Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Do i need to explain the implications of that or can you figure it out yourself?
Love your work Spurious. 
Poor Buddha1 has been totally pwned<B><sup>*</sup></B> on this page, even more so than usual! The sad thing about it is that he won’t even realize it.
<B><sup>*</sup></B>I believe this is the term used by the internet gaming youngsters these days. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned)<P>
Poor Buddha1 has been totally pwned<B><sup>*</sup></B> on this page, even more so than usual! The sad thing about it is that he won’t even realize it.
<B><sup>*</sup></B>I believe this is the term used by the internet gaming youngsters these days. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned)<P>
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You still have not got it, have you Bhudda1. You refuse to engage in structured logical debate, routinely claiming you have won arguments you have lost; that people have run away, when they have given up in frustration at your lunacy; that you have supporting evidence, that generally you have not read properly, and at best have grossly misinterpreted.Buddha1 said:
Most of us cannot be bothered dealing with such stupidity and are amusing ourselves, at your expense, by using humour, irony, sarcasm, innuendo and any other appropriate rhetorical device that comes to hand.
To change this, change your style; change your methodology; change your mindset; get an education.
I am an optimistic sort, but reading your continued descent into a surreal nonsense world really depresses me. Snap out of it man.
It really pisses me off these threads on 'Darwin was wrong etc'. They are popping up like mushrooms it seems lately. And none of the thread starters have even bothered to read 'on the origin of species'. I can't even start explaining why this is such a ridiculous idea.
Imagine we do the same thing. We write an manuscipt and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal refuting an accepted theory in our specialized field. We don't do this by actually reading the original papers but just by criticizing what we have heard about the papers. Maybe we will throw in some websites as authorative references. The editor wouldn't even bother sending it to reviewers. He would either laugh his ass off or pop a vein.
Do I expect sciforumers to be up to date with the latest biological research? No. But if you say Darwin is wrong you can at least put the effort in to read what Darwin actually said, instead of relying on a website stating what Darwin has said.
'On the origin of species' is available on the net. So basically there is no excuse NOT to read the original. If you have time to read crap websites, you can just as well read the frikking original (which is much better written btw than those websites, since Darwin was actually quite a decent writer).
Imagine we do the same thing. We write an manuscipt and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal refuting an accepted theory in our specialized field. We don't do this by actually reading the original papers but just by criticizing what we have heard about the papers. Maybe we will throw in some websites as authorative references. The editor wouldn't even bother sending it to reviewers. He would either laugh his ass off or pop a vein.
Do I expect sciforumers to be up to date with the latest biological research? No. But if you say Darwin is wrong you can at least put the effort in to read what Darwin actually said, instead of relying on a website stating what Darwin has said.
'On the origin of species' is available on the net. So basically there is no excuse NOT to read the original. If you have time to read crap websites, you can just as well read the frikking original (which is much better written btw than those websites, since Darwin was actually quite a decent writer).
Here's A Scientist Validating My Assertion About Darwin
Lesbian monkeys challenge Darwin theory
Wed Feb 26, 7:35 PM ET
A psychologist claims that a group of lesbian monkeys in Japan shows that Darwin's theories of evolution are incorrect.
Paul Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, has been studying the sex lives of Japanese macaques.
According to Darwin's theory of sexual selection, said Vasey, the male monkeys should compete amongst themselves for access to potential mates -- but the macaques don't follow that pattern.
A colony of 120 wild macaques in the mountains in Kyoto shows enormous sexual diversity, including female-female relationships. Females will reject the advances of a pursuing male in favor of their existing female partner 92.5 percent of the time.
"If females are choosing female sexual partners over male reproductive partners," Vasey told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (news - web sites), "that suggests a pretty fundamental revision of sexual selection theory.
"We've got females that are competing for males with other females, we've got males that are being choosy, males that are sexually coercing females ... we've got females sexually harassing males that don't want to copulate with them, we've got females that have sex with each other, we've got females that are competing with males for other females, we have females that are mounting males."
