If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Lesbian Japanese monkeys challenge Darwin's assumptions   (news.telegraph.co.uk) divider line 142
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

13523 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2003 at 11:27 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-02-19 02:35:39 PM
Forgive me for injecting a serious post amongst these great comments (monkkake LOL :)

Anyone who thinks homosexuality, or more generally, non-reproductive sexual activity flaunts evolution needs to have a look at this book:

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity linked from Amazon.com

The author documents hundreds of cases of non-reproductive sexual activity across many types of animals. It's not limited to animals that have 'learned' behaviour, or advanced social structure; it occurs even in "lower" animals that do not possess advanced brains. The phenomenon has been observed across an incredibly diverse range of animals.

Just because homosexuality "seems" to be contrary to conventional sexual selection theory doesnt mean that evolution doesnt happen or that Darwin was wrong.

There may very well be evolutionary fitness benefit to such activities, but they have not yet been elucidated and experimentally supported.

/hates ridiculous sensationalistic 'journalism' that glosses over details and background for the sake of a good sound bite
 
2003-02-19 02:42:28 PM
if seeing girl/girl action has the same effect on male animals as it does on most male humans - darwins theory is alive and well
 
2003-02-19 02:50:22 PM
Tomo12144...

I Also Forgot About The Lesbian Monkey Pro Golf Tour And The Pro Billards Playing Lesbian Monkeys.How Silly Of Me To Forget These Sports,And I Almost Forgot About The LMPBA...The Lebbian Monkey Professional Bowlers Association.
 
2003-02-19 03:07:53 PM
Cunning_linguistics, I kind of agree with you except that Dawkins is so accessible and gets the basics across in a strikihgly memorable way. I think there are holes in his story (but I'm nowhere near qualified to prove it) and that's what makes him interesting for me. I'm going to go and check out Stephen Jay Gould though, cheers for the heads up.

Then I might get the pickles out and really destroy some Darwinism :-)
 
2003-02-19 03:08:32 PM
Bah, anyone who has owned firebellied toads knows that homosexuality in nature is pretty common. Females are silent, and males have two calls. They have the "hey baby" call and they have the "dude, get the fark off me, I'm a guy!" call.

Let's just say that I've heard both calls from mine. Often at the same time.
 
2003-02-19 03:18:30 PM
Worth news story?

Please, fvckin Occam's Razor this shiat already.

If there is no propigation of a genome pattern what is it's purpose?

Probably to serve as bait for predators and population control.
 
2003-02-19 03:33:50 PM
"Here's how scientists currently think it works:"

Well.. ONE group of scientists. Pretty much the only thing that seems consistent is that somewhere along the line Home Erectus is our ancestor...

"The argument that homosexuality is normal because it exists in the animal kingdom has some pretty flawed reasoning. Many things exist in the animal kingdom, like rape, murder, eating other's children, gang warfare, etc. Are they natural?"

Yes they are.
 
2003-02-19 04:20:37 PM
This article is very in-*spit take* LESBIAN JAPANESE MONKEYS?! Wow, Japan, you've got me there.
 
2003-02-19 04:43:22 PM
Mods, please delete all posts above and below this one, thanks.
 
Kiz
2003-02-19 04:47:19 PM
MadLeaf
Please, fvckin Occam's Razor this shiat already.

If there is no propigation of a genome pattern what is it's purpose?

Probably to serve as bait for predators and population control.


Actually, you could argue that it does propigate the genome pattern. A critter with a selective sex drive is liable to miss the occasional opportunity to have sex with a viable mate. A critter that tries to mate with pretty much anything may waste a lot of time and effort but it is also more likely to have successes than a pickier critter will. Thus, a strong evolutionary drive to sleep with anything.

A stronger motivation in advanced critters is just that many animals use mating for bonding and social status as well as producing young. Particularly ones like humans, where sex is NOT restricted to time periods when the female is fertile. Humans definitely use mating for a lot more than just reproduction.
 
