I despise creationist style writing in science. I'm talking to YOU ScienceNews

[Rhea]

Let's start right off with the title.

Babies cry at night to prevent siblings, scientist suggests

No. Babies do not cry TO DO that. Babies have not one iota of information about how siblings are created or when. Rather, babies who cry at night have a better likelihood of having no competition and hence better survival, tending to promote those genes in future generations.

There is a huge difference between "babies who cry at night end up having an advantage, so criers will tend to dominate reproduction" versus "babies cry at night in order to secure an advantage because they somehow know about sex."


Gah! NOT SCIENCE. Stupid. And this is from a science magazine. No wonder people "don't believe in" evolution if people who call themselves scientists are promoting this glurge.

And it doesn't stop. The whole article is written as if there is some glorious Lamarkian Infant-Guided Design going on. Utter rubbish.

When a baby cries at night, exhausted parents scramble to figure out why. He’s hungry. Wet. Cold. Lonely. But now, a Harvard scientist offers more sinister explanation: The baby who demands to be breastfed in the middle of the night is preventing his mom from getting pregnant again.

This devious intention makes perfect sense, says evolutionary biologist David Haig, who describes his idea in Evolution, Medicine and Public Health. Another baby means having to share mom and dad, so babies are programmed to do all they can to thwart the meeting of sperm and egg, the theory goes.

Since babies can’t force birth control pills on their mothers, they work with what they’ve got: Nighttime nursing liaisons keep women from other sorts of liaisons that might lead to another child. And beyond libido-killing interruptions and extreme fatigue, frequent night nursing also delays fertility in nursing women. Infant suckling can lead to hormone changes that put the kibosh on ovulation (though not reliably enough to be a fail-safe birth control method, as many gynecologists caution).

 

[Jokodo]

Let's start right off with the title.

Babies cry at night to prevent siblings, scientist suggests

No. Babies do not cry TO DO that. Babies have not one iota of information about how siblings are created or when. Rather, babies who cry at night have a better likelihood of having no competition and hence better survival, tending to promote those genes in future generations.

There is a huge difference between "babies who cry at night end up having an advantage, so criers will tend to dominate reproduction" versus "babies cry at night in order to secure an advantage because they somehow know about sex."


Gah! NOT SCIENCE. Stupid. And this is from a science magazine. No wonder people "don't believe in" evolution if people who call themselves scientists are promoting this glurge.

And it doesn't stop. The whole article is written as if there is some glorious Lamarkian Infant-Guided Design going on. Utter rubbish.

When a baby cries at night, exhausted parents scramble to figure out why. He’s hungry. Wet. Cold. Lonely. But now, a Harvard scientist offers more sinister explanation: The baby who demands to be breastfed in the middle of the night is preventing his mom from getting pregnant again.

This devious intention makes perfect sense, says evolutionary biologist David Haig, who describes his idea in Evolution, Medicine and Public Health. Another baby means having to share mom and dad, so babies are programmed to do all they can to thwart the meeting of sperm and egg, the theory goes.

Since babies can’t force birth control pills on their mothers, they work with what they’ve got: Nighttime nursing liaisons keep women from other sorts of liaisons that might lead to another child. And beyond libido-killing interruptions and extreme fatigue, frequent night nursing also delays fertility in nursing women. Infant suckling can lead to hormone changes that put the kibosh on ovulation (though not reliably enough to be a fail-safe birth control method, as many gynecologists caution).

The wording is one thing, but in this case I'm having doubts about the entire theory. While parent offspring conflict is well established in general, I don't quite see how it applies here. The infant (unlike the fetus during pregnancy) isn't injecting any hormones into the mother. Rather, it's the mother's own body that produces the hormones responsible for lactational amenorrhea. The biochemical pathways through which fetal hormones affect the mother's body are ancient and arguably inflexible enough that there isn't anything mother's body can do about them -- unlike the causal chain from suckling to suppressed ovulation, which is mediated by the rather more flexible nervous system.

If long interbirth intervals are against the mother's genetic interest, there's nothing to stop mothers from evolving to ignore suckling as a stimulus that would induce the hormone changes that suppress ovulation. That's the road marmoset monkeys have travelled down: They have interbirth-intervals of 5 months and gestation periods of 148 days, meaning the subsequent conception is often within a couple of weeks from the previous birth, while the previous litter is still fully breastfed. Since other primates have evolved to ignore suckling as a stimulus (and exactly those for which we would expect it given their social structure), we know that there isn't a deep phylogenetic contstraint against decoupling the two.

 

[Rhea]

When you are lactating there is a large and instant hormonal reaction to the sound of a baby crying. Often any baby. Have your breast pads handy in public!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess this is why man evolved to invent the fan with a high setting.

When you are lactating there is a large and instant hormonal reaction to the sound of a baby crying. Often any baby. Have your breast pads handy in public!

