Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Kleptin

Love, Marriage, Comittment

Recommended Posts

I didn't miss the point in your post, you just repeated what you said five posts up. Again.

 

I don't have an explanation for love, no one possibly can, but I can certainly point out how love is definitely not an evolutionary tactic to further the species, as well as the flaws in your logic. (:

 

Evolutionary tactics would be the continued survival of the species by increasing the size and biodiversity of the gene pool and any possible genetic mutations that may be beneficial to the species, correct?

 

Romantic and sexual love does the complete opposite, it limits your sexual partners as well as anyone you're reproducing with. Therefore reducing the size of the species gene pool, which is counterproductive. it's essentially discrimination based off physical appearance, personaility, pheromones, compatability, etc, etc, etc.

 

Also, I saw no responce to my comment about people dying for love. How would you explain that, if love were in fact just an evolutionary tactic? Survival is a must in terms of evolution. So how could it be that an evolutionary tactic would lead to you to perish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat myself because you seem to fail to understand my arguments.

Evolution is not survival of as many as possible, it's survival of "the best".

That means if someone dies for love, he just removes himself from the gene pool because he is not "good enough" to survive.

The reason love makes it a lot harder to find a partner, is because part of evolution(natural selection) is to find THE BEST partner, not just any partner.

And as I mentioned, evolution in the macro scale is not just making babies, it is also "removing the weak" from the gene pool.

It's kind of cruel, but it fits with the cruelty of man kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I repeat myself because you seem to fail to understand my arguments.

 

I understand the conclusion you're trying to make, I simply disagree. You've used faulty logic to arrive at your conclution and I also believe your personal bias is influencing it, which brings me to: Are you in a committed long-term relationship? (: and how desirable would you say you are to the opposite sex? (or the same sex, I assume you're straight.)

 

Evolution is not survival of as many as possible, it's survival of "the best".

 

In order for survival of the fittest to take place you need quite a bit of genetic diversity, which would be better suited by having offspring with multiple partners. so ideally, I believe evolution would take this path. Not limiting sexual partners which is what love does.

 

That means if someone dies for love, he just removes himself from the gene pool because he is not "good enough" to survive.

 

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense.

 

Have you ever heard of people who insist their partner is attractive, even though generally that person is seen as average or below-average in looks? Love blinds, and people do stupid things for it. If a man dies in place of his wife, it's not because he's evolutionarily inferior, because quite simply in natural selection there is no way to reasonably define inferior vs. superior. even if a specimen is pysically weaker than it's counterparts, a simple genetic mutation changing the color of it's body can result in the weaker specimens survival and death to the physicaly superior partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the most expert on eveolution, this is stuff I have read on the internet.

But basically you can have two people where one person is "Better" than the other person in all aspects(genetically). At least as much as evolution is concerned.

Some partners will bring you healthier, stronger, smarter offsprings, and part of natural selection is that fact that these people are more attractive and desired.

Can you have someone "weak" that makes a big difference? Sure, our world is a lot less "fair" or different than the environment humans have lived at for the last few thoudsands of years.

It can be a lot better to have one "genetically superior" partner than many "lesser" ones.

I am not sure, these two tactics might be viable though. One would prefer many lesser partners, and the other would prefer the best single partner he\she can get.

 

To be honest, I am not sure all of this true, I am just saying your assumption that evolution means needing to have as many partners as possible is wrong. And thus you can't prove by that that love is in contradiction to evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But basically you can have two people where one person is "Better" than the other person in all aspects(genetically). At least as much as evolution is concerned.

 

Completely ludicrous.

 

Evolution has no concious or intellegence, it's not a being that can calculate the genetic superiority of one individual to another. There is absolutly no way to calculate genetic superiority unless you're speaking of a specific variable or trait, such as comparing someone who has sickle cell to someone without it.

 

KTC has already talked about people who will choose partners with whom no offspring is possible. And i don't feel like beating a dead horse but following your logic, these people are removing themselves from the gene pool because they are genetically inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with sickle cell, it's not as clear cut since depending on the environment, it might be actually beneficial to be heterozygous for sickle cell rather than completely normal.

