<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Ugh, I totally hate it when guys are all, &amp;quot;I have a biological need to spread my seed.&amp;quot; Dude, I don&amp;#39;t see you hunting down our dinner, so maybe drop the cave man excuse since it&amp;#39;s 2012?\nPinterestFacebookI know this story is about fruit flies, but it&amp;#39;s just funnier to use a picture of a cave man.\nAnd now, science might start backing me up. Life scientists are saying that a classic study that suggested males are more promiscuous while females are more choosy with mates may actually be wrong. The original study was conducted in 1948 by Angus John Bateman, showing that male fruit flies gain an evolutionary advantage from having multiple mates, and it&amp;#39;s the most-cited experimental paper in the study of sexual selection.\nHowever, for the first time ever scientists have repeated the experiment using the original methods, and in doing so, they say they have discovered a fatal flaw in the methodology. The experiment was intended to examine isolated populations, mating freely, to determine how many children born as a result of the mating would survive to adulthood. In pre-DNA analysis days, Bateman used flies with visible mutations in order to have a reliable way to match parents with children. Bateman used only the children with two mutations, because they were the only ones that could be specifically identified with a mother and father. However, upon repeating the experiment, scientists found that the flies with two mutations were less likely to survive into adulthood because of the mutations.\nThere&amp;#39;s a lot of science behind this and I&amp;#39;m no expert, so read the full article for a more detailed description and other problems with the original experiment if you&amp;#39;re interested (it&amp;#39;s kind of fascinating). In the repeated experiment, scientists have found the data to be &amp;quot;decidedly inconclusive.&amp;quot;\nObviously, the consequences of this in the study of sexual selection and in science generally could be fascinating, and I will definitely be interested to read more on this subject from a scientific standpoint.\nHowever, from a dating standpoint, I&amp;#39;m just like, OK guys, time to stop comparing yourselves to fruitflies already.\nDo you also hate it when guys try to blame bad behavior on biology? (Say that three times fast.) What do you think of this study? Are you interested in the whole concept of sexual selection? Even though I wasn&amp;#39;t very good at science in school, I think it&amp;#39;s so cool to read about.\nMore science-y goodness (nerd alert, nerd alert!):\nThe Difference Between Love and Lust According to Your Brain Probably Means Love at First Sight Isn&amp;#39;t a Thing\nResearchers Examine the Science of Falling in Love\nIt Turns Out Sleeping Together Isn&amp;#39;t Just Snuggly and Adorable, It&amp;#39;s Physically Good For You\nPhoto: Thinkstock"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.glamour.com/story/oh-hey-womanizing-dudes-may-no>