|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 09/28/2011 : 07:49:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Darwins theory of Evolution is great reading. Are we to be respected for believing what is in his book? |
No, we are to be respected for understanding the evidence and how it relates to the theory of evolution. No belief required.
How does being constantly reminded we are monkeys aspire us to build better societies?
|
By looking back and see how far we have evolved, see what we did that didn't work, and figure out a better way.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 10:20:41 [Permalink]
|
| How does being constantly reminded we are monkeys aspire us to build better societies? |
It seems to me that the evolution side of the argument isnt the one with the obsessive fixation on the ape->man speciation. Some evolutionists/biologists etc. do focus on the topic, as we humans tend to care far more about humans and human issues than anything else. The creationists and media are the ones who can only talk about monkeys( and occasionally fish/bananas), fruit flies don't sell newspapers. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 10:32:11 [Permalink]
|
Did Darwin start out with humans evolved from apes, no we shared a common ancestor with apes. Are apes monkeys, no monkeys came before apes, so did apes evolve from monkeys, no apes and monkeys had a common ancestor whcih was half monkey and half ape. But a few fossils that are of extinct primates appear to be more monkey like so the earliest ancestor primates were monkeys. So we in fact are all monkeys.
Is this the required understanding that can earn us respect.
BTW new fossils contradict early out of Africa theories about apes-homosapien origin. It suggest they came from Asia.
Among the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees,orangutans and humans) humans are closer to the chimpanzees. But of all the apes the orangutan is the smartest. Smarter than gorillas or chimpanzees. So why were humans not closer to the orangutans. That is why we are not as smart as we could have been. How do we fix that looking backwards or forwards. We are what the genes made us to be....not the smartest kids off the block. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 12:02:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Did Darwin start out with humans evolved from apes, no we shared a common ancestor with apes. |
The last common ancestor of both modern humans and modern apes would undoubtedly be classified as an ape.| Are apes monkeys, no monkeys came before apes, so did apes evolve from monkeys, no apes and monkeys had a common ancestor whcih was half monkey and half ape. |
No, the last common ancestor of both modern apes (including humans) and modern monkeys would undoubtedly be classified as a monkey.| But a few fossils that are of extinct primates appear to be more monkey like so the earliest ancestor primates were monkeys. So we in fact are all monkeys. |
By that logic, looking at still earlier fossils show that we are, in fact, all fish.| Is this the required understanding that can earn us respect. |
Huh?| BTW new fossils contradict early out of Africa theories about apes-homosapien origin. It suggest they came from Asia. |
Which new fossils would those be? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 13:07:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
Did Darwin start out with humans evolved from apes, no we shared a common ancestor with apes. |
The last common ancestor of both modern humans and modern apes would undoubtedly be classified as an ape.| Are apes monkeys, no monkeys came before apes, so did apes evolve from monkeys, no apes and monkeys had a common ancestor whcih was half monkey and half ape. |
No, the last common ancestor of both modern apes (including humans) and modern monkeys would undoubtedly be classified as a monkey.| But a few fossils that are of extinct primates appear to be more monkey like so the earliest ancestor primates were monkeys. So we in fact are all monkeys. |
By that logic, looking at still earlier fossils show that we are, in fact, all fish.| Is this the required understanding that can earn us respect. |
Huh?| BTW new fossils contradict early out of Africa theories about apes-homosapien origin. It suggest they came from Asia. |
Which new fossils would those be?
|
I detect a bit of dissing for our single cell ancestors. I mean, if we really want to go all the way back. All we are is protozoa in the soup. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 13:48:35 [Permalink]
|
justinetime wrote: | Darwins theory of Evolution is great reading. Are we to be respected for believing what is in his book? |
I assume the book you are referring to is "On the Origin of Species". However, most of the evidence for evolution has come in the century since that book was published, a lot using modern discoveries and techniques that didn't even exist when Darwin was alive. The theory of evolution is much more than "great reading". It is an incredibly well-established theory that touches on every aspect of biology. You are talking about it as if it is some best seller than came out last year.
