More men need the "Good Husband Gene"

Some men are more apt to stay with their wives or girlfriends, or maybe even less likely to engage in a one-night stand. This characteristic brings up the old argument of nature versus nurture. Which one shapes us? Which one makes us who are? Most anthropologists argue it is a combination of both.

Different "love" types have been studied since the days of the Romans. Never before, however, was a love type attributed to human biology — our genetics. It has been assumed that love type was primarily learned through the environment, or through nurture.

A recent study found what might assist biologically what is taught through life in deciding a man's love style.

At the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics did a study on two Swedish twin brothers, according to a Sept. 1 article in the Washington Post. The study found a gene present in males that adjusts and oversees the hormone vasopressin.

Vasopressin is attributed to social motivation. After sexual intercourse vasopressin is released. The hormone activates the brain's reward system, and, according to the study, the more that is present the more the male desires to stick around his mate after ejaculation. The less amount of the hormone present, the less the male is going to want to socialize with his mate after the dirty deed is done.

Differences in the gene between the twin brothers studied in Sweden displayed a connection to how well each one did in their relationships and marriage.

According to Hasse Walum, the lead researcher in the study, a direct relationship was shown in a situation where a man and woman reported they had a "poor bond" with their partner and a certain allele (or variant) of the vasopressin receptor 1a gene was present. The presence of the variant, allele 334, was directly connected to men most unlikely to marry and scored very low on a standard psychological test called the Partner Bonding Scale.

Even worse is for those men carrying two copies of allele 334. These men are twice as likely to encounter a marital crisis or relationship crisis, such as a divorce.

Psychological and relationship tests were given to the males and female partners of the males studied. The women who reported low marital quality, were the same women married to men with the gene variant.

Men in monogamous relationships that do not carry 334 allele see an even more pronounced effect in wanting to be a part of their mate's life long after sexual relations with them. It is not a sexual motivation, but a social motivation.

The study was based on voles that carry the same type of gene and even the 334 variant. Again, the gene was only found in male voles, and no similar gene has yet to be found in females.
"Studies in voles have shown that the hormone vasopressin is released in the brain of males during mating," Walum said to the Washington Post.

The same behavior was displayed in the voles, which prompted researchers to look for the gene in humans, and sure enough there it was, the "good husband gene."

Like all other biological findings, allele 334 is not directly to blame for all the marital problems in this world, though I'm sure men would like this to be the case. Human biology sets out a blueprint for every being, or the nature side of things, but there are always influencing factors once we are born into this world.

Walum also believes this to be true. "Taken together, the effect of the gene variant that we have studied on human pair-bonding behavior is rather small, and it can not, with any real accuracy, be used to predict how someone will behave in a future relationship," Walum said, according to the Washington Post.

So, when hearing about the good husband gene, don't think a pair of good husband jeans can be bought for your slacking, uncommitted partner. DNA can't be changed, and chances are, regardless of whether or not your partner has allele 334 or not, don't expect them to settle down with you too soon. Men are unchangeable.

The findings of the study were published in the "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science."

Revisions made to Neanderthal existence

Neanderthals, mistaken frequently as a direct ancestor to modern humans, diverged from our ancestors long before first theorized. For years it has been said that Neanderthals separated from anatomically modern humans around 400,000 years ago, however, now scientists are agreeing (after years of debate) that the species, Homo neanderthalensis, definitely split 520,000 to as long as 800,000 years ago.

A team of German, American, Croatian and Finnish researchers have been studying remains of 38,000 year old Neanderthal for two years. The bone was found in a Croatian cave.

The evidence is from using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which allows scientists to look much further at the ancestry background than nuclear DNA because it goes practically unchanged generation through generation by the mother. Nuclear DNA is a variation of several sets of DNA, and is what makes each of us individual from the other.

Well, evidence has been surmounting for years that Neanderthals split from anatomically modern humans later than believed, and with increasing advances in using mtDNA this has been easier to prove.

It is still clear that Neanderthals and modern humans could not breed, even during their temporal period of the 10,000-20,000 years that they lived contemporaneously to each other in Europe and parts of Western Asia. If they did breed (which there is evidence of some Neanderthal characteristics mixed with anatomically modern characteristics in other research being done) they could not produce fertile offspring, such as a horse and donkey producing a mule.

It is also still clear that Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago, which many believe was only due to the sweeping tribes of Homo sapiens. In fact, there is evidence of warfare between the two species, and remains of Neanderthals have been found in living sites of modern humans, often amongst rabbit bone and other midden, suggesting moderns ate them for supper.

Their interaction with anatomically modern humans did not stop at warfare, however, they even traded technology. For example, a Neanderthal tool, the Mousterian tool made "arrowheads" by using soft material, such as bone and antler, whereas years later, not too long before the disappearance of the robust species, moderns came up up with the Chatelperronian tool technique using hard substances, such as stone hammers.

The most mystifying evidence with Neanderthals, however, is their cranial capacity. Anatomically modern humans averaged, at the time of Neanderthals, around 1,100 to 1,200 cm³ while the very robust species' average brain size grew around 1,500 to 1,700 cm³.

The species is suggested by some researchers to have red hair on top of their naturally hairy bodies. The species was somewhat shorter than moderns averaging 5 feet 5 inches for males and 5 feet 1 inch for females. They also had rather large noses and generally robust features selected for cold weather, which can be seen in the picture (from Valley Anatomical Preparations, Inc.).

Some researchers argue that the two species could breed and produce fertile offspring, however, there is not enough Neanderthal genes present in the mtDNA of humans today to theorize that this is true.

Believe it or not ... things change

As an anthropology major one question or subject that people bring up to me the most is the question of evolution occurring today ... is it or is it not?

Just recently I had someone try their hardest to convince me that evolution cannot be real because if it was true then we would see evolution occurring today. Well, this is just a silly statement. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, evolution cannot simply stop – what an anthropocentric idea. 

As John Morley a British politician, writer and newspaper editor almost a century ago said, “Evolution is not a force but a process. Not a cause but a law.”

A large portion of human evolution has been, well, a human process. This does not mean that we are undermining the natural process of things, but throughout the entire history of human evolution, most frontal lobe developments can be attributed to human inventions.

We have not been forcing this, but enthusiastically trotting along. We made tools, which lead to the evolution of labor specialization and culture. Cultures lead us to technological advances.

Computer technology is rapidly rewiring our brains. For example, today most people don’t have excellent or innate wildlife survival skills compared to even a thousand years ago. And now, we have to remember less and less information such as a simple phone number, allowing room and time for other knowledge and even more creative inventions that change the way humans live.

All of these are signs of evolution; human induced, yes, compared to what one normally thinks about upon hearing natural selection, but evolution at its best and more rapid than ever.  

             The most obvious sign of evolution still occurring, however, is modern medicine ... we’re creating powerful diseases and microbes because of our innovative medicines. Antibacterial soap is an excellent example as described by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention website on the effects of overusing antibacterial products and antibiotics. (image from CDC)

" ... after years of overuse and misuse of these drugs, bacteria have developed antibiotic resistance, which has become a global health crisis."

If certain medicines and vaccines weren’t available today natural selection would have had the better of many people that survived only because of the medicine. Look at birth control.

The Pill, introduced in the 60s offered a completely revolutionized role for women. No longer was she expected to be pregnant at a young age, but women could take the Pill, go to college, and do virtually everything that held her back from being truly equal to man.

This has opened up for an entirely different gene pool and way of life.

As Terry Pratchett, an English writer said, “Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended.”