That theory is over ten years old, based on another one over 20 years old...
a) It's simply one study among thousands ... doesn't make it correct.
b) The abstract isn't enough by any means to make a judgement about the validity of this theory.
c) The first line states it all "quote: female orgasm is not necessary for conception" ...
d) The rest is a hypothesis ... unproven.
e) Maybe you should give it another read. Doesn't really support your theory all the way.
f) Next time you quote something from that arcticle at least take the entire statement:
Quote:
|
If heritable differences in male viability existed in the evolutionary past, selection could have favoured female adaptations (e.g. orgasm) that biased sperm competition in favour of males possessing heritable fitness indicators.
|
As I said - also your second quote - lots of "coulds" and "mights". There's no scientific proof.
The further part of the wikipedia article also contradict that theory.
Just embarrass yourself even more ... you can't even grasp the meaning of your own quotes. This is so hilarious!