Why I never had Limbaugh or Hannity on the radio when my wife was around after giving birth.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is silly shit which reveals more about David Haig's early childhood and current love life, than anything else.

I think this is another escaped April Fool's joke that missed being published on April 1st.

I don't get the thread title. There are a lot of biological mechanisms in nature which serve to prevent the conception of competition.

 

[Rhea]

I don't get the thread title. There are a lot of biological mechanisms in nature which serve to prevent the conception of competition.

But almost every one of them is not done on purpose to prevent conception. Evolutionarily speaking, the tendency happens first by random mutation, then advantage happens to result in better survival of those who got the trait by chance.

In other words, mice did not decide to become black once a lava flow entered their neighborhood. Instead, they became black by accidental mutation, a small few of them, and then the black ones got eaten less often, so they became the only ones after a while. But not one of them, NOT ONE, "became black in order to hide from owls."

That would be some "just so" story.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess this is why man evolved to invent the fan with a high setting.

When you are lactating there is a large and instant hormonal reaction to the sound of a baby crying. Often any baby. Have your breast pads handy in public!

Why I never had Limbaugh or Hannity on the radio when my wife was around after giving birth.

LOLz

 

[Underseer]

It's that hyperactive agency detection we humans have. You'll even find prominent researchers making it sound like some inanimate object has agency, not because they really think the inanimate object has agency, but because it's a weird feature of human brains to talk like that even when we know better.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's that hyperactive agency detection we humans have. You'll even find prominent researchers making it sound like some inanimate object has agency, not because they really think the inanimate object has agency, but because it's a weird feature of human brains to talk like that even when we know better.

Exactly. People speak of "science" as if were sitting in the room with them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Somebody better inform the Catholics about this. And the Duggers.

 

[Musing Man]

Now, you may say that I'm pulling all this out of my ass, but I'm not. I do have what ”they” call ”very early memories”.

Among others, I can recall why I cried (mostly) as a baby:

During the night: For not being able to make sense of the environment, especially while lacking a familiar presence. Or for simply soiling myself and being displeased with it.
During the day: For not being able to stand up properly. And sometimes for not making my whims being met.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now, you may say that I'm pulling all this out of my ass, but I'm not. I do have what ”they” call ”very early memories”.

Among others, I can recall why I cried (mostly) as a baby:

During the night: For not being able to make sense of the environment, especially while lacking a familiar presence. Or for simply soiling myself and being displeased with it.
During the day: For not being able to stand up properly. And sometimes for not making my whims being met.

That'd be some pretty early memories. The best I can do is about 2 to 2.5 years old. And those are a few scattered memories at best (though oddly enough, I remembered something about a vacation my parents had forgotten).

 

[Bronzeage]

Evolution speculation is fun, but something just occurred to me. If an infant could intentionally make it's parent miserable by sleep deprivation, this could just as easily lead to an increase in infanticide, as it could interrupt parental sex life. That would be a very counter-survival strategy.

 

[Musing Man]

Evolution speculation is fun, but something just occurred to me. If an infant could intentionally make it's parent miserable by sleep deprivation, this could just as easily lead to an increase in infanticide, as it could interrupt parental sex life. That would be a very counter-survival strategy.

Yet it happens. Rather often (especially the sex life interrupting part).

 

[Bronzeage]

Evolution speculation is fun, but something just occurred to me. If an infant could intentionally make it's parent miserable by sleep deprivation, this could just as easily lead to an increase in infanticide, as it could interrupt parental sex life. That would be a very counter-survival strategy.

Yet it happens. Rather often (especially the sex life interrupting part).

It's easy to construct scenarios which fit the known data, but most are ergo proctor hoc fallacies. If there were some validity to this idea, it would have evolved in a time long before alarm clocks and a rigid schedule. If the baby cried in the night, it would be no big deal. First, the baby is sleeping with the mother, and second, she doesn't have to get up in the morning. If the baby is asleep, she can sleep, too.

 

[Musing Man]

While I agree with most of what you say, let me tell you just this: ask any cop about infanticides.

I won't go in to more elaborate scenarios, such as crying babies in the wild, while fleeing from any sort of predators, including humans.

As a bonus, most (not many, but most) married couples with children have a less satisfying sex life. Not necessarily UNsatisfying, just less so. I should know, I've been there. And that's reflected in any of our mass cultural products - movies, sitcoms etc. It's not a myth, it's real.

 

[Bronzeage]

While I agree with most of what you say, let me tell you just this: ask any cop about infanticides.

I won't go in to more elaborate scenarios, such as crying babies in the wild, while fleeing from any sort of predators, including humans.

As a bonus, most (not many, but most) married couples with children have a less satisfying sex life. Not necessarily UNsatisfying, just less so. I should know, I've been there. And that's reflected in any of our mass cultural products - movies, sitcoms etc. It's not a myth, it's real.