| How does being constantly reminded we are monkeys aspire us to build better societies? |
First, we are not monkeys, we are humans, separated from monkeys by several million years of evolution. Second, that question has nothing to do with the quest for objective truth about human origins, and presumably people read about evolution because they are interested in learning facts about biological reality. Third, the philosophical repercussions of having knowledge of human evolution will vary based on how those facts are framed. For instance, many look at the facts of human evolution and take to heart how closely related we all are and how superficial racial differences are on a genetic level. It can and has inspired many to more easily think of all of us as one big family with much more important stuff in common with each other than differences. Many Humanist philosophers and activists have written tons on ethics based on a worldview that embraces evolution. Examples include Bertrand Russell, Felix Adler, Corliss Lamont, and Paul Kurtz. Paul Kurtz spoke at my local Humanist group's HumanLight (a Humanist winter holiday) dinner last year and part of his presentation included asking those in the audience to stand and embrace their neighbors. Popular novelists who deal with ethics from such a perspective include Isaac Asimov and Kurt Vonnegut Jr (both former presidents of the American Humanist Association.) Robert Wright is a humanist journalist who has written extensively about morality from an evolutionary perspective and the fat of humankind. In his book "The Moral Animal" he directly addresses human morality from an evolutionary point of view. In his books "The Evolution of God" and "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny" he attempts to explain how and why moral codes have changed over human history, becoming generally more and more inclusive. He then argues that all of humanity in today's modern world is part of a big nonzero sum game in which what benefits one group of humans most typically benefits others, and what hurts one group most typically hurts others, and therefore we should develop and maintain a global code of morality that values and protects the life and quality of life for all people.
Beyond philosophical repercussions, certainly having a more scientific understanding of the world has helped us develop technologies to extend life expectancy, especially for women, children, and the disabled. It also puts us in a position where we can much more efficiently distribute resources (although whether we do or not depends much on politics and economics.)
| Bill Scott with his religious beliefs on a skeptic forum makes for bad karma. But he does have some world events on his side. |
In what sense?
| Most of the wars waged in recent history were not over religion but democracy. There was a time it was the other way around. |
I completely disagree. Most wars in all of history have been about competition for control over resources. You think the USA invaded Iraq to bring democracy? Not saying that other ideas and principles don't play a role, but if the competition for resources isn't there, the wars don't happen.
| We have replaced one type of human perversion with another....How much is this because we are raised to believe we are monkeys. |
Do you just sit around in a room by yourself thinking this drivel up? Many different philosophies have developed after the acceptance of the theory of evolution. They are not all the same, and they are certainly not all "perversion". You wanna educate yourself about secular humanism and ethical culture, two modern philosophies that deeply embrace the scientific method and the theory of evolution, and explain to me exactly what is perverted about their basic principles. (Also, I'm not saying that acceptance of evolution as a theory leads to secular humanism or ethical culture. A proponent of evolution might just as well adopt Objectivism or Church of Satan as their religion. Just as a "follower of Christ" might adopt the liberal theology of Bishop John Spong or the fundamentalism of Billy Graham.)
| Did Darwin start out with humans evolved from apes, no we shared a common ancestor with apes. Are apes monkeys, no monkeys came before apes, so did apes evolve from monkeys, no apes and monkeys had a common ancestor whcih was half monkey and half ape. But a few fossils that are of extinct primates appear to be more monkey like so the earliest ancestor primates were monkeys. So we in fact are all monkeys. |
*sigh* No. Monkeys have tails. Last I checked I don't have a tail. Of course that's just one thing that in terms of formal classification that separates monkeys from apes and humans. To say that we are all monkeys is about as accurate as saying we are all fish, or we are all primordial sludge. After all, we share a common ancestor with both. I really don't understand why you are putting so much emphasis on our most recent ancestors. We aren't them, and they aren't us. I have half my mom's genes, but I'm not my friggin' mom.
