evolution

Reader's Note: This Text May Spark Some Controversy, Particularly Among Men! With Regard To Human Evolution, This Model Has Inherently Greater Explanatory Power Than The Conventional "Evolution By Natural Selection" Theory. This Fact, Combined With The Model's Overall Simplicity And Consistency, May Be A Strong Indicator That This Model Is Scientifically Viable. By Comparison, The Traditional Natural Selection Viewpoint Is Rather Deficient In Explaining The Evolution Of Human Beings From Our Apelike Ancestors. Although Darwin And Others Believed That The Sexual Selection Mechanism Might Be Responsible For A Very Limited Range Of The Observable Characteristics Of Modern Humans, This Model Takes A Much Bolder "Quantum Leap" Further In That Direction. Furthermore, This Simple Model Explains So Very Much! See Also The "Viral Infection Of DNA" Model For More Of The Author's Views On Biology And Evolution: http://www.johnkharms.com/whysex.htm .

Evolution By Intentional Sexual Selection

The Role And Power Of Female Social Interactions And Their Sexual Preferences

An Alternative Human Evolution Model

By: John K. Harms

Email: harmsjk3@earthlink.net

Go To HOME

Key Words: Darwin, Wallace, Evolution, Intentional Selection, Natural Selection, Sex, Culture, Race, Intelligence, Infatuation, Sexual Freedom, Conscience, Consciousness

Abstract:

This model is an alternative to the traditional natural selection-based evolution model. The model proposes that sexual selection by past hominid females is responsible for the ascent of humans into their various cultures and civilizations. This sexual selection by females of the males is driven in primitive cultures essentially by word-of-mouth among the females and in modern cultures more by the mass media. It is proposed that the selection of the males by the females better explains the ascent from apelike hominids to modern humans. The details of these improvements are discussed with sexual selection in mind. As will be demonstrated, this sexual selection model has vastly more explanatory power than the traditional natural selection model does. Selection remains an important part of the female psyche, thus, human evolution is presently ongoing and possibly is increasing at an accelerated rate. The probable consequences of the sexual selection model are discussed.

Introduction

As stated in the theory of evolution, it is natural selection that "selects" the organisms that best fit their environments to become the next generation of living species. Because an organism best fits its particular niche in the environment and survives to reproduce itself, its genes survive and are passed-on to a new generation of organisms. There is no doubt that in biology this evolutionary model is valid within these strict confines, but is it the only process at work in all situations?

When Darwin published his ideas about evolution in 1859, he devoted only two pages to the idea that evolution sometimes might be fueled by the competition for mates--sexual selection. A dozen years later, in The Descent Of Man And Selection In Relation To Sex--a volume devoted mainly to sexual selection--he balanced the books. This important work of Darwin's has been read and referenced by the author in this text.

Darwin viewed sexual selection as a special case of natural selection, depending on many of (as we will see) the same forces for its operation (Gould & Gould, 1989). In the evolution of human beings, sexual selection by females is viewed here as the primary process at work. Darwin did notice, however, that males differ more in body type from one another than do females. Hence, the males may have been the one chiefly modified since the several races diverged from common stock (Darwin, Reprint 1972).

While Darwin pictured female sexual selection as a viable process for the bright coloration of birds, fish, insects as well as many other species, he minimized the effect in humans (Gould & Gould, 1989). In this case, the females of each species select (and are attracted to) the brightly colored males to mate with. In human evolution, however, Darwin did not picture sexual selection by the females as the driving force for the ascent of human dominion on the planet.

It was widely-held from Darwin to Lovejoy that early men were the achievers, the producers, and technological innovators; whereas early woman were limited by the reproductive demands of bearing and rearing children. Or as Sacks (1982) has put it: men make culture and woman make babies, two mutually exclusive activities (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). Sacks' statement, a drastic oversimplification of early human cultural dynamics, cannot be valid.

It is notable that most human beings, no longer in a struggle just to survive on the planet, have seemingly disconnected the process of further human evolution. Perhaps, however, this is not the case. Perhaps, in the case of human evolution, it is the selection of suitable males in the human species by the available females, that better explains the ongoing changes that are now taking place and will occur in the human race in the future. Hence, humans are continuing to evolve (and perhaps even at an increasing rate), but it is by the process of the "intentional sexual selection" by the human females. The "special case" of natural selection is the primary force for ongoing human evolution and how we evolved from our hominid ancestors.

Much of the work in evolutionary theory was conducted exclusively by males, often unaware of (or unwilling to admit) the selective powers of the females. While this author is also a male, he has observed for many years (and often felt the direct effects) of the frequent covert maneuvering powers of the females engaged in their own selection processes. These selective powers and their effects upon human evolution, culture and civilization are the primary topics of this text.

The Special Case Of Evolution By Natural Selection

Darwin's and Wallace's proposal for evolution by natural selection can be summarized by three premises:

1) Variation--Each individual member of any given species is different. Each, as we would say today, has a distinct genetic makeup. This was first described by the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics.

