# Will evolution favor the selfish genes of cheaters?



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

People in all developed countries are having fewer children. Often the nuclear family is just a couple of kids who just replace mom and dad, unless mom and dad sneak out and leave their genes with partners outside of their marriage.

How do you think cheaters are faring in the Darwinian scheme of things?

Is dishonesty in this respect purely a learned behavior or is infidelity partially an instinctive strategy coded into our hardwiring.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

LongWalk said:


> People in all developed countries are having fewer children. Often the nuclear family is just a couple of kids who just replace mom and dad, unless mom and dad sneak out and leave their genes with partners outside of their marriage.
> 
> How do you think cheaters are faring in the Darwinian scheme of things?
> 
> Is dishonesty in this respect purely a learned behavior or is infidelity partially an instinctive strategy coded into our hardwiring.


No evolution will not favor cheaters, evolution favors the strong so they may procreate and produce more strong offspring.

What I think evolution doesn't favor is marriage and a monogamous relationship, I believe there will always be a small part of the population that will bond and stay together for life but the old ways of getting married, kids, growing old together etc slowly seem to be slipping away.
People are so selfish about getting all they want, fulfilling every want and desire, marriage just doesn't survive well in that environment.


----------



## Graywolf2 (Nov 10, 2013)

The most efficient male is the one who impregnates as many women as he can and expends no energy on raising the resulting kids.


----------



## Rugby (Dec 21, 2013)

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news9

This article may shed some light on the subject. It addresses the so-called "fidelity gene", which is a loosly used to describe the inborn, inherent propensity to cheat or remain faithful. 



Evolution seems to have chosen two paths for humans: 1) mate with as many partners as possible and play the law of averages regarding offspring and 2) be discerning and pick the best mate possible to have fewer but stronger offspring. In modern society, most research shows that on average it is to a child's advantage to grow up in a nuclear, two-parent home. The sophistication and demands of modern life seem to favor the latter mating strategy. In the past, either strategy was probably equally effective. Otherwise one or the other strategy would have died out due to natural selection.

The advent of birth control seems to have swung the balance even more in favor of monogamy. If a person is inherently more permiscuous, they need to reproduce more offspring for the law of averages to work in their favor. Having all the impulsive genes that accompany permiscuity without the upside of many offspring to up your odds of a "good" offspring stacks the deck against you. Couple this principal of two mating strategies with positive epigenetic changes passed on to offspring of better parents, and modern society heavily favors children with more stable upbringings. There will always be a dichotomy between rich and poor or successful versus unsuccessful, but that gap is widening, particularly in the US. While the human genome has not changed too dramatically in the past few hundred years, society has. And the subtle differences in the way we are genetically programmed is having a greater impact than perhaps ever before. Never before has intelligence been such an advantage now that the physical demands of life have been marginalized. Beyond just the moral implications, marrying and mating with a less cumpulsive, faithful person has great implicatiins for your progeny.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Graywolf2 said:


> The most efficient male is the one who impregnates and many women as he can and expends no energy on raising the resulting kids.


That would be why our prisons stay full. Felons have double the number of children that non-felons have in the US.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

One the one hand, we all try to get the best possible genes for our children by picking the best mate we can attract. From a female perspective, the best genes may not come from the best provider, though, so it's a compromise if you pick and stick with just one mate. Or, you can snare the best provider yet cheat to get the genes of the best genetic match(es) for some of your children. The rewards are better reproductive success, while the risks are getting caught and losing the benefits of a good provider.

I think Graywolf got the male perspective correct.


----------



## Rubicon (Jan 13, 2014)

"No evolution will not favor cheaters, evolution favors the strong so they may procreate and produce more strong offspring.
"

No, this is wrong, Dinosaurs were very strong, look what happened there. Darwin himself was quoted as saying that "evolution neither favors the strong or the weak, it favors those most adaptable to change"

That seems to be supported regarding infidelity in that those most willing to give up a relationship seem to gain the upper hand but that is just antidotal evidence at best.

I think we have created an environment where cheating is acceptable in that the media promotes it relentlessly to a generation that has been mollycoddled to believe they are entitled to satisfy any whim no matter the burden it creates for others. So "we", not "evolution" are to blame for this.

Google "Joe Rogan dumb people" and look for a video of his stand up routine. There is one he did where he talks about the dumb people out breading smart people to the point that they wake up one day and no smart people are left and they have no idea how anything works anymore. it's pretty funny really.

From a genetic stand point, Humans are the most successful "Machine" for the survival of Genes and will continue as such until something else takes over and this will happen regardless of weather cheaters or non cheaters dominate at breeding.

And remember, don't take any wooden nickels.....


----------



## Graywolf2 (Nov 10, 2013)

Rugby said:


> Never before has intelligence been such an advantage now that the physical demands of life have been marginalized. Beyond just the moral implications, marrying and mating with a less cumpulsive, faithful person has great implicatiins for your progeny.