 

For example, people with both a sickle cell allele and a normal cell allele survive better in areas with malaria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what KTC said. Maybe some people where born immune to certain diseases/viruses/infections like the flu and strep throat. I know I am because it's rare for me to get the flu and I never had strep throat when my sister did. I never had H1N1. Also I didn't have the vaccine for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@binas: You're misunderstanding what I said. I was talking about about how depending on the environment (in sickle cell's case, malaria), it might be more beneficial to have a defective gene (sickle cell) than to be normal.

 

Hence, one cannot say that one genetic variation is superior to another since it's not that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure about that.

But in any case, having everyone survive means evolution has stopped. Because even if there is a new mutation, there is no chance for it to spread. Because even if it does have an edge against other "normal" genes, it won't become "more popualr" and will soon dissappear, because all the other individuals with the noraml genes will survive just the same.

That's for evolution.

And if you are saying that there is never clear advantage to certain genes compared to others, then you are basically saying natural selection does not exist.

Then why people prefer more attractive people as partners? Whether it is being smarter, more beautiful and etc.

If it is no clear who's gene's are better, then you are saying there is no connection between the genes of a person and who we choose as a partner. Which means there is no evolution and no natural selection.

And we have stopped to evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more benefical and detrimental phenotypes, both naturally (being more/less endurant, allergic, etc), and socially, but I don't get your correlation between survival rate and evolution rate. It's...unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sargon, i'm sorry but you argument is invalid.

 

In biology, locis present tons of mutations, but a few ones, like you mentioned, are kept by the natural selection process.

 

However, having a mutation that gives you a genetic advantage ( IE better chance of reproduction , either because you counter a problem improving your chances of surviving to certain odds or, in case of humans, by improving attractions others have towards you ) will eventually spread it.

 

Also , don't be confused ; there are tons of allels for the same loci that exist. That is why we all have different genetic material. But the fact that all the allels fix themselves in a particular way (IE : all the individuals of a certain population have the SAME genetic material for one particular gene) is quite unlikely, because of various phenomens that nature created to make sure that genetic material stays diverse and variable.

 

Out of these phenomens, I can write you about a few of them (but forgive my translation mistakes, might happen. I took my class in french so I don't know the exact english terms)

--> control of the phenotypical devloppement

--> dilpoïdy (the fact that we recieve random allels from our mother AND our father to form our locis, that will determine our phenotypes)

--> epistasis (A gene will modify the action of another gene. For exemple, siamese cats present epistasis of the fur color ; on cold regions of the body [iE the head, the paws and some regions of the legs, and also their cute tails] the gene stating the color of the fur becomes inefficent, making the fur white)

--> incomplete dominance of certain allels ( for exemple, let's say the allel for the color of the petals of a rose is C for a red one and c for a white one, we could have CC (red) , Cc (pink) or cc (white) if roses are diploïds like us )

--> neutral variation (IE : genes that are there "for fun" )

--> Innefficacity of the natural selection ( EX : You don't have better chances of reproduction if you have a mutant gene that gives you two iris of different colors )

 

So don't worry for evolution, nature has its tricks, and they work since life has started, for what I can remember ;)

 

PHENOTYPE : A particular trait we can see , that is variable with genes, from one individual to another

 

___________

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

So basicly, my point is that yes, natural selection DOES exist, but it's not the only evolutionary force in place, and that evolution is a dynamic equilibrum, not a static one. Evolution is maintained, don't worry about it.

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

EDIT : Wow, I get the feeling the topic drifted a bit when I look at this biology thesis I just wrote and the title, that was "love, Marriage and committement".

 

I'll restart the discussion about it ;

What makes a relationship work --> Mutual trust, communication, the conservation of "that spark" that happens when you first see this person and realize you love it from the very deeps of your heart.

 

How your relationship with your current partner differs from that of your past ones --> It works. Easy answer! But more seriously, I think that the most flagrant difference in the relationship I have right now and the one I had is that me and my lover do share the same major interests, as well as lots of points of view. He also has this maturity of accepting he can be wrong sometimes, just like I can be mistaken, instead of just go to the easy way and "close" the arguments when he doesn't know what to say left. The ability of stepping on his pride is something I never had in my previous relationships and it was really frustrating for the communication part. And sometimes, even the mutual respect.

How children have affected your marriage : I'm not married yet, I don't have children yet, and that is for in a few... couple of years. Honestly, I'm not even sure we will get children (because, at first, it's my partner's wish) and he's not out of the closet yet, and feels too comfortable inside. And i'm not really fancy about the idea of letting him have a fake mariage just for his parents and friends to think he's straight? Nah.

