Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Buddha1]

Now to answer your scientific objections.

Please provide me with even a glimmering of evidence for any of the following:
1. That single celled organisms indulged in sexual activity.

I have based this argument on information provided by Spuriousmonkey (to see that post please click here ). I have not verified this, and maybe we can ask Spurious monkey what his source for saying this is.

I'm sure there are a lot of scientists on this forum, and one of them can please enlighten us on this.

 

[Buddha1]

Please provide me with even a glimmering of evidence for any of the following:
2. That a single celled organism can derive pleasure from that, or any other activity.

There is no way science can (as yet) find that out. Indeed science can't yet figure out human sexuality, how do you think it verify that intimate/ inside information about single celled beings.

But just because it can't be verified doesn't mean that we cannot make a reasonable speculation.

I guess, when they don't reproduce through sex, and there is no other seeming benefit to be had from that sex like activity, and especially when we know that this sex for pleasure or bonding happens universally amongst animals, and is also expereinced by humans, we can make a safe bet that the best explanation is that they derive pleasure out of it.

 

[Buddha1]

Please provide me with even a glimmering of evidence for any of the following:
3. That the act of engaging in such activity produces a bond in a psychological rather than a biochemical sense.

Again, one can only make a reasonable guess based on what happens amongst higher animals --- including in the stage between higher animals and single celled ones (i.e. the stage where the animal has become 'higher' but without having achieved sexual dimorphism).

Stage III: So we have same sex bonding and sex for pleasure amongst higher animals that have achieved sexual dimorphism.

Stage II: We have same sex bonding and sex for pleasure amongst complex organisms that have not yet achieved sexual dimorphism (only a few remain). E.g. some species of lizards (e.g. whiptail lizards) still have not achieved sexual dimorphism. They have only females. They reproduce parthenogenetically. Some species reproduce both sexually and asexually. But they still have sex for pleasure and bonding.

Stage I: We have sax between the same sex present amongst single celled organisms.

If it is present in stage III and stage II, there is no reason why it will not be present in stage I when we don't know of any other reason that organisms indulge in sex (reproduction is not applicable in this case!).

 

[Ophiolite]

Right Bhudda, you have posted a mountain of material in response to my posts. From what I have read so far most of it is irrelevant. You are repeating accusations and ranting, rather than addressing the questions I posed to you. Try to keep it on track.

This post addresses one side issue you have brought up. It neatly illustrates that you haven't the faintest idea what is 'going on', and have doubtless misinterpreted most social interactions you have witnessed.

You have criticised me for 'putting down' Satyr. Get real. Satyr does a brilliant put down of you by pretending that he is bowled over by your theory. A skilled satirical analysis if ever I saw one.
I then ask if this means he has a 'limp wrist', a stereotypical characteristic of certain homosexuals. I put the two elements together - satarist and SatyrWrist - as a compliment to his skillfull job of poking fun at your hypothethis. Yet you fail utterly to see this and think I am attacking him. Go ahead, ask Satyr if he got the joke and understood it was a deliberate compliment.

Now as to several posts where you express shock that I admit to a bias. Again, get real. We are all biased it many ways and at many times. In matters of personal opinion - read the word: opinion - we are always biased. That is what I am acknowledging. Your posts reek of bias outwith the personal: it invades everything you right like the odour of sewage.

Later you accuse me of 'tracking down your posts' even though I say they do not deserve a reply. I have already explaine why I am doing that. It amuses me. It exercises my brain. It requires we work at expressing myself clearly. It develops my debating skills. I am doing it for myself, not for you.
Now before you get all uppity about that, let us be very clear that none of what you are doing here is for me. Don't go all self righteous on me on this point.


I shall return to what I hope are more substantive replies from you shortly.

 

[Ophiolite]

I asked for evidence. All you are giving me is speculation. Evidence. Cite refereed papers in scientific journals. Evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Cite the evidence. Don't just make unsupported stetements, please.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am going to go back to basics here. This is how science works.

Step 1: Scientist B has an idea. It can't be described as a hypothesis, certainly not a theory, but more a glimmering of a possibility. It may arise from a chance thought, or as a possible solution to a problem that has long been contemplated, or to an observation.