2) All living creatures tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. Only a fraction of the wolves, turtles and dragonflies that come into existence, manage to find sustenance and avoid predators long enough to reproduce. The English economist Thomas Malthus pointed-out that most species reproduce geometrically, while the environment can support no better than a linear increase in their populations.

3) It follows, then, that the differences among individuals, combined with the environmental pressures emphasized by Malthus, affect the probability that a given individual will survive long enough to pass along its genetic characteristics. This is the process that Darwin called "natural selection" (Ferris, 1988).

In the sexual selection model proposed here, there is no doubt that premise # 1 (variation) creates the differences in the pool of males from which the woman then select. While Charles Darwin's and Alfred Russell Wallace's (the co-creator of the evolutionary model) theory describes well the evolution of organisms close to the edge of extinction i.e., survival of the fittest, modern human societies appear to no longer fit the Darwin and Wallace theory.

Indeed, human beings may not have fit this model for many thousands of years. Hence, humans have had considerable technical-skill in understanding the world; enough to be the relative masters of their environments for at least 35,000 years. The reason that evolution by intentional sexual selection is now the active process at work, is that humans for all this period of time have been (and continue to be) the masters of their environments. That is, humans in most modern cultures are no longer just surviving.

Over this period of time, humans continued to evolve, but considering the dominance by humans over their basic survival needs, what was the process for this ongoing evolutionary transformation? It appears that human evolution must be ongoing, but Darwin's and Wallace's mechanism (natural selection) may no longer apply to human beings and their hominid ancestors.

Therefore, an additional evolutionary axiom may be put forth:

Axiom-- A: Where the male member of a species is a successful provider of the female's survival or other needs, the mating ritual is allowed and encouraged by the female to take place. This success, as defined by the female, may be defined somewhat differently in different environments and also by different females. Where there are more abundant resources, the females may place an emphasis on other male attributes (besides success alone) such as intelligence, personality, kindness or genetic flaws etc..

This axiom agrees well with the research in this area. From a study of thirty-seven peoples in thirty-three countries, the psychologist David Buss uncovered a distinct male/female difference in sexual preference. From rural Zulus to urban Brazilians, men are attracted to young, good-looking, spunky woman, while woman are drawn to men with goods, property, or money. Hence, the gentle, poetic carpenter will probably not attract the woman an insensitive rich banker will collect (Fisher, 1992).

Darwin noted how widely the different races of humans differed in their tastes for the beautiful (Darwin, Reprint 1972). While men have standards for beauty in woman; woman have various other selection criterion for men.

It is noteworthy that in cultures that overall have less financial resources (per individual, on-average) than the USA, there tends to be a greater competition by the woman for the men who control these more limited resources. The evidence for this comes from the various newspaper "personal columns" around the globe in which the criterion for the screening of the men by woman places a greater emphasis on material possessions than do woman in the USA (Gould & Gould, 1989).

If Axiom A above has validity, purposeful sexual selection, and not natural selection, may be the primary human female motivation for mating. This selective mechanism, perhaps, first applied by early hominid females, may be the force that affects ongoing change in the human species even today. Indeed, in modern technological cultures where largely the females have greater reproductive control, the selection mechanism as defined by Axiom A above, may be more refined and focused than ever!

In the case of the other animals, the above Axiom A may also have a limited amount of validity. However true this axiom is for the animals, it may have even more validity for human beings, due to the superior communication networks (the communicators of culture) among the females. Another relevant issue for the ascent of humans on the planet, is the sharing of food among the members of our species. As we will see subsequently, this may have arisen also by the female sexual selection process.

In traditional evolutionary ideas, it is seen that any succession of physical or behavioral changes that enhance mate procurement and mate choice constitutes evolution by sexual selection. That is, selection for attributes that contribute solely to reproductive advantage rather than to an edge in survival (Gould & Gould, 1989).

It is viewed here that humans largely are no longer in a struggle just to survive, hence, sexual selection is the fundamental mechanism for continuing human evolution. In this scenario, mating is increasingly controlled by the females. If this is not the case, cultural (and often economic) stagnation may be the result.

The traits we normally associate with human beings (verses our apelike ancestors) arose when the selection of our species was increasingly undertaken by the females. That certain societies have progressed more quickly than others in economic development is due (in the viewpoint of this author) to the increasing control by these advanced societies of the females over their own sexuality. Moreover, as Darwin has noted, in the less-advanced so-called "savage" cultures, the woman in these societies are valued mostly as "slaves or beasts of burden" (Darwin, Reprint 1972).

Human Females Essentially Control The Reproductive Process

Ask any human male in American culture, and he will probably tell you regretfully that females do control the mating process more so than they do. A human male must wait around for signals from the female that she is willing and ready to mate with him. The male may make advances toward the human female, but if she indeed says "no", then that is usually the end of it.

