Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

Yes, one. Homo sapiens.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

exactly!

And humans are also the only ones who eat with forks and spoons, build dams, make plastics, pollute rivers and air.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chimps use tools.

Beavers build dams.

Termites build airconditioned skyscrapers.

etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So humans cannot work together with one another unless they have sex with each other? Because they cant bond right? And how has this bonding of a couple, male and female counterpart benefitted the genetic improvement of mankind as per the aim of evolution itself?

 

Yet, surprisingly none of it harms nature! Ever wonder why?

 

In what way does a human dam harm nature and a beaver dam doesn't?

 

If I knew what it meant, I'd answer. Are you speaking in support of me or against? Can you please expand upon what you want to say?

 

Because human dams are so huge, they submerge entire forests with their flora and fauna, make it impossible for river fishes etc. to survive (as has been seen in the US and China where dams have played havoc with the eco system).

 

A beaver builds its dam with very basic natural material, which is easily biodegradable. It doesn't interfere with the flow of nature in anyway whatsoever.

The same can not be said of human dams.

But Darwinians would hardly know. Or care! They live in their own world!

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE INVALIDATING DARWIN'S SEXUAL SELECTION

The Myth of Sexual Selection

Joan roughgarden

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." Darwin wrote these words 130 years ago, in his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. He theorized that these male/female characteristics result from females choosing mates who are "vigorous and well-armed. . . just as man can improve the breed of his game-cocks by the selection of those birds which are victorious in the cock-pit."

Today, Darwin's scientific descendants still repeat these stereotypes. For example, population geneticist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago asserts: "Males, who can produce many offspring with only minimal investment, spread their genes most effectively by mating promiscuously. . . Female reproductive output is far more constrained by the metabolic costs of producing eggs or offspring, and thus a female's interests are served more by mate quality than by mate quantity." (The Times Literary Supplement, July 30, 2004.)

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).

Clearly, the idea that males and females conform to rigid gender profiles still dominates sex role discussions. According to this model, passionate males with cheap sperm pursue coy females with expensive eggs. Females look for males with the best genes, whereas males want to fertilize as many females as possible. Genetically superior males distinguish themselves as the winners of male-male combat, as with jousting elk, or by having the most expensive and beautiful ornaments, as among peacocks. These male and female profiles, together with the cheap sperm/expensive egg rationale, comprise what biologists call "sexual-selection theory." Throughout nature, it would seem, delicate discerning damsels welcome horny handsome warriors to bed.

This is rubbish.

If you examine the millions of plant and animal species in the world, you find countless exceptions to this theory. Although biologists are often familiar with these individual examples, many are reluctant to confront the implications of the big picture.......

excerpted from CALIFORNIA WILD --- The Magazine of the CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE INVALIDATING DARWIN'S SEXUAL SELECTION
(further excerpts from the above article)

Among species with just two genders, the sexes can play roles completely opposite to those that sexual-selection imagines. Among these creatures, coy, drab males are pursued by passionate, showy females. Well-studied examples include mormon crickets, bush crickets, and katydids; the two-spotted goby, and North-Sea pipefish (relatives of seahorses); and among birds, the wattled jacana, red-necked phalarope, and spotted sandpiper.

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. Conversely, because sperm are small and easy to manufacture, males can spread them around with little loss on investment. 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. As a result, in many species a mating for a male may be just as costly as for a female, even when there is no male investment in raising the offspring.

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. Even among the Drosophila fruit flies studied by population geneticists, reviews of scientific literature cite five species where males choose females as much as females choose males.

Partial sex-role reversal isn't limited to invertebrates alone. Primatologist Meredith Small writes in Female Choices: Sexual Behavior of Female Primates (Cornell University Press, 1993), "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.

According to sexual-selection theory, more sex is always better for males. Males who mate whenever the opportunity presents itself, and make their own opportunities when possible, will sire more progeny. Mammals seem to follow this pattern. About 90 percent of mammal species are polygynous, with one male servicing many females......

