> > Could I ask you to point me to the message or messages in which you have > provided statistical and evolutionary evidence that a change of human > morality from more conservative to less consrvative has a long term > survival > benefit for humans. > > I think I missed it while I was being antsy.
Glad to help. This happened long before the antsiness started. :-) To start with, I never spoke of a change from conservative to less conservative. I spoke of life forms in general following a behavioural pattern that would not be termed conservative. I have not advocated a change either way. I do believe evolution will take its course in such matters too :D It was you that postulated, apparently hypothetically, the need for change to some family values that would justify, among other things, fidelity and the need for the Indian woman to stay at home etc. Anyway: Do poke through the archives to find a link to a book by a pair of monogamous biologists. Do go there. You can even read key parts of the book online if you like. There are dozens of scientific studies referenced there. Feel free to track down each. Also read about the evolutionarily indicated need for a mix of stability (search for the word "nest" in this thread) and for strong genes. Search here for the phrase "dispersion of parentage" - there are a couple of posts on it, with data. Google for said data. Do read up - or read about, at least, Margaret Mead and what she wrote about - it was mentioned here too. Refer Ingrid's post on the proof of maternity / paternity. Refer your apparent agreement with said theory after said data was presented: perhaps the following phrase could dredge up some memories: "The theory sounds compelling and deserves to be considered as a close approximation of reality" Also, it'd be nice, after you do all of this, to come back with any evidence you might have that stacks up against any of the above: that supports your curious contention that fidelity is evolutionarily indicated. Yes, you have expressed that you really feel this ought to be true, but I'm sure we can get beyond feelings to something a wee bit more scientific that would stand up to some sort of non-feelings-based scrutiny. :-) Regards, My $0.02 Mahesh
