Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Fafnir665]

Are you Darwin?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Nothing I talk about involve statistics.

<img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/cwm.gif">


Just when I thought Buddha1 couldn't get any sadder. <img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif">

The irony here is that he has just provided, without even realizing it, the perfect indication that he hasn't the slightest clue of how to practice science.<P>

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Most importantly, if indeed my observations are faulty or they don't apply to the west, then why has someone not been able to show me how? I am sure, science is capable of doing that, if I'm not standing on solid grounds. Why have people been avoiding dealing with the issues that I'm raising? Especially, when I have maintained all along, and shown, that I'm willing to go back on my statements if they are proved wrong!

Buddha1 the archetypal internet troll.

1 – Make/re-state series of unsupported statements.

2 – When people point out mistakes/inconsistencies/lack of evidence, obfuscate and dodge the issue (usually by re-directing the topic to the troll’s own misinterpretations of the nature of scientific endeavor).

3 – Wait for a week.

4 – Return and claim that no one has refuted the original unsupported statements.

5 – Go to 1

Rinse and repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat.......<P>

 

[Buddha1]

Are you Darwin?

No, but he's not around to get your message!

But I think you've expressed your disagreement with Darwin. That means you're with me!

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha1 the archetypal internet troll.

1 – Make/re-state series of unsupported statements.

2 – When people point out mistakes/inconsistencies/lack of evidence, obfuscate and dodge the issue (usually by re-directing the topic to the troll’s own misinterpretations of the nature of scientific endeavor).

3 – Wait for a week.

4 – Return and claim that no one has refuted the original unsupported statements.

5 – Go to 1

Rinse and repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat.......<P>

Will you stop your rantings. No one's listening to you! You never have anything important to say anyways.

If you have something to say on the topics concerned do so by all means! But stop whining!

 

[Fafnir665]

True, I dont think every organism postures for enhanced sexual attractiveness. At least concious animals, they persue what they enjoy.

 

[Ophiolite]

Whilst taking a peak at one of Bhudda1's postings (I still have him on ignore: it makes life sweeter.) I stumbled on this.

(Ophiolite, for god's sake, a couple of minor/side ones don't count!),

Apparently acknowledging that I had forced him to concede a couple of points. I have no idea which ones they were. The concession must have been hard won (that's not a hard one, Bhudda. Don't get excited.) for I don't recall noticing it. Still, it is encouragaing.

Bhudda1, here is my message to you: John Paul Jones. [Students of American Naval History will understand.]

 

[Buddha1]

Whilst taking a peak at one of Bhudda1's postings (I still have him on ignore: it makes life sweeter.) I stumbled on this.

(Ophiolite, for god's sake, a couple of minor/side ones don't count!),

Apparently acknowledging that I had forced him to concede a couple of points. I have no idea which ones they were. The concession must have been hard won (that's not a hard one, Bhudda. Don't get excited.) for I don't recall noticing it. Still, it is encouragaing.

Bhudda1, here is my message to you: John Paul Jones. [Students of American Naval History will understand.]

Well, apparently, I'm not a student of American Naval History, and so I don't understand the connection!

 

[Ophiolite]

I have not yet begun to fight.

 

[Buddha1]

I have not yet begun to fight.

???

What is that in response to?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Have you read anything by Darwin already?

 

[Buddha1]

Have you read anything by Darwin already?

I have often heard him being quoted everywhere --- from newspapers to discovery and national geography channels. I have read him being criticised by scientists.

You probably don't know any better, because the moment I asked you if you know that Darwini never said that --- you slipped off quietly. And you're supposed to be what.....a development biologist?

 

[Giambattista]

- The basic purpose of life: According to Darwin, the basic purpose of life is survival and the continuance of the species. Living beings just live so that they can live on, and when they die to be able to pass on their genes. That is all there is to it.

That's all! Just do this one simple thing, and voila!
I'm not depressed anymore! Finally, the REAL meaning of life!

Thanks for making it clear, Buddha. Who could argue with nature's perfect, simple intention? I'm glad we're such simple creatures.

Pronatalist was obviously right. Making as many babies as possible WILL make the world a brighter place.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I have often heard him being quoted everywhere --- from newspapers to discovery and national geography channels.

Anyone who is unsure of how to assess Buddha1 need only wait a while. Every three or four posts he totally gives away the fact that he is either (i) a reprobate troll or (ii) a particularly clueless internet crackpot (or both).

Here we have an admission from him that he is attempting to refute Charles Darwin on a particularly complex subject based on quotations that he has heard on the Discovery Channel. <P>

 

[Ophiolite]

Bhudda1, as Hercules has pointed out, to criticise Darwin without having read him is truly dumb. I am embarassed for you, almost unable to look my monitor in the eye. Help is at hand.
http://www.bartelby.com/11/
Go read it. No cost, just time, and you aren't spending it, you are investing it.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You probably don't know any better, because the moment I asked you if you know that Darwini never said that --- you slipped off quietly. And you're supposed to be what.....a development biologist?