 

How you manage arguments and disagreements and work past the tough times, etc --> We simply communicate, share our point of view, and stop at the point where we are criticizing each other's judgement. If possible, make a compromise, if not, try to change the problem to get a solution easier on the new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Love and commitment were enough to make a marriage / handfasting / civil union / others work, there would be no divorce, honey.

 

Every couple (except those that only want to fraud insurances) love each other when they decide to build their lives together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, having a mutation that gives you a genetic advantage ( IE better chance of reproduction , either because you counter a problem improving your chances of surviving to certain odds or, in case of humans, by improving attractions others have towards you ) will eventually spread it.

 

There is no better chance of reproduction\survival, because modren medicine makes most people able to survive and reproduce(in westren countries).

People can make 8 babies at once(octomom) with modern medicine.

If anything, being in a sane loving relationship is a disadvantage in terms of reproduction.

Most people who make many kids do it from the wrong reasons, or at least, not because of love and commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oo a debate topic! I wonder if this should be turned into its own thread though...

 

Well, with regard to biology/evolution, it seems to me with how hard the food industry works to keep us ingesting addictive poisons (ie HFCS) we will eventually eschew the need to eat and become reliant on a form of chlorophyll that, instead of reacting to sunlight, will be based on temperature. Or maybe artificial lighting.

Oh, and we'll be immune to cancer and AIDS, since modern medicine fails at healing these things and scoffs at the folk remedies some of which actually work.

 

Hooray for pure speculation! this is how [d]most[/d] some science gets started. :Tongue:

 

Also,

Sargon wrote:

 

Most people who make many kids do it from the wrong reasons, or at least, not because of love and commitment.

Those people (who have kids by the barrelfull) also tend to live in conditions/areas where most of their kids are going to die or go to prison before the age of 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love = Not a legitimate emotion on it's own, but a combination of lust & friendship.

 

Commitment = Natural for some species, unnatural for humans & primates.

 

Marriage = A business deal between two or more persons, & in some countries, a form of slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met my husband in a truck stop-I was homeless and without any where to go, I was bumming around the country via hitchhiking with truck drivers. Then I decided I wanted to drive a truck for a living. I soon found out how hard it is to get out of the loop of being homeless. You can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address. You can't get an address because you don't have a job. You can't get training because you don't have an address and on and on. At least that is how it was 32 years ago.

 

I got lucky this time. He took me in and helped me to stand tall while I learned my trade. He knew how skittish I was on marriage (I'd been married 3 times before) and didn't push me. As I grew and matured I realized that there will never be the perfect someone to come in and provide me with a life. That it was up to me to do that for me. But there was man who was willing to share it with me.

They said that our marriage wouldn't 6 weeks. Well in 11 days we will celebrate our 32 years of being together. Yet through all the ups & downs he has stood by me and forgave me when I've hurt him or royally screwed up. As I've done for him. There is more to love than the warm fuzzies. I wonder if more people would realize it how the divorce rate might go down. So don't give up on finding love. It is out there. And you're right about asexual people. You don't have to get all hot & bothered in order to love someone. After all sex starts in the brain, does it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After all sex starts in the brain, does it not?"

 

^technically, if my understanding of the Limbus system is correct, all emotions stem from the brain. ;P

 

BTW it seems I have actual 'love/crush/whatever' emotions somewhere in my decrepit brain:

I have a huge crush on a fictional character.

It's much stronger than any of my real life crushes.

I think I'm going to huddle in my corner and cry since now I understand partially what those Twihards go through :(

(Doesn't help the story she's in ends badly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sargon wrote:

 

There is no better chance of reproduction\survival, because modren medicine makes most people able to survive and reproduce(in westren countries).

People can make 8 babies at once(octomom) with modern medicine.

If anything, being in a sane loving relationship is a disadvantage in terms of reproduction.

Most people who make many kids do it from the wrong reasons, or at least, not because of love and commitment.

The thing is that a sane loving relationship comes after some time. The initial feeling is lust which is what is necessary for reproduction. Love comes from getting along with the person along with having lust which is a natural response, again which helps evolution. If you love and look out for your species, the chances of its survival increases. If all the members fight, the chances decrease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...