Step 2: They play around with the idea. Check it out against reality. Compare it with current models of how thing work in that same field. They are extremely self critical at this stage.
Gradually, if they do not abandon the idea, it takes on a firmer shape. That firmness derives from the following key aspects:
a) Weaknesses in the current model are clearly identified.
b) The hypothesis delivers a better explanation for observed phenomena than the current model.
c) The hypothesis offers predictions that can be tested.
d) Related to c), but not necessarily the same, the hypothesis may be falsified.

Step 3:They present the idea to colleagues. Their overwhelming desire at this stage should be that their hypothesis is savaged by them. If it is a good hypothesis it will stand up to this and emerge stronger, with some new supporters. If it cannot stand the attacks, then it is an invalid hypothesis and Scientist B can go on about his other business.
At this stage it is vital that all the claims - of weakness in the currnet models, of evidence for the new model - be meticulously detailed.

I have read all of your posts at least once. It did not appear to me that you had done very much of any of the above. In short, you were offering a hypothesis without the benefit of application of scientific method. I would not expect you to believe me if I asked you to send me one thousand dollars, which I would double for you in one week. Yet, with nothing more than statements and arm waving and claims of truth, you expect me (and others) to accept a quite bizarre proposition that flies in the face of experience, accepted wisdom and common sense.
Now that does not mean it is wrong. It does mean that it is your responsibility to deliver some very substantial pieces of evidence to support it. Despite your repeated claims, this you have not done. You are making unsupported statements only.

If you wish to continue please rectify this shortcoming.

 

[Buddha1]

I'm reposting it, since I think you may have missed it earlier. It's edited.

Right Bhudda, you have posted a mountain of material in response to my posts. From what I have read so far most of it is irrelevant. You are repeating accusations and ranting, rather than addressing the questions I posed to you. Try to keep it on track.

It's one of my drawbacks. If I see someone abusing their fake power, I feel like intervening. I should (not that I will) try to ignore the other posts and restrict myself to the relevant ones, you're right.

This post addresses one side issue you have brought up. It neatly illustrates that you haven't the faintest idea what is 'going on', and have doubtless misinterpreted most social interactions you have witnessed.

You have criticised me for 'putting down' Satyr. Get real. Satyr does a brilliant put down of you by pretending that he is bowled over by your theory. A skilled satirical analysis if ever I saw one.
I then ask if this means he has a 'limp wrist', a stereotypical characteristic of certain homosexuals. I put the two elements together - satarist and SatyrWrist - as a compliment to his skillfull job of poking fun at your hypothethis. Yet you fail utterly to see this and think I am attacking him. Go ahead, ask Satyr if he got the joke and understood it was a deliberate compliment.

I most certainly know that you were only supporting Satyr. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

What I didn't like was that your support was (just like Satyr's) based on fake unearned power, stereotypes, biases and lies.

Not that I contend the fact that homosexuals have limp wrists. A real 'homosexual' usually has limp wrists (even though it is only an exaggeration!).

My objection is to the general misrepresentation of straight male sexuality that your biased and motivated post sought to strengthen. By insinuating that all male sexual desire for men is the same and can be characterised under 'homosexuality' --- and thus can be stereotyped as 'limp wrists'. And I'm not talking about exclusive sexual attraction or partial sexual attraction for males here. I'm referring to a straight male's sexual desire for another male vs a feminine males sexual desire for another male.

Terms like sexual orientation, homosexuality and heterosexuality are extremely handy in distorting the simple facts about straight male sexuality.

Satyr does a brilliant put down of you by pretending that he is bowled over by your theory.

I beg to disagree.

You would have been right had satyr, through his comical posts dislodged any of my assertions or proved me wrong or showed me how irrational I was. He does nothing of the sort (except only to biased people with vested interests!).

All satyr does is to strengthen false stereotypes. He is not any different from one of those comedians who crack 'gay' jokes (or black ones, or the one on jews!) by using false stereotypes. He is speaking purely from the backing of social distortion/ manipulation of facts. He is only asserting his fake social power. And that is not very brilliant or brave.

Now as to several posts where you express shock that I admit to a bias. Again, get real. We are all biased it many ways and at many times. In matters of personal opinion - read the word: opinion - we are always biased. That is what I am acknowledging. Your posts reek of bias outwith the personal: it invades everything you right like the odour of sewage.