I assume you think I actually read the crap you write all the time. that is a false assumption. So I went through the thread to see what is real about your accusations.

- The theory of sexual selection: As per this theory, every conscious or unconscious action of the male is geared towards making him more competitive to be able to mate with the female, with the ultimate aim of procreation. The entire biological make-up, each and every cell of the male is designed to help in this mating process with the female (and vice versa). Even his social activities are designed to help him mate with the female. In short, if a male breathes it is in order to be able to mate with the female.

I said Darwin never said that. You reply with:

O.K. but modern day scientists who have built upon his theories, say this. So I'm challenging the foundation -- that is Darwin, and the entire palace built on its shaky grounds. The higher the palace grows the more its shakiness becomes clear. It is incredible that Science has come so far with these lies.

Darwin still didn't say what you claim he said. You have no clue what the foundation is. You have no clue what the modern scientist thinks.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What did Darwin say on sexual selection:

Sexual Selection

Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestication in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, the same fact probably occurs under nature, and if so, natural selection will be able to modify one sex in its functional relations to the other sex, or in relation to wholly different habits of life in the two sexes, as is sometimes the case with insects. And this leads me to say a few words on what I call Sexual Selection. This depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory will depend not on general vigour, but on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving offspring. Sexual selection by always allowing the victor to breed might surely give indomitable courage, length to the spur, and strength to the wing to strike in the spurred leg, as well as the brutal cock-fighter, who knows well that he can improve his breed by careful selection of the best cocks. How low in the scale of nature this law of battle descends, I know not; male alligators have been described as fighting, bellowing, and whirling round, like Indians in a war-dance, for the possession of the females; male salmons have been seen fighting all day long; male stag-beetles often bear wounds from the huge mandibles of other males. The war is, perhaps, severest between the males of polygamous animals, and these seem oftenest provided with special weapons. The males of carnivorous animals are already well armed; though to them and to others, special means of defence may be given through means of sexual selection, as the mane to the lion, the shoulder-pad to the boar, and the hooked jaw to the male salmon; for the shield may be as important for victory, as the sword or spear.

Amongst birds, the contest is often of a more peaceful character. All those who have attended to the subject, believe that there is the severest rivalry between the males of many species to attract by singing the females. The rock-thrush of Guiana, birds of paradise, and some others, congregate; and successive males display their gorgeous plumage and perform strange antics before the females, which standing by as spectators, at last choose the most attractive partner. Those who have closely attended to birds in confinement well know that they often take individual preferences and dislikes: thus Sir R. Heron has described how one pied peacock was eminently attractive to all his hen birds. It may appear childish to attribute any effect to such apparently weak means: I cannot here enter on the details necessary to support this view; but if man can in a short time give elegant carriage and beauty to his bantams, according to his standard of beauty, I can see no good reason to doubt that female birds, by selecting, during thousands of generations, the most melodious or beautiful males, according to their standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect. I strongly suspect that some well-known laws with respect to the plumage of male and female birds, in comparison with the plumage of the young, can be explained on the view of plumage having been chiefly modified by sexual selection, acting when the birds have come to the breeding age or during the breeding season; the modifications thus produced being inherited at corresponding ages or seasons, either by the males alone, or by the males and females; but I have not space here to enter on this subject.

Thus it is, as I believe, that when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection; that is, individual males have had, in successive generations, some slight advantage over other males, in their weapons, means of defence, or charms; and have transmitted these advantages to their male offspring. Yet, I would not wish to attribute all such sexual differences to this agency: for we see peculiarities arising and becoming attached to the male sex in our domestic animals (as the wattle in male carriers, horn-like protuberances in the cocks of certain fowls, &c.), which we cannot believe to be either useful to the males in battle, or attractive to the females. We see analogous cases under nature, for instance, the tuft of hair on the breast of the turkey-cock, which can hardly be either useful or ornamental to this bird; indeed, had the tuft appeared under domestication, it would have been called a monstrosity.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html
On the origin of Species.


Buddha1 says that Darwin said:

The entire biological make-up, each and every cell of the male is designed to help in this mating process with the female (and vice versa). Even his social activities are designed to help him mate with the female. In short, if a male breathes it is in order to be able to mate with the female.

Darwin actually says:

Thus it is, as I believe, that when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection;

In conclusion:
Darwin used to explain differences between males and females of a species when they have the same lifestyle. Buddha1 says darwin said everything in a male is explained by sexual selection

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Please tell us specifically what you know.

It's no use directing me to books and stuff I don't have immediate access to. While on the one hand its arrogant, on the other it shows that you're trying to avoid the issue, because you cannot refute what I'm saying. I've given several examples to show that Darwin indeed said/ meant that 'existence' and 'continuance' are the sole purpose of life --- and hence he explained the existence and biology of male in terms of 'sexual selection'.

