According to sexual-selection theory, more sex is always better for males.
Nonsense.
According to sexual-selection theory, more sex is always better for males.
..I suggest that we replace sexual-selection theory with a new approach that I call social selection theory. I argue that reproductive social behavior, including mate choice and family organization, can be completely explained by focusing solely on the direct ecological benefits each individual obtains from the interactions it has with others. Indirect genetic benefits can be ignored; they don't realistically factor into mating decisions at all.
Ok, there are exceptions. So what? tell me where anyone said sexual selection applied to every single living species in the world?If you examine the millions of plant and animal species in the world, you find countless exceptions to this theory.
Sexual selection theory also teaches that because eggs are larger and more expensive to produce, females must conserve this resource by playing hard to get.
But in fact, sperm are not cheap. The relevant comparison is not between individual sperm and egg, but between ejaculate and egg. An ejaculate often has a million sperm whereas an individual egg is often a million times as large as an individual sperm, making the mating investment of both male and female about the same.[/quote
Wrong. Sperm IS cheap. Males can ejaculate day after day, for all their life. Females are born with only a certain number of eggs, and they will never produce more. And in most species of animals, it is in females that the zygote grows into a baby, and when that baby is born, it is the female who has to take care of it. Feed it, protect it, etc.
Therefore in most cases when talking about reproduction, the costs of being a female are astronomical compared to the costs of being a male.
insects... insects (usually) don't take care of their babies (an exception being those giant burrowing cockroaches, who care for their babies for 9 months)Supporting the equal costs idea are ever-lengthening lists of species where males choose their mates as carefully as females select theirs. Known as "partial sex-role reversal," this phenomenon has been documented in over 50 species of insects spanning 11 orders.
and of course both species have males and females that look very much alike."Non-human primates show us what many single women in America know—sometimes it's very hard to get a date." Female rhesus monkeys, lion-tail macaques, and baboons may offer sex to males, yet males regularly refuse. Female lion-tail macaques initiate almost 70 percent of sexual encounters but only 59 percent of those solicitations end in mounts.
ugh... because obviously neither you nor that guy understand sexual selection, here, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
notice it says "Within a species, one sex (typically females) acts as a limiting resource for the other (typically males)."
TYPICALLY. Yes, there are exceptions. That's irrelevant. If one sex doesn't act as a limiting resource for the other, then there's no sexual selection. That doesn't always happen. Oh wow, big deal.
Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species; while natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life. --Charles Darwin, 1871.The sexual struggle is of two kinds: in the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; while in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners. --Charles Darwin, 1871.
oh, and next time it may help if you don't post whole novels at once. That's why (at least I) don't reply to your posts, not because I don't have any arguments, but because I don't want to read 5 pages of bullcrap all at once, and then have to reply.
By asserting that the distinguishing and sometimes unexplainable features of males have not developed because of sexual selection but because of social selection.spuriousmonkey said:How do these quotes disprove Darwin's points? (twat)
(disillusioned) parrot!leopold99 said:buddha is wrong about sexuality
don't forget buddha 95% of the planet will agree with me
a mans sexuality revolves around VAGINA, you know, p***y ?
He's rolling because his cult followers are fighting a losing battle.WhisperBlade said:I think Darwin's in his grave rolling back and forth, laughing at this topic.
"Is he a right winger?"
That's funneh!
That is why we are saying that his entire line of thinking was flawed. He made a BIG assumption that the primary and exclusive funciton of the species is to 'exist' and reproduce at any cost. There was no qualititative angle to it. And so for anything to be 'validated' it must add to 'procreation' in some way.spuriousmonkey said:I think someone conviently forgot why Darwin proposed sexual selection: to explain differences between the sexes that cannot be explained by natural selection.
Johan Roughgarden is a serious biologist at a reputed university. If Darwin has any intelligence at all, he should stop laughing and be worried about the future of Darwinism.WhisperBlade said:I think Darwin's in his grave rolling back and forth, laughing at this topic.
That's funneh!
No. and neither is Spuriousmonkey, or the alpha wolf.WhisperBlade said:"Is he a right winger?"
Yes and that is what we are disproving!spuriousmonkey said:Proof of Darwin's views
That shows sexual selection as farce!spuriousmonkey said:Proof of sexual selection
When you challenge the professor of Biological studies at a reputed university who has done extensive work, you are required to present hard evidences to say she is speaking nonsense. Especially, when she is justifiying every word of her with evidences.spuriousmonkey said:Nonsense.
According to sexual-selection theory, more sex is always better for males.
Thank you Whisperblade. I think this thread needs some fun. Where is Giambattista?WhisperBlade said:On a fun note, I'm sure if you told guys this, they'd be totally excited.
Buddha1 said:Of course many of the lies that scientists get away with today were not said by Darwin. But they are all based on the line of thinking that Darwin initiated. Darwin is the root of that sick mentality. He sowed the seeds. And that is why if you want to blast the lies you have to strike at Darwinism.
I have been told on this thread that people before Darwin were already working on the evolution theory.Ricky Houy said:Sounds to me like you have a vendetta against Darwin. Really I think he did good research for his time. Alot of people do alot of research and fail to have a correct theory. But none the less I still beleive "Survival of the fittest" or "Natural Selection" Are to very very good theorys. They may have a few problems here and there. But for the most part I'd say he did a good job.
Buddha1 said:I have been told on this thread that people before Darwin were already working on the evolution theory.
Buddha1 said:I have not much to say about the evolution theory though. I'm not a biologist. It could be or could not be true as far as I'm concerned.
Buddha1 said:But I have real problems with some of the idea that is intrinsic to the theory of natural selection --- or even of 'survival of the fittest' --- for the notion of who is the fittest is obviously flawed!
Buddha1 said:I think most scientific theories of this kind, in any case, take a very myopic and part view of the entire thing and in their eagerness to provide an analysis leave out the essence of the thing in question --- in this case a matter of life and death --- our existence and its purpose.