Vasey said it is clear the females are deriving sexual pleasure when they mount other females. In some positions, he said, a female will rub her clitoris against her partner's back, while in others, "it's common for females to masturbate with their tails" where there is no direct genital contact.
"The traditional evolutionary theory says you do things in order to reproduce," he said, "so why would you do all this non-reproductive sex? To me, that's a really compelling evolutionary puzzle."
Lesbian monkeys challenge Darwin theory
Wed Feb 26, 7:35 PM ET
A psychologist claims that a group of lesbian monkeys in Japan shows that Darwin's theories of evolution are incorrect.
Paul Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, has been studying the sex lives of Japanese macaques.
According to Darwin's theory of sexual selection, said Vasey, the male monkeys should compete amongst themselves for access to potential mates -- but the macaques don't follow that pattern.
A colony of 120 wild macaques in the mountains in Kyoto shows enormous sexual diversity, including female-female relationships. Females will reject the advances of a pursuing male in favor of their existing female partner 92.5 percent of the time.
"If females are choosing female sexual partners over male reproductive partners," Vasey told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (news - web sites), "that suggests a pretty fundamental revision of sexual selection theory.
"We've got females that are competing for males with other females, we've got males that are being choosy, males that are sexually coercing females ... we've got females sexually harassing males that don't want to copulate with them, we've got females that have sex with each other, we've got females that are competing with males for other females, we have females that are mounting males."
Vasey said it is clear the females are deriving sexual pleasure when they mount other females. In some positions, he said, a female will rub her clitoris against her partner's back, while in others, "it's common for females to masturbate with their tails" where there is no direct genital contact.
"The traditional evolutionary theory says you do things in order to reproduce," he said, "so why would you do all this non-reproductive sex? To me, that's a really compelling evolutionary puzzle."
Last edited:
ANOTHER SCIENTIST VALIDATING MY ASSERTION AGAINST DARWIN
Here is an articie from I once downloaded from a discussion forum:
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2430 - 17 January 2004, page 36, that that clearly validates everything that I have said (it is not available on the net so I can't provide a link):
Here is an articie from I once downloaded from a discussion forum:
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2430 - 17 January 2004, page 36, that that clearly validates everything that I have said (it is not available on the net so I can't provide a link):
Last edited:
Here is an articie from I once downloaded from a discussion forum:
The "in-crowd".
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2430 - 17 January 2004, page 36
Same-sex relationships are not a biological dead end. They are a glue that helps hold many animal societies together, and a fatal flaw in one of Darwin's central ideas, argues evolutionary ecologist Joan Roughgarden
IN June 1997 I marched in my first gay pride parade. I walked up Market Street in San Francisco, from the Civic Center to the Ferry Building. The parade was one of the biggest I had ever seen, and the sidewalks on both sides were packed six deep. I had heard that 1 in 10 people is gay or lesbian, but had always felt this number
exaggerated. At this parade, though, I began to realise for the first time that the number of gays may indeed plausibly reach that figure.
This number of gay and lesbian people posed a problem to me as a biologist. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of unexplained anomaly. If the purpose of sexual contact is reproduction, as the standard explanation has it, how can all these gay people exist? One might argue they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual fantasies. If so, gay and lesbian people are here for a
brief time during our species' evolution, awaiting removal when natural selection prunes those with lower Darwinian fitness.
Hmm. I began to wonder about the evolutionary puzzle of
homosexuality. If a theory says something is wrong with so many people, then perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.
But I feared I would have to leave the puzzle unsolved. In a few months I was to come out as a transgendered woman. I didn't know whether I would be fired from my professorship at Stanford University, California, and find myself working as a waitress in a transgender bar. In the event, I wasn't fired - although I was removed from all administrative responsibilities - and I wound up with more time to investigate how evolution has led to diverse manifestations of gender and sexuality.
