Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Huwy]

You've posted 2 copies of this thread, the other one is here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50435&page=1&pp=20

That's pretty lame dude.

 

[Huwy]

You've posted 2 copies of this thread, the other one is here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50460&page=1&pp=20

That's pretty lame Buddha1.

Can a moderator merge them please? Actually, I think all (10 or more) of Buddha1's posts about this issue should be merged into one.

 

[James R]

Threads merged. Please do not cross-post.

 

[RickyH]

Stop me if im wrong but according to darwin we kinda evolved to what we are now.
so figuritivly speaking we are all homosexual but we have sex with the oposite sex to procreate children. Well then darwin must have been off because we would evolve to procreate with the same sex. If it is our preference right? Since we evolve and we are homosexual why would there have been a need for the oposite sex? Why couldnt we have evolved to have children without the opsite sex? That seems odd because im not as sexually attracted to men as i am women. I do not think about men when thinking about the process of making kids. Plus i would rather bond with women over men. So this theory has no basis because it contradicts itself. According to darwin we would have never needed the oposite sex correct? Now i have only heard so much about darwinism so i could be completely wrong on this but if we did evolve the way darwin says that does seem fair to say we would have no need for the oposite sex. But we have the oposite sex, why would we if we are are supposed to be homosexuals, bhudda? Is it because we are mammal's? If so why like you stated mammals and birds having homosexual relations too. If that where true we would have accepted homosexuality in society since the dawn of man kind when we didnt have society making it "gay" The romans accepted homosexuality, but mostly because soldiers where away from women for long periods of time, like during war (kinda like prisoners, and i think we all knows about that) So most men only have gay sex when there is no women to bond with or have sex with. So wouldn't women be the first choice in both bonding and in sex? Making the theory stating most humans are homosexual wrong? now stop me if im wrong. Also another thing homosexuality could have been accepted in earlier times because of homo sexual rulers saying its ok (you see how its kinda a reverse on todays standards) like we have straight leaders they could have had gay leaders. So your going to need more proof because society could have made it wrong to not be homosexual back then. As a matter a fact i can name one homosexual ruler off the top of my head, alexander the great. As a matter a fact there where alot of roman rulers who where gay. So whos to say society accepted homosexuality because of being away from women for so long they started bonding with men?

 

[RickyH]

Also where di you come up with these numbers 95% of men are homosexual. Plus can you really prove with hard physical evidence of this like how you got those numbers. How this came up. How you know what mens sexual preferance was, evidence proving we are homosexual. Because Seeing as how most relationships are based off of sexual appeal i hardley see how your theory works. When almost every guy dates a grl because she is sexually atractive. If we where gay why would we care what the women looked like?

 

[Buddha1]

... I'm not a real scientist, I'm not a scientist...



I think that sometimes this sort of subject need some preliminary clarification of what-is-meant-by-what.

Conversations may be unfruitful without this clarification of terms, doesn't matter exactly if one agrees with the term, but some consensus must be achieved in order to one people say one thing and the other understand it correctly. Sometimes the comprehension of the other person's conclusions can't be achieved since each person has slightly different concepts for each term, so is more or less like two persons making the same equations but with different values for the same variables. The tags are the same, but are tagging different things.

"Sex" for example, I personally prefer to use the word for the distinction between genders, and that's how I "defaultly" understand it. But some people use the word "sex" more widely, can be any sort of genetic recombination, even bacterial, even technicality "asexual".

Well, eventually I'll try to describe what I think that's the origin of sex, and all related stuff, eventually adopting some terminology that wouldn't be your favourite, but I think that this discussion can be much more effective with an initial agreement on this stuff, wherever is the terminology, because what matters most is what's happening/what's that than how you tag it.






I'll just disagree a bit with the end, to start.

Whatever is the reality of these behaviors, natural selection very very hardly is any affected.

What is affected is that for some reason, what at first sight seems to be the more adaptive trait, the trait that has the higher reproductive differential (in this case is supposed to be male-female sex preponderance) turns to not be the more adaptive, as thought.

Is this, or we're talking about some sort of entirely new mechanism of evolution that I just don't have any idea of what it would be.

I have to say that would be very counter intuitive, to not say a bit weird, if there's a preponderance of same-sex. I'd expect that, if the idea that different-sex as more adaptive was not the general rule, that at least the general rule would be to sexual behavior to be somewhat random in relation to the gender, and not that the sexual behavior would tend to the same gender.

