Originally Posted by stephanie
But again I don't think you are fully responding to the problem I'm raising. When someone says "men have more sexual partners than women because that was evolutionary beneficial" and goes on with that explanation, the problem is not simply that it's assuming that genes alone (as opposed to culture, etc.) account for it. It's that there's really nothing beyond makes sense speculation that you have to support that explanation. Yeah, it might be true, but there's certainly nothing scientific beyond it or anything particularly probative.
so a behavior pattern consistent across nearly all mammalian species is unlikely to be related to genetics? It is unlikely that the vastly different cost of reproduction on the individual between males and females would lead to different strategies for reproduction? That view seems far more fundamentally disconnected from what we actually know and observe about the world than any even of the more poorly developed and supported EP theories i've come across.
*I don't know what you meant by this sentence:
"It's that there's really nothing beyond makes sense speculation that you have to support that explanation."
please clarify if it is important to your point.