I found that evolutionary theory had followed a wrong path that leads inexorably back to Darwin - specifically to his theory of sexual selection, which I have concluded should be declared not only false but unfixable. Although I believe many biologists acknowledge that recent findings about gender and sexuality are problematic, few go as
far as me in recommending that Darwin's theory of sexual selection be tossed out completely. So let me sketch the steps that have led me to this rather drastic and provocative conclusion - and to a better understanding of the biology of homosexuality and gender.
There are two glaring flaws in Darwin's thinking. In 1871 he wrote, "Females choose mates who are "more attractive...vigorous and well-armed" just as "man can give beauty...to his male poultry" by selective breeding. Hence the peacock's tail, Darwin's frequent example, is supposed to reflect peahen taste in male fashion, and antlers a preference for strong warrior stags. "Males of almost all
animals have stronger passions than females," he wrote, and, "The female...with the rarest of exceptions is less eager than the male... she is coy." In Darwin's view, males and females almost universally conform to their preordained roles of horny handsome warriors and discreetly discerning damsels.
But the real world is far more diverse than that. In many species,including ours, females are not necessarily less eager than males, nor do females all yearn for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Females often solicit males, and males often decline. Moreover, in many species the supposed sex roles reverse. Even Darwin acknowledged species of birds, like the jacana, in which the females are highly ornamented
and the males dull and drab, reversing the peafowl story.
The "in-crowd".
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2430 - 17 January 2004, page 36
Same-sex relationships are not a biological dead end. They are a glue that helps hold many animal societies together, and a fatal flaw in one of Darwin's central ideas, argues evolutionary ecologist Joan Roughgarden
IN June 1997 I marched in my first gay pride parade. I walked up Market Street in San Francisco, from the Civic Center to the Ferry Building. The parade was one of the biggest I had ever seen, and the sidewalks on both sides were packed six deep. I had heard that 1 in 10 people is gay or lesbian, but had always felt this number
exaggerated. At this parade, though, I began to realise for the first time that the number of gays may indeed plausibly reach that figure.
This number of gay and lesbian people posed a problem to me as a biologist. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of unexplained anomaly. If the purpose of sexual contact is reproduction, as the standard explanation has it, how can all these gay people exist? One might argue they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual fantasies. If so, gay and lesbian people are here for a
brief time during our species' evolution, awaiting removal when natural selection prunes those with lower Darwinian fitness.
Hmm. I began to wonder about the evolutionary puzzle of
homosexuality. If a theory says something is wrong with so many people, then perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.
But I feared I would have to leave the puzzle unsolved. In a few months I was to come out as a transgendered woman. I didn't know whether I would be fired from my professorship at Stanford University, California, and find myself working as a waitress in a transgender bar. In the event, I wasn't fired - although I was removed from all administrative responsibilities - and I wound up with more time to investigate how evolution has led to diverse manifestations of gender and sexuality.
I found that evolutionary theory had followed a wrong path that leads inexorably back to Darwin - specifically to his theory of sexual selection, which I have concluded should be declared not only false but unfixable. Although I believe many biologists acknowledge that recent findings about gender and sexuality are problematic, few go as
far as me in recommending that Darwin's theory of sexual selection be tossed out completely. So let me sketch the steps that have led me to this rather drastic and provocative conclusion - and to a better understanding of the biology of homosexuality and gender.
There are two glaring flaws in Darwin's thinking. In 1871 he wrote, "Females choose mates who are "more attractive...vigorous and well-armed" just as "man can give beauty...to his male poultry" by selective breeding. Hence the peacock's tail, Darwin's frequent example, is supposed to reflect peahen taste in male fashion, and antlers a preference for strong warrior stags. "Males of almost all
animals have stronger passions than females," he wrote, and, "The female...with the rarest of exceptions is less eager than the male... she is coy." In Darwin's view, males and females almost universally conform to their preordained roles of horny handsome warriors and discreetly discerning damsels.
