Humans rank above meerkats but below beavers in monogamy league table
Posted by wjSgoWPm5bWAhXB 3 days ago
Comments
Comment by derbOac 2 days ago
I thought the approach to the question was informative and clever and sort of puts things on a continuous scale as it probably is. The most interesting thing to me probably is that within-human, across-site variation was about the same as across-species variation was, at least when looking at species with some amount of pair bonding. So I'm not sure you can really can characterize humans as being one thing or another uniformly.
I don't think this paper will end the endless arguments about the nature of human monogamy for a couple of other reasons though:
First, the focus on genetic relatedness solves some problems but creates others. For one thing, it doesn't really address behavior, which is what's actually of interest. Even if each human pair mated for life, if, say, males were dying at high rates compared to females, before females were out of reproductive age, you'd still end up with serial monogamy probably and higher rates of half-siblings. My guess is within-pair mortality affects his results to a nonnegligible extent.
Second, looking at the figure, it seems an entirely different perspective on it is that full-sibling rates were about 66% or so, which is still much less than 100%. My guess is how much we look like other species is an entirely different question than how close or far we are to some ideal, for whatever reason.
I guess the paper seemed interesting to me but the spin was kind of odd. But maybe that's inevitable.
Comment by e40 2 days ago
Comment by derbOac 1 day ago
I couldn't get the doi to resolve to a valid number. It seemed to go to the journal but not a document.
Comment by fakedang 2 days ago