Welfare has turned that on its head. I have two kids, a doctor and a lawyer. I saw an unemployed guy on television that had 22 children with 11 women. He pays for none of them. If half of his children die he will still be way ahead of me biologically. Even if his children die young they will probably already have reproduced before they do. My kids are 29 and 31 and no grandkids yet.

See the movie Idiocracy (2006)

Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

It would seem that men and women who cheat successfully increase their percentage of the gene pool.

For men promiscuity is still a strategy.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

larry.gray said:


> That would be why our prisons stay full. Felons have double the number of children that non-felons have in the US.


Correct. Ever see a film called "Idiocracy?"

ETA: boy, I was a day late on that suggestion.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

Graywolf2 said:


> Even if his children die young they will probably already have reproduced before they do. My kids are 29 and 31 and no grandkids yet.


And there are some very unPC hypotheses floating around that suggest the most superior physical and mental specimens a woman is going to produce will be those born during her prime reproductive period 14-25. Male sperm quality is also supposed to start declining around 35. This may provide the mechanism for the purported IQ decline among Caucasians over the last 500 years. If true, our elites are having less robust children due to delaying childbirth to the outer limits of female fertility.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

Graywolf2 said:


> The most efficient male is the one who impregnates as many women as he can and expends no energy on raising the resulting kids.


Yeah, that would be my ex husband. 

Human evolution is so much more complicated than the simple models used for lower animals though. There are far too many variables to account for them all and come up with a definitive answer. It does stand to reason, though, that the more children someone has (male or female) with more mates, the chances are increased of at least some of them being superior to the others in some ways, and of being more successful in passing their genes on. 

One example would be the sex linked trait for hemophilia. Males with the condition, if they live long enough, are sure to pass the mutation on to all their children. Women, however, are almost always only carriers, so the chances of passing the trait on is only 50-50 for them. So if a woman is mated to a hemophiliac, she'd be better off to cheat on him to produce offspring, since less of them would be likely to get the disease or be carriers. The implications of this pertaining to European royalty history are quite interesting.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

It could be that the effects of cheating on the gene pool will be insignificant because human survival rates are so high today. People who would have been weeded out by nature and human strife are reproducing as never before.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

LongWalk said:


> It could be that the effects of cheating on the gene pool will be insignificant because human survival rates are so high today. People who would have been weeded out by nature and human strife are reproducing as never before.


Yes, this is true. The result is that our gene pool is weakened by those with inferior genes being able to pass them on, whereas they would have died first a couple of generations ago.


----------



## PamJ (Mar 22, 2013)

A couple of people mentioned Idiocracy (love Dax Shepard's acting) and I am not convinced it's a gene as much a choice and a learned behavior that has life spinning this way.
My almost 28 year old is a highly motivated strong minded upright citizen (a cop) who has no plans to reproduce and so far has only had live-in girlfriends and is not inclined to marry.
My 21 year old is still trying to figure out what he wants to do, so nothing in the near future for him.
Both are good people, loyal, honorable, empathetic to those who need help in this world, but who knows if they will ever contribute in the population growth.
My FWH was also loyal, honorable, hardworking with good parents and siblings, right up until the time he thought it was fine for him to step outside his vows and go look for what he thought he was entitled to.
Yes, I do believe things are changing but I believe it's cultural and a personal choice.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

It will be interesting to see how the population of adulterers is affected by the impending incurability of gonorrhea.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

I have eight kids, and was a semen donor in college. My genes rule. Or at least they will.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

LongWalk said:


> It could be that the effects of cheating on the gene pool will be insignificant because human survival rates are so high today. People who would have been weeded out by nature and human strife are reproducing as never before.


What makes you think that cheating is only now effecting the gene pool?


----------



## LostWifeCrushed (Feb 7, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> Correct. Ever see a film called "Idiocracy?"
> 
> ETA: boy, I was a day late on that suggestion.


Agree, the OPs answer is on display in that film.


----------



## LostWifeCrushed (Feb 7, 2012)

The basic premise being that those with high IQs tend to wait to finish their education/build their empire, etc. before marrying and having children, while lower functioning dude bros have lots of baby mommas without a father sort of thing.

Who is really reseeding the population?


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

None of that discussed really matters in a broader sense. Cheaters. Non cheaters. Rich. Not rich. Smart. Not smart. Noodles. Don't noodles.

Evolution will favor the genes immune to the next Ebola outbreak. Or mutated H1N1 super killing virus. Or immunity to the current daily use of things that Make life easier but really cause toxic PFOA Teflon exposure. Or resistance to cell phone brain cancer.