I don't have a problem accepting that it could be the more adaptive in some cases (cases of species, not even individuals), but seems strange that would prevail among mammals in general, when variants tending to different-sex behaviour would probably reproduce more, and thus exist more. In order to explain that, same-sex behavior ought to have a strong selective advantage over the any-sex behavior our different-sex behavior.

The general advantage of same-sex behavior would be, I think, as a form of a 'K' reproductive strategy (I don't know to what the "K" stands for, but it means more resources per individual, as opposed to "r", which I also don't know where it came from, but means more offspring and less resources for each).

But the "extreme" K strategy would mean to not have any offspring at all, which is totally unadaptive, at least in the individual level. Genes that determine this behaviour could survive by reproducing themselves through siblings, anyway.
Also, strict, lifelong, same-sex (and different-sex too) behavior isn't a necessary assumption, could be that different sex-behavior can be trigged in apparently strict homosexual individuals as an reproductive mechanism.

That's how I think that an prevailing homosexual species or population could work to be viable, but I yet can't see how it would be always adaptive, or why always the same-sex behaviour would tend to be the way to achieve a K reproductive strategy, where other alternative ways could eventually do the same. Not that I think that they would purposefully avoid to evolve in this direction, but it would be weird that some species just don't mate that much, reducing the number of offspring per time, without needing to actively engage in non-reproductive sex.





I don't see how it's even predictable, why more less sexual dimorphism would be more adaptive, or what do you mean by "compatible" and how that's adaptive.

Also it seems to suggest that sexual dimorphisms are driven not by between-sex sexual selection - which would select for less dimorphism, if i got it right, but by some sort of sexual selection between individuals of the same sex, somehow, or maybe by something completely different, which I just don't have any idea of what it could be.




That's one of the points I mentioned earlier where things may be a little bit confused...

I don't see any problem with that, but I also don't think that it dissociates sexual dimorphism of reproduction, if it's part of what you're suggesting.

Neither that reproductive "asexual sex" didn't came earlier than the non-reproductive asexual sex. But I don't strongly doubt that too, although I can guess that there's some reproductive function to that.




What's the specific claim?

I don't see any problem with homosexuality being an anomaly in the sense that's not modal, supposing it's not modal (you seem to disagree).

I also don't think that there's any problem if it's totally not "natural", in the sense that's not biologically determined but something by nurture. It also can have the fulfill the same biological functions, advantages, even if there's just some "developmental room" to the individual be one thing or another.

Anyone who condemns homosexuality by saying that's "not natural" theoretically should do the same with water glasses and go to drink water in rain pools or rivers, with the hands.






What I meant is that the everything suggests that sexual dimorphisms, from anisogamy to genitalia, evolved to reproduction, not to engage in some sort of similar but non-reproductive activity.

How do you suggest that the different genitalias evolved?

Because I have the impression that according to what you say, sexual dimorphism is totally pointless, and should never have evolved at all. All species would remain asexual or hermaphrodites.




So, the reason of the split and the nature of the split is what I can't understand.
Why there isn't just one sex that does both the reproduction and the bonds?




I'll come back to the topic later, got to go back to work

I was planning to leave, but your posts are the amongst the few sincere ones, and give me a chance to have a real discussion. So I guess I'll keep coming back to answer them.

 

[Buddha1]

Stop me if im wrong but according to darwin we kinda evolved to what we are now.
so figuritivly speaking we are all homosexual but we have sex with the oposite sex to procreate children. Well then darwin must have been off because we would evolve to procreate with the same sex. If it is our preference right? Since we evolve and we are homosexual why would there have been a need for the oposite sex? Why couldnt we have evolved to have children without the opsite sex? That seems odd because im not as sexually attracted to men as i am women. I do not think about men when thinking about the process of making kids. Plus i would rather bond with women over men. So this theory has no basis because it contradicts itself. According to darwin we would have never needed the oposite sex correct? Now i have only heard so much about darwinism so i could be completely wrong on this but if we did evolve the way darwin says that does seem fair to say we would have no need for the oposite sex. But we have the oposite sex, why would we if we are are supposed to be homosexuals, bhudda? Is it because we are mammal's? If so why like you stated mammals and birds having homosexual relations too. If that where true we would have accepted homosexuality in society since the dawn of man kind when we didnt have society making it "gay" The romans accepted homosexuality, but mostly because soldiers where away from women for long periods of time, like during war (kinda like prisoners, and i think we all knows about that) So most men only have gay sex when there is no women to bond with or have sex with. So wouldn't women be the first choice in both bonding and in sex? Making the theory stating most humans are homosexual wrong? now stop me if im wrong. Also another thing homosexuality could have been accepted in earlier times because of homo sexual rulers saying its ok (you see how its kinda a reverse on todays standards) like we have straight leaders they could have had gay leaders. So your going to need more proof because society could have made it wrong to not be homosexual back then. As a matter a fact i can name one homosexual ruler off the top of my head, alexander the great. As a matter a fact there where alot of roman rulers who where gay. So whos to say society accepted homosexuality because of being away from women for so long they started bonding with men?

