Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Light]

My contentions and the supportive evidences that I've given speak for themselves. You or anyone else have not been able to disprove any of them. That is why you are resorting to such unmanly tactics in the hope of beating me. Now I have real doubts that you're a scientist. No respectable scientist would behave in the manner that you have shown. Trying to avoid discussin the matter and trying to score points by indulging in useless mudslinging.

I think you should show proof that you're indeed a scientist otherwise get lost!

You are the one who has made claims and cannot substantiate them. And I have no interest in your topic, I simply want you to admit that you have lied to everyone here. You've already proven it beyond any doubt - now be civil enough to admit it.

 

[Giambattista]

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.

I've heard of shaky palaces before.

Is it just me, or is it hot in here?

 

[Giambattista]

Like, extremely hot???

 

[Giambattista]

Truth is I always did find vaginal penetration ….yucky.
There’s nothing like my sphincter being stretched wide by a massive man-tool, until I yelp in ecstatic agony and plead for more.

Try the smaller one, honey! You'll like it!

 

[Giambattista]

What matters here is that a real scientist has publihsed his work that proves what I'm saying. My publications/ abstracts deal with social issues that men face of which sexual need for other men is an integral part. But these issues are not dependant on recieving the stamps of an authoritative body.

Which scientist is this?

 

[Giambattista]

Why don't you ALL just stop bickering for a moment and go look up Simpson's porn. It's guaranteed to teach us about starving Spielberg. And he IS that Breaded Scholar, he has eyes for you, you know.

 

[Giambattista]

I think I'm going to give up on the "process" going on here. The flies have a better process: aiding decomposition.

 

[Buddha1]

You are the one who has made claims and cannot substantiate them. And I have no interest in your topic, I simply want you to admit that you have lied to everyone here. You've already proven it beyond any doubt - now be civil enough to admit it.

Show the proof you're a scientist or else f* off!

Here is a list of evidences I have given. All are from published sources --- including scientific papers, books, media and so on: How many have you proven wrong? How dare you call me a liar?
- 1. Evidences from the nature (animals)

- More evidences from the animals as well as from traditional societies.

- Evidences from the nature: mammals and birds

- - Evidence from mythology.

- - Queer Bonobos

- Evidence from the modern west

Others have also contributed evidences:
- Evidences from a traditional society

There are several other evidences from published sources that have been compiled here. I have not seen you disprove any of them?

It's you whose intentions are not good. YOu're an outright crook.

 

[Buddha1]

Which scientist is this?

Bruce Bagemihl, Johann Roughgarden, Paul Vase to begin with!

 

[Light]

Show the proof you're a scientist or else f* off!

Your attempts at bait and switch will have no effect. It's you that must pay the piper.

Tell me, how does it feel to be a fraud caught with your foot stuck in your mouth and nowhere to hide?

 

[Buddha1]

Which scientist is this?

funny you decided to ask now, but never cared to check earlier!

 

[Light]

Bruce Bagemihl, Johann Roughgarden, Paul Vase to begin with!

The first one is real enough but I can find nothing on the other two.

By the way, where are YOUR "published" works, liar?

 

[kenworth]

- The purpose of life:[/B] What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.

important to who?the purpose of life defined by who?

 

[Buddha1]

important to who?the purpose of life defined by who?

Purpose of life as defined by nature and reflected in human's natural needs, drives and aspirations.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

- 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 or 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.

In the light of the above, male-female sex and sexual desires assumes enormous (even exclusive) and all encompassing biological importance and heterosexuality gets scientific validity.

Couldn't be that during mating seasons there's heterosexuality to some degree and off the mating season, where actual mating would be unfruitful, there's homo/bisexuality to build these bonds, so sexual selection can coexist with homosexuality?

- Purpose of sex: The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective available method.

So where exactly this form of "sex" evolved? Is it mono or polyphyletic?

If is polyphyletic why all the same-sex bonds behaviors exapted the sexual organs, which presumably evolved to reproduction?

Or is just a coincidence that male and female genitalia match better than same sexes genitalia (at least in most of the cases, I guess), which would have originally evolved to homosexuality?

