Happy Darwin Day!!!!

[Anomalous]

Get lost U motherless son of a Goat.

 

[Buddha1]

Same to you, son of an sheep, although I don't consider the term 'son of a goat' abuse. Animals are far better than humans.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

"homosexuality (sic) is a biological failure."

"Two female macaque monkeys who are rubbing their thighs and vaginas together and shrieking with pleasure are not having sex with each other, they are just preparing to learn to have sex with the male --- or trying to attract the male --- just as two lesbians having it attract the 'macho' human male --- like they claim on nets --- like they show in the movies."

"The peacock tail is there so that it can attract the female!"

I meant: specific examples of people doing what you accuse them off, in the past and present.

 

[Anomalous]

Same to you, son of an sheep, although I don't consider the term 'son of a goat' abuse. Animals are far better than humans.

Just Shut the fuck up U brainless Bimbata.

 

[Buddha1]

I meant: specific examples of people doing what you accuse them off, in the past and present.

These are specific examples.

In the past religion was the most powerful human institution that ruled people (in some parts of the world it still does). So it was used by the vested interest group to spread misinformation about it, to denigrate and to marginalise it in their own way. They said it is so because god says so. In the past it worked.

In the modern world, religion lost hold and science became the most powerful institution. So the vested interest group got hold of it --- Darwin facilitated this hold in a big way! And that's where he becomes a villain. Men were not able to own up same-sex needs and defend them when the science cleverly further marginalised them in its own way. Darwin came in handy, however farfetched his conclusions were.

The homosexuals came forward and gladly claimed what the men could not own up to --- becuase they were enslaved and disempowered to do it (inspite of their 'outer-power' which they got only if they bowed down ot the heterosexual pressures!)

It's the same vested interest group which enforces its lies upon the world through the social power they hold, and freely abuse the scientific institution as I have shown on this forum, and as several scientists have proved through their extensive and brave work.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

names, references, and a description what these specific people did.

 

[Buddha1]

names, references, and a description what these specific people did.

1. Spuriousmonkey: said "homosexuality is a biological failure".

2. Darwin: "Peacocks developed beautiful tails to attract females"

"Stags have developed antelers so he can fight for females and attract them".

"everything good in males exist so that they can show off their better genes to attract females"

3. primatologist Amy Parish: "Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they (female monkeys having sex) are seeking males.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

In the modern world, religion lost hold and science became the most powerful institution. So the vested interest group got hold of it --- Darwin facilitated this hold in a big way! And that's where he becomes a villain. Men were not able to own up same-sex needs and defend them when the science cleverly further marginalised them in its own way

Have you been living under a rock or something?
first off, science is still not the most powerful institution. Just look at the elected officials, they were put there because of religion and crap, not because of science. People first listen to religion, and then to science.
And evolution did NOT facilitate science becoming more influential. It made it worse. It's probably THE most controversial scientific concept ever (outside of the scientific community). Why? because of religion. That is the one and only reason why not every single person in the world accepts evolution.
Oh please, darwin/evolution had NOTHING to do with homophobia or anything. It's all religion. Look at the bible, supposedly it says homosexuality is a sin and stuff. The marginalization of homosexuals has NOTHING to do with evolution and EVERYTHING to do with religion. Homosexuals had been marginalized since WAY before darwin was even born.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy

They and other social animals may also benefit from homosexuality/bisexuality because like I've already told you, it keeps the group together. Sex is a way to reaffirm ties to other members of society, it's a way to make amends, etc. Bonobos for example are a fully bisexual species, they are very peaceful, and they use sex to keep the peace. Not just with the opposite sex, but with the same sex.

2. Darwin: "Peacocks developed beautiful tails to attract females"

"Stags have developed antelers so he can fight for females and attract them".