I wish James R. would read this. He would then realise the folly of trying to discuss everything related with male sexuality under one thread.

 

[Buddha1]

Stop me if im wrong but according to darwin we kinda evolved to what we are now.
Theory of evolution is not wrong --- I'm not disputing that part of Darwin --- only his insistence on reproduction being the primary drive of individuals or species.

so figuritivly speaking we are all homosexual but we have sex with the oposite sex to procreate children.

I've never used the word homosexual. It has different connotations. Also I'm saying majority (95%) not all. Men have different levels of sexual desire for women.

Well then darwin must have been off because we would evolve to procreate with the same sex. If it is our preference right? Since we evolve and we are homosexual why would there have been a need for the oposite sex? Why couldnt we have evolved to have children without the opsite sex?

Darwin was off, but it does not alter the fact that animals (higher species as you call them) evolved to reproduce through sex. Who is contending that? What I'm saying is that reproduction is just one of the two important purposes of sexual desire or sex. And therefore it is not present universally in males or females. Opposite sex preference is present in animals in different degrees, and is permanently very strong only in a few individuals in a species (excluding birds). In most males (especiall in mammals --- and there are recorded evidences) it becomes strong only at a particular point in life (later youth/ adulthood) --- and is still limited to physical attraction which is transitionary in nature. In a significant number of males the desire to reproduce is not present at all --- and that's in keeping with nature's scheme of things. For nature wants only as much procreation as would not disturb its precarious balance (I think this is a point everyone is ignoring). Too much procreation is unhealthy for any species --- after a point even suicidal. That's why humans today are struggling to bring down their population. That's why in nature there are various other mechanisms to bring down the number of offsprings. E.g. in species that procreate a lot (e.g. birds and reptiles) few children survive to grow up to be adults. In some species the mother herself eats up her children.


Nature's message is clear --- It will not tolerate procreation after a point --- a point much lower than we usually admit to.

Therefore, it has only given as much sexual need between opposite sexes that is required for the species to procreate in healthy numbers. Nature is not self-destructive.

Sex on the other hand was there even before reproduction became 'sexual'. Like I said --- it has been proved by scientists that sex was there before living organisms developed sexual dimorphisms. Then it had nothing to do with procreation. It means that sex had a very important purpose other than reproduction. That purpose has not been lost after sex was chosen as a way to reproduce.

Stop seeing everything in black and white like the western society tends to. Nature did not divide individuals or sexual desire into heterosexual and homoseuxals. It has used sexual need both for procreation and bonding.

To elaborate again --- sex has two purposes:

1. Sex for bondingThe foremost purpose (which was there before sexual reproduction came along) of sexual desire and need was bonding. Bonding amongst so-called 'higher species' are of two kinds:

- bonding between male and male/ female and female: This is the primary purpose of sexual bonding --- to allow males to live peacefully and meaningfully in the male group (ditto for females). There are enough evidences from the wildlife as collected by different scientists and put together by scientists like Bruce Bagemihl.

- bonding between males and females: This is also an important, although secondary function of sexual bonding. It happens only in a few males and females in species (other than birds). It's function amongst mammals at least, is to be a link between the males and females who otherwise lead different lives. It's incidence is extremely rare (as observed amongst sheep by Johann roughgarden) something like 5%.

2. Sex for Reproduction: Nature did not divide individuals on the basis of whether they wanted to have sex for reproduction or for same-sex bonding. It has distributed different set of traits (often including parts of everything) to different individuals, which are also fluid and changeable as one progresses in life based on needs of the nature. Sex for reproduction is an important function of a species as a whole --- though not so for the individuals. However in at the level of the species, it is not the sole purpose, and if somehow sex is not available for procreation, nature will find some other way to do it. Sex will still remain to serve the purpose of bonding --- which in the nature is only required for people belonging to the same sex (excluding birds).

It will help you to see things clearly if you stop seeing nature as the extremes of homosexual and heterosexual.

Since we evolve and we are homosexual why would there have been a need for the oposite sex?

For reproduction!

Sexual dimorphism happened (probably primarily) to enable better reproduction. That doesn't negate the initial function of sex (bonding between the same!).

This is a perfect example of how you can mislead the discussion and draw/ ascribe incorrect conclusions by using misleading terms like 'homosexual'.

We are neither homosexual nor heterosexual (in fact nor bisexual, but that's another discussion).

That seems odd because im not as sexually attracted to men as i am women. I do not think about men when thinking about the process of making kids. Plus i would rather bond with women over men. So this theory has no basis because it contradicts itself.

Let's keep the discussion impersonal. Other men will claim they have only sexual need for other men. Still others will lie about their sexual need because of upbringing ("pressures to be/ appear heterosexual" -- unfortunately the thread doesn't exist anymore).

According to darwin we would have never needed the oposite sex correct?

Darwin said that? I think if we believe Darwin same-sex desire should not exist (scientists who believe in Darwin think it should not exist).

Now i have only heard so much about darwinism so i could be completely wrong on this but if we did evolve the way darwin says that does seem fair to say we would have no need for the oposite sex. But we have the oposite sex, why would we if we are are supposed to be homosexuals, bhudda? Is it because we are mammal's? If so why like you stated mammals and birds having homosexual relations too.

We need the opposite sex for reproduction --- but we need only a few males (but a majority of females) to do that. Male investment is little. Females have to invest large periods of their life to give birth to one/ few offsprings (mammals).

Also males are not supposed to participate in the rearing of children --- therefore sexuality has not been made for male-female bonding (only 5% in nature). That's an artificial situation brought about by the humans to sustain the marriage institution.

If that where true we would have accepted homosexuality in society since the dawn of man kind when we didnt have society making it "gay" The romans accepted homosexuality, but mostly because soldiers where away from women for long periods of time, like during war (kinda like prisoners, and i think we all knows about that) So most men only have gay sex when there is no women to bond with or have sex with. So wouldn't women be the first choice in both bonding and in sex? Making the theory stating most humans are homosexual wrong? now stop me if im wrong. Also another thing homosexuality could have been accepted in earlier times because of homo sexual rulers saying its ok (you see how its kinda a reverse on todays standards) like we have straight leaders they could have had gay leaders. So your going to need more proof because society could have made it wrong to not be homosexual back then. As a matter a fact i can name one homosexual ruler off the top of my head, alexander the great. As a matter a fact there where alot of roman rulers who where gay. So whos to say society accepted homosexuality because of being away from women for so long they started bonding with men?

Homosexuality occurred when the modern society made enforced heterosexuality on men. In the beginning there was no homosexuality (or heterosexuality!). Yes, male-male sexual bonds were the norm. If you don't want to keep your eyes shut and not acknowledge the evidences, or to explain them away in order to support heterosexuality, that is your problem.

And yes to call Alexander the great a homosexual is to denigrate him.

But, this is not the proper place to discuss social issues.

 

[Buddha1]

Also where di you come up with these numbers 95% of men are homosexual. Plus can you really prove with hard physical evidence of this like how you got those numbers. How this came up. How you know what mens sexual preferance was, evidence proving we are homosexual. Because Seeing as how most relationships are based off of sexual appeal i hardley see how your theory works. When almost every guy dates a grl because she is sexually atractive. If we where gay why would we care what the women looked like?

Sorry, this is not the place to discuss those issues.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why not?

 

[Buddha1]

I think that sometimes this sort of subject need some preliminary clarification of what-is-meant-by-what.

Conversations may be unfruitful without this clarification of terms, doesn't matter exactly if one agrees with the term, but some consensus must be achieved in order to one people say one thing and the other understand it correctly. Sometimes the comprehension of the other person's conclusions can't be achieved since each person has slightly different concepts for each term, so is more or less like two persons making the same equations but with different values for the same variables. The tags are the same, but are tagging different things.

"Sex" for example, I personally prefer to use the word for the distinction between genders, and that's how I "defaultly" understand it. But some people use the word "sex" more widely, can be any sort of genetic recombination, even bacterial, even technicality "asexual".