In the 1950's, Clellan Ford and Frank Beach, well-known tabulators of cross-cultural sex practices, confirmed that although most peoples think men are suppose to take the initiative in sexual liaisons, in practice woman around the world actively begin the sexual liaisons. Indeed, this is still the case. Givens and Perper have noted that two-thirds of all the pickups in American singles bars were initiated by the woman. When later interviewed, only three out of thirty-one men noticed and were able to describe the initial selection of them (often by subtle nonverbal cues) by the woman. Western men (such as Darwin himself) have clinged to the concept that men are the seducers and woman the coy, submissive recipients of male overtures (Fisher, 1992).

Often, after the initial pickup has taken place, the men may notice a shift in leadership, that Perper calls initiative transfer. Now, the male must begin his moves for coitus. The men seem to know these moves well (Fisher, 1992). Woman appear to know their response to these advances beforehand.

The alternative; rape, is a punishable offense in most all human cultures on the planet, although it still may occur in some cases. Most all sexual activities these days are between mutually consenting adults. Sometimes mild persuasion by the male may be effective, but this often takes considerable fast-talking and intelligence. This is how human brains may have evolved. More about this idea subsequently.

There are some males with certain characteristics (extremely good looks, body shape, talent in music, art or athletic abilities etc., financial status, political power or fame etc.), that human females often flock around. It seems that a large majority of the females either openly or covertly compete for the estimated 10% to 15% of the males with these similar-type characteristics. This is common among young females. This is essentially what is meant by intentional sexual selection.

Contrasted With The Ideas Of Darwin And Wallace

Darwin recognized that there were two types of interactions involving the sexes; competition and choice. Competition, Darwin believed, generally occurred between males for access to female mates, and choice, he reasoned, was exercised by females among the male mates available to them. Thus, competition and/or to be chosen by the females were sexually selected (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993).

However, for Darwin, it was often the males who did the majority of the selecting of the females (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). Moreover, Darwin did not recognize the often covert competition taking place among the females for the males as mentioned above. Hence, Darwin did not view the females as being in the least-bit competitive with each other. In the author's view, the females are just as competitive as the males, if not more so. For example, when granted an opportunity to do so, a young female may offer sex or sexual favors to a desired male. Often, this may be done somewhat secretively.

As a contrast with Darwin's and Wallace's theory; it is not so much that environmental factors (natural selection) have selected only the adapted organisms to survive, but that the females in a given species have selected only the strongest or the fittest males to mate with.

For woman, the high standards for selection may be justified. It is, perhaps, due to the fact that the costs of reproduction for the female are very high (pregnancy, childbearing and raising etc.), while for the male the costs are much lower i.e., the donation of sperm. Hence, the woman tend to choose evermore carefully their mates and lovers (Fisher, 1992).

There is a theory that females are attracted to the so-called "warrior-type" males, perhaps, mating with them shortly before they are killed in battle. Thus, the reproduction and selection of warriors continues on. These warriors with essentially nothing better to do, may indeed wipe-out the entire species. In light of this, the two world wars in the last century with the systematic slaughter of millions of human beings, may not be so difficult to make sense of after all!

Weak organisms in a species are often ostracized, hence, not allowed to mate. The disabled have a difficult time finding mates (if they do find any at all). Over the long-term, the effect is that humans deemed as defective by the females are purposefully reduced. Males who are strong, healthy and good providers are pursued by females willing to mate, as axiom A describes above. Successful males are rewarded by many mating opportunities--perhaps, one of the primary reasons males often pursue success in the first place. In the human species, the special case of natural selection is actually the purposeful and intentional sexual selection of strong males by the female.

Cultural Norms Govern Female Sexual Preference

In American culture, what often determines the selection of suitable males, is largely the communication to females via the media. The media communicates to woman what suitable men look like, what body types are desirable, and defines for woman the meaning of financial success, power and/or fame. It should be noted that many woman simply ignore these strong messages and choose men for various other "personal" reasons. However, the masses of woman (on-average) tend to listen to and believe the strong messages sent by our media.

In our society, it is common for females to tune-in to the Academy Awards on network television to see all the "beautiful people" and what they are wearing. Soap opera's on television convey similar messages to woman as do the tabloid newspapers in the local grocery outlets. Romance novels also send similar messages.

In American culture, this often amounts to a communication to females about what to expect in a future mate. Often, these expectations are not met by reality. It should be noted that men are as equally influenced by these messages as the woman, but the men most often in our culture do not do the selecting.

Often a female, viewed by other females as a "social leader", will have a strong influence on defining (for other females) what are the suitable males. But often, this social leader-type female will herself be strongly influenced by the media.

Furthermore, mature females seeking a suitable mate in a population are often in close competition for desirable males with the male homosexual population, whose aggressiveness (since they are males) can often exceed that of the females. Male homosexuals are often far more blatant in their social maneuvering than the females, who are conditioned in many societies to be more shy and meek than the males.

In more primitive societies, the communication to females is largely through word-of-mouth or gossip among the females themselves. Do not underestimate the power of this form of communication among humans! In many societies, word-of-mouth drives and formulates over time most of what we call "culture".