| BTW new fossils contradict early out of Africa theories about apes-homosapien origin. It suggest they came from Asia. |
Reference? The Out of Africa theory started kicking the crap out of the Multiregional theory of human evolution quite a while ago now, with both mounting fossil and genetic evidence. It would take quite a lot to refute, so I'd really like to know what supposed fossils you are talking about.
| Among the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees,orangutans and humans) humans are closer to the chimpanzees. But of all the apes the orangutan is the smartest. Smarter than gorillas or chimpanzees. So why were humans not closer to the orangutans. That is why we are not as smart as we could have been. How do we fix that looking backwards or forwards. We are what the genes made us to be....not the smartest kids off the block. |
There are so many problems with this... where to begin? We are separated from the great apes by millions of years of evolution. They are not our ancestors, they are our cousins, so why the hell couldn't orangutans develop greater intelligence on their own? Or hell, chimps could lose some intelligence if it isn't necessary to survival (currently they are being out-competed by stupider monkeys for fruit because the monkeys developed the ability to digest unripened fruit.) Look up parallel evolution. Geez, why would you expect our genetically closest living cousins to be the smartest of all our cousins just because we're the smartest of all the mammals? A genius might have a brother of very average intelligence, and a cousin who is also a genius. Doesn't change the fact that the brother is more closely related than the cousin. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 18:17:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Did Darwin start out with humans evolved from apes, no we shared a common ancestor with apes. Are apes monkeys, no monkeys came before apes, so did apes evolve from monkeys, no apes and monkeys had a common ancestor whcih was half monkey and half ape. But a few fossils that are of extinct primates appear to be more monkey like so the earliest ancestor primates were monkeys. So we in fact are all monkeys.
Is this the required understanding that can earn us respect.
|
No. The understanding that will earn you respect is the realisation that the words we use to classify monkeys and apes are our own inventions and not nature's. The definitions and the border conditions are arbitrary. Some languages doesn't even discriminate between monkeys and apes, but use the same word for them.
The important thing is that we can follow lineages backward to find a common ancestor of any two living organisms (or fossils, or a combination of both). |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 21:16:25 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote:
I cannot deal with all the skeptics being one myself. |
What does this mean? I really don't understand what you are saying here. It sounds like you feel you cannot counter all the arguments made against your statements because skepticism somehow prevents you from doing so. Huh?
To echo Kil, that is about the origin of all monkeys, apes, and humans, not the origin of humans. You had written: "BTW new fossils contradict early out of Africa theories about apes-homosapien origin." That lead me to think you were talking about the "Out of Africa" model of human evolution, which is well established by lots of evidence.
What bearing does the place of origin of monkeys, apes, and humans have on what you are trying to say in this thread? Why pick out that particularly arbitrary event in our evolutionary history? What is your point? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 21:34:51 [Permalink]
|
justintime, I'd really like to hear you elaborate on how accepting the conclusions of the theory of evolution lead to "human perversion". I mean specifically. Examples. Not just empty rhetoric with damning associations for monkeys. (What did the monkeys ever do to you, anyway?)
I'd like to know what is so bad about knowing that we have a common ancestry with the great apes. After all, they aren't the ones who have committed genocides or invented and used the atomic bomb. From this article De Waal considers this a cynical position, not supported by his many years of research into the moral characteristics of primates, specifically the bonobos, who are believed to be humans’ closest living relatives. Bonobos are remarkably friendly, sociable creatures; not for nothing are they called “the hippie apes.” But even their more churlish brethren, the chimpanzees, demonstrate moral behaviour: They share food, show a strong sense of right and wrong and exhibit feelings of shame, guilt, sympathy and concern.