 

Scientific Evidence Invalidating Darwin's Sexual Selection

(further excerpts from the same source)

.....Sexual selection views mating as solely for conception. But the point of mating is not usually to make babies; it usually serves a social function. Mating occurs too often relative to number of offspring produced to be solely for conception. The intimacy of sex strengthens relationships between adults, defuses social tensions, and helps keep groups together, as in our closest living relative the bonobo. Strong social bonds help ensure males and females will work well as a team to protect and raise young.

.....Same-gender sex can promote friendships as well, helping to explain why homosexual sex has been observed in more than 300 species of vertebrates as a regular component of social interactions.

.....So far as is known, the reproductive social behavior of tens of thousands of species departs from sexual-selection norms. You might think that these examples ought to prompt some to reexamine the argument. Yet proponents such as Jerry Coyne claim this account is "focusing entirely on exceptions" while "ignoring the much larger number of species that do conform to sexual selection theory." In fact, we have no idea how many species conform; the reproductive social behaviors of most have not been studied......

 

Scientific Evidence Invalidating Darwin's Sexual Selection

(further excerpts from the same source)

.....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.

.....Social selection theory proposes that every animal has a time budget for its social interactions. Each animal interacts with others in ways that improve the number of offspring he or she can successfully rear. Animals may pursue their most beneficial course by acting independently or by acting together in teams, but usually in teams. From a group's many instantaneous decisions as to whom to associate with and what actions to perform with one another, a unique social system emerges for each species in each ecological situation.

.....In social selection, the expensive tail on a peacock does not seduce a peahen. Instead, that tail is primarily a badge that earns the peacock membership in male power-holding cliques. In social selection, secondary sex characteristics like the peacock's tail are more important for same-sex power dynamics than for between-sex romance. Such traits are used to secure admission to resource-controlling coalitions and must be expensive to ensure exclusivity. They are not signs of genetic quality advertised to females. Such traits may indeed connote physiological health and good condition, but this indicates a male's ability to offer direct benefits to a female rather than his genetic quality. She should choose a male displaying good condition not because he has high quality genes, but because she will be able to raise more, not "better," offspring by mating with him.

.....Instead of judging a male by his genes, females look for how much he can directly contribute to the survival and provisioning of young. For example, lion cubs are often killed when a new male takes over the pride. Their mothers may mate with the new ruler to give him a share of the paternity, and thereby reduce the likelihood that he will commit infanticide. Female peacock wrasses choose to lay eggs in the territory of a male whom they assess as likely to stay and guard the eggs rather than swim away for bigger egg masses somewhere else. Such immediate benefits of avoiding mortality to the young far outweigh any possible advantages from superior genes. Nor do females always consider male-male combat the best indicator of a superior mate. In sand gobies from Scandinavia, experiments show that females preferred males who protect eggs from predators, not males that jousted with other males and won. Animals are primarily concerned with the number of offspring successfully reared, not with the genetic characteristics of those offspring.

 

Scientific Evidence Invalidating Darwin's Sexual Selection

(further excerpts from the same source)

.....To a naturalist, the failure of sexual- selection to describe and explain animal behavior is reason enough to reject it at this time. But the stakes are even higher. Sexual selection is not innocent. It promotes a view of nature as violent and deceitful, emphasizing male-male combat and war between the sexes. It licenses male promiscuity. It views female choice of mates as a broom to clean the gene pool of males with bad genes. It persecutes diverse expressions of gender identity and sexuality. Social scientists and the popular media uncritically reproduce its myths.

.....To be clear, the scientific truth, or lack of it, of sexual selection is logically independent of its social implications. Yet, the ethical wrongs issuing from sexual selection's narrative require holding it to the highest standards of scientific rigor. It fails. After 130 years, sexual selection is still not confirmed and I suggest it never will be.

.....Once scientists start looking through the lens of social-selection, animal behaviors become much easier to understand, and many of the apparent contradictions fall away. Instead of trying to shore up Darwin's sinking theory of sexual selection, we should be improving our understanding of gender and sexuality, because friendship, love, and sex are important.

 

Joan Roughgarden is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, California.

 

what point are you trying to prove with these quotes?

 

Now who is a twat!

I'm proving that Darwin is wrong about his theories on 'sexual selection'. That is why I started this thread in the first place.

Are you so dumb!

 

How do these quotes disprove Darwin's points? (twat)

 

proof of darwin's views:

 

proof of sexual selection: