Happy Darwin Day!!!!

[spuriousmonkey]

Oh! Happeh, Spuriousmonkey, Leopold and Blindman the gang!

Funny you don't say anything when I provide the evidences.

And the latest conclusive evidences are as scientific as social science can get. They are papers presented at important conferences by university professors.

While your 80% heterosexual poll has been proved to be a farce......long ago!

and Funny you or any one else don't have even a single answer to the hundreds of points we have raised so far about these issues.

What evidence? Your fantasies are not accepted as evidence.

 

[Buddha1]

What evidence? Your fantasies are not accepted as evidence.

You and your arguments. The evidences are from university professors and their well researched papers.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Take our own sciforum for example. Science rules here.

well DUH this is a science forum! gee, this sure is representative of society as a whole!

And so does the marginalisation of same-sex bonds on the basis of 'darwinism'.

Whoever uses EVOLUTION (darwanism is NOT science, it's a social thing) to do that is mistaken. Can you give me examples?

Well it is obvious that most men are not supposed to have a sexual need for other men because it flies in the face of Darwin's sexual selection.

No it doesn't. See, the problem here is that you don't understand sexual selection, or evolution as a whole.

Science clearly tells us that a minority of males with brains like that of women and genetic anomalies turn up that way! Homosexuals couldn't agree more!

huh?

huh indeed! Come out of your 'sexual identities' and you will understand this world better!

again, huh?
I don't know what you're trying to say. can you explain it better?

Apparently you have either missed or never cared to participate in the long debates we had on the issues of sexual orientation and the words used by the west for male gender and sexuality.

You're right. You made so many damned threads about it, you've turned other threads (like this one) into discussions about it, that frankly I don't feel like reading them. Besides, you don't use logic or science for anything so I just ignore them. If you want people to take you seriously you should stop trolling, preaching without any evidence (what you call evidence is not evidence, you just talk and talk and talk and talk some more), making wild claims, and start putting forth your ideas in an organized manner and providing good supporting evidence for them. From the posts i've seen, you don't do that.

No law in a any traditional country ever recognises or talks about 'sex between homosexual men' or 'homosexuality'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG
look, laws on HOMOSEXUALITY. <u>Homosexuality</u> is illegal in some places.

Have we gone through it? I don't think you have even gone through the discussion on the 'gender is biological" thread.
We proved, without opposition, in fact with implicit and explicit consent of people that there is something called natural gender.

I haven't gone through all of it.

If we believe Darwin ses is only about sexual selection and about reproduction.

No it isn't. I challange you to quote darwin saying that. Actually that's quite irrelevant. Evolution has changed since then, so even if he DID think sex is only for reproduction, it doesn't mean much. The MAIN purpose of sex IS reproduction, but it has some other uses too... which I already mentioned.

That is Darwinism for you! Heterosexuality draws strength and sustenanence from Darwinism. Otherwise there was no way science could reject same-sex needs in the majority of men.

What the hell are you talking about? society, culture, and civilians have nothing to do with "darwanism".

So Spuriousmonkey, the alleged development biologist is 'uneducated civilian'? *I didn't even know that non-scientists are known as civilians! )

Or Amy Parish, the biologist is uneducated?

Or population geneticist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago --- is she uneducated?

I don't know, I didn't mean uneducated in the general sense, I meant not informed about the subject.

What if quite a few parents have healthy, virile and beautiful males who choose not to mate or to mate with men, while their less endowed sons seem to be over eager to mate with females?

Then the population will get "less endowed", whatever that means. (LOL)

a.) Let's take the example of mouth? Does the fact that mouth is used to eat can be taken to mean that mouth is only meant for eating? What about speaking?

This is pointless... I'm waiting for your answer about what the peacock tail/antlers are for.

c.) There is a direct relationship between sexual organs and reproduction. But to say that antlers or tails too are primarily 'sexual organs' is a bit too far-fetched. You will need really strong proofs to establish that

No there isn't. You yourself are trying to prove otherwise. Some people don't use sexual organs for reproduction. And I didn't say antlers/tails are sexual organs (which they're not), I said that they have huge, colorful tails/antlers as a result of sexual selection.
What kind of "proofs" do you want?
I already told you about the studies that proved sexual selection is true. I guess if you want I can cite them.

And to suggest that everything that comprise a male, including his emotional nature is essentially made to allow him to mate iwth a female --- is stretching things too far.

When did I say that?

Wait, let me ask you! You are a scientist and a die hard Darwinan!

I'm not a "darwanian", whatever that means.
And I asked YOU. YOU give me the answer.
I'm not going to do the research for you.