This idea was demonstrated in 1996 when a 3-year-old boy fell 18 feet into the primate enclosure at Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo. A gorilla named Binti Jua picked up the child and carried him to safety. She sat down on a log and rocked the boy on her lap, patting him a few times on his back, before taking him to waiting zoo staff. Her show of sympathy, captured on video and shown around the world, touched many hearts. |
There are, of course, numerous documented examples of our closest living relatives displaying deep feelings of sympathy and love for each other and humans.
I should mention that I think De Waal misrepresents Richard Dawkins's views and book "The Selfish Gene". In that book Dawkins addresses the advantages of altruism, too, quite extensively. But unfortunately, the inflammatory title (which I imagine the publisher pushed to help sell more copies) gets more attention that the actual thesis of the book, which was about the important role of genes in directing the course of evolution. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/28/2011 21:37:05 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 10:38:09 [Permalink]
|
Kil you got me there. I should have just stayed with the link disputing the classical out of Africa theory and avoided the blooper by being lazy and clubbing the entire idea in conclusion. I could have easily lied and said I was just testing! testing! who was awake.
Is there anyway I can rate myself as a skeptic on a scale of 1 to 10. I seem to have less doubts and more certainty about what I know.
I saw the video on keeping an open mind posted on SFN. I don't know if that is a good attribute/attitude. I have a discerning mind. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 11:06:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
justintime, I'd really like to hear you elaborate on how accepting the conclusions of the theory of evolution lead to "human perversion". I mean specifically. Examples. Not just empty rhetoric with damning associations for monkeys. (What did the monkeys ever do to you, anyway?)
I'd like to know what is so bad about knowing that we have a common ancestry with the great apes. After all, they aren't the ones who have committed genocides or invented and used the atomic bomb. From this article De Waal considers this a cynical position, not supported by his many years of research into the moral characteristics of primates, specifically the bonobos, who are believed to be humans’ closest living relatives. Bonobos are remarkably friendly, sociable creatures; not for nothing are they called “the hippie apes.” But even their more churlish brethren, the chimpanzees, demonstrate moral behaviour: They share food, show a strong sense of right and wrong and exhibit feelings of shame, guilt, sympathy and concern.
This idea was demonstrated in 1996 when a 3-year-old boy fell 18 feet into the primate enclosure at Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo. A gorilla named Binti Jua picked up the child and carried him to safety. She sat down on a log and rocked the boy on her lap, patting him a few times on his back, before taking him to waiting zoo staff. Her show of sympathy, captured on video and shown around the world, touched many hearts. |
There are, of course, numerous documented examples of our closest living relatives displaying deep feelings of sympathy and love for each other and humans.
I should mention that I think De Waal misrepresents Richard Dawkins's views and book "The Selfish Gene". In that book Dawkins addresses the advantages of altruism, too, quite extensively. But unfortunately, the inflammatory title (which I imagine the publisher pushed to help sell more copies) gets more attention that the actual thesis of the book, which was about the important role of genes in directing the course of evolution.
|
Did you know? Now that evolutionist have classified humans as apes and gone mainstream with this. There is growing pressure to have apes receive the same type of legal protection afforded to humans. They are our cousins.
I am not saying evolution is perverted in itself, nor is religion for that matter. It is man himself who perverts everything he touches. That man is inherently flawed, and that leads to a defect in his reasoning which manifest itself as perversions.