There may be much political maneuvering among members of a tribe of humans for sexual status. The most powerful male in some societies may obtain several wives (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). Only sixteen percent of the 853 cultures on record actually prescribe monogamy, in which a man is permitted only one wife at a time (Fisher, 1992). In these societies, the powerful male did not select the females, they selected him because of his perceived power and/or wealth. If he were not perceived to be so powerful and wealthy, these woman may not all be at his disposal. It is notable that some young unwed girls preferred to be the second wife of a rich man to being the only wife of a poor one or a woman with no spouse at all (Fisher, 1992).

In industrialized societies, word-of-mouth is also important, but less so due to the mass media's strong influence on females. Males overall tend to underestimate the effects of gossip in shaping peoples attitudes, perceptions and group-culture in general. It is notable that in industrialized societies (as mentioned earlier) that males also receive strong-messages from the media about the types of suitable woman and the men on-average also do tend to listen to and believe this as well.

On average, the men who woman choose to breed with is determined to a large degree by these cultural norms, but culture itself is reinforced by the bringing into the world of children who genetically "buy-in" to that same culture. Culture, hence, may be a self-reinforcing process over time.

Intentional Selection And The Different Racial Characteristics

It is notable that on-average the races of humans are not exactly identical. If they were, all races would on-average be of identical height, skin color, body types, physical body size (perhaps, even the size of male genitalia) etc.. They are not. It is notable that male human genitals are considerably larger than either the chimpanzees or gorillas (Fisher, 1992). Again, the explanation given here is that these noticeable differences between the races (and also from our apelike ancestors) is that these were the types of characteristics in the men that on-average the females in each culture preferred.

There are two simultaneous changes that must occur for this selection to take place: one sex (the males in this case) must evolve through variation some trait, and the females "evolve" in lock step a liking for that trait (Diamond, 1992). It is proposed here that this "liking" is essentially socially or culturally determined.

Asian, European, and African descended males physically appear and think the way they do because this was selected for by their mating partners. As in the breeding of dogs, certain behavioral traits can also be selected for. Hence, the differences that exist in the thought processes in the various races can be accounted for by the types of men that each culture's woman selected to be the fathers of their children.

Certain characteristics (including behavioral traits) were selected for by the woman in each culture. As mentioned earlier, open communication networks and channels between females in each culture helped to somewhat synthesize the thinking concerning ideal mates. The selection process of suitable males can also be influenced by the communication of advice from mothers to their daughters. Or perhaps, that woman selected the men who were most like their own fathers.

The comments in this section are not meant so much as a statement about race, as a demonstration of how the various traits (including what we call race) were selected for by the woman in the various societies around the world.

In cases where marriages are arranged, it is the families that select suitable mates and this is often based upon gifts given to parents of the bride or the perceived social status of the man etc.. These may be male-oriented and dominated societies. In such male-dominated societies, the control of mating can be (and usually is) controlled by males.

Such societies do not reinforce the selection of powerful and/or intellectually successful men over time, hence, such societies may often lean toward backward-looking and globally unsuccessful economic systems. In these male-dominated cultures, Darwinian survival of the fittest (and not female selection) better describes their evolutionary status. A woman's sexuality (as a recognition of its power) is strictly controlled in these societies. The powerful cultural systems in-place in these societies insure that selection by woman cannot do its evolutionary work to further advance the species. In terms of evolution, such cultures (as mentioned previously) are often somewhat stagnant.

Man And Ape Differences

There are five central differences between man and the apes:

1) Bipedal modes of locomotion

2) A spoken language

3) Regular, systematic sharing of food in a social context

4) Living in home bases

5) The hunting of large prey

Reference: (Leakey, 1994)

It is not inconceivable that all of these difference are due to the selection by females. It is not clear that # 5 would be due directly to sexual selection, but living in a larger group setting might require more meat, hence, the need to kill larger animals. Bigger-brains would help (through weapons technology) in the killing of larger prey.

In # 1 above, humans came out of the trees and walked upright on the ground because woman preferred those men who did--perhaps, these males were better providers--see axiom A above. Perhaps, this also freed-up the woman for childbearing duties. So, this criterion for human mate selection by females is ongoing in human evolution.

In # 2 above, men have always used their language (when they had it) to impress woman for the purpose of mating. The reading of poetry by men is in this same tradition. Presently, language is often used by men to woo woman. Indeed, the escalation point in courting often is the tone of the man's voice. A man's intentions are communicated by his inflection and intonation. Actors, public speakers, diplomats and habitual liars know the power of controlling vocal tones (Fisher, 1992).

Hence, through variation, by pure chance, a hominid may have had an increased ability for vocalizations (and with it, perhaps, improved vocal chords). The larynx, in humans, is situated lower in the throat creating a large sound chamber, hence, this was the innovation that became selected for. This sound chamber, known as the pharynx, is the key to producing fully-articulated speech (Leakey, 1994).

The female hominid (with sexual freedom) might have found increasing vocal abilities by males a very interesting talent indeed and, perhaps, many females pursued this talented male for sexual purposes and mating. Indeed, as suggested above, the courting ritual appears to require (and, hence, reinforce) vocal abilities in males (Fisher, 1992). This talking (or early vocalization) hominid male may have been "the talk of the town" to early hominid females. Thus, males successful at smooth articulated speech became very successful at mating.