My views are not the accepted view of science and they do not rule the world. Darwinism does!

stop saying darwanism. That word doesn't exist.

YOU FUCKING TWAT! I showed you fucking ages ago that Darwin never said with a fucking quote from him. Do you honestly think that if you keep repeating stupid things they become true? You are really a fucking retard you know.

I'm begining to agree with that.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You and your arguments. The evidences are from university professors and their well researched papers.

Give the fucking reference then.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

PS

We have established that:

1. you have shown nothing.
2. 80% of men are heterosexual.
3. you are confused.

Well, I wouldn't say that. You've established that 80% of men SAY they're heterosexual (although I definately do NOT think 95% of men have a sexual need for other men)

 

[Buddha1]

Give the fucking reference then.

Go and fucking read them at the thread "95% of men have a sexual need for men".

Have you forgotten, when I posted the references you accused me of spamming? surely you read them, becuase you have not opposed my figure of 95% since then.

 

[Buddha1]

except, now indirectly on this thread, feigning ignorance of the conclusive proof that I provided.

 

[Buddha1]

You may say it, but it is a stupid theory. Complex language is driven by complex social structures.

Exactly. It is stupid.

But then why do you accept this stupidity in the case of male sexuality? Males have sex with females. Males also have sex with males. And a considerable proportion of males don't have sex with females. Then on what basis can you say that anything that the male biology consists of, or even his sexual organs are exclusively determined by the need to mate with females.

References, sources??? Your fantasies do not count.

I had provided one earlier. I have provided yet another series of excerpts in the thread "Darwin is wrong about sexuality".

You apparently read those scientific papers. Then can't refute them. But then don't stop claiming that your position is right --- without feeling the need to valdiate or explain yourself. Why is that? What kind of a biologist are you?

YOU FUCKING TWAT! I showed you fucking ages ago that Darwin never said with a fucking quote from him. Do you honestly think that if you keep repeating stupid things they become true? You are really a fucking retard you know.

Getting frustrated eh!

For all your absurdities, answering your posts at least provides me a chance to explain myself ...... and they are better than having to read the responses by Leopold writing 'women' a hundred times over.

I think I already proved my point about Darwin by the quote from the net from a qualified biologist who validated what I said.

But actually I was too lazy to blast you on one of the other stupid post you had made about 'people not reading darwin before criticising him'.

I mean you're a biologist. You're supposed to know. But you couldn't tell me anything about what Darwin said, except that I'm wrong.

I admit I had based my comments on what I have been learning about biological explanations of sexuality based upon Darwin from the western society.

But, how dare you blame me for contending Darwin on this basis? Where were you --- if you think I'm misquoting Darwin, when the entire media and other institutions of the society INCLUDING the scientific institution was projecting Darwin as having said all that. If you thought that was not the case, why didn't the scientific community protest. Why did they choose to remain mute spectators when the entire society was unduly being restructured on the basis of Darwin. Here is an example from "the magazine of the California academy of science":

"Meanwhile, on the popular front, Elle magazine confides that "males fighting for females is the elastic in the jockstrap of evolution, therefore women are hardwired to 'size up' and appreciate male competition" (Ask E. Jean, Elle, Feb. 2005)."

So if you did not speak then, why did you choose to castigate me when I questioned Darwin on the basis of how he had been projected. You have no moral right!

Only, in the end I only came out to be correct about Darwin, as can be clearly shown by the articles that I have presented earlier and today.

What kind of a developmental Bioloigist does that show you as? You don't even know Darwin, when you're such a staunch Darwinist? How come the uneducated 'civilians' are much more knowldegable than you?

Are you aware how many mammalian species there are, and how much difference there is in their behavioural and reproductive patterns? fuck no of course. Buddha1 is too fucking lazy to open a book.

Well, instead of giving blind support to Darwin the biologists and wild life scientists should go out and try tp ascertain that. Get a fair idea at least! If you can spend millions of finding out what causes 'homosexuality' (sic) you can definitely find out if Darwin has a basis.

It is fully validated and expanded.

Well, they claim that science doesn't work that way. Your (or Darwin's) imaginations or biases can no longer pass off as scientific facts, even if you have the required degrees.

 

[Buddha1]

PS

Well, I wouldn't say that. You've established that 80% of men SAY they're heterosexual (although I definately do NOT think 95% of men have a sexual need for other men)

80% of what men?

80% of the men who visited the thread.......definitely not.

80% of men from one community.......no way!

So who are these 80% of men.

3 from the US, 1 from netherlands, 3 from Canada, 2 from UK, 3 from Germany......does that tell us anything about the percentage in a population?