Of course we are all biased somewhere. But when I seek the truth, and come on this forum to discuss, I try to put aside my biases and fears and try to face the facts. I'm sincere in seeking the truth --- and nothing but the truth. If I am biased, its only unintentional. And the moment someone points that out to me (and I'm convinced!), I'll promptly try to change my ways.

I will not go around proudly asserting my right to be biased, instead I'll try to work on them. I'll have no moral right to talk about truth otherwise. The same way I think about you. You have no moral right to talk about facts unless you come down from the position of social power and put aside your biases and discuss things objectively, however unpleasant they may sound to you.

Later you accuse me of 'tracking down your posts' even though I say they do not deserve a reply. I have already explaine why I am doing that. It amuses me. It exercises my brain. It requires we work at expressing myself clearly. It develops my debating skills. I am doing it for myself, not for you.
Now before you get all uppity about that, let us be very clear that none of what you are doing here is for me. Don't go all self righteous on me on this point.

Why don't you develop your debating skills by being more scientific and less emotional/ abusive (I agree you're successfully trying that lately!)

 

[Buddha1]

I am going to go back to basics here. This is how science works.

Step 1: Scientist B has an idea. It can't be described as a hypothesis, certainly not a theory, but more a glimmering of a possibility. It may arise from a chance thought, or as a possible solution to a problem that has long been contemplated, or to an observation.

Step 2: They play around with the idea. Check it out against reality. Compare it with current models of how thing work in that same field. They are extremely self critical at this stage.
Gradually, if they do not abandon the idea, it takes on a firmer shape. That firmness derives from the following key aspects:
a) Weaknesses in the current model are clearly identified.
b) The hypothesis delivers a better explanation for observed phenomena than the current model.
c) The hypothesis offers predictions that can be tested.
d) Related to c), but not necessarily the same, the hypothesis may be falsified.

Step 3:They present the idea to colleagues. Their overwhelming desire at this stage should be that their hypothesis is savaged by them. If it is a good hypothesis it will stand up to this and emerge stronger, with some new supporters. If it cannot stand the attacks, then it is an invalid hypothesis and Scientist B can go on about his other business.
At this stage it is vital that all the claims - of weakness in the currnet models, of evidence for the new model - be meticulously detailed.

I have read all of your posts at least once. It did not appear to me that you had done very much of any of the above. In short, you were offering a hypothesis without the benefit of application of scientific method. I would not expect you to believe me if I asked you to send me one thousand dollars, which I would double for you in one week. Yet, with nothing more than statements and arm waving and claims of truth, you expect me (and others) to accept a quite bizarre proposition that flies in the face of experience, accepted wisdom and common sense.
Now that does not mean it is wrong. It does mean that it is your responsibility to deliver some very substantial pieces of evidence to support it. Despite your repeated claims, this you have not done. You are making unsupported statements only.

If you wish to continue please rectify this shortcoming.

That's very well said, and very helpful indeed.

I am not a professional scientist and that is why I've not really sequenced or conducted my procedures in the manner that you've specified. Although I have gone through some of the important and basic steps listed by you.

Also, after all, the fact remains that however scienfitically I may discuss it, I'm not a real, learned and 'selected' scientist and unless this is proved by a real scientist through standardised procedures, tests and analysis it will not become a scientific truth.

My basic objective here is only to give food for thought to real scientists who one day may want to work along these lines.

I'd love to rearrange my approach to fit as closely to the model you've described, as possible.

Now lets see step 1.

Step 1: Scientist B has an idea. It can't be described as a hypothesis, certainly not a theory, but more a glimmering of a possibility. It may arise from a chance thought, or as a possible solution to a problem that has long been contemplated, or to an observation.

O.K. I did put forth my challenge as an assertion and I"m convinced that evidences clearly point to it, but it is still only a hypothesis.

That I have to prove it fits the reality most scientifically is obvious --- although I am a bit skeptical about 'standardised' procedures when they (like red tapism!) are used more as a means to disrupt or suppress truth than to arrive at it. When I sense that, I will not care about 'standardised' methods. For me to know the truth is more important than to stick to unnecessary (if!) standards.

Step 2: They play around with the idea. Check it out against reality. Compare it with current models of how thing work in that same field. They are extremely self critical at this stage.
I have done that to my satisfaction. This discussion is actually a part of the above endeavour --- I'm further exploring the theory.

