Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Buddha1, Nov 28, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Darwin Was Wrong About Sexuality

    There are enough evidences now to prove that Darwin's theory around animal sexuality was completely wrong. Particularly, the following claims of Darwin can be proved wrong and biased:

    What Darwin has contended:

    - The basic purpose of sex: According to Darwin Sex happens amongst animals only so they can reproduce. It has no other purpose. If there is pleasure in sex its only so that animals are driven to the opposite sex in order to procreate. If sexual desire leads to bonding it's only so that the male and female can rear their children.

    This line of thinking was completley in tandem with the classical Christian stand of sex and its purpose. I'm going to show how Darwin was biased in its favour --- so much so that he chose to ignore the facts and mislead humankind.

    This stand has been vehememntly and forcibly pursued by the scientific community till today.

    - The theory of sexual selection: As per this theory, every conscious or unconscious action of the male is geared towards making him more competitive to be able to mate with the female, with the ultimate aim of procreation. The entire biological make-up, each and every cell of the male is designed to help in this mating process with the female (and vice versa). Even his social activities are designed to help him mate with the female. In short, if a male breathes it is in order to be able to mate with the female.

    In the light of the above, male-female sex and sexual desires assumes enormous (even exclusive) and all encompassing biolgical importance and heterosexuality gets scientific validity.

    When Darwin encountered any animal trait that led away from this male-female mating, he quickly sidelined this as an 'anomaly' or 'abnormality' that should not have been there. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for this was that such deviation must have an abnormal cause --- as in something going wrong. The scientific community has blindly followed this heterosexual agenda till date.

    This is the same Christian bias of Darwin (though he may have opposed christianity he was heavily affected by its sexual mores!) mentioned earlier.

    - The basic purpose of life: According to Darwin, the basic purpose of life is survival and the continuance of the species. Living beings just live so that they can live on, and when they die to be able to pass on their genes. That is all there is to it.

    I'm going to prove how the heterosexual society, has cunningly glorified Darwin because he suits its agenda. This society is dangerously obsessed with 'quantity' of life, and has completeley discarded its 'quality'.

    My contention is

    - Purpose of sex: The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective avialable method.

    - The sexual selection theory: It is absolutely crap, and the importance given to male-female sex or sexual desire is extremely out of context, and to prove that I have to prove the statement below:

    - The purpose of life:
    What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.

    In this respect, while sex between male-female represents 'quantity' (which the heterosexual society and its science is obsessed with); sexual bonds between male and male (or female and female) and the mother-child bond represents 'quality' (The heterosexual society has completely destroyed the quality of life --- and that is the biggest problem with it).
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. MattMarr Banned Banned

    There are no sexual bonds between male and male in Nature, you fool.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Light Registered Senior Member

    Still spouting the same old nonsensem eh, Budda1? It seems that you hardly thing of anything else - talk about an abnormal obsession!!

    And you can't even get the first of that right. The overidding drive of all is survival. The next is driven by hunger and sex is third. Man - talk about a messed up intellect (and I use that word in an overly generous fashion).

    There are a fairly large number of people here who apparently experienced a great deal of life. Is'nt it strange how almost no one agrees with you and most of us ridicule your silly thinking?

    I know , you will say we've all been deluded by the pressures of society. Bunk! It's YOU who is deluded - and beyond any hope of recovery.

    Tell you what - why don't you attempt to get your "theory" published in any respected journal and then come back and tell us where to find it. You've claimed publishing before but you have yet to show us where. It is now my contention that unless you quickly prove otherwise, not only are you very foolish but a liar as well.

    Prove me wrong by showing us your "published works." I openly challenge you!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Homosexual behaviour is commonplace amongst most (perhaps all) higher animals, being present in mammals and birds. My favourite incident amongst the many well documented cases are the female long eared hedgehogs that engage in oral sex.
    You might want to consider retracting the epithet 'fool' for that particular issue, though re-applying it for others would be valid.
  8. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    The coyote takes only one mate for life. Wouldn't you call that a bond? And there are several other animals that mate for life. So I think you should be more careful calling others "fool". Besides, it's not very nice.

    Baron Max
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    I don't think Matt was denying bonds in nature, he was denying sexual bonds between males.

    Sexual bonds exist in nature
    males exist in nature
    therefore sexual bonds between males exist in nature.

    non sequiter. bad logic. doesn't flow through.

    If all A are B
    and some C are D
    Then some A are D.


    Sexual bonds between males do exist in nature. Look up Joan Roughgarden.
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    he never said this.
  11. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    whoa! source?
    read the whole thing, it's not that long. Here's an example:
    "Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented male penguin couples. The couples have been shown to build nests together and use a stone to replace an egg in the nest. Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found twenty such pairs at sixteen major aquariums and zoos in Japan. Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to break up the male couples by importing female penguins from Sweden and separating the male couples; they were unsuccessful. The zoo director stated the relationships were too strong between the couples."

