There still needs to be some sort of external feedback for this to work (the bile example operates because of internal feedback). That is, the testes have to be able to tell if the last load went into one’s normal partner, a new partner, or into a sock. I’m not convinced the author(s) thought this through enough to be able to have discovered such a feedback mechanism.
What’s your point? Yeah, civilization is only about 10K years old, but homo sapiens sapiens is only about 200K years old, which is 5% of our existence as a species (and it is claimed we are evolving faster since civilization than before). But really, any attempt to explain behavior via evolution has to deal with the fact that we really don’t know how any of our predecessor species behaved. Sure, we can find tools and we can be pretty sure H. erectus didn’t live in cities the size of New York, but that’s about it.
We are millions of years removed from chimpanzees. Hell, just because we are most closely related to chimps does not mean they are most closely related to us. (Are you certain orangutans and gorillas are both more distantly related to chimps, than to us?) But more importantly, look how different the two chimpanzee species are behaviorally. We differ from both chimp species significantly more than they differ from each other, yet all three species behave very differently.
The closest relative of the chimp (besides the bonobo) is the human. Gorillas are equally closely related to chimps and humans. Orangutans are equally closely related to {chimps, humans, gorillas}. Gibbons are equally closely related to {orangutans, chimps, gorillas, humans}.
Re: The subconscious mind choosing the number of sperm released threadlet…
I fear that this is gearing up for a situation where I might have to defend myself against doubters, and I’m not really in a position to do that right now, so I’ll leave you with a few things.
-First, I think I might have come across a little harsh in my last few posts. I apologize, I did not mean to be.
-This theory is not my own, it is the result of a study by Robin Baker. I’m merely mentioning something fascinating that I read in his book. Check out Sperm Wars if you have a chance.
-Robin comes across to me as a credible scientist. I’d bet he got full IRB approval for his study. I could well be wrong.
-I won’t be around to debate you on this for a few days. I’m off to a beach vacation/birthday party until Tuesday. I may or may not have Internet use during that time, depending on whose computer I’ll have access to. If it’s Dad’s, then all bets are off. I think he’s still on dial-up with Windows 3.1. But I’ll bring Robin’s book with me and do as much research as I can. It probably won’t be much, though.
Wish me an excellent tan!
/out
Who?
No, you’re thinking of the first baseman. Abbot’s the comedian.
Her?
If they ‘subconsciously’ adjust their sperm count based on how much is needed to impregnate someone, wouldn’t the semen from masturbation contain no sperm whatsoever? After all, it’s not impregnating anybody.
For the record, I was responding to the idea, and wasn’t attacking you. 
Is there any evidence at all to support this claim? My local zoo has a troupe of chimpanzees rescued form all sorts of places around the world. All totally unrelated and they get on just fine.
This seems like a classic example of what the OP is talking about. In the wild chimpanzee males will attack male and female strangers, but there is no evidence I have ever seen to suggest that this has anything to do with genetics. They are attacking competitors, nothing more.
So we seem to have gone from “Chimpanzees attack strangers” to “chimpanzees have evolved a mechanism to detect and attack genetically unrelated males” with no evidence whatsoever.
I can’t even imagine how one would test this hypothesis. It’s no true in any zoo on earth, and the social structure of chimpanzees would seem to make it impossible to test in the wild.
Good grief.
Until 5,00 years ago people didn’t have agriculture. Agriculture allows larger populations. This banal observation can be explained 100% by technology. And it’s trivially easy to falsify.
Until as little as 100 years ago HGs around the world still lived in small groups. Yet modern Aborigines or Anadmanese do not have higher testosterone levels than modern Swiss. So unless you are proposing that such people evolved the trait of lower testosterone in just 100 years your stuck with the mechnaism being entirely due to agriculture.
No genetic cause need be invoked.
No, we’re not. Or at leas I’m not. I live in a house. All my ancestors lived in houses. There is not one shred of evidence that any ancestor of mine ever lived in a cave.
Cave dwelling was really only trait of Neanderthals. Some disparate groups of H. sapiens in Europe may have lived in caves for short period, though the evidence is sketchy. But to claim that most, much less all, humans have ancestors that lived in caves is not based in fact of any kind.
And yet the influence of genetics on behavior is vastly underestimated.
Let’s put it this way.
Do genetics explain every human behavior? Well, if there is no free will, then yes of course.
Can you personally explain any given behavior in terms of genetics, using what you imagine early humans must have done, on an internet message board? No.
Is “I only fucked her because in early human times men who could spread their genetic information to as many women as possible had an evolutionary advantage” going to impress your girlfriend? No.
No, even if there is no free will genetics still only explains a tiny proportion of human behaviour.
Do you really think that I speak English and wheat bread because of genetics, rather than cultural and historical reasons?
No wonder it’s been so long since I had a girlfriend :smack:
But at the same time, if I look at feral children and note that males masturbate once a day and females once a week, and then look at adultery rates in various societies and men always have higher rates, then that’s just data. It doesn’t excuse poor behavior, but at the same time it’s reality.
You should also note that modern sexual mores are the product of its times. The Romans and the Greeks had vastly different ideas of propriety and fidelity and there’s no saying that they were any more right or wrong than us. Saying that men who sleep about are cavemen makes no sense when you consider modern ideas on sexuality to that of the Puritans. They would consider us to be sinful and immoral for allowing homosexuals and sex out of wedlock and all these things, while as our response back to them would be that it’s just accepting nature instead of fighting it. How do you explain the move towards sex education to children rather than “abstinence only” without saying that it’s accepting human nature for what it is? You can say men are pigs, or you can say that anyone who says men are pigs is wrong, but really either is based on subjective ideas of what is and isn’t “a pig”.
The only true answer to any of this is to not hurt the people you’re with. Any sexual morality more specific than that is just flavor of the day.
Yeah, but at least the people who answered in those threads (almost universally) said something along the lines of “that’s not how natural selection works” or “we can’t describe most of our societal actions by primitive instincts.” So it was mostly just the OP asking something kinda silly, which is what I think you’re saying anyway.
BTW, thanks for linking to the butterflies thread. It gave me the opportunity to notice the last post in it, and either I wooshed the crap outta Stan Schmenge or vice versa. 
The notion of “cave men” is an artifact of taphonomy. Sure, if natural rock shelters are available, people sometimes use them. But there aren’t very many natural rock shelters in most parts of the world, and so the vast majority of our ancestors never lived in rock shelters. But if you have 10,000,000 people living in houses made of wood and other typical building materials, and 10 people living in a cave, what will be preserved 100,000 years later? The evidence of the people who lived in the cave.
The evoluntary book I almost got because of its title was (I think) “Embrace your inner fish”.
Hard to resist
Speak for yourself.
e-voluntary?
Okay, this e-this and i-that thing has gone to far.