You must understand that this 'hypothesis' has gradually developed over time during my discussions with scientists and others on the issue on the internet. Most of the current information I have now have been given to me by others through discussions. Since I'm not a real (selected) scientist there is a limit to what I can and am willing to spend in terms of 'research'. Admittedly, I'm relying a lot on discussions through forums such as this.

Gradually, if they do not abandon the idea, it takes on a firmer shape. That firmness derives from the following key aspects:
a) Weaknesses in the current model are clearly identified.

That there are weaknesses in the current model is more than apparent. I am not saying that. I first heard it being attributed to "Johann Roughgarden" who is said to have doubted some key theories of Darwin (otherwise a nobody like me would not dare to oppose him!). I also read that other scientists have agreed that Darwins theory has flaws but are not in favour of totally dislodging it. In any case, there is a 'gap' which is large enough for a thorough reconsideration.

b) The hypothesis delivers a better explanation for observed phenomena than the current model.

This is another thing that I'm convinced of, and would like the opportunity to explain to the others.

c) The hypothesis offers predictions that can be tested.
I'm sure there are ways to test my hypothesis. Although, like I said science has limitations, and perhaps the 'purpose of life' is not something that can be explained solely by science (what Darwin chose to do!).

Again, actual testing can only be done by real scientists.

d) Related to c), but not necessarily the same, the hypothesis may be falsified.

I'm prepared for that --- and in that case will take back my assertions (I'll consider it my hypothesis from now on!). In the past discussions on this issue, whether on this forum or on others --- noone has been able to refute this theory, so far. But if it has faults, surely someone sooner or later will refute that with evidence.

Step 3:They present the idea to colleagues. Their overwhelming desire at this stage should be that their hypothesis is savaged by them. If it is a good hypothesis it will stand up to this and emerge stronger, with some new supporters. If it cannot stand the attacks, then it is an invalid hypothesis and Scientist B can go on about his other business.
You couldn't have enumerated my feelings about this in a better way.

I treat this discussion forum as exactly for the same purpose --- to discuss the idea with 'colleagues' (with people who are more knowledgable than me!). And I do want people to throw up more and more challenges, so that my theory gets more and more formed --- so that I can finally have a well-formed theory that is hard to contend.

The only thing is that I have to be on guard against those who only want to resist it because it goes against their interests. There are a lot of biases around the issue.

 

[Buddha1]

I asked for evidence. All you are giving me is speculation. Evidence. Cite refereed papers in scientific journals. Evidence.

Most of what I have said is common knowledge and I have picked from the internet. Can you list what you would want evidences for?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not going to fill this thread with even more quotes and counterquotes. Here are some individual points I consider important.
1) I am at a loss to understand how someone can (as you accuse me) abuse fake power. That seems a contradiction in terms.
2) Related to that, you appear to see me as some member of the establishment. In as much as I own my own home, have a middle class life style and the mandatory two children you could argue it was true. In all ways that matter I am not part of the establishment. Indeed, you glibly accuse me of insulting you - my insults are direct and were aimed initially and primarily at your hypothesis and your methodology. In contrast you are attacking me personally.
3) Satyr was, in my opinion, delivering an attack on your hypothesis, not an attack on homosexuality. I support him in the former, I would not support him in the latter.
4) Experimental method and the peer review process is designed to remove bias, however the starting point is to recognise the bias exists.
5) In some matters bias is essential. Example: What is your favourite filmof 2003? In other's it must be avoided. Example: What is the best film made in 2003?
6) Let me give you some news. Darwin's theory hasn't been in use for well over half a century. The amalgam of natural selection with genetics gave us neo-Darwinism, but nowhere in that is there any room for your declared views on Sexuality.
7) There can only be two kinds of evidence in this regard:
a) Peer reviewed papers from properly refereed journals.
b) Experimental evidence you have gathered yourself.
In the absence of both all you have is idle, unsubstantiated speculation.
8) You ask why would I want the evidence. I'll give you two answer. Choose the one that suits you.
a) Because that is the way science works. You need to substantiate your claims, even if they are only provisional. Evidence, not proof.
b) Because I don't believe a fraction of what you said. It runs counter to my own experience, to everything I was taught at University, to everything I have learnt since, to everything I have read is considered to describe 'reality'. I am not going to subscribe to what seems to me to be a massive delusion without some evidence.