2003-02-19 05:07:26 PM
"Anyone who thinks homosexuality, or more generally, non-reproductive sexual activity flaunts evolution needs to have
a look at this book:
"

That's the problem. There's no way to disprove(falsify) it (evolution). Because--

"There may very well be evolutionary fitness benefit to such activities, but they have not yet been elucidated and
experimentally supported.
"

I could claim that Bible prophecy is 100% accurate and therefore is evidence of the Biblical God. Someone would say "Such and such never happened..". My response would be "Give it time." Same difference.
 
2003-02-19 05:11:55 PM
I saw Japanese macaques in Oita, Kyushu last summer. No sign of lesbianism, plenty of baby monkeys. Did see much rude monkey behavior, monkeys picking trash from trash bins, and many males masturbating. There is a park there in Oita where there are hundreds, maybe thousands of them. Very cool.
 
2003-02-19 05:29:36 PM
I fourth the Japan tag.
 
2003-02-19 05:52:53 PM
Lesbian monkeys? I feel repressed.
 
2003-02-19 07:06:05 PM
Males are often prompted into sexual intercourse only if they are first mounted by females. Dr Vasey said: "Female-male mounting in Japanese macaques is an adaptation that sexually motivated females employ to prompt sluggish or uninterested males to copulate with them."

Man, those have got to be some ugly looking Monkey chicks. I'm surprised the scientists didn't also say that they get the male monkeys drunk and leave with them at closing time.....
 
2003-02-19 07:32:57 PM
 
2003-02-19 07:40:39 PM
All of reality challenges Darwin's assumptions.

http://bevets.com/evolution.htm

02-19-03 12:02:50 PM Cunning_linguistics

I can understand such an attitude directed toward photographs of objects -- through opportunities for subtle manipulation are legion even here. But many of our pictures are incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature. These are the most potent sources of conformity, since ideas passing as descriptions lead us to equate the tentative with the unambiguously factual. Suggestions for the organization of thought are transformed to established patterns in nature. Guesses and hunches become things. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
 
2003-02-19 07:51:11 PM
I fifth the 'Japan" tag
 
2003-02-19 08:52:21 PM
Yay! Or...oh no! Or...what? What do after I see Bevets is attending this thread? Make a bag of popcorn?
 
2003-02-19 08:52:36 PM
That's because Darwin was a dumbass who didn't know shiat.
 
2003-02-19 08:54:53 PM
And how appropriate of him to attend the one thread that has to do with hot sweet lesbian monkey sex. I guess nothing else draws his attention these days.
 
2003-02-19 08:56:58 PM
Last thing I'm gonna notice before I go off to dinner: Not only is Bevets not using his own words today, he's using a quote that somebody ELSE already mentioned in the thread. So he's quoting someone that quoted someone. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
 
2003-02-19 09:00:59 PM
Maybe "Oh how the mighty have fallen" isn't the right sentiment. But screw it I'm hungry. Have a nice flamewar tonight, hopefully it will keep you all warm.
 
2003-02-19 09:06:26 PM
Cunning_linguistics has one of my favorite toungue-in-something-possibly-a-cheek Fark log-ons. The ladies do like a guy who has mastered various techniques of the tongue.
 
2003-02-19 09:35:02 PM
Bevets - not sure I understand your point. Are you disagreeing with me by quoting an isolated passage from an evolutionist?

I'd like to hear your opinion on things rather than your incessant quoting of others. Are you incapable of sentient thought?

I'll tell you what I think. I think you dont understand evolution well enough to comment on it.

Your own admission that your entire faith is predicated on circular reasoning is enough for me to dismiss any comment you make about evolution. I think you spend so much time fighting againts the idea of evolution because you are trying to convince yourself that Christian faith is not the most absurd "acceptance of doctrine without evidence" ever perpetrated on humanity.
 