My female friend and I went to this gay centre to speak with the 'homosexuals'. There were about 30 of them. It was a surprise for us. Had we conducted a survey there, 100% of men would have said that they were 'gay'. Would that mean that 100% of men are homosexuals.

The people who voted on the poll were basically those who wanted to prove me wrong. Wrong not because they don't have sexual feelings for men, but because I am striking at their social identity. And people feel terrible without the social identity that they grow up with. That is why Muslims make such a fuss about religion. Because they see it as a very close personal identity, and any opposition to the religion is seen as a threat to their personal identity.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

except, now indirectly on this thread, feigning ignorance of the conclusive proof that I provided.

I went to the thread. Oh wow, another crazy guy making crazy unsupported claims. Yeah right, conclusive proof.

I think I already proved my point about Darwin by the quote from the net from a qualified biologist who validated what I said.

That's not proof. quote DARWIN.

I admit I had based my comments on what I have been learning about biological explanations of sexuality based upon Darwin from the western society.

Western society knows nothing about darwin. You're the one critisizing western society, you should know that it's not trustworthy.

if you think I'm misquoting Darwin, when the entire media and other institutions of the society INCLUDING the scientific institution was projecting Darwin as having said all that. If you thought that was not the case, why didn't the scientific community protest. Why did they choose to remain mute spectators when the entire society was unduly being restructured on the basis of Darwin.

The media is stupid. And the scientific community was not projecting darwin as having said that.
The scientific community DOES protest, but many times nobody listens.

Well, instead of giving blind support to Darwin the biologists and wild life scientists should go out and try tp ascertain that. Get a fair idea at least! If you can spend millions of finding out what causes 'homosexuality' (sic) you can definitely find out if Darwin has a basis.

I'll tell you what, strong healthy males that never have sex in their whole life (or at least who don't WANT to) are EXTREMELY rare in the wild.

 

[Buddha1]

I'm not a "darwanian", whatever that means.
And I asked YOU. YOU give me the answer.
I'm not going to do the research for you.

stop saying darwanism. That word doesn't exist.

I'm begining to agree with that.

Oh sure the word doesn't exist and you're not a darwinian.

I mean who started the thread to felicitate Darwin on his birthday? Was that meant to make a point?

And all those biologists opposing dismissing same-sex needs amongst animals because it doesn't fit in with what Darwin said --- what would you call them?

Is it possible that you don't know much about what is going on in the world of biology?

 

[Buddha1]

I went to the thread. Oh wow, another crazy guy making crazy unsupported claims. Yeah right, conclusive proof.

So you went and came back going through 28 pages of discussion in a few minutes and decided there were no evidences given? When I have spent so much time giving links for my evidences and emboldening the headings of the evidences in bold red to distinguish them.

I will tell you what! You are part of the vested interest group. Just on the other side of heterosexuals --- and as expected much fierce a supporter of the heterosexual ideology.

When you deliberately want to avoid something, I'll not bother to take you to the evidences. You can live in your fake world for as long as you want.

That's not proof. quote DARWIN.

Males of almost all animals have stronger passions than females," and "The female. . . with the rarest of exceptions is less eager than the male...she is coy."

I have quoted a series of excerpt from an anti-Darwinist biologist on the thread "Darwin is wrong about sexuality " here to answer your points about Darwin's sexual selection theory.

Western society knows nothing about darwin. You're the one critisizing western society, you should know that it's not trustworthy.

The media is stupid. And the scientific community was not projecting darwin as having said that.

Oh yes it does. I've grown up on all these wild life programmes telling me how when a male deer pisses he is actually leaving a scent for the female, and how all that a male in the wild ever things about is mating with the female.....and how the nature is obssessed with procreation and male-female mating. It all flows from Darwin.

The scientific community DOES protest, but many times nobody listens.

I have tried to study this a lot. I never saw one such protest. If you know of it please guide me to it.

I'll tell you what, strong healthy males that never have sex in their whole life (or at least who don't WANT to) are EXTREMELY rare in the wild.

What is your source?

 

[Buddha1]

No it isn't. I challange you to quote darwin saying that. Actually that's quite irrelevant. Evolution has changed since then, so even if he DID think sex is only for reproduction, it doesn't mean much. The MAIN purpose of sex IS reproduction, but it has some other uses too... which I already mentioned.

You're either too dumb that you don't know much about what happens in this world or you're too clever, trying to dodge issues by saying they don't exist. I can vouch that you're the latter. A perfect specimen of the vested interest group.

I have provided a great source validating my points about Darwin and sexual selection here .

Now let's see you or others contending that!

For all I know you will say I never posted any evidence or links.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Oh sure the word doesn't exist and you're not a darwinian.