But the real world is far more diverse than that. In many species,including ours, females are not necessarily less eager than males, nor do females all yearn for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Females often solicit males, and males often decline. Moreover, in many species the supposed sex roles reverse. Even Darwin acknowledged species of birds, like the jacana, in which the females are highly ornamented
and the males dull and drab, reversing the peafowl story.
PART 2 -
Many animals, indeed, do not even sort neatly into two sexes at all. If you go snorkelling on a coral reef, about one-third of the fish you see make both eggs and sperm at either the same time or different times during their lives. These are called simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodites respectively, and are said to "change sex" when they
switch from making eggs to making sperm or vice versa. In fact the most common body plan among multicellular organisms, including plants, is for a single individual to make both male and female gametes at some time during their life. So the condition whereby an individual can be unambiguously classified as either male or female
should not be considered the norm.
Species may also feature more than one type of male and female. The multiple morphs of males in such species all produce sperm, but otherwise differ in body size, colour, morphology, behaviour and life history so much that an inexperienced naturalist might be tempted to classify them as different species. The same is true for multiple kinds of females that have nothing in common except that they all
make eggs, such as yellow-throated and orange-throated side-blotched lizards, which lay eggs of different sizes.
I have termed these distinct morphs as "genders", and this
terminology allows one to say there are more genders than sexes. The bluegill sunfish of the north-eastern US and Canada, for example, has three male genders that I term controllers, cooperators, and endrunners. The large, orange-breasted controllers and medium-sized cooperators, whose dark, barred colour pattern resembles that of females, court females jointly. The controller fertilises most of the eggs, but allows the cooperator a limited role as well. The small,pale endrunner males lurk in the weeds waiting to dash in while a female is laying her eggs and deposit some sperm of their own.
The second problem with Darwin's notion of sexual selection is that in relatively social species, such as most birds and mammals, sexual contact - mating - is not necessarily, indeed not even often, about the transfer of sperm. Mating is mostly directed at forming and managing relationships that may ultimately result in the successful production and rearing of offspring. A simple count of how many times
mating takes place relative to the number of young born illustrates the point. In humans, for example, suppose Ozzie and Harriet have two children, have been married for 50 years, and make love regularly each week - say, Thursday night. After 50 years they will have mated over 2500 times, and produced two children, thus mating 1250 times per offspring produced. Sounds inefficient? Not if we suppose that regular mating allows the couple to stay together to successfully rear their two children. Similarly, in birds, primates, indeed everywhere, lots of mating occurs at times and places that cannot possibly result in immediate offspring production.
By this stage of my research I was beginning to suspect that Darwin might be all wrong about sex. It seemed to me that social organisation in animals revolves around the control of access to reproductive opportunity, which includes all the things that animals need to reproduce: food and nest sites, for instance, as well as
mates. Animals make direct use of the resources they control, but may also use them as bargaining chips to buy the help of others.
Furthermore, the dynamics of animal societies also involve decisions about where to allocate friendship and cooperation among animals of both the same sex and the other sex. Different arrangements of cooperative effort lead to the emergence of different structures for
families and small groups.
Many animals, indeed, do not even sort neatly into two sexes at all. If you go snorkelling on a coral reef, about one-third of the fish you see make both eggs and sperm at either the same time or different times during their lives. These are called simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodites respectively, and are said to "change sex" when they
switch from making eggs to making sperm or vice versa. In fact the most common body plan among multicellular organisms, including plants, is for a single individual to make both male and female gametes at some time during their life. So the condition whereby an individual can be unambiguously classified as either male or female
should not be considered the norm.
Species may also feature more than one type of male and female. The multiple morphs of males in such species all produce sperm, but otherwise differ in body size, colour, morphology, behaviour and life history so much that an inexperienced naturalist might be tempted to classify them as different species. The same is true for multiple kinds of females that have nothing in common except that they all
make eggs, such as yellow-throated and orange-throated side-blotched lizards, which lay eggs of different sizes.