"everything good in males exist so that they can show off their better genes to attract females"

That's all true. It has been tested and proven to be true. peakocks with big tails and brilliant colors ARE more healthey and have better genes than the others. Peahens DO choose peacocks with big tails/brilliant colors. Therefore the peacock tail exists so they can show off their better genes and attract females.
Same with stags. The stags with the bigger antlers are healthier, have better genes, and get the most females. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Buddha1]

Have you been living under a rock or something?
first off, science is still not the most powerful institution. Just look at the elected officials, they were put there because of religion and crap, not because of science. People first listen to religion, and then to science.
And evolution did NOT facilitate science becoming more influential. It made it worse. It's probably THE most controversial scientific concept ever (outside of the scientific community). Why? because of religion. That is the one and only reason why not every single person in the world accepts evolution.
Oh please, darwin/evolution had NOTHING to do with homophobia or anything. It's all religion. Look at the bible, supposedly it says homosexuality is a sin and stuff. The marginalization of homosexuals has NOTHING to do with evolution and EVERYTHING to do with religion. Homosexuals had been marginalized since WAY before darwin was even born.

It's a waste of time to discuss things with a vested interest group member, but here goes.

a.) Science is very powerful in most of the civilised and modern world. Most democracies base themselves on science not religion. Relgion is still strong in a good part of the world, but I'm talking about the western heterosexual world here.

b.) Science and religion may not see eye to eye in most points, but it is not an obstacle for the vested interest group in taking over science to enforce heterosexualtiy (including homosexuality). In the case of male gender and sexuality religion and science both seek to marginalise it, both in their respective ways.

c.) It is interesting that both Religion and science allowed non procreative sex with men to the homosexuals.

In the days of religion, including in many Islamic countries, even though sex between straight men is punished even with death, eunuchs and transvestites (their own version of homosexuals) were allowed to have sex with men because they were considered more women than men.

Science too has developed and slightly modified on the same group of transvestites and eunuchs and given it a new name --- 'homosexuals'. Science validates the existence of same-sex desires in this small group.

 

[Buddha1]

The marginalization of homosexuals has NOTHING to do with evolution and EVERYTHING to do with religion. Homosexuals had been marginalized since WAY before darwin was even born.

True that homosexuals had been marginalised as eunuchs and transvestites.

But sex between (masculine gendered) men flourished all along in medieval societies controlled by religion, behind the scenes, as clearly proved by the evidences given in the thread "95% of men have a sexual need for other men".

 

[Buddha1]

They and other social animals may also benefit from homosexuality/bisexuality because like I've already told you, it keeps the group together. Sex is a way to reaffirm ties to other members of society, it's a way to make amends, etc. Bonobos for example are a fully bisexual species, they are very peaceful, and they use sex to keep the peace. Not just with the opposite sex, but with the same sex.

Rubbish, close same-sex bonds don't gel at all with sexual selection. Apparently, as in the western societies men and women are supposed to live in heterosexual societies where same-sex bonds are a useless phenomenon --- a waste of time and precious resources including genes, for nature which is so frugal!

 

[Buddha1]

That's all true.

Yes, and its also a well known fact that pigs fly!

It has been tested and proven to be true. peakocks with big tails and brilliant colors ARE more healthey and have better genes than the others. Peahens DO choose peacocks with big tails/brilliant colors. Therefore the peacock tail exists so they can show off their better genes and attract females.
Same with stags. The stags with the bigger antlers are healthier, have better genes, and get the most females. What is so hard to understand about that?

That beautiful tails which are part of a healthy peacock male, also make them more sought after for sex at the time of breeding doesn't at all mean that they are there only for attracting the female! That is a stupid excuse for a proof!

Same about stags!

As a proof to the contrary I can also bring in evidence that suggests that many healthy, virile and beafutiful males --- sometimes the best of the pack, the alpha males --- don't breed at all in their lives, many of them breed occasionally......

.....apparently the connection between healthy genes and attracting females is not that direct.

And to quote Johann roughgarden, the famous biologist:

.....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.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

a.) Science is very powerful in most of the civilised and modern world. Most democracies base themselves on science not religion.

Officially, yes. In practice? eehh...

taking over science to enforce heterosexualtiy (including homosexuality). In the case of male gender and sexuality religion and science both seek to marginalise it, both in their respective ways.

