Polygamy hurt 19th century Mormon wives' evolutionary fitness
This is an illustration from from "The Women of Mormonism or the Story of Polygamy as Told by the Victims Themselves," by Jennie Anderson Froiseth (1882). Credit: Courtesy of the IU Lilly Library
Polygamy practiced by some 19th century Mormon men had the curious effect of suppressing the overall offspring numbers of Mormon women in plural marriages, say scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions in the March 2011 issue of Evolution and Human Behavior.
Simply put, the more sister-wives a Mormon woman had, the fewer children she was likely to produce.
"Although it's great in terms of number of children for successful males to have harems, the data show that for every new woman added to a male's household, the number each wife produced goes down by one child or so," said IU Bloomington evolutionary biologist Michael Wade, whose theoretical work guided the study. "This regression is known as a 'Bateman gradient,' named after the geneticist who first observed a similar phenomenon in fruit flies."
The paper's coauthors were Jeffrey Moorad (Duke University, Indiana University Ph.D. 2005), Daniel Promislow (University of Georgia), and Ken Smith (University of Utah).
The researchers' survey of birth, marriage and death records from the Utah Population Database covers nearly 186,000 Utah adults and their 630,000 children who lived or died between 1830 and 1894. This period marked an important transition for the nascent Mormon Church, as polygamy began to be phased out in deference to U.S. laws banning the practice but also via internal pressure from the Mormons themselves.
The scientists' study confirmed their expectation that a moratorium on Mormon polygamy would have the effect of decreasing the intensity of sexual selection among males and ultimately bringing the strength of reproductive selection on men closer to that acting on women. With fewer polygamous marriages, more males had access to wives, which led to a decrease in the variation in Mormon males' mating and reproductive success. The scientists estimate that ending polygamy reduced the strength of sexual selection on males by 58 percent.
"This study was very exciting for us, in large part because you just don't get to see the demographic effects of dramatically changing a mating system within a single population -- in any organism," Wade said. "It's an added bonus that this change from polygamy to monogamy just happened to involve people who kept such thorough records of the marriages, births and deaths at that time."
Wade, who specializes in the evolutionary biology of mating systems, says much of his work has elucidated and expanded on the ideas of Angus Bateman. Bateman, a prolific theorist, was unable to empirically test all his theories about mating and mating fitness before he died in 1996. Last year Wade and Northern Arizona University biologist Stephen Shuster co-wrote a retrospective on a classic paper Bateman wrote for the journal Heredity in 1948. Wade and Shuster extolled Bateman's vision, in particular the way in which Bateman thought sexual selection should be quantified. Bateman's critics thought his reductions of biology were too simplistic, yet Wade says Bateman's simple formulas are often dead-on.
This is a homestead of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church. Credit: Church of Latter-Day Saints
"Bateman's ideas still are very much alive, the present study included," Wade said. "It was also his idea that selection could be stronger on males than on females, that what can be an advantage to males can be a disadvantage to females of the same species. And the advantage isn't just in having more mates. You may simply produce more offspring, than the average, if you're a male successful in reproductive competition against other males."Which isn't to say systems of polygamy in humans or elsewhere in nature are necessarily good for all the males involved. Indeed, Wade says, polygamy is a bad thing for most males of a species.
"When the ratio of sexes is about equal, for every male that has three mates, there must be two males that have none," Wade said. "If a male has even more mates, then the disparity among male 'reproductive' haves and have-nots can become quite great."
So if polygamy (or the female equivalent, polyandry) is disadvantageous to most of the sequestered sex and most of the mate-sequestering sex, why should such systems survive?
"The complete answer is still forthcoming," Wade said. "One thing we know now, based on rigorous studies in many species, particularly the fruit fly, is that selection can be so strong on males that it can drag the entire species off of a naturally selected viability optimum."
Wade points to a familiar example.
"Take the peacock," Wade said. "Its tail is magnificent for attracting females and bad for attracting predators. It is believed that in some situations there is a "predator hard cap" on the fitness of sexual characteristics. But there's also research suggesting even the predator hard cap can be overpowered if sexual selection on males is strong enough. That is, males trade high risks to their lives in order to gain large numbers of mates and thereby offspring."
More information: "Mating system change reduces the strength of sexual selection in an American frontier population of the 19th century," Evolution & Human Behavior, vol. 32, iss. 2, pp. 79-156 (March 2011)
Provided by
Indiana University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
31 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
What would stain as translucent on light-coloured fabric?
6 hours ago
-
How do I identify different bacteria on culture plates?
15 hours ago
-
Why Do Dogs do Strange things...
May 25, 2012
-
What does exophillic and endophillic mean in terms of mosquito and their control?
May 24, 2012
-
Semen stains glows under black lights (uv light)?
May 23, 2012
-
Question on Human Chromosome 2
May 23, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
4 hours ago |
2.8 / 5 (6) |
14
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
14 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (4) |
5
More plant species responding to global warming than previously thought
(Phys.org) -- Far more wild plant species may be responding to global warming than previous large-scale estimates have suggested.
May 22, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (14) |
18
|
Totally rad: Scientists create rewritable digital data storage in DNA
(Phys.org) -- Scientists from Stanford's Department of Bioengineering have devised a method for repeatedly encoding, storing and erasing digital data within the DNA of living cells.
May 21, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (17) |
11
|
For monogamous sparrows, it doesn't pay to stray (but they do it anyway)
It's quite common for a female song sparrow to stray from her breeding partner and mate with the male next door, but a new study shows that sleeping around can be costly.