If homosexual sex came first, and reproduction just exapted these sexual apparatuses evolved just to build boundaries, why there are so often two sexual dimorphisms at least? Why there isn't just only one gender, which is pretty enough to same-sex boundaries and reproduction altogether?

- The sexual selection theory: It is absolutely crap, and the importance given to male-female sex or sexual desire is extremely out of context, and to prove that I have to prove the statement below:

- The purpose of life: What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.

[/quote]
Of course, both are.

Although I'd prefer to not use the word "mean of life" as if biology was providing a mean of life in the philosophical sense.

Quantity is needed to evolution because simple math. The more a reproducer reproduces, the more it exists.

Of course that's not all. If a variant of an species, lets say humans, bears "twentyples" (20 individuals in a single time, if my word make up isn't enough well constructed), they would be something like 3cm aborted living fetuses each. That surely wouldn't be any adapted.

Selection, both sexual and natural (which comprehends sexual, in my opinion) will balance quality with quantity. But will not teleologically prioritize quality. Changes are random, and if a slightly bigger quantity with slightly less quality does better in the nature, there's what the species will be. The other way around is also true, if for a certain species variants that "prioritize" quality are being more effective than those which "prioritize" quantity, they first group is the one which will eventually prevail.

There's no how to argue that quality is always better than quantity, there are lots of examples of living organisms with extreme "r" reproductive strategies to which a slightly, gradual increase in quality/expenditures for individual of the offspring in detriment of quantity wouldn't be advantageous.

Perhaps a huge leap of quality cutting a lot of quantity could theoretically be advantageous in some cases, but it's probably pretty rare, because it would be pretty hard to the developmental system which is constructed to work for quantity to mutate suddenly to an effective producer of highly-developed few offspring.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Show the proof you're a scientist or else f* off!

Here is a list of evidences I have given. All are from published sources --- including scientific papers, books, media and so on: How many have you proven wrong? How dare you call me a liar?

I seem to recall that 'scientists' didn't agree with your list of evidences to start with. Including me.

 

[kenworth]

Purpose of life as defined by nature and reflected in human's natural needs, drives and aspirations.

and who decides what humans NATURAL needs,drives and aspirations are?you?

 

[Buddha1]

It's always a pleasure to discuss things with real scientists. You get to know a lot of relevant scientific facts (and terminologies) useful for your analysis especially, if you're a layman like me.

Couldn't be that during mating seasons there's heterosexuality to some degree and off the mating season, where actual mating would be unfruitful, there's homo/bissexuality to build these bonds, so sexual selection can coexist with homosexuality?

Although, I hate to use the words homosexuality and heterosexuality (because for one both are loaded with socio-political baggages), I will not make that an issue here, because the basic purpose here is to talk about and understand the biology, and I don't want to divert attention.

What you're saying makes sense.

I could add to this that according to my observation male-female sex amongst the wild is not that universal or regularly practised by all the males every year Many males indulge in it at some time in their life. Many don't do it at all. Perhaps the same cannot be said about same-sex behaviour which seems to be more of the rule at least in some species (e.g. the mammals).

Therefore if the theory of natural selection is true, then it's only partly true. Changes or developments in the biology of males cannot only be triggered by a need to reproduce. Although certain changes would be specific to this need. Also nature does not work by dividing things into its various components like we do. Probably, its a complicated mixture of reproductive and other needs that triggers bioloigcal developments in individuals.

Also, if the natural selection theory was true in its entirely, then the male would have been sufficiently feminised and the female sufficiently masculinised in order to make them more compatible with each other. This is exactly what happens in birds --- who have a heterosexual biological make-up.

So where exactly this form of "sex" evolved? Is it mono or polyphyletic?

Sex has been noted in species where sexual dimorphism has not taken place and reproduction is asexual. Of course this sex was with the same sex. This is a strong pointer that reproduction was not the basic or the primary purpose of sex.

And that this non-reproductive same-sex sex has a strong biological value --- otherwise why is it there? This then would go against what Darwin claimed about sexuality. If this is indeed true, then science should start trying to find the significance of same-sex bonds rather than dismissing it to shield Darwin or trying to find the 'reason' for so-called 'homosexuality' as if it were an anomaly.