How is science enforcing heterosexuality? How is it marginalizing it? If anything science is more accepting, as we know homosexuality is not a choice (unlike fundies).

c.) It is interesting that both Religion and science allowed non procreative sex with men to the homosexuals.

huh?

In the days of religion, including in many Islamic countries, even though sex between straight men is punished even with death, eunuchs and transvestites (their own version of homosexuals) were allowed to have sex with men because they were considered more women than men.

sex between straight men? right. Isn't the very definition of homo/bisexual being sexually attracted to men?
Straight men don't have sex with other men, otherwise by definition they're not straight.
And if you look at the laws, they never say "sexual relations between straight men are prohibited, sexual relations between homosexuals aren't". In fact, HOMOSEXUALITY is illegal in those places.

Science too has developed and slightly modified on the same group of transvestites and eunuchs and given it a new name --- 'homosexuals'. Science validates the existence of same-sex desires in this small group.

Wrong. SCIENCE makes the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual identity. We have gone over this buddah. What part of it do you not comprehend?

Rubbish, close same-sex bonds don't gel at all with sexual selection.

You're right. And I never said that same-sex bonds have ANYTHING to do with sexual selection. They do, however, have everything to do with natual selection.
A close, peaceful group is more likely to survive than a group where the males are always fighting each other, where there's no peace and they're not close to each other.

Apparently, as in the western societies men and women are supposed to live in heterosexual societies where same-sex bonds are a useless phenomenon

That has nothing to do with science. That's public opinion. That's culture. That's society. That is NOT science.

a waste of time and precious resources including genes, for nature which is so frugal!

again, to uneducated civilians, you're right. But that's not science. I've given you some examples of how homosexuality can be beneficial, and there are many more including the lizards where lesbian sex increases their fertility, the swans where babies raised by homosexual pairs survive better, etc.
and we've gone over this before. I guess you're right, "It's a waste of time to discuss things with a vested interest group member"
You obviously don't listen to what others have to say.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

That beautiful tails which are part of a healthy peacock male, also make them more sought after for sex at the time of breeding doesn't at all mean that they are there only for attracting the female! That is a stupid excuse for a proof!

Ok, what else are they for?

As a proof to the contrary I can also bring in evidence that suggests that many healthy, virile and beafutiful males --- sometimes the best of the pack, the alpha males --- don't breed at all in their lives, many of them breed occasionally...

OK, so there's variation. Some males are asexual. So what? THEY are strong and healthy because their parents DID play a role in sexual selection. The female chose the healthy strong male, and that is why they are like that.
There are also people who are deaf. Does that mean that ears, eardrums, and all the other parts involved in hearing really aren't meant for hearing?

apparently the connection between healthy genes and attracting females is not that direct.

No connection in nature is ALWAYS direct. Like I said, some stray from the rest. Does that invalidate it? no.
Yes, there are people who never have babies. Does that mean that the uterus, testicles, and other reproductive organs are NOT for having babies?
Let me ask you something... what's the percentage of "healthy, virile and beafutiful males --- sometimes the best of the pack, the alpha males [that] don't breed at all in their lives"???

 

[Giambattista]

Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."

Impact. Like a crater? Yes, if the monkies are busy being lezzies, then I suppose that's less time being busy getting arfed by the males. I guess in a roundabout way, that would have an impact.

 

[Buddha1]

Officially, yes. In practice? eehh...

Leave alone other free world spaces. Take our own sciforum for example. Science rules here. And so does the marginalisation of same-sex bonds on the basis of 'darwinism'.

How is science enforcing heterosexuality? How is it marginalizing it?

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.

If anything science is more accepting, as we know homosexuality is not a choice

No it is not. 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!

(unlike fundies).

I would say Darwinians can compete with the most ardent fundamentalists and fanatics in the world. Talk about blind faith!

huh?

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

sex between straight men? right. Isn't the very definition of homo/bisexual being sexually attracted to men?
Straight men don't have sex with other men, otherwise by definition they're not straight.

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.

We have proved it beyond doubt that 'straight' is really about being masculine gendered and not about 'heterosexuality' inspite of the formal definition being forwarded by the heterosexual world to confuse the issues involved.