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
7
|
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Australia hails surprise super-telescope decision
Australia has hailed a surprise decision giving it a role in a radio telescope project aimed at revolutionising astronomy, vowing to draw on its decades of experience in space science.
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.

Feb 22, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
It says that like it's a bad thing.
Feb 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Zing
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
rgds
jms
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
So do some murderous dictators. That doesn't make their actions or intents sacrosanct.
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Article is profoundly pointless from an evolutionary sense as many animal species engage this way....
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (11)
http
://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The-worlds-biggest-family-Ziona-Chan-39-wives-94-children-33-grandchildren.html
"Coincidentally, Mr Chana is also head of a sect that allows members to take as many wives as he wants." If youll examine the pictures closely you may note a significant number of apparent cretins and imbeciles, including the one standing out front. A possible sign of unfortunate inbreeding? I could be wrong.
-Another tidbit: Osama bin Ladens father "sired a total of 54 children, by 22 wives. Mohammed never had more than four wives at a time - having divorced older wives and married new ones as needed to limit the number of current wives to four."
-Which is another approach.
Religions care NOTHING about the future.
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (6)
Okay, I realize this is Physorg, and I'm an atheist like most of you, but this anti-religionist sentiment has gone too far. The fact that religion has survived as long as it has illustrates that it serves a purpose (for some people). Unfit memes, like genes, do not last long. Not all religious people fit a mold. There are religions that do not promote authoritarian power structures, that promote selflessness for no reason other than it is "good," and not all religious people are nutbags. Having grown up in a fundamentalist Christian family in the South, my view of religion was poisoned by these people--but I've come to the more mature conclusion that though most religions historically have acted poorly (or worse), not all religions, especially these days, and not all religious people are that bad.
Feb 23, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Would you mind terribly not using sockpuppets? If it is reprehensible for Alizee then it is reprehensible for YOU. The only excuse for doing that is in a tit for tat situation.
Ethelred
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
I'd point and laugh. Living in a fantasy world is risible, period.
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
But my point is that religion for all people isn't a literal "God made the earth in seven human days" phenomenon. I know several people (and I live in one of the most conservative towns in Texas of all places!) that call themselves Christians but take the Bible as a metaphor and its stories as symbols.
I completely agree that it is pitiable to see adults who should (and do in many cases) know better accepting myth as literal fact. That said, not all do, and pointing and laughing at them won't help those who do see where they're wrong. If we want to take the intellectual and moral high ground, we have the responsibility to act like the adults we purport to be.
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
In short, the problem with religion is laziness. Instead of thinking consciously and rationally, people think unconsciously and, understandably, irrationally--which isn't really thinking at all.
Where the hypocrisy comes in is that people who "believe in science" (I hate that phrase because it really doesn't mean anything, but you understand what I'm saying) are just as guilty just as often of this same mistake. We should look inwardly before criticizing others.
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Sign up for a physorg account like kevinrtrs and spew nonsense
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I've followed your posting history off and on and respect you for your comments. That said, I think you're off your rocker if you think constant derision forces introspection. It doesn't. It pummels these people further and further into their cognitive ruts, forces them to band together to cling to their stupid ideas, and makes their beliefs STRONGER than they were before.
No one said we should tell them they're right: we shouldn't because they aren't. But your tack in this is all wrong and counterproductive. Do you *want* the Tea Party/Sarah Palin nutbags running this country? Consider the practical implications of what you're doing.
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
But, again, the fact that some (even most!) of the religious people here and elsewhere have silly beliefs does not mean that all of them do and if for no other reason than that we should be on guard against generalization, i.e. intellectual laziness, we should qualify our objections to religion and religious people. This is why the antireligious statements made here have come under my scrutiny.
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (2)
I appreciate you discussing this with me, SH.
Feb 24, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Faith is belief despite evidence, which is self delusion. You're effectively asking me to allow psychotics to have their little fantasy because it isn't hurting anyone (at the moment). Well that's false. It's hurting many people all over the world right now. There is no such thing as an innocent adherant when the policy they adhere to promotes horrors in the world. It isn't generalization, it is full disclosure.
I don't have an emotional feeling on the matter, I simply have my solid stance that self-delusion is dangerous, and I can demonstrate it easily. If you deem my stance to be dismissal of religion, you're half right. Then again, I could always challenge you to find one that is innocent of these very same horrors.
Feb 25, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Feb 25, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Did I hear some Sam Harris in there? I think I did.
Feb 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Is that clear and objective enough for you?
Feb 28, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Feb 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
When he first made that crap up while literally talking through his hat he did not promote polygamy. He did that later. I suspect it was because he had more women interested in HIM then when he was running his crystal viewing con. Instant harem, but as a church leader he couldn't just start living with them so he had to make it a Holy Thing. And with the surfeit of women over men, allowing polygamy would give his religion an advantage in gaining new members both male and female. I really don't think he was thinking about raising more children. His long term success probably surprised him.
Ethelred
Feb 28, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
We are a runaway, tropical, invasive species in a temperate environment. We have tried to compensate culturally, but even cultural development cannot keep pace with our ability to outgrow resources. This has led to the inevitability of war, famine, and plague throughout history as natural or Artificial ways of preserving the species and all of it's most irreplaceable Products.
Feb 28, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
We are exceedingly easy to herd.
Feb 28, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (6)
You observe the whole affair in meticulous detail and yet fail to include the ultimate Results of them in your analysis. And you fail to consider any of the more obvious and expected alternatives which would not have produced these Benefits, and may have instead led to ruin and collapse.