Humans are strange. I think we are moving into a time of severe artificial economic Darwinism guiding our offsprings survival rate...until, of course, Mother Earth has enough of that crap and decides to reset itself with aforementioned super catastrophe.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Tall Average Guy said:


> What makes you think that cheating is only now effecting the gene pool?


I am sure it always has. And for many animals. If a non-dominant male somehow manages to sneak in a quicky, his genes go on even if never out sang or out butted the dominant rival.

People complain that social media like Facebook have unleashed a wave of cheating. If that is true, then those who hook up with Facebook in secret and have children from the resulting affairs ought to be selecting for social media savvy.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

GTdad said:


> I have eight kids, and was a semen donor in college. My genes rule. Or at least they will.


It's funny that sperm donors undergo psychological vetting.

Q: Why do you want to do this?

A1: I was going to jerk off anyway, why not get paid for it. (fail)

A2: I like the idea having a lot of my kids who look like me but who don't need my time and money. (fail)

A3: I want to help childless couples. (correct)

Perhaps A1 and A2 are not less true that A3.


----------



## loveforfamily (Mar 13, 2014)

Graywolf2 said:


> Welfare has turned that on its head. I have two kids, a doctor and a lawyer. I saw an unemployed guy on television that had 22 children with 11 women. He pays for none of them. If half of his children die he will be way ahead of me biologically. Even if his children die young they will probably already have reproduced before they do. My kids are 29 and 31 and no grandkids yet.
> 
> See the movie Idiocracy (2006)
> 
> Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.



That movie, though slightly tongue in cheek, scared me. It makes a very valid point. GOD HELP THE HUMAN RACE.


----------



## Wolf9 (Apr 27, 2014)

Yes, I think that's why it's very important for males to do DNA testing if they are planning to have one or two children. It may also explain existence of patriarchal cultures in 2/3 of human population where males apply various tactics for subordination of female mate in order to ensure genetic continuity at any cost.

If we argue that Newton (Calculus, Physics) was probably most influential human male to kick start exponential intellectual evolution in human history then brutal Genghis Khan was probably most successful prototype of human male as far evolution is conerned.

Genghis Khan: The daddy of all lovers | Mail Online



> After analysing tissue samples in populations bordering Mongolia, scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences believe the brutal ruler has 16 million male descendants living today, meaning that he must have fathered hundreds, if not thousands, of children.
> 
> And as the geneticists agree, it can be explained only by Genghis Khan's policy of seizing for himself the most beautiful women captured in the course of his merciless conquests.


----------



## ThreeStrikes (Aug 11, 2012)

How many generations must pass before observable adaptations in a population are noticed? (assuming no world-changing calamities)


----------



## itom72 (Apr 12, 2012)

Wolf9 said:


> Yes, I think that's why it's very important for males to do DNA testing if they are planning to have one or two children. It may also explain existence of patriarchal cultures in 2/3 of human population where males apply various tactics for subordination of female mate in order to ensure genetic continuity at any cost.
> 
> If we argue that Newton (Calculus, Physics) was probably most influential human male to kick start exponential intellectual evolution in human history then brutal Genghis Khan was probably most successful prototype of human male as far evolution is conerned.
> 
> Genghis Khan: The daddy of all lovers | Mail Online


That's quite the contrast you make, given that Newton appears to have died either as a virgin, or at least as someone who never indulged in a heterosexual relationship.

The Straight Dope: Was Isaac Newton a virgin?

I am 42, with a Ph.D. in math, and childless. My only sibling, a younger brother who also has both a college degree and gainful employment, is without offspring as well. It is all part of a trend that will lead to producing people like this:


----------



## Wolf9 (Apr 27, 2014)

itom72 said:


> That's quite the contrast you make, given that Newton appears to have died either as a virgin, or at least as someone who never indulged in a heterosexual relationship.
> 
> The Straight Dope: Was Isaac Newton a virgin?
> 
> I am 42, with a Ph.D. in math, and childless. My only sibling, a younger brother who also has both a college degree and gainful employment, is without offspring as well. It is all part of a trend that will lead to producing people like this:


You are correct, I should have used the word only human irrespective of gender who was influential in a sense that his contribution created chain reaction which enabled his species to reach it's overshoot population due to adaptations that followed ie technology,medicine,engineering etc. Human population increased from 300 million to 500 million in period 500 years before him since then upto 7 billion in next 500 years.

I am assuming that when human race will be point of extinction long into future & final assessment will be carried out then his contribution in terms adaptation will have it's own significance like direct contribution from Genghis Khan. It's kind of charity though.

As far as endgame of sun engulfing earth after 7.6 billion years is concerned, in that sense neither Newton nor Genghis Khan will have final advantage over each other since extinction of humans much before that. That time we can argue that both were influential where one was active contributor & other passive IMO.


