Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Evolution Theory

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:15 pm

Orwell, George wrote:
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
The only reason to repeat what is self-evident, is because we live in an age where Nihilism has infected the masses to the point of making them unable to accept the obvious...and an age where they are supported in this right to debate even what was common sense, but is no longer common.
Orwell, George wrote:
If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.

Orwell, George wrote:
Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.


What Evolutionary theory proposes to explain life and its variations.  



Speciation...



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:21 pm

Evolution has no beginning and no end.
what we call the beginning of life is the point in space/time when a congruity of patterns became able to iterate, and to assimilate energies it was losing due to attrition =- flux of interactivity.
It then developed the ability to direct itself in space/time towards a pattern that was part of its own congruity.

I've described, elsewhere, my theory on how this occurred.
No external will, no preexisting consciousness, no universal motive is required.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:26 pm

It is evident from the vids on how species evolve that they do not magically appear, out of nowhere, and that they do not suddenly appear, overnight.
The process is slow, and gradual, depending no the environmental conditions and the degree of genetic isolation.
We can expect to find intermediate forms in between two populations that have experienced some degree of genetic isolation.

It is also evident from the vids that appearance is not superficial, nor accidental, but it indicated the degree of genetic isolation.
An alteration in appearance is clear evidence that at some point some genetic isolation occurred...and the degree of apparent diversity indicates how severe the environmental effects were, or how long this isolation was.

Total speciation does not occur until the two populations are no longer able to mix their genes.
Depending no how far along speciation has progressed, the two populations cans till mix, producing infertile offspring, such as mules or ligers.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:29 pm

We may add to the process of genetic evolution, the emergence and development of memes.
From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Then we can apply to memetics the same rules that apply to genetics.

Evolution on a meta-level - memetic evolution.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:38 pm

There is no motive, no goal to evolution - no telos, end.
What this means is that it does not strive to produce intelligence or higher awareness.
Evolution shows no preference for any particular trait, or organic congruity, combination of patterns participating in an organization.

Evolution is about how particular organizations of traits relate to the environment. The environment weeds out those traits, or entire combinations that cannot cope with the environment, with the circumstances.
Intelligence has proven beneficial within natural environments, but it is now proving detrimental to the organism, within manmade environments, governed by a nihilistic ideal - an anti-life, anti-nature ideology.
Evolution does not mean progress upwards towards increasingly "better", more sophisticated combinations, congruities.

Fitness, in Evolution theory, means reproductive success, which presupposes a length of time where the organism survived successfully.
This length of time also implies growth.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:41 pm

Humans are the only species that can place an ideal that contradicts evolution theory, as its guiding principle.
Only for man can reproductive virility, survival itself, take a secondary place to the chosen ideal.

The ideal may reach the extreme of contradicting life, or reality. These ideals we call nihilistic, because they replace naturally occurring phenomena, or how the world is, with abstractions, noetic construct, of how the world ought to be, or is, in some hypothetical realm.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:48 pm

Biologists study organisms and how they behave and interact to validate and fill in the gaps in their understanding of genetic evolution.
A man who is interested in the evolution of memes, must also add to his pool of organism the only organism that has progressed further than genetics - homo sapient.
The study of this organism will validate and/or add to his understanding of how memes evolve from genes and how they then proceed to evolve into memetic variations.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:59 pm

The study of memetic evolution must use genetics as its foundations.
we immediately recognize how nihilistic memes can detach from environment (nature) and evolve chaotically, with fewer restrictions, and, if protected, without facing natural corrective processes.

Nihilistic memes are socially dependent, and socially constructed....this is why they try to make all ideals social constructions - an equalizing method, of bringing it down, leveling it all down to the lowest-common-denominator, where higher/lower, superior/inferior collapse into uniformity.