2003-02-19 09:40:09 PM
Kiz"Actually, you could argue that it does propigate the genome pattern. A critter with a selective sex drive is liable to miss the occasional opportunity to have sex with a viable mate. A critter that tries to mate with pretty much anything may waste a lot of time and effort but it is also more likely to have successes than a pickier critter will. Thus, a strong evolutionary drive to sleep with anything."

Sure, you are actually describing the mechanism of how the HIV virus propagates...

"A stronger motivation in advanced critters is just that many animals use mating for bonding and social status as well as producing young. Particularly ones like humans, where sex is NOT restricted to time periods when the female is fertile. Humans definitely use mating for a lot more than just reproduction."

Ah! Thus the drive for incestual relationships...

Thank you! everything makes no fvcking sense now...
 
2003-02-19 09:46:04 PM
Cunning_linguistics, Bevets lacks the capacity for rational individual thought. Didn't you know that? *grin*
 
2003-02-19 09:55:57 PM
Dr. Joan Roughgarden.....Born Jonathan Roughgarden, she became Joan in the spring of 1998.

LOL - Me thinks there is an agenda here.
 
2003-02-19 09:59:44 PM
Attention Bevets and Cheeseburger:

So let's say evolution isn't the way to go. Please present a testable and falsifiable (these are two of creationism's biggest hangups about evolution) theory of creation that we may examine.

Thanks
 
2003-02-19 11:36:22 PM
Cecil Adams dealt with the subject of homosexuality among animals a few decades ago.

Brilliant as Darwin was, he was ultimately a man of his time. There was no serious challenge to the "male = aggressive, female = coy" dogma of the social sciences until a critical mass of women began working in them.

Lord_Dubu: Since you bring up the subject of zoophilia (albeit sarcastically), be aware that it isn't exclusive to humans. Scientists have been finding uot that quite a few other things aren't, either.
 
2003-02-19 11:54:18 PM
btw, to the comment about Evolution being unfalsifiable therefore wrong.

If we found monkey fossils that were carbon dated amoungst other tests and found to exist way back near the beginning of the fossil record, well that would be falsifing. not even the slickest debater could talk their way out of that.

however, to the creationist/intellegent desgin guy you get "the creater made it that way" as a cop out to any suggestion.
 
2003-02-20 12:01:51 AM
Slackerfunt
"Orangutans will also engage in premeditated gang rapes."

"dolphins pack rape too."

And gerbils eat their young--doesn't make it right or acceptable

Acceptable? Right?
Anthropomorphism now extended to include uptight moral values.
Far as I'm concerned, if you (or some Gerbil) wants to eat baby gerbils, fill your boots. Watch out for those PETA freaks, but 'til they show up, happy crunching.
Wanna pack rape a dolphin? Doubt you can hold your breath that long...but go for it. How do you know the dolphin didn't consent. Maybe it's simply dolphin bukkake. maybe dolphins like pulling trains. You don't know. And I'd be suspicious of any scientist who claims to have figured out the dolphin version of, "No means no."
Likwise curious regarding the idea of Orangutan premeditation.

Mmmmmm. Baby gerbils.
 
2003-02-20 12:34:46 AM
Cunning_linguistics

Bevets - not sure I understand your point. Are you disagreeing with me by quoting an isolated passage from an evolutionist?

I'd like to hear your opinion on things rather than your incessant quoting of others. Are you incapable of sentient thought?

I'll tell you what I think. I think you dont understand evolution well enough to comment on it.


The quote is found on page 28 of Wonderful Life. Gould was referring directly to diagrams such as the one you presented and suggesting that such diagrams were junk science.

Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else. ~ Colin Patterson

Stile4aly

Attention Bevets and Cheeseburger:

So let's say evolution isn't the way to go. Please present a testable and falsifiable (these are two of creationism's biggest hangups about evolution) theory of creation that we may examine.


Why should creationism be the only falsifiable theory?

Statik

btw, to the comment about Evolution being unfalsifiable therefore wrong.

