Upon reading the articles and summary's of Helen Fisher and Jeffery Reber I have concluded that Love can be explained as in a collection of Emotions, release of certain chemicals, but mainly something that has to happen over time. A relationship has to develop and trust, companionship, caring all has to grow into this exchange of feelings and chemicals. I disagree and go with Jeffery Reber with saying that love is purely a fundamentally relational, social, and psychological. Love is more than just a merely chemical action, and reaction. It contains so much more, and takes so much out of you to love a person to the fullest extent.
             Reber explains in the article that Fisher's evolutionary perspective assumes that all human behaviors are the product of natural selection and biology. This now can't be true, because if natural selection were to occur every single person would have that natural selection set in, and that one person would be found, were as that is not true in this world. Fisher claims that the biological substances are the explanation for love. Reber counters this with his theory that that theory would contradict what love is meant to be in words, and that the primary role of culture and the free will of love are wrong. Love is much more than just the release of certain chemicals in the brain. Lastly, his strongest point he makes is that divorce and remarriage rates do not support an evolutionary account of love.
             If love is purely a biological and chemical reaction, then wouldn't love be able to be reproduced and faked? If it's just a release of chemicals that give you a special feeling, than producing a pill that releases those same compounds would be possible. Yet you can't fake love, and you can't just make someone fall in love with one another. If love is one of kind, then if you were to agree, it wouldn't be true, because love would be a
             ...