passed on to future generations.
Only supporters of Lamarkism (dubious theoretical value) would believe
that genetics (ie: evolution) could play a hand in this as a reason for
the current advertisement situation.
The alternative explanation would be that these concealment behaviours
were passed by word of mouth - a highly unlikely prospect given the
geological time scales which we are talking about and the fact that
effective powers of communication is a relatively recent development in
evolutionary terms. So we have to ask; Why did evolution select women
who by natural genetic variation, advertised their fertility state less
than others?
2 solution suggestions:
1. Men were the hunters - They provided food, they were also stronger
and the protectors. In 'lower animals' we still see that males are
particularly uninterested in females when they are not fertile. In
our human ancestors this might have meant that the females received
less food and protection. However, if the males are kept in a
continuous state of sexual uncertainty (by women still encouraging
sex because they still enjoy it, and not showing they are infertile)
there will be more consistency in the males providing and protecting
behaviours towards the females thus females who had these traits will
have been selectively favoured over those who didn't.
2. Alternatively, it might be suggested that the high frequency of
fertility phases and males' biological reactions to them is
incompatible with living in structured tribes. The females would
cause disruption in males work and their positions in the hierarchies
would constantly be undermined. In essence then, this is a
suggestion that the disruption caused in tribal systems was
incompatible, in evolutionary terms, with the intelligent drive
towards tribalism, social structure and established social policy.
After all, we couldn't maintain good social order/hierarchy with all
these animalistic feelings coming to the fore. The groups which first
began to achieve this social structure by 'weeding out' females who
advertised will have been superior in many ways to those groups who
still had battles over their females once every month and will have
therefore been naturally selected as the 'fittest groups' (they will
also have formed a basis on which the trend of monogamous
relationships could be established).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:17 GMT