The atom bomb is an example. It was created to save the world as a deterrence against mutual destruction. Pedophilia an assault on children. Butt banging...unhygienic and not the natural function for a sanctuary for poo. One can go on. Man perverts everything religion, knowledge, evolution. |
| Edited by - justintime on 09/29/2011 14:59:31 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 15:43:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
The homosexual couple cannot procreate and are not indeended to make up a family unit. There are things kids learn from their dad and things they learn from their mom. Two dads or two moms was never the intent and goes against all things natural, just ask Dave about what is natural and unnatural. That's his specialty. |
List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
African Buffalo[21]
African Elephant[22]
Agile Wallaby[23]
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
American Bison[21][24]
Antelope[25]
Asian Elephant[22]
Asiatic Lion[26]
Asiatic Mouflon[27]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
Australian Sea Lion[28]
Barasingha[29]
Barbary Sheep[30]
Beluga[19]
Bharal[31]
Bighorn Sheep[30]
Black Bear[32]
Blackbuck[33]
Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Black-tailed Deer[29]
Bonnet Macaque[14]
Bonobo[34][35][36]
Bottlenose Dolphin[19][37]
Bowhead Whale[19]
Brazilian Guinea Pig[38]
Bridled Dolphin[19]
Brown Bear[32]
Brown Capuchin[39]
Brown Long-eared Bat[40]
Brown Rat[41]
Buffalo[30]
Caribou[42]
Cat (domestic)[43]
Cattle (domestic)[44]
Cheetah[26]
Collared Peccary[45]
Commerson's Dolphin[19]
Common Brushtail Possum[46]
Common Chimpanzee[47]
Common Dolphin[19]
Common Marmoset[39]
Common Pipistrelle[48]
Common Raccoon[49]
Common Tree Shrew[50]
Cotton-top Tamarin[51]
Crab-eating Macaque[14]
Crested Black Macaque[14]
Dall's Sheep[30]
Daubenton's Bat[40]
Dog (domestic)[52]
Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Dugong[53]
Dwarf Cavy[38]
Dwarf Mongoose[54]
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[41]
Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
Elk[29]
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
European Bison[21]
Fallow Deer[29]
False Killer Whale[19]
Fat-tailed Dunnart[55]
Fin Whale[19]
Fox[56]
Gazelle[25]
Gelada Baboon[57]
Giraffe[25][4][58]
Goat (Domestic)[30]
Golden Monkey[59]
Gorilla[60]
Grant's Gazelle[25]
Grey-headed Flying Fox[40]
Grey Seal[28]
Grey squirrel[disambiguation needed][61]
Grey Whale[19][20]
Grey Wolf[62]
Grizzly Bear[32]
Guinea Pig (Domestic)[38]
Hamadryas Baboon[57]
Hamster (Domestic)[38]
Hanuman Langur[63]
Harbor Porpoise[64]
Harbor Seal[28]
Himalayan Tahr[65]
Hoary Marmot[66]
Horse (domestic)[67]
Human (see Human sexual behavior)
Indian Fruit Bat[40]
Indian Muntjac[68]
Indian Rhinoceros[69]
Japanese Macaque[14]
Javelina[70]
Kangaroo Rat[41]
Killer Whale[19]
Koala[71]
Kob[15][72]
Larga Seal[28]
Least Chipmunk[61]
Lechwe[72]
Lesser Bushbaby[73]
Lion[26][74][75][76][77][78]
Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
Lion Tamarin[39]
Little Brown Bat[40]
Livingstone's Fruit Bat[40]
Long-eared Hedgehog[79]
Long-footed Tree Shrew[50]
Macaque[80]
Markhor[81]
Marten[49]
Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Moco[82]
Mohol Galago[73]
Moor Macaque[14]
Moose[83]
Mountain Goat[30]
Mountain Tree Shrew[50]
Mountain Zebra[84]
Mouse (domestic)[85]
Moustached Tamarin[51]
Mule Deer[29]
Musk-ox[86]
Natterer's Bat[40]
New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
Nilgiri Langur[63]
Noctule[48]
North American Porcupine[87]
Northern Elephant Seal[28]
Northern Fur Seal[28]
Northern Quoll[55]
Olympic Marmot[88]
Orangutan[89]
Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
Patas Monkey[90]
Pere David's Deer[29]
Pig (Domestic)[91]
Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
Plains Zebra[92]
Polar Bear[32]
Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