This early ability to vocalize may have also required a more advanced brain-circuitry to accompany it. It is the precise wiring of the brains circuitry that makes language happen (Leakey, 1994). Hence, a bigger hominid brain may have resulted from a chance talent for vocalizations, which may have impressed the hominid females. Even today, talented males often attract interested females.

The sharing of food (# 3 above) is important in human development and, therefore, has its own section toward the end of the text--more about this subsequently. In # 4, the living in home bases may have evolved because woman preferred greater stability. Men, on average, (in American culture) can tolerate a less than ideal living situation, whereas woman generally do not. Woman are generally more "civilized" than men and tend to live in somewhat nicer places than do men. Visit a "bachelor-pad" in our society sometime and look around the room! Thus, civilization may have evolved because the woman demanded their men to build it!

Art and music (indicators of culture) may have evolved because woman appreciated both and chose artists and musicians as their lovers. This is true even today. In many cultures, singing or playing an instrument to attract a mate is a common practice around the world. From the Hopi Indians, the Apache, the Chiricahua, the Sanpoil, to the Samoans and Ifugao of central Luzon, Philippines, music was used by the males to court the females. Often, the courting ritual involves the playing of music at home to produce certain moods in the listeners. Often, these pleasing sounds have an intentional sexual connotation; to produce a favorable mood in the female for mating.

Indeed, American culture is perhaps the society most captivated by music (Fisher, 1992). Indeed, the author is reminded of the video pictures taken of the screaming (and fainting) young females at (the British rock group) the Beatles concert in New York in 1965--one could not hear the music, only the high-pitched screams of young woman completely out of their minds, mad for the Beatles. Seeing this, not surprisingly the males all suddenly wanted to be rock stars. Hence, music evolved because the females desired the artists who performed it.

Indeed, the females do appear to respond enthusiastically to music and musicians. Willing woman are never in short-supply around male rock, hip-hop or pop musicians or even a famous visual artist. It is now common for famous male rock musicians to have sex just prior to going on-stage before a concert. The woman commonly lineup for the privilege.

This model may yield a different meaning to the cave paintings or other artistic works common to our ancestors. The cave paintings did not exist as part of an initiation of young boys into the hunt in the hunter-gatherer societies (although the images might have served this purpose also), but largely for the total mystifying of young and impressionable girls by the elder men in the tribe in preparation for sex with them. The images may have weakened the minds (and resistance) of the young girls, generating the proper mystical mood in them for eventual intercourse. This function of the cave paintings is not presently recognized. Hence, the visual arts may have also originally evolved to impress and woo the woman.

The Evolution Away From Apelike Creatures

Most scholars believe that original human societies were promiscuous (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). Early hominid woman may have begun sexual selection to limit the burden of child-raising. Or perhaps, the males later instigated marriages to limit the uncontrolled sexuality of the females. It appears that sexual selection began early, perhaps, even in the lower mammals or other animals.

The primary reason that we do not appear like our apelike ancestors, is that the female's desires for mating evolved in a direction away from that of the primeval apes. For example, our hind quarters do not appear apelike because differences (variations) arose that the early apelike females found appealing, hence, our backsides (both men and woman) gradually evolved to their present appearance. Since the woman in these early hominid cultures were assumed to be sexually free to choose, it was, therefore, not the men who selected these traits in the woman, but the woman who selected these traits in their men.

The same may be true for why present-day humans do not have tails (Fisher, 1992). That present humans have a tail-bone with attached muscles indicates that in our evolutionary past, we had tails. By pure chance mutation (variation), hominids with tails may have acquired shorter-tails and again the females may have found this appearance more sexually appealing in their mates. Even shorter tails were found even more sexually attractive and so on, until early humans gradually evolved overtime no visible tails at all--only a relic tail-bone. The same may be true for present-day chimpanzees in their cultures, that also do not have tails.

Indeed, it has been noted that chimpanzee females exhibit preferences for certain males over others (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). So, sexual selection may have also occurred somewhat in chimpanzees, perhaps, the reason that they (like us) do not have tails.

That humans have on-average less hair than our ancestors, is again because the females may have found this trait more sexually appealing. Although human hair follicles are known to be of roughly the same numbers as the apes, the hair itself is less-developed (Fisher, 1992). Darwin also thought that the absence of hair on the bodies of modern humans may be due to sexual selection (Darwin, Reprint 1972).

The author has even heard modern woman say that they do not like men with too much bodily hair--a sexual turnoff. Perhaps, our female ancestors thought so, too! As a response, our hair became much less-developed over time. Moreover, the wide diversity of facial hair among men in various cultures may have been selected by the females who either liked beards or didn't like them (Darwin, Reprint: 1972).

Superior male hominid hunters and gathers not only survived themselves to reproduce, but they must have been selected for by the females. Tool-making and technology may have arisen for similar reasons. Males who used tools and weapons (perhaps, of their own design) were better providers, hence, were more attractive and impressive to the females. Hence, the hunters and producers of tools and technology were selected for by females. These male characteristics also agree with axiom A above. One might go as far to propose that what we call modern culture and civilization were all sexually selected for by the females.