I never said infanticide was not real. That is an entirely different discussion. I will say this, there are very few predators in the wild, for which a crying baby would make the difference between escape or death. This could be a problem if one was pursued by another human.

As for your sex life, I don't doubt your testimony.

 

[Musing Man]

As for your sex life, I don't doubt your testimony.

Well, not just mine, but I get the joke.

 

[The Paul]

Let's start right off with the title.

Babies cry at night to prevent siblings, scientist suggests

No. Babies do not cry TO DO that. Babies have not one iota of information about how siblings are created or when. Rather, babies who cry at night have a better likelihood of having no competition and hence better survival, tending to promote those genes in future generations.

There is a huge difference between "babies who cry at night end up having an advantage, so criers will tend to dominate reproduction" versus "babies cry at night in order to secure an advantage because they somehow know about sex."


Gah! NOT SCIENCE. Stupid. And this is from a science magazine. No wonder people "don't believe in" evolution if people who call themselves scientists are promoting this glurge.

And it doesn't stop. The whole article is written as if there is some glorious Lamarkian Infant-Guided Design going on. Utter rubbish.

When a baby cries at night, exhausted parents scramble to figure out why. He’s hungry. Wet. Cold. Lonely. But now, a Harvard scientist offers more sinister explanation: The baby who demands to be breastfed in the middle of the night is preventing his mom from getting pregnant again.

This devious intention makes perfect sense, says evolutionary biologist David Haig, who describes his idea in Evolution, Medicine and Public Health. Another baby means having to share mom and dad, so babies are programmed to do all they can to thwart the meeting of sperm and egg, the theory goes.

Since babies can’t force birth control pills on their mothers, they work with what they’ve got: Nighttime nursing liaisons keep women from other sorts of liaisons that might lead to another child. And beyond libido-killing interruptions and extreme fatigue, frequent night nursing also delays fertility in nursing women. Infant suckling can lead to hormone changes that put the kibosh on ovulation (though not reliably enough to be a fail-safe birth control method, as many gynecologists caution).

I think what happens is they casually use this kind of language that implies intent and purpose where there is none because they live in a sphere where no one would possibly think there was actually intent and purpose there. Bunch of researchers, their path through life has probably involved a lot of education and such that has separated most of them from having much contact with creationists or those weirdos who kind of worship evolution the same way Christians worship the Bible (that is, they rationalize how it justifies all their own beliefs and prejudices)

 

[Musing Man]

I think what happens is they casually use this kind of language that implies intent and purpose where there is none because they live in a sphere where no one would possibly think there was actually intent and purpose there. Bunch of researchers, their path through life has probably involved a lot of education and such that has separated most of them from having much contact with creationists or those weirdos who kind of worship evolution the same way Christians worship the Bible (that is, they rationalize how it justifies all their own beliefs and prejudices)

No, but there is intent and purpose, albeit at a very-very low level of consciousness. The intention is to communicate some discomfort, with the purpose of said discomfort being solved. Hunger, injury, illness etc. It's our most primitive/basic form of communication. But taking that to „prevent siblings” - that's way too far fetched and unfounded.

And also directly contradicted by all the anecdotal evidence history is offering us: the more oppressed and poor (socially stressed) are some people, the more offspring they have. Regardless of how much „the little one” will cry his/her lungs out.

 

[The Paul]

But taking that to „prevent siblings” - that's way too far fetched and unfounded.

But the authors never meant to say that a baby is actually, consciously trying to prevent it's mother from having more children. That's absurd, the authors are aware that is absurd, and they casually used language that implied it because it is so absurd that it never occurred to them that someone might read that as the meaning.

And also directly contradicted by all the anecdotal evidence history is offering us: the more oppressed and poor (socially stressed) are some people, the more offspring they have. Regardless of how much „the little one” will cry his/her lungs out.

I would say the problems are more along the lines of ignoring that the unit of selection tends to be the gene and not the individual. Suppose there exists a "Cry so your mom will be too stressed out to have sex" gene. Suppose some babies carry this gene and it gives them a survival advantage so, oh... 80% of carriers survive to adulthood and they have an average of two siblings. That's 2.4 gene-carriers, on average.

Now consider instead the "Sleep through the night so your parents have a chance to have more sex" gene. Carriers have more siblings, and so a lower survive chance, but they have more siblings. So let's say a carrier survives to adulthood only 60% of the time and has an average of 4 siblings. That's 3.0 gene carriers, on average.

The "crying" gene is being selected against, there. The numbers would have to fall into some pretty specific ranges for it to out compete the "don't cry" gene.

If it significantly reduces the number of siblings, the crying gene is being selected against unless the survive difference is enormous. The survival difference might be enormous, but if it is there will be a multitude of reasons beyond a lack of siblings.