Timeline of the far future - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

LongWalk said:


> People complain that social media like Facebook have unleashed a wave of cheating. If that is true, then those who hook up with Facebook in secret and have children from the resulting affairs ought to be selecting for social media savvy.


The difference is that the typical FaceBook affair does not produce offspring.

In the current world, more children means a much better chance of genes continuing into the distant future. No longer is it a matter of being the best hunter, the smartest farmer, or belonging to the most dominant tribe (which likely is fast, strong, smart). The earth provides more food than is currently needed. Even those who are weak, stupid, and poorly suited to providing for themselves can have many children who survive to adulthood in most places on the planet, unlike eons past when slow stupid weak children would die young.

Cheaters likely have more children than non-cheaters, so I think cheaters genes will represent more of the human population in the future. But I don't know that a cheater gene is all that important in the birth rate in many places. Societal factors may drown out the effect of any cheater gene.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

It's generally accepted that as IQs go upwards past about 140 or so, there is an inverse relationship with sexual desirability. Higher early testosterone levels in males are associated with greater sexual desirability among females more or less for life, but those same high early levels are also associated with lower IQ, low impulse control, increased criminality.


----------



## Jack29 (Oct 20, 2012)

LongWalk said:


> How do you think cheaters are faring in the Darwinian scheme of things?


They hardly ever can make predictions like that that but they sure roll the dice!


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Evolution is based on survival of the fitter not the fittest. To assume evolution favors any gene is to assume that the Lemarckism theory has validity, for which it has long since been rejected. Gene mutations occur at predicted rates and can provide advantages but more often than not novel genes and the protein products are eliminated based on environmental pressures rather than favored. The primary favored mutations are for those end products that increase metabolic efficiency and increase chances of reproduction. Great example of this is cancer unfortunately. 

Metabolic efficiency is best achieved as a tribe and cheating reproduction could possibly be a counter pressure based on cultural evolutionary pressures over the course of time. Only geological time will tell. 

Let's not forget we are still the new kids on this planet.


----------



## PreRaphaelite (Dec 15, 2012)

Evolution is not eugenics. The latter is a form of Social Darwinism that has had a long history in the US, especially among those who wanted to justify why one social group was on top (the rich) and one wasn't (the poor).

Molecular biology has radically changed the idea of evolution as "survival of the fittest", which was a biased and false description of Darwin's theory from the start--look at what Darwin has to say about the development of moral sensibilities. Species' survival depends upon adaptability, and adaptability comes mainly from variance in the gene pool.

Therefore, the more women who are impregnated by a narrower range of sperm on the idea that the donor is smarter, stronger, more athletic, healthier, etc. etc. are actually working against the adaptability of the species, not for it.

But here's the thing: this is all at a global scale. We live as individuals, and individuals don't follow the directives of the species. We are far more concerned with our own lives. Which makes all this genetics/evolution talk pretty dubious when it comes to what you or I desire or hope for in love, marriage or children, or god knows, in life.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Variation is a great benefit to adaptation, but there are species in which the individuals do not vary genetically much at all. I remember reading somewhere that cheetahs lack genetic diversity. "Infidelity" by cheating cheetah females improves the viability of the species.



> Philandering males, sneaking around behind their partners' backs or openly canoodling, are a stock character on Animal Planet. Male lions, male chimps, and male elephant seals (along with many others) play the Casanovas, pairing up with multiple females. But now researchers have revealed that cheetahs buck this sexual stereotype.
> 
> According to the May 2007 study, female cheetahs seem to be at least as promiscuous as their male counterparts. Females frequently mate with several different males while they are fertile and are then likely to bear a single litter of cubs fathered by multiple males — making many of the cubs within a single litter only half-siblings. This discovery has important implications for the conservation of these endangered animals.
> 
> Though it conflicts with the idea that cheaters never prosper, evolutionary theory suggests that, in this case, cheating may be exactly what the doctor ordered..."]study showing that females sometime mate with several males and their litters can contain cubs from several fathers.


 link

Since this thread started I read that the most conservative estimate of male **** sapiens unwittingly raising the offspring of other males is a least 3.0 percent. More likely the numbers are 10 percent to 15 percent, but among the least prosperous it could be as high as 30 percent.

Better educated and wealthier males are better at preventing their mates from pairing with other males. And the females in those relationships may be less drawn to gametes from other males.

One of the most interesting phenomenon in reproduction is the sperm donor. My theory is that this "altruistic" behavior is simply a reproductive strategy. Women actually review the qualities of the males who donate, so competition still occurs even within this form of mating.

Also is there is a genetic component to male homosexuality, then one would presume that lesbian couples who use gay males friends as donors/partner parents are selecting for a predilection for homosexual offspring.

I have read before that two deaf women sought a deaf male donor because they wanted a deaf child. The deaf actually do marry and have children. Presumably their abilities to compensate for hearing loss would select for other characteristics.


----------