Converting all language to art, to a non-referential creative abstraction, such as what was done in surrealism, or cubism etc....is a reduction of the image to its parts, or to one aspect of form which is similar in all forms.
It also detaches form the limitations places upon art, by the world beyond the mind - outside the skull, subjectivity.
This 'freedom" they enjoy, as being liberating from past/nature, or natural order - defining all order as a product of a will, a consciousness - if not God, then a man, or a dominant group.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:08 pm

Race, is the term used to describe breeds, types, eidos {ειδος}, in the human species.
it represents a divergence, caused by genetic isolation, that did not proceed long enough, or the environmental conditioning were not severe enough, to create a total genetic split.

We can think of race as a stage before speciation, or divergence such as that between an ass and a horse, or a tiger and a lion, or a grizzly and a polar bear.
The time was sufficient to cause a obvious split in inherited potentials but not enough to create infertile offspring, or to prevent genetic mixing altogether.

This alteration in inherited potentials is what we perceive as appearance, with distinct physical markers.
These inherited potentials do not restrict themselves to the physical, but also affect the mental, the psyche.
There is no reason to believe environment affected the physical to a degree where it created observable aesthetic changes, but has no impact on the brain.
The inherited potentials were not so severe as to not be able to be covered up with proper training: imitation, regurgitation of memetic norms, ethical standards on behaviour.
All these create the illusion of parity, by enforcing a strict code of conduct - training the inferior to cultivate itself to its highest potential, and restricting to the superior, to not take advantage of tis superiority, unless it goes through institutional avenues.
Despite this, the inherited differences in potentials becomes apparent, in time, through performance.
Athletic (body) and Academic (mind) performance, being two institutionalized forms of it.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:20 pm

Intelligence is one of the traits inherited as potentials.
All organisms have what we call intelligence.

If intelligence was, as the moderns insist on believing, evenly distributed within populations, even when they experienced genetic isolation, the problem of how intelligence, on the level of the average human being (IQ 100), would evolve, or how it would dominate.
The ideology that insists on believing intelligence spontaneously emerges in all human populations in exactly the same degree, and is not affected by environmental conditioning, completely contradicts Evolution Theory, and natural selection.



Contradicting Evolution theory, while at the same time professing to hold it as the superior theory, is an example of post-modern (Modern) duplicity, and compartmentalization.
Natural selection does away with God, as the creator, determine what life will emerge, and what will not...and replaces it with life as the agency.
but awareness of its own behaviour is not necessary.
Self-consciousness is not essential. Rather it can be argued that it is detrimental to the process.

Natural selection deals with randomness by the introduction of judgment into the process.
instead of allowing environment, through trial and error, to select, life judges itself, to speed up the process of adaptation, to altering environmental conditions.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:40 am

If race is a social construct, and insignificant, or secondary to the individual and his upbringing, then species must be so, as well, because race is a sub-category of species and a necessary intermediate stage, towards it.
If its obvious appearance is no more than superficial, then we must apply the same degenerate "logic" and dismiss all appearances as being likewise: insignificant, superficial, or too unimportant to take into consideration.

Inverting degeneracy, emphasizes appearance as the prime/primal way of becoming aware of distinction and difference.
Without it life is impossible.
Any factor that has manifested in such a obvious aesthetic divergence cannot be called superficial or insignificant, or too small to matter.
If 3% genetic difference between man and chimpanzee can result in such glaringly obvious, and significant divergence, then a tenth of that, a hundredth, is still not a measure too small to matter, especially when considering the fact that evolution is a process of gradual adaptation to environmental circumstances.
Ignoring such divergence does not make it disappear. It simply makes the individual inadequate to judge his/her environment, and those that occupy it - a form of self-blindness, for the sake of comfortable numbness.

If we add to this the obviousness of performance differences in all fields, without trying to make excuses for them, so as to reaffirm our desired outcome, then Modern "logic" is exposed as being a cowardly, duplicitous, self-handicapping.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:57 pm

Whether you believe in Evolution Theory, does not make a difference.
Whether you and your family and friends think of it as just another perspective, like all others, will not change anything.