 

[Buddha1]

1) I am at a loss to understand how someone can (as you accuse me) abuse fake power. That seems a contradiction in terms.

The source of the power is fake, but the power has social value because of social manipulation. In other words, the power/ manhood/ masculinity is not the one that is based on one's natural masculinity but it is entirely dependant of the lies that the society spreads. One could be totally devoid of natural masculinity but may still feel and be treated as superior and a 'real' man on account of an artificial manhood ascribed to 'heterosexuality'. And that is how pressure is exerted on men --- particularly during their youth, when they are the most vulnerable.

The power is actually superficial and hollow, but it works because man has been removed from his natural masculinity and made entirely dependant on fake social masculinity for a sense of manhood.

But perhaps you're right about the terminology. The power if it works is real, even though the source is society, not nature.

2) Related to that, you appear to see me as some member of the establishment. In as much as I own my own home, have a middle class life style and the mandatory two children you could argue it was true. In all ways that matter I am not part of the establishment. Indeed, you glibly accuse me of insulting you - my insults are direct and were aimed initially and primarily at your hypothesis and your methodology. In contrast you are attacking me personally.

In my view, one can only afford to dismiss something without examining it when they have the power to do so. Moreso, if they choose to 'insult', 'threaten' or 'hound/ harass' the other. Even someone who is much inferior/ lesser to his opponent (I don't mean you!) can use the 'combined power' to defeat a naturally superior person who is devoid of this power source.

My accusation is only partially personal, as I have later explained the power that I'm accusing you of is a 'combined' power structure that is open to anyone who conforms to it. And my accusations are only reserved for those who use personal abuses/ insults and at the same time dismiss my assertions without considering my evidences.

3) Satyr was, in my opinion, delivering an attack on your hypothesis, not an attack on homosexuality. I support him in the former, I would not support him in the latter.

Of course Satyr was not being personal in his attacks. But he was cleverly dismissing my assertions backed by loads of real evidences on the basis of this artificial social power (of which stereotypes are an integral part!).

By the way, this artificial social power doesn't belong to individuals (as it is not based on inner strength or inner masculinity). It is a combined social power which is available to any man who will fulfill its specified roles. And that is why men stand in line to conform to them --- what you call 'homophobia' is part of the roles required to gain a better access to this combined social power --- and so men compete to do it.

This combined/ community social power percolates in the 'air' and anyone who fulfills the society's conditions for manhood can immediately feel that 'power'. When you date a girl (esp. the first few times) and feel a sense of power, of being a real man -- it is this power hanging in the air. When you are caught involuntarily looking at a good looking man (which most men in a heterosexual society programme themselves not to), and immediately a sense of disempowerment, vulnerability and being less of a man envelops you --- its also a collective disempowerment hanging in the air. For just like a collective power there is also a collective 'disempowerment'.

When a 'heterosexually' identified man puts down a 'homosexually' identified man (ironically even a wimpish 'heterosexually' identified man can put down a masculine 'homosexually' identified man using stereotypes!) or just feels superior, it is this artificial power that hangs in the air doing its job.

The individual is incapable of fighting against this collective power. Many men who don't want to conform in order to get this power, partially deal with the consequent disempowerment by getting a different identity/ social space for themselves.

I support him in the former, I would not support him in the latter.

In my opinion 'homosexuality' is just as much guilty of oppressing men as heterosexuality. As it is, it is part of the heterosexual society and is based on the same principles as heterosexuality.

If you support homosexuality you're already biased and starting from a point of misleading assumptions.

4) Experimental method and the peer review process is designed to remove bias, however the starting point is to recognise the bias exists.

O.k.

As long as people are willing to get into that process --- in our case through a discussion. You can't do much when people choose not to discuss, but just to display their biases (I'm not talking about you)..

5) In some matters bias is essential. Example: What is your favourite filmof 2003? In other's it must be avoided. Example: What is the best film made in 2003?

The problem starts when I say, "Film A cannot be the best film of 2003" because "it is not my favourite film". That cannot be a basis for dismissing the film at a macro level.