Proboscis Monkey[59]
Pronghorn[93]
Przewalski's Horse[84]
Puku[94]
Quokka[95]
Rabbit[96]
Raccoon Dog[97]
Red Deer[29]
Red Fox[98]
Red Kangaroo[23]
Red-necked Wallaby[23]
Red Squirrel[61]
Reeves's Muntjac[68]
Reindeer[42]
Rhesus Macaque[14]
Right Whale[19]
Rock Cavy[38]
Rodrigues Fruit Bat[40]
Roe Deer[29]
Rufous Bettong[99]
Rufous-naped Tamarin[51]
Rufous Rat Kangaroo[23]
Saddle-back Tamarin[51]
Savanna Baboon[57]
Sea Otter[100]
Serotine Bat[40]
Sheep (Domestic)[30][101]
Siamang[102]
Sika Deer[29]
Slender Tree Shrew[50]
Sooty Mangabey[90]
Sperm Whale[19]
Spinifex Hopping Mouse[41]
Spinner Dolphin[19]
Spotted Hyena[16][18]
Spotted Seal[28]
Squirrel Monkey[103]
Striped Dolphin[19]
Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[104]
Stumptail Macaque[14]
Swamp Deer[29]
Swamp Wallaby[23]
Takhi[84]
Talapoin[90]
Tammar Wallaby[23]
Tasmanian Devil[104]
Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
Thinhorn Sheep[30]
Thomson's Gazelle[25]
Tiger[105]
Tonkean Macaque[14]
Tucuxi[106]
Urial[107]
Vampire Bat[40]
Verreaux's Sifaka[108]
Vervet[90]
Vicuna[109]
Walrus[110][111]
Wapiti[112]
Warthog[113]
Waterbuck[114]
Water Buffalo[30]
Weeper Capuchin[39]
Western Grey Kangaroo[23]
West Indian Manatee[115]
Whiptail Wallaby[23]
White-faced Capuchin[39]
White-fronted Capuchin[39]
White-handed Gibbon[116]
White-lipped Peccary[117]
White-tailed Deer[29]
Wild Cavy[38]
Wild Goat[30]
Wisent[21]
Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Yellow-toothed Cavy[38]
And that's just mammals! You know... The class that we humans belong to. There's a lot more homosexuality out there among other classes of animales. So much for goes against all things natural.... If it occurs in nature, by definition, it's natural.
Also, and this is a little more anecdotal, but I have a nephew who has two mothers and two fathers (turkey baster method) and he is doing just fine. He's in collage now and what'd ya know? He's not gay.
From an biological standpoint, social conservatives (with views derived mostly from the bible) have no case. None at all. Nada. It's a bleeding dead parrot.
|
The list is very convincing, Kil. Nature is not biased towards homosexuality in animals and humans can take great comfort they are not unique in experiencing sore butt holes.
It will take sometime to study all the animals you have listed but here is my take.
Animals that live as a group/herd have a hierarchical order a harem type setting. There is the alpha male in every group that has the recognition of all the females.
Females tend to seek out the strongest genes in the herd/group to guarantee their offspring's will survive. Eg. The doe goes for the deer with the biggest antler. It is called sexual selection.
It is obvious in this type of setting the lesser males do not have a chance to mate and could quite possibly are forced to make do with their brethren in a common situation, they improvise and develop homosexual relationships.This suggest some degree of adaptation and necessity.
This is not the same with humans who have free choice and are not controlled by the groups alpha male since none exist. This implies it is not the precursor for adaptation but choice/preference.
One can argue there are more social demands on men as provider and stronger sex which can cause some males to chose a lesser demanding role. But the increase in homosexuals when the playing field is almost equal suggest the comparison are not necessarily true or valid.
Animal behavior is not a justification or model for imitation by humans. Animals do not pimp or sex traffic or suffer STD in their communal settings.
We cannot cherry pick or pop. And if women pick men to advance the survival of their genes. They should be educated. Their ovaries are not in their mouth or ass period. |
| Edited by - justintime on 09/29/2011 15:46:16 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Drummer wanted