Your agreement or awareness does not affect nature.
You either see and adapt to it, or you do not and pay the price, then running to others to help you, or to Accuse for your own idiocy, demanding that they step in and save you from your own stupidity.
Whether you believe race is part of speciation, as is breed, does not change anything but your peace of mind, for as long as it takes before reality forces upon you a check...as in reality check, you can then cry about and feel victimized, and blame others, and demands that they intervene so your stupidity does not become severe.

Moderns sense this, despite their bullshyte about perspectivism, and subjectivity, and all is a social construct....they know it is not so, on an intuitive level, and this is why they demand social safety-nets, legal coverings, and technological interventions.




_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:25 am

Mcknight, Jim wrote:
On the nature of charm
Now we come to the crux of this scenario. Women choose mates who will be good providers and who will invest resources in their offspring, and look for a mate similar to themselves to minimise conflict in their relationship—the matching principle—or positive assortative mating at work. At the same time
they are trying to beat the status quo and hope for a mate with a better pedigree than their own. It is likely that women have an evolved preference for certain types of men and have developed a keen ability to distinguish between offers. Men traditionally offer health, intellect, virility and resources and use aggression and charm to push their case. Homosexually enabled straight men with access to both masculine and feminine traits will be able to offer sensitivity, creativity and better communication skills in addition to the traditional male offerings. Given that women have a range of possible mates with equivalent prospects, the homosexually-enabled straight man with a greater measure of feminine appeal will succeed at the margin.
At the same time, women’s discriminant ability will be finely attuned to hints of unmanliness and too large a dose of homosexuality will rapidly disqualify a potential suitor, given that one of the most consistent findings of sexuality research is strong disapproval of effeminate men (McCreary, 1994).
Social psychology tells us that two main factors are working in women’s mate choice—one is a strong preference for men who will be good breadwinners and the other is for similarity to themselves (McKnight and Sutton, 1994). There is a certain tension between these two objectives.
Women are looking for a minimum safety of someone quite like themselves but hoping for someone better. Women select by similar ethnicity, religious and political beliefs, social status, geographic propinquity, shared interests and common goals. The conventional wisdom is that with strong sociocultural assortative mating, sources of marital conflict are minimised and parental investment is maximised. Women also match by physical characteristics.
What is important varies from culture to culture, although there are certain similarities: women are unlikely to marry men shorter than themselves;beautiful women seek handsome mates; and so on. Up to this point, similarity provides baseline expectations but unless the woman sees herself as having little to offer, she will try to maximise her offspring’s fitness by seeking men with a superior genetic endowment. Given that all these characteristics are obvious and well distributed throughout the population, it is unlikely that she will marry far from her own potential; she has far too many competitors for that to happen. For this reason, male characteristics such as greater height, strength and endurance, which signal virility, may be less important at the margin than other more subtle signals of male superiority.
Similarity can also work in other ways. Women have expectations of men which are not part of male socialisation. They admire men who are warm and caring, who are nurturant, good communicators who share feelings, who are creative and have flair, who possess wit, charm and sensitivity (Hudson
and Henze, 1969; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Howard et al., 1987; Buss 1989; Sprecher et al., 1994). There is also considerable evidence that gay men are brighter (Weinrich, 1978); more creative (Weinrich, 1977; Ruse, 1981; Cooper, 1994; Hewitt, 1995); better communicators and more socially adept than the average male (Wilson, 1978); and less disturbed (Strickland, 1995).
While it is impossible to unscramble the relative social and genetic contributions to these traits, or to see them as exclusively feminine, they are characteristic of and much admired by women.
Homosexual charm is legendary and the diminished (but still evident) antipathy felt by heterosexual women towards gay men (Kite and Whitley, 1996) may in part reflect a certain similarity of outlook. As we explored in the last chapter, there are different masculine and feminine pathways in the fetal brain and early hormonal influences affect their development (Breedlove, 1994). It is important to realise that these are separate pathways and more androgynous individuals may result from the development of both rather than from one suppressing the other (Byne and Parsons, 1993). One
of the advantages the homosexually-enabled heterotype may enjoy, in addition to increased virility, is traits traditionally thought of as feminine, which women recognise and with which they feel comfortable and, in recognising a certain familiarity, positively select for them. Thus, the reproductive differential which keeps the homosexuality gene in the population may be a marginal superiority of the homosexually-enabled straight heterotype, which reflects charm and a certain similarity of traits.
What is the nature of this charm and how does it work? Twin purposes are served in selecting mates who are both charming and sincere. Sources of possible marital conflict are minimised by selecting for nurturant traits and mates who have the self-confidence to try to charm are also likely to be successful in their careers, at least to the extent that self-confidence equals access to resources. Consistently, in answering questionnaires on what they want in a mate, ‘women have expressed a greater preference than men for such personality characteristics as expressiveness, kindness and
considerateness’ (Sprecher et al., 1994). Charm is an indicator of emotional compatibility and these nurturant traits promote a sense of security in women that their chosen mate is following similar agendas as themselves, a favourite rule of social psychology—that similarity breeds safety. Charm is
also indicative of poise. Under-confidence in a male suitor is a distinct liability. Poise equals self confidence and signals that the suitor is comfortable in his suit and that the ‘courtship gifts’ he displays for his intended anticipate real resources he will provide for their children—a major concern
for women in mate selection (Bailey et al., 1994). So traits such as intelligence, creativity and flair are perhaps subtle signposts for selfconfidence and a success potential beyond sheer virility.
It is unlikely that these traits are more important than signs of obvious virility and perhaps the major advantage the homosexually-enabled straight man enjoys is as uncomplicated as an enhanced sexuality. However, the ability to seduce and satisfy a partner is as much a behavioural trait as it is a
physical one and, in competition for mates, charm may have a synergistic relationship with virility. What is clear is that charm has its boundaries. At one limit ‘too charming’ is seen as deception and insincerity and at the other limit as possible effeminacy. Women who have a finely attuned
discriminative sense would select for this characteristic within a discrete behavioural range and secondarily to obvious bread-winning and virility potentials. Then again, as Barkow (1989) observed, women who select charming men ensure that their male offspring are also charming, thus
maximising the numbers of their grandchildren.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:53 am