I have termed these distinct morphs as "genders", and this
terminology allows one to say there are more genders than sexes. The bluegill sunfish of the north-eastern US and Canada, for example, has three male genders that I term controllers, cooperators, and endrunners. The large, orange-breasted controllers and medium-sized cooperators, whose dark, barred colour pattern resembles that of females, court females jointly. The controller fertilises most of the eggs, but allows the cooperator a limited role as well. The small,pale endrunner males lurk in the weeds waiting to dash in while a female is laying her eggs and deposit some sperm of their own.
The second problem with Darwin's notion of sexual selection is that in relatively social species, such as most birds and mammals, sexual contact - mating - is not necessarily, indeed not even often, about the transfer of sperm. Mating is mostly directed at forming and managing relationships that may ultimately result in the successful production and rearing of offspring. A simple count of how many times
mating takes place relative to the number of young born illustrates the point. In humans, for example, suppose Ozzie and Harriet have two children, have been married for 50 years, and make love regularly each week - say, Thursday night. After 50 years they will have mated over 2500 times, and produced two children, thus mating 1250 times per offspring produced. Sounds inefficient? Not if we suppose that regular mating allows the couple to stay together to successfully rear their two children. Similarly, in birds, primates, indeed everywhere, lots of mating occurs at times and places that cannot possibly result in immediate offspring production.
By this stage of my research I was beginning to suspect that Darwin might be all wrong about sex. It seemed to me that social organisation in animals revolves around the control of access to reproductive opportunity, which includes all the things that animals need to reproduce: food and nest sites, for instance, as well as
mates. Animals make direct use of the resources they control, but may also use them as bargaining chips to buy the help of others.
Furthermore, the dynamics of animal societies also involve decisions about where to allocate friendship and cooperation among animals of both the same sex and the other sex. Different arrangements of cooperative effort lead to the emergence of different structures for
families and small groups.
PART 3
This theory, which I call social selection theory, provides a better explanation for much of the diversity we see in sexual practices. In bluegill sunfish, for example, social life does not, as traditional sexual selection theory requires, consist of females looking for males with great genes, or of males trying to fool females into thinking their genes are better than their neighbours'. Instead, it
is about the ebb and flow of power to control access to reproductive opportunity. I suggest that controller males pay cooperator males for "marriage broker" services by allowing the cooperator to fertilise some of the eggs in his territory. In return, the cooperator male assists in courting females. Controller males without a cooperator male do not fare as well at attracting females. The
feminine coloration pattern of the cooperator male may somehow promote this function, perhaps by allowing the cooperator male to develop a relationship with the females while the controller male is setting up and defending his territory.
The aspects of the relationships between animals that are managed by mating depend on the species' social system. Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy of the University of California at Davis has shown that female monkeys in India mate with multiple males so that each will refrain from harming the young because he might be the father. In addition to
managing male power, mating helps the pair bond and ensures that males deliver on their promise of parental investment, preventing them from becoming dead-beat dads.
Social selection theory also explains a puzzle that goes back all the way to Aristotle: the "penises" of female spotted hyenas. The female's clitoris is enlarged to the size of a male penis, and fat deposits in a nearby skin pouch resemble a scrotal sac. Females erect their penis many times during the day in interactions with other
females. Sexual selection theory has no explanation for such an unusual characteristic that is not used in mate choice. I suggest,though, that a female spotted hyena that did not have a penis would be excluded from the female groups that control access to of what I call a social
inclusionary trait: a trait that gains an individual admission to a social group, whether or not it has any other use. The human brain, with all its powerful capacity for conversation, art and music, may be another such trait.
Same-sex sexuality in female bonobos is another social inclusionary trait. I conjecture that females that do not participate regularly in mutual face-to-face genital rubbing do not form the bonds needed to participate in the groups that control access to food, or enjoy the protection necessary to raise young successfully.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument might imply that even classic sexual ornaments such as the peacock's tail or a stag's antlers are not there to attract females by advertising the bearer's virility. Instead, these traits may be intended for members of the same sex more than for the opposite sex. They may be badges of admission to membership in power-holding cliques. I am not aware of
any experiments to test whether secondary sexual characters are really badges or ornaments. Some experiments have shown how modifying traits such as feather colours affects mate choice. I feel such experiments should also investigate how these modifications affect same-sex relationships, including membership in power-holding cliques.
