Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

Nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think someone conviently forgot why Darwin proposed sexual selection: to explain differences between the sexes that cannot be explained by natural selection.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, there are exceptions. So what? tell me where anyone said sexual selection applied to every single living species in the world?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

buddha is wrong about sexuality

don't forget buddha 95% of the planet will agree with me

a mans sexuality revolves around VAGINA, you know, p***y ?

 

I think Darwin's in his grave rolling back and forth, laughing at this topic.

"Is he a right winger?"

That's funneh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By asserting that the distinguishing and sometimes unexplainable features of males have not developed because of sexual selection but because of social selection.

Sexual selection may explain part of the development of males. That sexual selection is not only about male-female but also about same-sex sexual needs.

I can add to it that sexual selection as a word primarily relates to same-sex not opposite sex mating. The only thing that males develop specifically needed for mating is their reproductive organs (which in any case have dual functions --- the nature does not see same-sex needs and reproductive needs as opposites, when it developed reproductive organs it also made sure that they also perform the function of same-sex sexual bonding, whether or not they perform the task of reproduction.)

And so we should call it reproductive selection, not sexual selection. Sexual selection is between same-sex. Reproeductive selection takes into account the opposite sex.

The reproductive organs are also sexual organs and defecatory organs. Reproductive function is not to be confused with the sexual function.

 

(disillusioned) parrot!

 

He's rolling because his cult followers are fighting a losing battle.

 

That is why we are saying that his entire line of thinking was flawed. He made a BIG assumption that the primary and exclusive funciton of the species is to 'exist' and reproduce at any cost. There was no qualititative angle to it. And so for anything to be 'validated' it must add to 'procreation' in some way.

A strong heterosexual ideology is also evident. Apparently, being against religion doesn't mean that you are free from all the subtle but strong biases that religion inculcates.

 

.....more so if you're part of the vested interest group!

 

Johan Roughgarden is a serious biologist at a reputed university. If Darwin has any intelligence at all, he should stop laughing and be worried about the future of Darwinism.

No. and neither is Spuriousmonkey, or the alpha wolf.

The heterosexual ideology can exist with ease with both religion and science.

Darwin brought in the ideology into the realms of science, while he opposed religion as such.

As much as it would surprise you the world doesn't consist of the two binaries of religion and science. (or black and white or hetero/homo or anything else)

 

It seems even other aspects of Darwin is being challenged, although I do not know of their validity. consider this:

When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor.

However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."

(excerpted from Darwin refuted )

 

I mean how can we believe Darwin, and assume that he was not biased when his theories validate (in fact require) so-called heterosexuality and totally negate non-reproductive sexual needs or sideline them or make them less important biologically?

When the evidences are so strongly to the contrary!

Why was he blind to all the contrary evidence?

 

Yes and that is what we are disproving!

That shows sexual selection as farce!

When you challenge the professor of Biological studies at a reputed university who has done extensive work, you are required to present hard evidences to say she is speaking nonsense. Especially, when she is justifiying every word of her with evidences.

DUH!

 

On a fun note, I'm sure if you told guys this, they'd be totally excited.

 

Thank you Whisperblade. I think this thread needs some fun. Where is Giambattista?

 

Of course many of the lies that scientists get away with today were not said by Darwin. But they are all based on the line of thinking that Darwin initiated. Darwin is the root of that sick mentality. He sowed the seeds. And that is why if you want to blast the lies you have to strike at Darwinism.

 

Sounds to me like you have a vendetta against Darwin. Really I think he did good research for his time. Alot of people do alot of research and fail to have a correct theory. But none the less I still beleive "Survival of the fittest" or "Natural Selection" Are to very very good theorys. They may have a few problems here and there. But for the most part I'd say he did a good job.

 

I have been told on this thread that people before Darwin were already working on the evolution theory.

I have not much to say about the evolution theory though. I'm not a biologist. It could be or could not be true as far as I'm concerned.

But I have real problems with some of the idea that is intrinsic to the theory of natural selection --- or even of 'survival of the fittest' --- for the notion of who is the fittest is obviously flawed!

I think most scientific theories of this kind, in any case, take a very myopic and part view of the entire thing and in their eagerness to provide an analysis leave out the essence of the thing in question --- in this case a matter of life and death --- our existence and its purpose.

 

Well, his research was very strong in the support of it.

Well, then what is your vendetta with this man?

How? Think about it. If we went into nucleur war only roachs would live correct? Couldn't you say they are the fittest for nucleur war?

I think that is a very good and well stated point. But unfortunitly the world does not work in this way. But it is hard to tell that we even have a purpose. Like did the dinosuars have a purpose? I think that question could be answered with the food chain.