And if you look at the laws, they never say "sexual relations between straight men are prohibited, sexual relations between homosexuals aren't". In fact, HOMOSEXUALITY is illegal in those places.

You obviously don't know. No law in a any traditional country ever recognises or talks about 'sex between homosexual men' or 'homosexuality'. They talk about 'sex between men'. Most have different set of laws for men and for the 'third sex', unless they were ruled by the westerners who don't recognise gender identities.

Wrong. SCIENCE makes the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual identity. We have gone over this buddah. What part of it do you not comprehend?

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.

You're right. And I never said that same-sex bonds have ANYTHING to do with sexual selection. They do, however, have everything to do with natual selection.
A close, peaceful group is more likely to survive than a group where the males are always fighting each other, where there's no peace and they're not close to each other.

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

That has nothing to do with science. That's public opinion. That's culture. That's society. That is NOT science.

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.

again, to uneducated civilians, you're right. But that's not science. I've given you some examples of how homosexuality can be beneficial, and there are many more including the lizards where lesbian sex increases their fertility, the swans where babies raised by homosexual pairs survive better, etc.

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?

and we've gone over this before. I guess you're right, "It's a waste of time to discuss things with a vested interest group member"
You obviously don't listen to what others have to say.

No we haven't gone over this before. You said something. I refuted it. Then we were supposed to take this discussion outside but then unfortunately it couldn't materialise.

Since then a huge lot of discussions have taken place and we have established quite a few things.

One of them is that "95% of men have a sexual interest in other men"

The other is that "Gender is (also) biological"

We have shown how the western terms of "heterosexual', 'homosexual', 'straight' and 'gay' are misleading and confusing.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

One of them is that "95% of men have a sexual interest in other men"

The other is that "Gender is (also) biological"

We have shown how the western terms of "heterosexual', 'homosexual', 'straight' and 'gay' are misleading and confusing.

We have established that:

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

 

[Buddha1]

Ok, what else are they for?

I'll respond to that from quotes from a scientific source, in a little while.

OK, so there's variation. Some males are asexual. So what? THEY are strong and healthy because their parents DID play a role in sexual selection. The female chose the healthy strong male, and that is why they are like that.

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?

There are also people who are deaf. Does that mean that ears, eardrums, and all the other parts involved in hearing really aren't meant for hearing?

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?

b.) Can we say that the mouth is primarily for eating, if let's say hypothetically -- in quite in a few number of cases, there was no need to use mouth for eating and it was used only for speaking.

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 especially since many scientists have started to question Darwin's 'sexual selection'.

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.

No connection in nature is ALWAYS direct. Like I said, some stray from the rest. Does that invalidate it? no.
Yes, there are people who never have babies. Does that mean that the uterus, testicles, and other reproductive organs are NOT for having babies?
Let me ask you something... what's the percentage of "healthy, virile and beafutiful males --- sometimes the best of the pack, the alpha males [that] don't breed at all in their lives"???

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

What percentage of "healthy virile and beautiful males" amongst mammals mate even once in their lives? how many do it regularly?

My views are not the accepted view of science and they do not rule the world. Darwinism does! And you must be able to prove your case to the world without any doubt! Because its been over a century that we have been following Darwinism like God without 'sexual selection' being fully validated.

 

[Buddha1]

We have established that:

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

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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?

Most of your lower jaw is actually used for hearing.

b.) Can we say that the mouth is primarily for eating, if let's say hypothetically -- in quite in a few number of cases, there was no need to use mouth for eating and it was used only for speaking.

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

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 especially since many scientists have started to question Darwin's 'sexual selection'.

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

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.

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.

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

You are just stupid. It's much worse.

What percentage of "healthy virile and beautiful males" amongst mammals mate even once in their lives? how many do it regularly?

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.

My views are not the accepted view of science and they do not rule the world. Darwinism does! And they must be able to prove themselves to the world without any doubt! Because its been over a century that we have been following it without it being fully validated.

It is fully validated and expanded.