6) Let me give you some news. Darwin's theory hasn't been in use for well over half a century. The amalgam of natural selection with genetics gave us neo-Darwinism, but nowhere in that is there any room for your declared views on Sexuality.

I really don't think Darwinism is all that extinct. If you watch the National Geographic or the Discovery Channel (which is the source for 'scientific knowledge' for laymen like me --- Darwinism is not only alive and kicking, it is growing unhindered, primarily because it supports so-called 'heterosexuality'. Perhaps 'heterosexualism' is neo-darwinism, which is worse than its predecessor.

A few examples:

- When a wild deer pees, the scientists know that he is doing it to attract females? All actions and every single biological or 'social' development of males is shown as desgined to attract the female --- as if that is the end and beginning of what it means to be a male. Males are only there to carry sperms for the reproduction process. Males have no other biological value.

- A programme to discuss sexuality both amongst animals and humans --- talks about it in relation to what Darwin said, and how pleasure and bonding between only male and female was justified because it is 'claimed' to lead to reproduction. The programme does not talk about sex between the same-sex as if it does not matter. The underlying assumption is that same-sex bonds only exists as an abnormality and therefore needs no consideration -- a belief based on Darwinism. This notwithstanding the fact that scientists have been reporting widespread same-sex activities amongst the animals.The scientific community easily chooses to ignore any evidences (even when they are peer reviewed and published) which go against Darwin/ heterosexualism --- as if they are not there, were never there.

- Same sex bonds and sex even when found in profound numbers are brushed off as 'unimportant', or given far fetched absurd motives --- on the strength that they don't fit into 'darwinism'. Even the strongly held 'scientific' belief that "reproduction" is the prime purpose of life, biology or sex is not backed up by evidences (and there is no need to ask for peer reviews in this case!). It is just assumed. It does not need to be tested or analysed.

There are endless such examples. Heterosexualism is closely related with Darwinism. Without it it does not hold substance.

7) There can only be two kinds of evidence in this regard:
a) Peer reviewed papers from properly refereed journals.
b) Experimental evidence you have gathered yourself.
In the absence of both all you have is idle, unsubstantiated speculation.

I don't have access to the peer reviewed papers. As a layman I only have access to what is delivered to the general public --- through published books (like Bruce Bagemihl's: Biological Exuberances) or through reviews, articles, etc. published by scientists (and others using their work) on the internet.

To me they are just as valid as evidences, unless someone specifically refutes those evidences as 'false' or 'misreported'. Afterall, we don't have to get involved in 'red tapism' here. Like I said, my main job is to give food for thought to real scientists. If I manage to prove something here I'll do it on the basis of what has already been proved through peer-reviewed papers and is now available to the general public as 'common knowledge'.

In fact all I'm doing here is to reinterpret the available peer-reviewed data. I'm not collecting my own data --- not for what I'm contending here at least.

8) You ask why would I want the evidence. I'll give you two answer. Choose the one that suits you.
a) Because that is the way science works. You need to substantiate your claims, even if they are only provisional. Evidence, not proof.
b) Because I don't believe a fraction of what you said. It runs counter to my own experience, to everything I was taught at University, to everything I have learnt since, to everything I have read is considered to describe 'reality'. I am not going to subscribe to what seems to me to be a massive delusion without some evidence.

I have not asked why you need evidence. Of course you need evidence.

I have already provided what I consider 'evidences' and 'basis' for the 3 points that you had listed (I'll do the other 2 when I squeeze some time). You have not stated that you are dissatisfied with them (and why!). I know you have talked about peer-reviewed papers, but like I said earlier --- I don't have access to them, but I can give links to scientific and other websites that have the information, often accompanied by their sources.

That is why I asked you to list the specific points that you want these links on.

 

[Buddha1]

I've edited the above several times and added several points. So please read the above again.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't have access to the peer reviewed papers.

1. Go to the Library of your nearest University and find out how you can get access.
2. Use this link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
This will take you to the home page of PubMed. This contains links to tens of thousands of research papers on a vast range of academic subjects. Although originally conceived as a resource of medical research its scope is now much wider. Although some of the papers only have an abstract, many permit free access to the complete paper. Anyway the abstract is often sufficient for one's purposes.

