Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
superluminal said:
B,

"Bruce Bagemihl"

I find no critical review of his book in any scientific literature. Virtually no reference to any of his published work other than this book "Biological Exuberance...".

This seems to be an agenda piece put forth by a gay man with a mission. I find nothing but popular, uncritical references to the book and the man. Where are the corroborating studies and other lines of evidence that support his conclusions? This is an isolated bit of trivia that appears nowhere in the mainstream scientific lit.

Now what?
Click to expand...

Is this the best you could come up with? :rolleyes:

First they dismiss you because they want scientific evidence. When you get scientific evidence they dismiss you saying the scientist is what ..... 'gay'!

Should we dismiss everything 'heterosexual' that is reported by 'heterosexual' (sick) scientists, because they are after all heterosexual? Is there any scientific evidence that says that 'heterosexuals' are more honest than 'homosexuals' in reporting science?

I'm sorry but your arguments are untenable.

Here is information about Bruce;

Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D., is a biologist and researcher who has served on the faculty of the University of British Columbia, where he taught linguistics and cognitive science. He has published diverse essays and scientific articles on issues pertaining to language, biology, gender, and sexuality. He lives in Seattle, Washington.

(source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0312192398/104-6516538-0985534)

In any case here are some of the reviews that I found on the net:

"A scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature . . . Bagemihl does realize that some among us will never be convinced that homosexuality occurs freely and frequently in nature. But his meticulously gathered, cogently delivered evidence will quash any arguments to the contrary."—Kirkus Reviews

"A brilliant and important exercise in exposing the limitations of received opinion . . . an exhaustively argued case that animals have multiple shades of sexual orientation."—Publishers Weekly

"Bagemihl has done an extraordinary job in compiling a vast bestiary . . . This book should surely become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered."—Nature

"A landmark in the literature of science."—Chicago Tribune

"By producing a work that is accessible to the general reader while engaging for the specialist, Bagemihl has accomplished a most extraordinary feat. In the tradition of the finest nonfiction, this is a book that will force us to reexamine who we are and what we believe."—The Philadelphia Inquirer
 
Here is somemore information about Bruce:

(source: http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)
Bruce Bagemihl spent 10 years scouring the biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals to write "Biological Exuberance:

.....Bagemihl's dry style is obedient to the precepts of scientific writing. He explains why animals can be called homosexual or bisexual, but not gay, lesbian or queer, .....
 
Yes this is the best I can do. The 'nature' review is not a critical review. It's a sound byte. It says nothing about the content. The theories of Ptolemy are still "research references" for beginning astronomy students - on what is NOT correct.

Where are the follow up studies since 1998-99? Do you think that one popular book establishes a concept as fact in the sciences? It dosen't. Where are the biologists' critiques of the ideas presented?
 
Bruce Bagemihl spent 10 years scouring the biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals to write "Biological Exuberance:
Click to expand...

This is what is called a "meta-study". Mining old research. There are always questions regarding the validity of meta studies. Where are the critical analyses of his???

One guy? One book? Useless.
 
superluminal said:
Yes this is the best I can do. The 'nature' review is not a critical review. It's a sound byte. It says nothing about the content. The theories of Ptolemy are still "research references" for beginning astronomy students - on what is NOT correct.

Where are the follow up studies since 1998-99? Do you think that one popular book establishes a concept as fact in the sciences? It dosen't. Where are the biologists' critiques of the ideas presented?
Click to expand...
What follow up studies?

What Bruce Bagemihl has done basically is to bring together hordes of researches on animal sexuality conducted by other scientists since the past 200 years --- he compiled the already collected information about same-sex bonds in the wild which the scientific institution had thrown on the cold shelf.

The scientific institution is not interested in pursuing anything that goes against the heterosexual ideology. We have proved that amply (refer to threads "science is not a perfect institution" and "Homosexualtiy and posterior hyperthalamus". They are more interested in pursuing theories that are half-baked, far-fetched but support the heterosexual ideology --- e.g. like "homosexuals have brains like women!"

The fact that no scientist has been able to refute Bagemihl is proof enough that no one can refute him. He received a lot of praise from all around --- but then most scientists have tried to ignore his work like it never existed. They are back to their "Darwinism" and "animals are heterosexual" business --- as Bruce Bagemihl never existed.