The females of the so-called proto-hominids may have also selected males with smaller canine teeth as preferred mates, because the smaller canines may have represented less of an aggressive threat to them and their offspring (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). This explanation (mentioned by Zihlman, 1978) appears to the author to be superior to (but doesn't completely rule-out) the Darwinian adaptation model where teeth simply flattened-out over time for the chewing of fibrous foods. Perhaps, also, flattened-teeth simply looked more sexually attractive to the females. If only Darwin's explanation of this is valid, how does human survival directly depend-on this adaptation? Could hominids without molars and only canine teeth never eat vegetables and this ultimately led to their early death? Darwin's and Wallace's ideas alone, appear in this situation (and many others in this text) to lack suitable explanatory power. The sexual selection model in this text has such power!

The evolution in northern European societies of blue or green eyes and blond hair may all have their origins in pure chance mutation, but such traits might have completely captivated the females. Some physical differences are quite often viewed as sexually mysterious. Even today, many woman in our (and other) culture(s) view traits such as these as sexually desirable in their men.

Female Sexual Freedom

In Gorilla societies, the harem is the norm. Each gorilla harem is led by a single adult silverback male and at least two "wives". Female gorillas do not tolerate monogamy; they seek harem life (Fisher, 1992). It is proposed here that early hominid cultural troops must have been the first primates to substantially deviate from the "harem system". Such female hominids had for the first time--sexual freedom.

Darwin, Freud, Engles, and many other thinkers have postulated that our earliest ancestors lived in a "primal horde"--that men and woman copulated with whom they liked, when they liked (Fisher, 1992). As in female chimpanzees, the females in this horde may have been picky. They may have preferred males who groom them and give them food--not necessarily the most dominant individual in the male hierarchy (Fisher, 1992). Hence, selection may have been based upon success i.e., the successful gathering or killing of food by the male. This is in agreement with and adds weight to Axiom A above.

Early hominid troops (primal hordes) of this sort, perhaps, for the first time did not (or could not) control the sexuality of the females. Hence, sexual selection by the females (which was then taking place) led to a more rapid evolution to the common traits we think of as human. Hence, humans evolved from apelike creatures because for the first time the early troops let the females openly sexually select their own mates. The rise of civilization may also be due to female sexual freedom as well.

It might follow that as a result of the hominid female's evolution of continual sexual availability (unlike apes or chimpanzees that only mate when in period of heat), the female's sexuality at this time, perhaps, was not able to be controlled by the males within the horde. Hence, for the first time, there is complete sexual freedom of the females to mate and select only the males they desire. For females, this complete freedom to choose (which is also somewhat common today) becomes a consequence of the sexual selection model proposed here.

It is seen also that in modern human societies that strict control over female sexual selection can have long-term negative consequences.

The Evolution Of Intelligence

In this model, it is selection by the females that causes further evolution. Hence, in this model, human intelligence may have arisen for two primary reasons:

1) The smarter and bigger-brained men were more successful in coaxing woman to mate, hence, smarter and more clever humans will inhabit the future. Even today, woman sometimes fall-prey to smooth and fast-talking (and poetry-reading) males seeking mating privileges.

2) Smarter and bigger-brained males were admired and desired by woman for their advanced thinking, hence, they acquired mating privileges. This is seen today in the female preference for highly-educated and successful males with which to marry and have children. That college coeds have an affinity for sleeping with their "big-brained" professors attests to this admiration of mental abilities (and perceived power) by young females.

The hominid woman sought-out and selected men who had larger brains, smaller cheek teeth and less protruding curved jaws i.e., men who were less apelike in appearance. The brain-size jumped from 450 cubic centimeters to more than 600 (Leakey, 1994).

Bigger-brains may have been required for young humans to master the rules of culture (Leakey, 1994). This may be the reason for the long-childhood in humans, compared to that of other species. The females may again have selected the males who had a higher-degree of mastery of culture (and these males may be quite powerful), hence, the very long childhood in humans may have been sexually selected for. This cultural mastery, biologically, may require (as a side-effect) a long-period of helplessness common to humans in infancy.

Conscience

How did early peoples curb their sexual desires and abide by rules of behavior? Did these early peoples have a conscience, a feeling of morality; a sense of right and wrong? This moral sense of self-control undoubtedly arose (since modern human cultures appear to have one), but how did it emerge (Fisher, 1992)? This moral sense (which probably also became wired into the human brain) is again explained well by the selection model.

Those males who could interact with the females with tenderness and from their minds, rather than by pure sexual aggression alone i.e., cornering the female with strong sexual advances, were eventually granted sexual mating rights. Overly sexually aggressive males were in-essence in the long-run rejected by the females, perhaps, also out of fear of their own injury. Male self-control, hence, evolved because females demanded it for mating rights. Indeed, modern woman are seduced far easier by sweetness and smooth-talk than by very quick and aggressive sexual moves.

