|
this is very true, bad 80 year old men! *ick*
Also, just to point out the thing about the zygote may be scientifically correct, but, from a Zoologists perspective, its missing out on half the argument, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. The cost of the zygote etc, and affecting the overall number of offspring, only really applies if the species is very small, because then the 'mother' will just want to help the species and continue in any way possible. In truth, (don't know if any1 has ever read 'the selfish gene', i haven't personally but have studied this topic a fair amount in Zoology), the female wants their own genes to be passed down, why does she want to help the male pass his genes down to others? She doesn't, or at least doesnt care whatsoever about him getting to pass on his genetics, she wants her offspring with her genes to survive, above all else, so she would rather he was monogomous, or even better, she be polyandrous (dunno if thats a word :P) so that her young would be even more likely to survive. For the same reason, the male would quite like to have lots of offspring to pass his genes on, and maybe it does have less of a cost, but that still doesnt mean the female is going to say 'oh that's fine, it's whatsever is best for the species'.
|