    If you want wild ones, take a look at the black swans.
  12. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Poor Buddha1,

    I hope you haven't deluded yourself into thinking you've actually proven anything here... lol

    Basically you're claiming that Darwin's Christian bias makes his argument false. Wow. Time to study some logic...
  13. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    I'm just starting on this thread. So there is no question of having proved anything here.

    But I've proved several things on other threads. For your convenience, they include:

    - There is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature
    - Heterosexuality is unnatural in humans too (also refer to another thread called: Is heterosexuality natural?
    - 95% of men have a sexual need for other men
    - Pressures on men to be heterosexual
    - Heterosexuality is queer

    For anyone who wants to give their useful or unwarranted comments on the above, please do me a favor, don't do it here. Go to the respective thread.
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    You haven't yet learned to discuss like a man.

    Stop beating about the bush and come to the point. This methodology of trying to pull down a person using 'personal' comments or ascribing motives is not very scientific either --- powerless women use these tactics when they can't win over men --- you know, nag, nag, nag.

    I've challenged a long held 'scientific' notion and I'm discussing it scientifically. There is no room to waste our time on stupid whining.

    By the way, you were the one whining about 'evidences' and I have not seen you respond to any one of the evidences I have given --- not even to rubbish them.
  15. Satyr Banned Banned

    Dear, dear Buddha
    You Cheeky monkey.

    ...you into bonding then?

    I believe it’s the ‘Natural Selection Theory’, but all that’s just details in relation to the subtext of the context of this thread.

    Funny given the absolute ludicrousness of meaning, in the first place.

    Meaning is what a man says when he can’t find any other reason to continue existing other than by finding a purpose in relation to something or someone else. It is living in the 'they'.

    It’s one of those concepts like ‘quality’, with such arbitrary, non-specific definitions, which make mankind so much fun to listen to.

    And here is where we get into the real ‘meaning’ of the context:
    Why dear Buddha, if you want to justify your addiction to being penetrated by another man by invoking some higher moral standard, why do you not just say so directly?

    You love [deleted] and you have struggled to justify your attraction [deleted] against the attacks of naturalists who use some arguments about procreation and about the natural way of things.
    So, you’ve constructed some elaborate theory in which the very thing you cannot justify naturally becomes some higher morality – you know like ‘You shall not kill’ – which becomes a representation of your future man. Some future uber-faggot running through the fields in corduroy slacks and tinseled tank-tops, while another pursues him [deleted].

    If I am to understand you correctly, the very process that makes life possible is morally inferior to a process with no other motive than pure hedonism and unproductive fornication?
    And!!!!.....this is where it gets interesting….it is the moral equivalent to the bonding between a mother and child!!! - Which would be impossible without the inferior heterosexual sex in the first place.

    Let us imagine a ‘qualitative’ future where mankind indulges in the higher practice of [deleted].

    I think you are right.
    Enjoy yourself.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2005
  16. Light Registered Senior Member

    Drop all the rhetoric and rubbish, Budda!
    Show us your published sources!!

    No whining here, I'm clearly saying that I don't believe they exist which makes you nothing more than a common liar. Whats' the matter? Can't prove me wrong? It's well within your power - if there ARE any such articles!
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Homosexual behaviour is very rare amongst higher animals. It is not existent amongst mammals. It is found largely amongst the birds.

    Homosexuality refers to sex between members having the same outer sex organs without regard to their inner-sex (the concept has use only to societies with a Christian background) which happens on the margin as an exception to the rule of heterosexuality This concept is non existing among other animals, particularly the mammals (See Evidence that male sexual need for another male is commonplace amongst mammals)

    Yet, I would suggest that you save the epithet till the time one of you finally proves me wrong.

    It's really that easy. No need to waste precious emotions. Just use a bit of logic and there you have me running for life!
  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    No time to waste with such nonsense. Is there anyone who wants a real discussion!

    If you'd rather discuss the issue of sexual bonds between men or homosexuality or heterosexuality then you should go to one of the other threads discussing the issue. But none of you have the cheeks to be there after I've provided the first line of evidences. The places look deserted now.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2006
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    There is one published source which is enough to justify most of what I've said in most of my threads. I have not seen you near that post, how come!

    click here if you need me to remind you!
  20. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    O.K. but modern day scientists who have built upon his theories, say this. So I'm challenging the foundation -- that is Darwin, and the entire palace built on its shaky grounds. The higher the palace grows the more its shakiness becomes clear. It is incredible that Science has come so far with these lies.
  21. Light Registered Senior Member

    Ha! What a cop-out!! That's hardly something that YOU published!!

    I still say you can show nothing - which makes you a liar and a complete fraud!!

    And I shall continue to haunt you until such time as you show us YOUR published work or simply go away in shame in disgrace.
  22. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberances.

    That is a clear cut instance of homosexuality. But you must understnad that it is found only in birds. And birds are queer! (See 'heterosexuality is queer' --- Evidences from the nature: mammals and birds)
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Are you sure that Darwin wasn't a right-winger? That's the usual kind of double-talk.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page