In the author's opinion, this explanation is superior to Michael Chance's model proposed in 1962 of the evolution of male self-control (Fisher, 1992).

Consciousness

It is the traditional evolutionary point of view that consciousness arose because it conveyed a survival advantage i.e., it arose out of natural selection. A popular current theory of consciousness known as the "social intelligence hypothesis" grants the person who has the "inner-eye" of self-awareness (or consciousness) a survival advantage because such people were likely to become the leaders of a hominid troop. As a leader, such a male hominid would be granted a greater access to the available sexually-active females in the troop. Hence, consciousness was also selected for by the females that were drawn to its political power.

The evolution of the human mind may be the result of female selection. The rate of evolution is accelerating due to the influence of the mass media on the values of the females. Hence, human evolution in more advanced cultures has not stagnated. Mutational differences from a previous generation create the pool of males from which the females choose the future fathers of their children. More than is generally believed, most females are quite careful about this choice. The females do have more to risk.

Errors in judgment are sometimes made by the woman, but in this case, the advice of other woman usually is: "Have no children with this man", or if they already have children: "Have no more children with this man". In American and indeed most cultures, this reflects the woman's complete internally-driven commitment to the sexual selection of her future offspring. This is not a choice made by men, but it will without any doubt affect the evolution of future men.

Why Sex?

This model unfortunately does not explain why sexual reproduction arose in various species to its now dominant position. However, once it did arise, sex may have persisted, perhaps, because it increased the variation in the males from which the females then select. This wider variety would have increased the ability to adapt of all species when the environment demanded it.

When resources became scarce due to a somewhat rapid environmental change, the females would mate with males who were the better providers; those successful males who were more resourceful and adapted better to the new living situation. Thus, sex speeds-up the evolutionary process when a dramatic alteration of environmental conditions happens to occur.

Infatuation

The blissful state known as infatuation is undeniably a physical as well as a psychological phenomenon. This physical state (an alteration of the brain and its physical chemistry) may have evolved over time through the sexual selection process, because this kind of devotion was often required for the males to succeed at mating. Hence, males not able to acquire this level of emotional intensity toward their female partner, may have had a somewhat reduced chance of producing offspring (Fisher, 1992).

The Sharing Of Food

One of the important characteristics of humans verses that of the apes is the sharing of food in troops (Leakey, 1994). This closely relates to Axiom A above, where the provider male shares food with his female mate. In the Western tradition, this can be seen in the dinner date. If the man is courting, he pays--and the woman almost instinctively knows her partner is wooing her. In fact, there is no more widespread courtship ploy than offering food in hopes of gaining sexual favors in exchange (Fisher, 1992). In early hominid societies, the provider and sharer of food may have been important for initial bonding and further evolution by the sexual selection mechanism.

Perhaps, a few woman do feed their lovers, but around the world courting woman feed men with nowhere near the regularity that men feed woman. Where food is impractical or unfashionable, men give their girlfriends tobacco (or other drugs), jewelry, cloth, flowers, or some other small but prized gifts as tokens of their affection and as a mild enticement for a tryst. Courtship feeding has an important reproductive function: by providing food to females, males show their abilities as hunters, providers, and worthy procreative partners (Fisher, 1992).

The bold viewpoint is proposed here that if the sharing of food (particularly by men) among two mates in early human cultures never took place, the eventual subsequent civilizations would not have either. Hence, the sharing of food by the males with the females (and also vice versa) is the key to subsequent human evolution and culture. Once this sharing of food behavior was in-place, human societies may have evolved somewhat more rapidly toward intelligence and innovation.

That apes do not share food, but human cultures do was noted in # 3 in the "Man And Ape Differences" section above. Men eventually shared food with their mates (and vice versa). It appears that this also could have been selected for by the females. Male hominids who did not share food, were simply not allowed to mate. Hence, the sharing of food became an evolutionary standard for humans because the females demanded it of their mates. Thus, a starving woman finds a new provider!

The early male role of "man-as-hunter" not only established males as the providers of food, but placed females in the role of being in-pursuit of the providers. These are the common roles of males and females in the world today. The negotiating tool for the female was sexual rights for her being fully provided for. One can see this in the modern context of men commonly sharing food or gifts for sex or sexual favors as mentioned above.

Some scientists have proposed that with the rise of agriculture among human cultures around 10,000 years ago came not only increased food production, but also the gross sexual inequalities and the increased control over a woman's sexuality by the men (Diamond, 1992). Even today, in many agriculturally-based societies, sexual selection is still strictly controlled by males.

In more modern societies; that some woman are now commonly becoming the providers themselves has presented woman (and men) with some new paradox's yet to be completely solved. For example, where do the children fit into all this? There is no doubt that overall this new lifestyle alteration has improved the lives of the modern woman, but it certainly has added complexity to the traditional woman's role.

Humans are evolving very rapidly because the female, perhaps unconsciously, has developed a more sophisticated criterion for selection than that of the other animals i.e., if the man is a bum, don't have his kids! These are some the values (among others) communicated by many mothers and now even by radio talk-show hosts and newspaper columnists throughout the USA.

