reiver

If there is a genetic basis to Monogamy[1] (in humans), it makes you wonder… well, makes me wonder at least… if there’s the potential that Monogamy could be breed out of human populations. And if there’s a potential, are there any signs today which makes it seem like it could be happening.[2]

From a genetics point-of-view, from what I’ve read, it is easier for loss of function or exaggeration and redirections of functions to occur than to develop wholly new complex adaptations. As an example of that — as an example of what loss of function looks like — when comparing wolves to dogs we see that [m]ale wolves help care for their offspring, but male dogs do not.[3] Then if we believe that Monogamy is a complex adaptation, then it would lead us to believe that it is easier for Monogamy to be lost than for it to re-evolve from scratch.


[1] Because people can mean different things when they say “monogamy”, to be explicit, what I referring to when I say “monogamy” is, when a male and a female live together, have sex with one another, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money. Often they also care for and raise offspring to together.

[2] Just to be explicit, I’m a fan of Monogamy.

[3] Even though male dogs don’t care for their offspring, I wonder if the “wiring” for that behavior is still there. But if it’s just kind of muted. And thus, would you really have to re-evolve that behavior from scratch.

Dogs are much more playful than wolves, and this can probably be understood as retention of juvenile behavior (called “neoteny”). Retaining existing juvenile behavior is accomplished far more easily than evolving a behavior from scratch. Many of the ways in which dogs interact with humans can be understood as a new application of behavioral adaptations designed for a pack — the owner takes on the role of the leader of the pack.
… the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev succeeded in developing a domesticated fox in only forth years. In each generation he selected for tameness (and only tameness); this eventually resulted in foxes that were friendly and enjoyed human contact, in strong contrast to wild foxes. This strain of tame foxes also changed in others ways: Their coat color lightened, their skulls became rounder, and some of them were born with floppy ears. It seems that some of the genes influencing behavior (tameness in this case) also affect other traits — so when Belyaev selected for tameness, he automatically got changes in those traits as well. Many of these changes have occurred as side effects of domestication in a number of species — possibly including humans…

You have to pay to read this article. Although, I think there’s a free version of the article here.

Here’s a quote…

Variants in just three genes acting in different combinations account for the wide range of coat textures seen in dogs — from the poodle’s tight curls to the beagle’s stick-straight fur. A team led by researchers from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health, reports these findings today in the advance online issue of the journal Science. “This study is an elegant example of using genomic techniques to unravel the genetic basis of biological diversity,” said NHGRI Scientific Director Eric Green, M.D., Ph.D. “Genomics continues to gain new insights from the amazing morphological differences seen across the canine species, including many that give clues about human biology and disease.”

[…]

Modern dog breeds are part of a unique population structure, having been selectively bred for many years. Based on this structure, the researchers were able to break down a complex phenotype — coat — into possible genetic variations. “When we put these genetic variants back together in different combinations, we found that we could create most of the coat varieties seen in what is among the most diverse species in the world — the dog,” Dr. Ostrander said. “If we can decipher the genetic basis for a complex trait such as the dog’s coat, we believe that we can do it as well with complex diseases.”

Specifically, the researchers found an alteration in the RSPO2 gene that results in wiry hair that grows in a pattern that gives the dogs a mustachioed look with long details called furnishings. Examples of dogs with wiry coats are Scottish terriers, Irish terriers and schnauzers. Long hair that is silky or fluffy was linked to a variant in the FGF5 gene. Cocker spaniels, Pomeranians and long-haired Chihuahuas are examples of dogs with long coats. A variant in the KRT71 gene produces curly coated dogs, such as the Irish water spaniel. Finally, if all three variants are present, a dog has a long and curly coat with furnishings. Examples of this type of breed include poodles and Portuguese water dogs.

“We don’t yet know the precise roles, if any, of these three genes in the variety of hair textures seen among humans,” Dr. Ostrander said. The FGF5 (long hair) gene and KRT71 (curly) gene have been found to affect hair in mice and cats in addition to dogs, so humans may be included as well. The RSPO2 gene has not been previously identified to influence hair texture in mammals, but it does belong to a pathway that has been associated with a coarse hair type found in some people of East Asian ancestry.

And by “Fido” they mean “Dogs” if you’re not familiar with the dog name “Fido”.

(H/T Jason Malloy)