If we found monkey fossils that were carbon dated amoungst other tests and found to exist way back near the beginning of the fossil record, well that would be falsifing. not even the slickest debater could talk their way out of that.


So would you say that the carbon dating of monkey fossils has provided solid evidence for evolution?
 
2003-02-20 01:40:51 AM
Bevets, have you seen the archaeopteryx fossils? It is a credible link to the evolution of modern day birds.

"It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus." From
(prolly farked the tag, but I tried)

Here you have evidence of a dinosaur evolving feathers, and some similar characteristics to birds, but with non-birdlike features as well.

I also think your quotes about Darwin's discussion of fossil records is a little misleading, it's known that fossils are rare in that hundreds of decaying bodies may produce (if lucky) a handful of fossils. And how many of those have been destroyed via geological processes? While only a handful of species may be represented, there is still credible evidence of evolution (fossil whale skeletons in California, for example).

Just my 2 cents.
 
2003-02-20 01:42:37 AM
Hmmm...

Archaeopteryx
lithographica
 
2003-02-20 01:46:49 AM
Damn it... screw it, do a netsearch same as I did, or cut and paste this...

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Dammit, I can't figure out where my HTML failed me.

If we were debating about HTML tagging, etc, this would be a disaster. But it's all about evolution or creationism, in which case I can say I have failed to adapt to my environment/god didn't make me webskilled.
 
2003-02-20 04:29:46 AM
This whole business about evolution being unfalsifiable (and therefore wrong) is crap. The whole argument rests on the fact that 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology (as are most true statements.) So farking what? That is semantics and not science. The terms we use to describe the mechanism have no effect on the mechanism being described.

/amateur biology
 
2003-02-20 05:30:59 AM
What ever happened to the rule about not using the articles title when posting?

I'm sure you could have come up with something good for this one.
 
2003-02-20 01:18:20 PM
Statik

If monkey fossils were discovered in, for example, the Burgess Shale, that unfortunate scientist would be well advised to run away as fast as possible, and never speak a word of his discovery.

Stile4aly

Creation theories that claim to be testable and falsifiable are abundant on the internet. Take your pick.
 
2003-02-20 05:11:37 PM
Bevets:

I do beleive in the reliablity of carbon dating to differentiate between recent geological history and and millions of years ago. It may not be so accruate in determining between something modern and something from a few hundred or even thousand years (i forget what the exact resolution of carbon dating is, it is rather coarse if memory serves), but it can tell that much.

now in reguards to your spin on my comment with the question "So would you say that the carbon dating of monkey fossils has provided solid evidence for evolution?", this has little to nothing to do with my statement. My statement was simply providing a hypotheical scenerio in which evolution could be adiquately falsified, and any statement on carbon dating accuracy in the evolution of primates is neither stated nor implyed.
 
2003-02-21 02:09:27 AM
Bevets
Why should creationism be the only falsifiable theory?


I'm not saying it should be the only falsifiable theory, I'm just asking you to present one. I'll make it easy, it doesn't have to be falsifiable or testable. Just present a Theory of Creationism, and we'll discuss it.

Cheeseburger
Creation theories that claim to be testable and falsifiable are abundant on the internet. Take your pick.


I haven't seen any. Since you and Bevets are the experts on the subject of creationism, I'm asking you to present one.
 
2003-02-21 04:00:51 PM
Stile4Aly

"I haven't seen any. Since you and Bevets are the experts on the subject of creationism, I'm asking you to present
one.
"

You're making assumptions about me. I've never claimed to be a creationist(not sure what you mean), much less an expert on the subject. But, since you've asked--Here and here.

Since you have a firm understanding of biology, will you please take the time to explain to me how one of these



becomes one of these?



Not just little changes over time, random changes (results, not goals, right?). Also, I ask you:Is this guy blowing smoke? Your rebuttal to some of his points would be helpful. Thanks.
 
Displayed 42 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report