This theory, which I call social selection theory, provides a better explanation for much of the diversity we see in sexual practices. In bluegill sunfish, for example, social life does not, as traditional sexual selection theory requires, consist of females looking for males with great genes, or of males trying to fool females into thinking their genes are better than their neighbours'. Instead, it
is about the ebb and flow of power to control access to reproductive opportunity. I suggest that controller males pay cooperator males for "marriage broker" services by allowing the cooperator to fertilise some of the eggs in his territory. In return, the cooperator male assists in courting females. Controller males without a cooperator male do not fare as well at attracting females. The
feminine coloration pattern of the cooperator male may somehow promote this function, perhaps by allowing the cooperator male to develop a relationship with the females while the controller male is setting up and defending his territory.
The aspects of the relationships between animals that are managed by mating depend on the species' social system. Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy of the University of California at Davis has shown that female monkeys in India mate with multiple males so that each will refrain from harming the young because he might be the father. In addition to
managing male power, mating helps the pair bond and ensures that males deliver on their promise of parental investment, preventing them from becoming dead-beat dads.
Social selection theory also explains a puzzle that goes back all the way to Aristotle: the "penises" of female spotted hyenas. The female's clitoris is enlarged to the size of a male penis, and fat deposits in a nearby skin pouch resemble a scrotal sac. Females erect their penis many times during the day in interactions with other
females. Sexual selection theory has no explanation for such an unusual characteristic that is not used in mate choice. I suggest,though, that a female spotted hyena that did not have a penis would be excluded from the female groups that control access to of what I call a social
inclusionary trait: a trait that gains an individual admission to a social group, whether or not it has any other use. The human brain, with all its powerful capacity for conversation, art and music, may be another such trait.
Same-sex sexuality in female bonobos is another social inclusionary trait. I conjecture that females that do not participate regularly in mutual face-to-face genital rubbing do not form the bonds needed to participate in the groups that control access to food, or enjoy the protection necessary to raise young successfully.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument might imply that even classic sexual ornaments such as the peacock's tail or a stag's antlers are not there to attract females by advertising the bearer's virility. Instead, these traits may be intended for members of the same sex more than for the opposite sex. They may be badges of admission to membership in power-holding cliques. I am not aware of
any experiments to test whether secondary sexual characters are really badges or ornaments. Some experiments have shown how modifying traits such as feather colours affects mate choice. I feel such experiments should also investigate how these modifications affect same-sex relationships, including membership in power-holding cliques.
The question is why you (a biologist) or someone else could not come up with one instance of heterosexuality in mammals and other non-bird species.spuriousmonkey said:
Or when I showed how the rare evidences of 'heterosexuality' amongst animals (and the anundant evidences in the birds) being a queer (feminine) quality, how come none of you could refute that or provide other evidences to the contrary.
Well, I already said that I don't agree with all the personal opinions of the scientists.Fafnir665 said:
She is basically studying animals. She is not qualified to say that about humans?
As regarding marriage --- we can discuss how natural they are! And how successful they'll be if it weren't for so many social infrastructures, and pressures and benefits that the society provides. She's just talking out of her hat here --- all scientists cross their basic area of expertise and merge their values/ opinions on other matters alongwith what they are seeking to prove!
Buddha1 said:
No, that is why we (biologists) specialize in animals. What is valid for the mouse isn't necessarily valid for the elephant, or for humans.
In fact we have discussed that the basic reason why men and women started to be oppressed, and why male gender and sexualtiy was specially targetted (specially their sexual need for other men) was in order to make the institution of marriage a reality!Buddha1 said:
Buddha1 said:
I know about 5500 examples of heterosexual mammalian species and about 10.000 heterosexual bird species currently living today in our world. Not to mention all the ones that are now extinct.
- Status