Well, eventually I'll try to describe what I think that's the origin of sex, and all related stuff, eventually adopting some terminology that wouldn't be your favourite, but I think that this discussion can be much more effective with an initial agreement on this stuff, wherever is the terminology, because what matters most is what's happening/what's that than how you tag it.

I guess then it is better not to use the misleading term homosexuality and heterosexuality, but to use exact terms like male-male sex/bonds/sexual need etc.

Because how we label things affects our perception of them --- and also distorts the reality. Things are not so well divided into heterosexuality and homosexuality as we would like to believe.

I'll just disagree a bit with the end, to start.

Whatever is the reality of these behaviors, natural selection very very hardly is any affected.

By natural selection I only mean the 'sexual selection' part that I find objectionable. That I believe has been disproved by a vast number of evidences.

What is affected is that for some reason, what at first sight seems to be the more adaptive trait, the trait that has the higher reproductive differential (in this case is supposed to be male-female sex preponderance) turns to not be the more adaptive, as thought.

..............I have to say that would be very counter intuitive, to not say a bit weird, if there's a preponderance of same-sex. I'd expect that, if the idea that different-sex as more adaptive was not the general rule, that at least the general rule would be to sexual behavior to be somewhat random in relation to the gender, and not that the sexual behavior would tend to the same gender.

..............I don't have a problem accepting that it could be the more adaptive in some cases (cases of species, not even individuals), but seems strange that would prevail among mammals in general, when variants tending to different-sex behaviour would probably reproduce more, and thus exist more. In order to explain that, same-sex behavior ought to have a strong selective advantage over the any-sex behavior our different-sex behavior.

I think basic problem between our standpoints is that you think reproduction is the primary goal of life

Is this, or we're talking about some sort of entirely new mechanism of evolution that I just don't have any idea of what it would be.

I don't have a problem accepting that it could be the more adaptive in some cases (cases of species, not even individuals), but seems strange that would prevail among mammals in general, when variants tending to different-sex behaviour would probably reproduce more, and thus exist more. In order to explain that, same-sex behavior ought to have a strong selective advantage over the any-sex behavior our different-sex behavior.

That same-sex bonds/ sexual need are near universal amongst males is not debatable anymore --- it's been amply brought out by Bruce Bagemihl's work. Now unless you disprove them......

The general advantage of same-sex behavior would be, I think, as a form of a 'K' reproductive strategy (I don't know to what the "K" stands for, but it means more resources per individual, as opposed to "r", which I also don't know where it came from, but means more offspring and less resources for each).

But the "extreme" K strategy would mean to not have any offspring at all, which is totally unadaptive, at least in the individual level. Genes that determine this behaviour could survive by reproducing themselves through siblings, anyway.

You are again assuming reproduction to be the only or even the primary function of sex, and trying to guage same-sex bonds in the light of their reproductive value --- which is hardly material here. Same-sex bonds have other important value, not a reproductive value (may be in a minor number of cases).

That reproduction is not the primary of only purpose of sex is amply proven by the facts that:
- Before sexual dimorphism took place sex was asexual.
- But sex was widely practised for bonding and pleasure purposes.

Also, strict, lifelong, same-sex (and different-sex too) behavior isn't a necessary assumption, could be that different sex-behavior can be trigged in apparently strict homosexual individuals as an reproductive mechanism.

I'm not making that assumption. There is nothing like a 'homosexual' or a 'heterosexual' individual in nature. It only happens in the modern west. That too is more a show than practise.

That's how I think that an prevailing homosexual species or population could work to be viable, but I yet can't see how it would be always adaptive, or why always the same-sex behaviour would tend to be the way to achieve a K reproductive strategy, where other alternative ways could eventually do the same. Not that I think that they would purposefully avoid to evolve in this direction, but it would be weird that some species just don't mate that much, reducing the number of offspring per time, without needing to actively engage in non-reproductive sex.

There is nothing like a homosexual species. There is nothing like homosexuality in nature. Why are you talking about nature as if you were discussing modern western humans? Things in nature are not either this or that --- but they include everythings in different degrees, as per the need/ evolution.

I don't see how it's even predictable, why more less sexual dimorphism would be more adaptive, or what do you mean by "compatible" and how that's adaptive.

Masculinity and femininity are not compatible for long term bonding. Like they say, if men are from mars, women are from venus. An emotional bonding becomes difficult between people who are so different. A short term infatuation with the other is possible which soon vanishes due to difference between lifestyles, perceptions and aspirations. The same works on other species.

