Raise your hand if you believe that societal interactions have no explanation in evolution. Then, drop your drawers and stand by to be smitten (by an anvil, not a mitten).
Please, also raise your hand if you believe we have stopped evolving. That way I might someday look upon you as a fool (several minutes after you post, really).
I don’t mind those of you who think that pointing to evolution all the time is trendy and so you feel like bashing it. At the same time, I hope all of you realize that we have not yet realized the full extent of evolution, nor what the process really is in a more fundamental sense.
We do not know when evolution started and we do not know when, or if, it will stop. I would like to direct your attention to a recent Nature Physics paper:
This is not just a conceptual trick. More generally, it appears more and more that evolution may be fractal in nature. It occurs at multiple scales and levels of analysis. I tend to believe that people underestimate the extent to which explanations for natural phenomenon can be found in evolutionary processes, and not the contrary which is the basis of this thread.
Is it just me or does that abstract appear to reference darwinistic behavior of quantum phenomena, rather than quantum behavior of darwinistic phenomena?
I think I was pretty clear in pointing out that it’s a fractal phenomena and that the many posters who believe that societal/cultural practices do not have an explanation in evolution do not have as sound of a base as they assume they do.
As usual, Blake goes for the literal. (patting his pointed, little, but usually technically-accurate head)
(heavy sigh) 1. No. If “free will” existed it might explain it better, but humans seem to be primarily driven by a “it seemed like a good idea at the time,” which still drives human behavior. Note the millenia between then and now. Estimate the generations. Extrapolate from that how many failures existed between then and now, when you hope a non-shitty conclusion has been reached. Look at that conclusion and compare it with your experience. Throw it all out because it’s too similar to what Johnny Knoxville would come up with.
There is no plan to whom a guy will fuck. Okay, there’s a “plan.” The first to offer wins. This does not lead to optimal reproduction.
I will support the OP: We are not cavemen. Male and female, we are dogs.
I’m back from vacation and, if not smarter, at least a few chapters more educated on what that book puts forth.
According to that, yes, sperm from masturbation contains far fewer sperm – around 50 million.
This raises the question of why 50 million and not none. Look a little deeper, and ask why we masturbate at all. Since we’re not impregnating anyone, it serves no real purpose at all, so why do it? And lastly, what about feedback loops?
These are all partially aswered in the additional material I read. There’s far more information than I can impart in this post, so bear with me for any inadvertant omissions.
For one thing, the notion that each and every sperm is hell-bent on penetrating an egg is false. It’s been known for some time that not every sperm does so. I remember seeing a documentary on this over a decade ago where it seemed as though most sperm looked deformed and did not perform its intended function. Biologists at the time were baffled, and concluded that most sperm (99%+) was (were?) deformed. Only a small percentage were up to the task.
That’s a really unsatisfying answer. Nature is imperfect, but not that imperfect.
In fact, there are three types of sperm, loosely classified as follows:
Blockers
Egg-getters
Killers
Egg-getters make up less than 1% of the population, and are the only ones capable of insemination.
Blockers block the channels in cervical mucus, preventing any more sperm from getting into the uterus. Killers actively seek out other sperm, and test any that they encounter for similar chemical composition. Those they deem to be from a different donor, they attempt to kill. Long story short, if two men have sex with a woman within a few days of each other, the sperm go to war. The stronger, healthier sperm get the prize of the egg. This works to the female’s advantage in that she’ll get the best genes possible.
Interesting, eh? 99% of sperm has the sole function of fighting off other mens’ sperm.
So what is masturbation for?
All sperm start out the same, as killers. When they mature, they turn into blockers. During ejaculation, the blockers come out first and the killers come out last. They’re queued up in this way.
Here’s where part of the feedback loop comes into play. Let’s say, in a completely hypothetical situation, you meet some cute young thang. There’s every possibility that you might get to boink her tonight. The prospect gets you so turned on that you feel the need to jerk off earlier in the day. Simple horniness? Perhaps, but why would nature provide you with the urge to drain yourself of needed sperm? How about this instead: Nature gives you the urge to masturbate so that you can wash those first 50 million blockers down the drain. When you see your honey, you’re all queued up with egg-getters and killers, because that’s what you need. She might be full of someone else’s blockers and egg-getters, and if you’re going to win the mating game, you need to out-compete the last guy.
As you move into a relationship with the woman and have less reason to suspect she’s been unfaithful, your rountines of sex and masturbation will get more predictable, and therefore you’ll adjust the amount and type of sperm you produce.
So there’s your feedback loop.
It gets intensely more complicated than that, but that’s the jist of it.