Natural Selection and Female Mate Selection
For those of you that have been in contact with me lately, you know that my brain has been in hyper-drive, especially when it comes to biology and/or human behavior. That being said, here is what I was thinking on my walk between chemistry class and the library this morning.
In most animal species it is well known that the female sex picks who they wish to mate with. This is because she has the limited resource, eggs. Now I do not know if this would be relevant in humans, and it certainly would not be in all cases, but if this is the case, it would follow that females are largely in control of the human genetics that are on, or will be on this planet. Because although males contribute half the genome, it is none the less the females that would pick which male genes would be passed on to future generations.
But why do female humans chose the mate that they chose?
Any one who takes a quick look at society will quickly realize that younger females are often pair bonded to older males. This difference is often just a few years apart, but it is not rare to see an age gap of 10 to 15 years between the male and the female of a couple.
Why is that?
One could go with Freud’s theory of children being attracted to their parents (I am not very familiar with this theory, and what I know has since flown out the window, but I believe that is the gist of it.) I am not entirely convinced by this, and even if Freud’s theory holds true there must be some ultimate factor behind why this is so.
Could this not be a simple product of natural selection? Older males in an animal group, humans included, are usually the stronger, more knowledgeable, and more dominant animals. And throughout evolution it has been generally the female’s duty to care for the offspring produced. (This varies by species, but is the general rule in over 90 percent of animals.) This being said, it would benefit a species survival for a female to pair bond with an older, stronger, more knowledgeable, and hence more dominant male. It would ensure the survival of her offspring, as he would be the most likely to “put the bread on the table”, and hence the survival of her genetics, which is what is really key here. Then this gene (or perhaps complex set of genes) that causes a female to be attracted to an older male, would be passed on to her offspring, who would have a higher likelihood of mating with an older male, and by my theory surviving, and hence passing it on to their offspring....and the chain continues.
The same theory can be applied to why females tend to be attracted to men with money (or intelligence, or any other resource for that matter.), to ensure the survival of her young.
That being said, what exactly follows from this theory?
Do we as a species assure our own survival through our societal norms?
Does our version of fairy tale love boil down to genetics and natural selection?
Is there an allele on some chromosome in my genome that is currently telling me whether or not the boy sitting next to me is attractive?
In most animal species it is well known that the female sex picks who they wish to mate with. This is because she has the limited resource, eggs. Now I do not know if this would be relevant in humans, and it certainly would not be in all cases, but if this is the case, it would follow that females are largely in control of the human genetics that are on, or will be on this planet. Because although males contribute half the genome, it is none the less the females that would pick which male genes would be passed on to future generations.
But why do female humans chose the mate that they chose?
Any one who takes a quick look at society will quickly realize that younger females are often pair bonded to older males. This difference is often just a few years apart, but it is not rare to see an age gap of 10 to 15 years between the male and the female of a couple.
Why is that?
One could go with Freud’s theory of children being attracted to their parents (I am not very familiar with this theory, and what I know has since flown out the window, but I believe that is the gist of it.) I am not entirely convinced by this, and even if Freud’s theory holds true there must be some ultimate factor behind why this is so.
Could this not be a simple product of natural selection? Older males in an animal group, humans included, are usually the stronger, more knowledgeable, and more dominant animals. And throughout evolution it has been generally the female’s duty to care for the offspring produced. (This varies by species, but is the general rule in over 90 percent of animals.) This being said, it would benefit a species survival for a female to pair bond with an older, stronger, more knowledgeable, and hence more dominant male. It would ensure the survival of her offspring, as he would be the most likely to “put the bread on the table”, and hence the survival of her genetics, which is what is really key here. Then this gene (or perhaps complex set of genes) that causes a female to be attracted to an older male, would be passed on to her offspring, who would have a higher likelihood of mating with an older male, and by my theory surviving, and hence passing it on to their offspring....and the chain continues.
The same theory can be applied to why females tend to be attracted to men with money (or intelligence, or any other resource for that matter.), to ensure the survival of her young.
That being said, what exactly follows from this theory?
Do we as a species assure our own survival through our societal norms?
Does our version of fairy tale love boil down to genetics and natural selection?
Is there an allele on some chromosome in my genome that is currently telling me whether or not the boy sitting next to me is attractive?