 

[Buddha1]

1. Go to the Library of your nearest University and find out how you can get access.
2. Use this link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
This will take you to the home page of PubMed. This contains links to tens of thousands of research papers on a vast range of academic subjects. Although originally conceived as a resource of medical research its scope is now much wider. Although some of the papers only have an abstract, many permit free access to the complete paper. Anyway the abstract is often sufficient for one's purposes.

Although your advice is very sincere and the best way to go about it, at the moment I'm neither competent enough, nor can I devote enough time to do the kind of research this will require.
I'll do this at one point of time, but being a non-science person I can only do a superficial research. I've tried reading some of these 'medico-papers'. Most of what they say goes over my head. I'm more comfortable reading articles written for laymen.
I would like to discuss here more like a layman in the field of science (whose experience lies in the field of social aspects of human gender and sexuality) who has made certain convincing observations about biological aspect of sex and sexual need --- plus developed a theory while discussing these ideas with scientists on forums such as these.
I would like scientists (and others) to come down to the level of laymen to discuss this issue --- scientists can learn a lot from those working in the other fields (if they care to know that is).
Therefore, I would say, instead of requiring a strictly 'professional' procedural methodology from me, discuss the issue on the basis of available scienfific information. I'm not giving any evidence which is in the least controversial (not that I know of) --- so that you need to refer to a peer-reviewed paper. Although I realise the importance of such a study, eventually.

 

[Buddha1]

In any case, I have to know exactly what do you want evidences on --- or are you generally guiding me to the correct way to do a scientific investigation?

 

[Buddha1]

I'm going to try that pub-med thing in any case and see if it makes any sense to me.

 

[Buddha1]

I tried going through some of the entries after I searched for words like "Darwin" and "sexuality" at the pub med site.

These are my initial thoughts:
- Most of the authors take neo-Darwinism and it's theory of sexual selection for granted and build their further theories on it --- thus strengthening Darwinism. Of course they will be making 'reasonable assumptions' but in a clever/ diasguised usage of 'circular reasoning' the assumptions will be based on Darwinism in the first place (which is itself a contentious assumption).

- Many of them are celebrating sexual selection and heterosexualism quite unabashedly and their biases are clear. Sample this:
Abstract title: The 'beautiful' concept of sexual selection
I wonder since when did they discover the scientific measure of 'beauty' of theories.

I will not be surprised to find a 'scientific' paper which goes: "The 'ugly' incidences in wild life that don't fit into 'sexual selection'.

 

[Buddha1]

PEER REVIEW​

Although Peer-review is a useful process, it is not a fool-proof one --- and I can say that in matters like sexuality can often be useless. You can put forward far-fetched assumptions and make important theories on them --- and no one will care or dare to oppose you.

After all Bruce Bagemihl has documented 200 years of careful suppression of facts and misreportage (sometimes unintentional often wicked) desinged to sustain Darwinism/ Heterosexualism. If this process has escaped peer-review for such a long time, it is not all that reliable.

And what does peer-review does with theories that are "unchallangeable" and that clearly expose Darwinsm/ Heterosexualism as fabricated (like Bruce Bagemihl).

It's simple. They just don't do anything. After the initial ripple they create, they are conveniently ignored --- brushed to a corner by the peers, and when it is out of sight and out of mind, it is back to the same old 'Darwinism/ heterosexualism' --- as if people like Bagemihl nevert happened. Certainly there is something terribly, terribly wrong with how science works.

I can give other examples of how scientific works like this are sidelined. Morton Smith's discovery of a lost letter by Clement of Alexandria which heavily pointed to the possibility of him having indulged in same-sex relations as part of a spiritual cult that was popular in his times. Kinsey's survey's though are given a lip service they failed to either challenge Darwinism/ heterosexualism or stop the progression of the heterosexualisation of the western world.

 

[Buddha1]

Nevertheless, I realise the importance of using peer-reviewed papers in proving a point --- and whereever available I'll get them. But non-availability of such papers does not mean that a theory can be dismissed right away.

After all I'm discussing these things here because no scientist earlier has directly contended these assertions --- though people have been hinting at them.

That is why I asked you about what you want peer-reviewed papers on --- if you want one challenging Darwin, there is unlikely to be one at present (in the future hopefully scientists will pursue this more aggressively). But if you want one on things like "if single celled organisms have sex" --- I can try to see if anything is available.