--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > > >I had mentioned not-too-long-ago that ovulation is > not as predictable as previously thought; here is the > >latest study to make it to the popular press:
> Might be that pesky natural selection at work again: > those whose ovulation is predictable can more easily > prevent > conception therefore killing those predictive genes. Well, the if the biological 'purpose' of existence is to reproduce, then my understanding of "hidden ovulation" (from the female POV) was to 'keep the males around guessing' as to when sex might produce offspring. If ovulation was evident as in many animals, with an estrous/heat, then the males would only 'need' to be around for those specific times, and might not be available to help hunt/gather/protect-the-children. I don't think "prevention of conception" in general would be selected *for*, although the advantage of "selective ovulation" might be; by the latter, I mean that for creatures like us, with young that need a lot of care to make it to adulthood, and a huge investment required of the female, it would be very much to the advantage of the female if she only ovulated when she had established a bonded relationship with a male. He would then be around to help with child-rearing; the advantage to the male of such an "induced ovulation" and a bonded relationship would be that he would expend energy only in raising his own biological offspring. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