Bonding requires as less differences between individuals as possible. If nature indeed wanted male and female to stick together in bonds, it would not make them so different from inside --- that sticking together would become impossible. There is no evidence from the wild of male-female widespread bonding (apart from birds). It happens rarely amongst species other than the birds. And in birds the difference between the male and female is greatly reduced. In fact the males are feminine while the females are masculine. There social roles are also turned upside down in many bird species. In fact while the males carry the XX chromosome, female birds carry the XY chromosomes. Clearly, nature intended opposite sex birds to bond together -- sometimes for life. Homosexuality --- as marginalised same-sex behaviour does occur in birds species. But not in others.

Also it seems to suggest that sexual dimorphisms are driven not by between-sex sexual selection - which would select for less dimorphism, if i got it right, but by some sort of sexual selection between individuals of the same sex, somehow, or maybe by something completely different, which I just don't have any idea of what it could be.

I didn't quite mean that! Sexual dimorphism did not happen as a result of sexual selection between individuals. Sexual need between members of the same sex, for intense bonding purposes is the primary human sexual drive which was already present at the time of sexual dimorphism and was carried forward after the species was bifurcated. Sexual organs grew to facilitate reproduction between male and female, but without excluding sex between males (not necessarily anal-sex)/ or between females . Sex for reproduction is not mutually exclusive with sex for bonding purposes.

What I meant when I say that I disagree with the 'sexual selection' theory is that there are important changes in 'higher animals' to facilitate male-female sex for reproduction, but these developments are limited to their reproductory organs. Same-sex bonds/need just adapted themselves to these new changes triggered by opposite-sex reproduction.

It is wrong and misleading to assume that everything regarding the male is geared (and that includes his emotional and social behaviour) in order to make male and female mating a success --- or the primary drive/ purpose of the male is to mate with the female. As is often deduced from Darwin's work on animal sexuality.

That's one of the points I mentioned earlier where things may be a little bit confused...

When confusion arises, that's the time to have a relook at our theories.

Neither that reproductive "asexual sex" didn't came earlier than the non-reproductive asexual sex. But I don't strongly doubt that too, although I can guess that there's some reproductive function to that.

What is reproductive 'asexual sex'? How can sex be asexual? When reproduction was asexual, it was not related with sex at all. There is no question of it coming earlier or later --- it just did not exist. There can be no reproductive function to 'non-reproductive' sex, when sex is completely apart from reproduction.

What's the specific claim?

If you're asking what I'm claiming as the biological purpose of same-sex bonds, I'm not making any such claims (at least not now --- later!). My point is instead of blindly assuming that same-sex need or bonds have no biological meaning because they don't reproduce, without first proving beyond doubt that reproduction is the only purpose of life or animal biology -- is not correct or logical.

Science should stop being so stubborn and arrogant that it goes to the extent of rubbishing what clearly exists so strongly in nature because it contradicts what those in power have determined to be the acceptable 'theory' about the purpose of life.

If something exists so powerfully, and contradicts our theory we should relook at our theory not try to distort nature to fit into our theories. This is something those controlling science have stubbornly refused to do.

I don't see any problem with homosexuality being an anomaly in the sense that's not modal, supposing it's not modal (you seem to disagree).

Any theory or notion becomes problematic when it is not supported by evidences --- especially when lives of people are associated with those notions.

When we have evidences, there is no point in speculating or making suppositions.

I also don't think that there's any problem if it's totally not "natural", in the sense that's not biologically determined but something by nurture. It also can have the fulfill the same biological functions, advantages, even if there's just some "developmental room" to the individual be one thing or another.

Anyone who condemns homosexuality by saying that's "not natural" theoretically should do the same with water glasses and go to drink water in rain pools or rivers, with the hands.

Well, in a I way condemn homosexuality because it is not found in nature, apart from in birds. But I guess we are looking at the term differently.

Anyone who supports heterosexuality as natural should also consider fridges and water treatment plants to be natural (they probably already do!) .

What I meant is that the everything suggests that sexual dimorphisms, from anisogamy to genitalia, evolved to reproduction, not to engage in some sort of similar but non-reproductive activity.

I don't see how the fact that it supported opposite-sex reproductive sex makes it unsupportive of same-sex sexual bonding and pleasure, especially when it predates sexual reproduction. Once again things in nature are not divided into either this or that like we tend to do in human societies.