But there are some who are following up on Bruce and coming up with their own irrefutable studies. Fraans de waal, Johann Roughgarden, Paul Vasey to name a few.
 
superluminal said:
Do you think that one popular book establishes a concept as fact in the sciences? It dosen't. Where are the biologists' critiques of the ideas presented?
Click to expand...
It is not my job to bring in the biologist's critiques of Bagemihl. That is your job. I have presented evidences from a reknowned scientific source. You present the critiques.

Good luck, because there are hardly any critiques. The scientists have all been sitting quite lipped since 1999. They are hoping that Bruce will be forgotten eventually and then they could carry on with their mispropaganda. Of course many are already continuing with theirs.
 
Stalemate.

I completely deny the conclusions you are proposing. You have one "meta study" to support you. I have the rest of biology to support me.

I win. Na Na Na NA!
 
By the way the scientifc world has dealt with Bagemihl in exactly the same way that the society deals with evidences that go against the heterosexual ideology by pointing to same-sex needs as mainstream. They adopt the following strategy in more or less the same order:

- destroy the evidences, failing which

- hide the evidences, failing which

- dismiss the evidences as being that of 'fraternity', 'brotherhood' or 'friendship', failing which

- dismiss the evidences as being that of dominance etc., failing which

- dismiss the evidences as being 'homosexual' (ie. minority and feminine --- of course without any basis but the current popular beliefs), failing which,

- ignore the evidences.

The scientific institution, when it could not do anything else, finally decided to ignore Bagemihl.

And this is what you guys are going to do with me when you fail to disprove me eventually.

It has happened again and again on all boards (including this one!). Once they can't beat you they just leave you alone. And it is really frustrating! At that time I really feel like it was better when they were opposing me. It is so lonely at the top. And you feel like a fool, because in a way they are teasing me by saying --- you may be right, but you can't do anything about it......!
 
So, let's look at the basics of your theory that a huge proportion of men are latent homosexuals, just repressed by society. Do you believe me if I tell you that I have zero sexual attraction to males? Let's start there. K?
 
superluminal said:
Stalemate.

I completely deny the conclusions you are proposing. You have one "meta study" to support you. I have the rest of biology to support me.

I win. Na Na Na NA!
Click to expand...
You have nothing to support yourself.

No one has been able to come up with an evidence of opposite sex sexual bonding (remember not just sex but long term emotional bonding) in mammals.

By the way, your above statement seeking to avoid discussing Bruce Bagemihls scientific work shows clearly that you have vested interests, and that I can bring all the proofs in the world but you'll close your eyes to them.

You are only harming your own cause.

So much for your challenge of proving me wrong now and here. But thanks for giving me an opportunity to showcasing my success.
 
Buddha1 said:
You have nothing to support yourself.

No one has been able to come up with an evidence of opposite sex sexual bonding (remember not just sex but long term emotional bonding) in mammals.
Click to expand...

What??? Explain yourself. I am evidence of long term sexual and emotional bonding with my wife as are billions of other humans. What say you?
 
You are clearly supressing it superluminal. Look at your avatar: a wolf. Bhudda1 can doubtless tell you that male wolves spend almost their entire time humping other male wolves. Your subconscious knows this and thus selected that particular avatar. Your name even indicates a desire for another member of sciforums. Superluminal: you imagine yourself on top of Light. Face it, B1 has us bang to rights. We can't fight his impeccable logic and penetrating insights. All hail Bhudda1. Take me. Take me.
 
superluminal said:
What??? Explain yourself. I am evidence of long term sexual and emotional bonding with my wife as are billions of other humans. What say you?
Click to expand...
Is that a scientific proof? :rolleyes:

and coming from someone who easily rejects the extensive work of a real biologist!
 
Damn it Ophio, you've made the most sense in this whole train wreck of a thread! I give. All the signs are there. Im a gay male wolf-loving wolf humper. Clearly.

Damn.
 
superluminal said:
So, let's look at the basics of your theory that a huge proportion of men are latent homosexuals, just repressed by society. Do you believe me if I tell you that I have zero sexual attraction to males? Let's start there. K?
Click to expand...
Let's take this discussion to the thread "95% of all men have a sexual interest in other men".

I've answered your post So, let's look at the basics of your theory that a huge proportion of men are latent homosexuals, just repressed by society. Do you believe me if I tell you that I have zero sexual attraction to males? Let's start there. K?[/QUOTE]]here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top