If is polyphyletic why all the same-sex bonds behaviors exapted the sexual organs, which presumably evolved to reproduction?

Or is just a coincidence that male and female genitalia match better than same sexes genitalia (at least in most of the cases, I guess), which would have originally evolved to homosexuality?

If homosexual sex came first, and reproduction just exapted these sexual apparatuses evolved just to build bondaries, why there are so often two sexual dimorphisms at least? Why there isn't just only one gender, which is pretty enough to same-sex boundaries and reproduction altogether?

Although I couldn't fully understand the last para (sorry I get easily bounced by scientific terminologies!), I suggest that -- as we already know that same-sex behaviour was present before sexual dimorphism took place.....After the species evolved into male and female, sex was chosen as THE way to reproduce. But the original sex for bonding remained in place for the same-sex. In other words sex, which was earlier only for the same-sex got divided into two parts:

- Sex for reproduction -- which was between male and female. But this sex was kept only for reproduction, it did not have much bonding value or a long lasting pleasure value (as evident from observation of the wildlife!)

- Sex for bonding --- which continued to be between the same-sexes even in the newly formed male sex.

Only as much sexual need between opposite sexes developed as could be sustained in nature with ease --- maintaining the precarious natural balance.

Of course, both are.

Although I'd prefer to not use the word "mean of life" as if biology was providing a mean of life in the phylosophical sense.

O.K. I can't yet define this word 'meaningful life" or "meaningful existence" but I think it has immense biological value too. We know that many individuals in a species commit suicide when life loses its meaning --- whatever that is.

Quantity is needed to evolution because simple math. The more a reproductor reproduces, the more it exists.

I'd say, it is true to an extent. After that the greater number becomes a burden --- even becomes suicidal for the species as well as creates havoc with nature's balance. Therefore, nature would never allow it -- not if it has a say. Not through evolution. It is likely to put inbuilt mechanisms in the species -- through its various members, which will make sure that the need to reproduce goes down when that certain number is reached.

Of course that's not all. If a variant of an species, lets say humans, bears "twentyples" (20 individuals in a single time, if my word make up isn't enough well constructed), they would be something like 3cm aborted living fetuses each. That surely wouldn't be any adapted.

Selection, both sexual and natural (which comprehends sexual, in my opinion) will balance quality with quantity. But will not teleologically priorize quality. Changes are random, and if a slightly bigger quantity with slightly less quality does better in the nature, there's what the species will be. The other way around is also true, if for a certain species variants that "prioritize" quality are being more effective than those which "prioritize" quantity, they first group is the one which will eventually prevail.

There's no how to argue that quality is allways better than quantity, there are lots of examples of living organisms with extreme "r" reproductive strategies to which a slightly, graudual increase in quality/expenditures for individual of the offspring in detriment of quantity wouldn't be advantageous.

Perhaps a huge leap of quality cutting a lot of quantity could theoretically be advantageous in some cases, but it's probably pretty rare, because it would be pretty hard to the developmental system which is constructed to work for quantity to mutate suddenly to an effective producer of highly-developed few offspring.

I think there is a perfect balance between quantity and quality. There is room only for slight variations --- and then the alarm bells would start ringing in the species and the inbuilt mechanisms would start working. If they are not allowed to work the entire natural balance would be disrupted.

If the quantity is artiicially increased, it will have tremendously negative effects on the quality of the species.

Like I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, only as much sexual need for the opposite sex amongst the males develops in nature as can be sustained healthily by it.

 

[Buddha1]

I seem to recall that 'scientists' didn't agree with your list of evidences to start with. Including me.

I think it's better not to get involved into the bickering with Light if you want to seriously discuss the issue. He is not for real, and its best to ignore him or my interactions with him!

 

[Buddha1]

and who decides what humans NATURAL needs,drives and aspirations are?you?

No, not in my individual capacity. I guess this is why this thread has been created --- To ponder collectively about that. To discuss evidences which may point to what nature wants from us.