Look it up in the dictionary, encyclopedia, whatever. That word doesn't exist, therefore I am not one of them.

I mean who started the thread to felicitate Darwin on his birthday? Was that meant to make a point?

Of course it was meant to make a point. The point being that IDists fighting to get us back to the dark ages is backfiring.

And all those biologists opposing dismissing same-sex needs amongst animals because it doesn't fit in with what Darwin said --- what would you call them?

Ignorant. Many animals do have same-sex needs. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant, stupid, or both.

Is it possible that you don't know much about what is going on in the world of biology?

sure, it's possible.
Is it possible that YOU don't know much about what is going on in the world of biology? yes. It's not just possible, it's certain.

So you went and came back going through 28 pages of discussion in a few minutes and decided there were no evidences given?

Of course not, I just went to the last page.

I will tell you what! You are part of the vested interest group. Just on the other side of heterosexuals --- and as expected much fierce a supporter of the heterosexual ideology.

On the other side of heterosexuals? huh?
I will tell you what! you are part of the vested interest group. You don't listen to what others tell you because your biases get in the way. No matter what anyone tells you, you will never see anything else.

Males of almost all animals have stronger passions than females," and "The female. . . with the rarest of exceptions is less eager than the male...she is coy."

I have quoted a series of excerpt from an anti-Darwinist biologist on the thread "Darwin is wrong about sexuality "

uh... what does this have to do with what we were talking about? let me refresh your memory. you said
"If we believe Darwin ses is only about sexual selection and about reproduction."
Then I asked you to quote darwin saying that, although I did say that's irrelevant.

Oh yes it does. I've grown up on all these wild life programmes telling me how when a male deer pisses he is actually leaving a scent for the female, and how all that a male in the wild ever things about is mating with the female.....and how the nature is obssessed with procreation and male-female mating. It all flows from Darwin.

deer urine does have pheromones that attract the female, so when the male deer pisses he is attracting females. Hunters use the same thing (putting out deer pheromones) to attract deer.
Well, nature IS obssesed with procreation. That's why males fight all the time, etc. But what does that have to do with what we were discussing?
let me quote you again "If we believe Darwin ses is only about sexual selection and about reproduction."... what you're talking about has nothing to do with that.

You're either too dumb that you don't know much about what happens in this world or you're too clever, trying to dodge issues by saying they don't exist. I can vouch that you're the latter.

lol, I'll take that as a weird, twisted compliment...
but how is that clever? anyone can do that. YOU are doing similar. You said darwin said something, I asked you to give me a quote of him saying that, and you give me a quote of him saying something different, in an attempt to make it seem like you were right and i was wrong or contradicting myself or something.

Now let's see you or others contending that!

ok...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Go and fucking read them at the thread "95% of men have a sexual need for men".

Have you forgotten, when I posted the references you accused me of spamming? surely you read them, becuase you have not opposed my figure of 95% since then.

Like which ones?

Actually a dozen people have provided evidence to show you are an idiot who is totally fucked up in the head.

I have given plenty references actually to studies showing the prevalence of homosexuality being around 5-15% of the population. You have done nothing to refute those except by ignoring them. You have given no references to your 95% figure.

 

[Buddha1]

Like which ones?

Actually a dozen people have provided evidence to show you are an idiot who is totally fucked up in the head.

I have given plenty references actually to studies showing the prevalence of homosexuality being around 5-15% of the population. You have done nothing to refute those except by ignoring them. You have given no references to your 95% figure.

My evidences are always with a bold red heading, so difficult to ignore. I also give links. So any one who says I have not provided evidences is pure lying (and what nerves, when people can easily check out for themselves!).

This particular set of well researched papers by By Pierre J. Tremblay in Collaboration with Richard Ramsay, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary proves my point about humans beyond any doubt --- the posts and link are here (for the hundredth time!) Male homosexuality --- from commonality to rarity

I'm sorry but I have not seen the post that you talked about the studies. If you present it again, I'll consider it.

 

[Anomalous]

we dont need your fuckedup evidevce. get lost u suckulunt oyester.

 

[Buddha1]

Look it up in the dictionary, encyclopedia, whatever. That word doesn't exist, therefore I am not one of them.

If you google the word "Darwinism" you will get 5,180,000 results.

Surely, dictionaries and encyclopedias are not always the conclusive proof of the existence of a word or sometimes even their actual meaning --- e.g. in the case of 'homosexuality'.

 

[Anomalous]

U r nothing but left over Genetic garbage of Evolution

 

[Anomalous]

At first I thought U should be made to see the truth. But Now I am convinced that Gays should thrashed , crushed and disposed off permenantly