Random mating gone mad?

[Elite Engineer]

-women dont have to find a succesful, dominant male to support them or a family... they can provide for themsevles.

 

-premarital pregnancy has less taboo than in prior generations.

 

-contraceptives are more and more common.

 

what will be the result of the progeny of the coming generations since there is less pressure of selective mating forces and sexual selection between men and women?

 

Isn't it basically recessives mating with dominants at random, instead of dominants mating with dominants, and recessive with recessive? Is this in theory random mating

 

gone mad?..depleting homogenous genes?

 

Im at best a laymen when it comes to evolution, so please give me your thoughts.

 

~EE

[chadn737]

I don't know what you mean by "recessives mating with dominants at random, instead of dominants mating with dominants, and recessive with recessive" or by "depleting homogenous genes".

 

Everyone has a lot of different genes and everyone has some alleles that are dominant or recessive, depending on the trait. The terms "dominant" and "recessive" genes do not correspond to behavior or ability, but patterns of inheritance.

 

Now as to your points, generally, when one sex has more control over the reproductive process, this increases the effect of sexual selection because that sex has the ability to be very selective in choice of mate. For instance, the more monogamous species typically have fewer extremes of sexual dimorphism. In seahorse species where males carry the eggs and have more control over the reproductive process, there is almost no signatures of sexual selection.

[Ophiolite]

-women dont have to find a succesful, dominant male to support them or a family... they can provide for themsevles.

While this may become true for the majority of the population at present it is only true for a small percentage in the developed world and an even smaller percentage in the rest of the world.

 

-premarital pregnancy has less taboo than in prior generations.

 

So, am I correct that you wish to discuss this from the POV of the West?

 

 

what will be the result of the progeny of the coming generations since there is less pressure of selective mating forces and sexual selection between men and women?

I don't see how this conclusions follows from your premises. Let's take one of your financially independent women who decides to raise a child without a partner. Do you assert that she will not seek out a good-looking, or intelligent, or successful (hinting at a genetic makeup suited to this environment) as the father, even if she finds him personally a bit of a bore, etc.?

 

Isn't it basically recessives mating with dominants at random, instead of dominants mating with dominants, and recessive with recessive?

Like chadn I am confused by what you mean here. I sense that you may have the commonly misunderstood idea that there are good genes and bad genes. This is not the case. Any truly 'bad' genes are likely to kill the individual before they are even born.

 

Some genes are effective in a particular environment and others less so. Change the environment and the identity of the more useful gene switches. And this has little to do with whether or not the genes are dominant or recessive.

 

Perhaps you could expand on your thinking on this point so we could better correct any misunderstandings.