That you have ignored my request to tell me where I have misunderstood DArwin and my other request to give your source for the statement that 'bacteria have sex' --- further casts doubt on your sincerity. You are just there to save heterosexualism at any cost and you don't care for the means you use for it.

-----
You do not have access to a library. That is sad. You also never had biology in school? We are not talking about rocket science here. Just basic biology.

Well, I can give you a source for biology books if you are too lazy to get out of your bedroom.

Pubmed books. This search engine also has a special section where an array of biology and medical textbooks are available online.

Pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=ufhsclib
You can actually search peer reviewed articles here on medical and biological topics. That is actual science, not just homepages of idiots.
Pubmed books:
Click on the search tab where is says 'pubmed' and select: 'books'

Then type in 'bacteria' and 'sex' and you may find this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...book]+AND+372055[uid]&rid=mboc4.section.30#58

Horizontal Exchanges of Genetic Information Within a Species Are Brought About by Sex

Horizontal exchanges of genetic information have an important role in bacterial evolution in today's world, and they may have occurred even more frequently and promiscuously in the early days of life on Earth. Indeed, it has been suggested that the genomes of present-day eubacteria, archaea, and eucaryotes originated not by divergent lines of descent from a single genome in a single ancestral type of cell, but rather as three independent anthologies of genes that have survived from the pool of genes in a primordial community of diverse cells in which genes were frequently exchanged (Figure 1-28). This could explain the otherwise puzzling observation that the eucaryotes seem more similar to archaea in their genes for the basic information-handling processes of DNA replication, transcription, and translation, but more similar to eubacteria in their genes for metabolic processes.

Horizontal gene transfer among bacteria may seem a surprising process, but it has a parallel in a phenomenon familiar to us all: sex. Sexual reproduction causes a large-scale horizontal transfer of genetic information between two initially separate cell lineages—those of the father and the mother. A key feature of sex, of course, is that the genetic exchange normally occurs only between individuals of the same species. But no matter whether they occur within a species or between species, horizontal gene transfers leave a characteristic imprint: they result in individuals who are related more closely to one set of relatives with respect to some genes, and more closely to another set of relatives with respect to others. By comparing the DNA sequences of individual human genomes, an intelligent visitor from outer space could deduce that humans reproduce sexually, even if it knew nothing about human behavior.

Sexual reproduction is a widespread (although not universal) phenomenon, especially among eucaryotes. Even bacteria indulge from time to time in controlled sexual exchanges of DNA with other members of their own species. Natural selection has clearly favored organisms that are capable of this behavior, although evolutionary theorists still dispute precisely what the selective advantage of sex is.top link

 

[Buddha1]

While, I'll take sometime to answer the points you've raised --- I'll have to study them.....here's a quote from this site :

Roughgarden then proceeds with her attack on Darwin’s sexual selection by providing numerous examples of species who’s mating habits do not conform to the gendered stereotypes often presented by Darwinian theorists. The standard model of the male wielding ornaments or weapons to impress upon the coy female is exemplified in the male peacock’s colorful display of cumbersome tail feathers and the male bighorn sheep’s battle ready horns. Using the mating habits of a few select fish and bird species as examples, Roughgarden rejects the universal notion of direct male competitiveness in sexual selection. She argues that females do not choose their mates based on displays of superior genes, but rather on the female’s perception that the male will deliver on his “promise of parental care” (Roughgarden 2004:125). Thus, parental care is more important to the success of offspring than are good genes. Her examples tend to interject a sense of cultural inheritance into behavior which might be a little overindulgent because it assigns human characteristics to animals.

 

[Blue_UK]

Ah, but colourful plumage and big horns DO have some indication of superiour genes, for reasons thus:

* Being able to gain the nutrients needed to fund a vibrant display in addition to those needed for general living is a sign of effective food gathering / hunting. (for example, the colouration of some rodents teeth is a sign of good health and also a trait thought to be amplified by sexual selection)

* Although large antlers / horns are, fundementally, a waste of resources they provide a useful examiniation system for the females to rate the males with. Winners of such contests are clearly stronger, fitter individuals who would stand a better chance against (or runing from) predators.

So...

but rather on the female’s perception that the male will deliver on his “promise of parental care”

...these traits do infact offer indication of better parental care. Regardless, there is a trade off: do you want a male that sticks around - but will give scrawny offspring, or a whirl-wind romance and never see the male again, but your offspring are strong and have indominable spirits!

Lastly, do not fall into the trap of going from "survival and reproduction is the driving force of evolution" to "the core drive of a animals mind is survival and reproduction". Indeed, this is what the animal's mind does - but it is NOT necessarily implemented so directly. For example, a cats instict to survive is made up of components such as "fear of water" and "fear of things mcuh larger than me" rather than some massively complex ('high-level') instruction like "do whatever it takes to survive". The relevance of this comment is with regard to the way the females' minds must work; they do not think "which is the best male to bring up my young" directly, rather they look for traits that they have become sensitive to.

Notes:
*I am not refering to humans anywhere here
*Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" says more than I could ever hope to plagerise