How do you suggest that the different genitalias evolved?

For reproduction. But that does not exclude same-sex need or bonds as being the primary function of sex. At least it does not make reproduction the only important function of sex. And it does not still support the theory that the entire existence of male is there only so he can procreate --- or that procreation is a must to be a male or even a defining quality.

Because I have the impression that according to what you say, sexual dimorphism is totally pointless, and should never have evolved at all. All species would remain asexual or hermaphrodites.

Definitely not! How can I reject what is there? I'm asking you not to see things in extreme as either this or that. Secual dimorphism happened for reproduction which is important to carry on species. But it is not the primary purpose of existence or of the species or of the individuals. It is more important for the species than for the individuals, but the species does not need to overly design individuals for that. It can very well use existing mechanisms by making minor changes (like sexual need for same-sex) in order to obtain what is needed.

So, the reason of the split and the nature of the split is what I can't understand.
Why there isn't just one sex that does both the reproduction and the bonds?

Because bonding is only required between the same-sex. Because it is not natural for the two sexes to mix. There is no biological need for that.

Better reproduction was perhaps the only major reason for sexual dimorphism, but it could not afford to do away with the basic purpose of sex (i.e. same-sex bonds --- whose nature was redefined after sexual dimorphism). It just added to it.

I'll come back to the topic later, got to go back to work

I'm on this forum only because of you!

 

[Buddha1]

I've edited the above several times so one should reread it.

 

[Buddha1]

Why not?

Because then we will digress from the main point. There is (was) a different forum to discuss that. Human beings have a number of social issues that affects their behaviour, and to go into them will mean going away from the point of debate.There is no limit to how far we can go away from what we are discussing.

 

[Buddha1]

... I'm not a real scientist, I'm not a scientist...

Funny, how those who brag about their being 'scientists' conduct themselves so unscientifically when you have discussions with them, and those who say they are not scientists can be so precise, professional and scientific in their approach! :bugeye:

 

[Buddha1]

By the way I can't seem to log off, can someone tell me why and how?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Funny, how those who brag about their being 'scientists' conduct themselves so unscientifically when you have discussions with them, and those who say they are not scientists can be so precise, professional and scientific in their approach! :bugeye:

How do you know what unscientific conduct is?

 

[RickyH]

So why not just stae that alst all men have homosexual tendenacy's? That is fairly known to alot of people and it isn't so shuned. Other then stating it like we are full blown gay but still have sex with women because we have to. I know you never did say that but with a title of the thread like "Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality" with the comments you said that some 95% of men are homosexual. Now that isnt exactly how it was worded but i do not not have enough time at the moment to do the quoting. Wh not say 95% of men have homosexual tendancys? Which is just about what you are saying. So if you are saying his then i beleive that there is pretty good evidence of that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Funny, how those who brag about their being 'scientists' conduct themselves so unscientifically when you have discussions with them,

Scientists are selected by the environment to be good at investigating the world, not to tolerate fools or foolishness.

 

[Buddha1]

How do you know what unscientific conduct is?

Don't worry, I find you one of the few scientifically oriented guys and a pleasure to discuss with, inspite of our opposition.

Examples of unscientific debate:
ACCUSING -- you're a fool, idiot, gay, wrong, biased (full stop, no further arguments!) or TROLLING -- filling up thread space to demand that one reveals one's personal identity

There are several other examples I'll discuss soon.

 

[Buddha1]

So why not just stae that alst all men have homosexual tendenacy's? That is fairly known to alot of people and it isn't so shuned. Other then stating it like we are full blown gay but still have sex with women because we have to. I know you never did say that but with a title of the thread like "Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality" with the comments you said that some 95% of men are homosexual. Now that isnt exactly how it was worded but i do not not have enough time at the moment to do the quoting. Wh not say 95% of men have homosexual tendancys? Which is just about what you are saying. So if you are saying his then i beleive that there is pretty good evidence of that.

Ricky, I have never once used the word 'homosexual' nor have I claimed that this 95% is an exclusive sexual desire for men. (But at the same time it also means that the majority of men do not have an exclusive sexual desire for women!)

What I had claimed was that 95% of men have a sexual need for other men.

And it is not the only reason that I'm contending Darwin's theory on sexuality.

Don't you think that no theories should be considered as 'holy cows' and 'words of god' that you can't question them. At least look at my arguments and then decide if I have a point or not. If I don't have a case, then I would expect someone to prove my points or analysis wrong.