It appears overall that Darwin's and Wallace's traditional natural selection model lacks explanatory power in describing these human adaptations, whereas this model (female sexual selection exclusively) better describes the physical characteristics of modern humans, compared with those of our ancestors.

Comments Concerning Civilization

The physical appearance of modern civilization (a mass of assets such as economically developed property, buildings, houses, cars, roads, consumer goods etc.), was all in-essence acquired and built by the men to impress the woman for sexual rights. Because earlier woman had this intense desire to acquire "things", the men had to provide them. The competition for woman, thus, became the competition for "things" to impress her with.

Hence, the desire for sex by the man became the driving force for human civilizations. This is true even today. More primitive civilizations are usually the same cultures that suppress and control the woman's sexuality. Therefore, in these cultures, less pressures are placed upon the man not only to financially succeed, but to build and/or acquire the trappings (the things) that we in the West are accustomed to. Thus, in less-advanced cultures, there is less motivation by the men for the construction of the physical civilization. Civilizations arose when sex for the woman became somewhat more open, and competition by the men for these woman (and sexual opportunities) more intense.

Darwin concluded that sexual selection had a more powerful influence at a remote period than it does at present (Darwin, Reprint 1972). In this text, it is concluded that at present exactly the opposite is true. The recent increase in feminist ideology and culture around the globe (which were much more rare in Darwin's day), have as a primary goal of increasing the financial power and decreasing the dependency on men for sexual selection. Hence, the females are now to a greater degree than ever exerting their power over the rights to their own bodies! The author predicts that evolution, as perhaps was the case in early hominid societies, will be sped-up as a result of this re discovered sexual freedom.

Conclusion

In the nineteenth century, the biological and social sciences were not the widely-separate fields built on often incompatible paradigms that they are today (Ciochon & Fleagle, 1993). This text suggests that the social sciences i.e., socially-determined sexual selection by females, does directly connect with the central pillar of biology; the theory of evolution. Can these two sciences be more unified and brought more in-accordance with each other through the social-biological outlook proposed in this text?

This alternative evolutionary model of humans leads to the following probable consequences:

1) Word-of-mouth or gossip may drive culture. Further studies into the social lives of females in primitive human cultures will reveal the important role of gossip in influencing female attitudes about female sexual selection. Hence, there is more taking place socially among the females than is presently believed by researchers.

2) The more intellectually advanced the species, the more exclusively selective are the females toward their mating partners. This selectiveness may be the driving force for the ascent of humans and civilization. Increased cultural and economic prosperity, however, frees-up the woman to seek men for reasons other than financial success. See Axiom A above.

3) The evolution of humans is accelerating over time. This is due to the increasing control by the woman over their own reproduction. This present acceleration is due to the spread of feminism around the globe.

4) The sharing of food by the males, which was also selected for by the females, was the initial bond that began the ascent towards civilization. Before the sharing of food in hominid troops, there was vastly-less intentional sexual selection occurring. One can see this somewhat in modern chimpanzee cultures where evolution is mostly by natural selection (and less of the special case of sexual selection), hence, evolutionary progress is much more gradual compared to modern humans. However, as in many other species, there is a limited amount of female chimpanzee sexual selection taking place as mentioned above.

5) Early hominid troops largely did not (or could not) control in an effective manner the sexuality of the females. This may have been due to the newfound ability of the hominid females to be constantly available for sex (and not only when in heat). Hence, the sexual selection i.e., the sexual freedom, of the females led to a rather rapid evolution (compared to that of other species) of the traits we normally associate with modern humans. Only somewhat later did the sexual control by males stifle evolutionary processes. Presently, the tide has turned back somewhat in-favor of the sexual freedom of the females--particularly in the West.

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank Robert (Bob) L. Rhoades for contributing his knowledge of the "warrior" theory of female sexual selection.

Relevant Links

The Viral DNA Infection Model. How Sex And Sexual Drives May Have Come About. Also, The Immediate Rise Of New Species: http://www.johnkharms.com/whysex.htm .

Go To HOME

References

Ciochon, R. L., Fleagle, J. G., 1993, The Human Evolution Source Book, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, P. 243-262

Darwin, C., Reprint: 1972, The Descent Of Man (and Selection in Relation to Sex), The Heritage Press, New York, P. 272-273, 292, 303-304, 309

Diamond, J., 1992, The Third Chimpanzee, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, P. 117, 180

Ferris, T., 1988, Coming Of Age In The Milky Way, William Morrow And Co., New York, P. 236-237

Fisher, H. E., 1992, Anatomy Of Love, Fawcett Columbine, New York, P. 27, 32-36, 47, 57, 66, 68, 119, 126-128, 132, 178-179, 181, 254-255

Gould, J. L., Gould, C. G., 1989, Sexual Selection, Scientific American Library, New York, P. 4, 78, 175-209, 260

Leakey, R., 1994, The Origin Of Humankind, Basic Books, New York, P. 43-44, 63, 122, 130

Reader's Note: Proper References And/Or Acknowledgments To This Text Are Appreciated.