McKnight, Jim wrote:
A reproductive differential?
By now you are probably wondering why heterozygous males enjoy a reproductive advantage in this selective scenario? Given that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women why doesn’t a simple matching principle apply, with each pairing with someone similar to themselves (positive assortative mating) and then each couple having as many children as they desire? What would make the heterotype have more children than anyone else? Several interrelated factors may be at work here.
In The Descent, Darwin distinguished two factors which lead to reproductive success in a sexually selective system: the male’s ability to charm (seduce) the female and the male’s ability to out-compete other males in finding a range of mates. Perceptive readers will notice that R strategy underlies these abilities and perhaps the primary reason for heterozygotic success is simply a male promiscuity reproductive strategy. Yet from our earlier discussions, you will recall that women’s strategy is aimed at the opposite—binding a mate close to the nest and being choosy with whom they marry, given a lesser reproductive capacity. As women are the limiting variable in the system, we would expect that a K-stable strategy would prevail and for this reason would nullify the heterotic advantage of a straight man with a gay gene. Fortunately, this difficulty is overcome by female infidelity. As regrettable as it may be, there is ample evidence that women are promiscuous, if not as flagrantly as men, at least as calculatedly.
As Symons and Barkow note, at least part of the difficulty is in our curiously conservative view of women as being wholly monogamous and mating for life, pair bonding with a single partner in the manner of ducks or gibbons. This is not so for our species and evidence from paternity testing research indicates that up to 30 percent of married women have children who cannot be products of the marriage, even if their spouses think they are.
Monogamy is rare among mammals and Baker and Bellis review several studies of human infidelity in defence of their sperm competitive theory. To show that infidelity is not entirely pointless they quote the traditional medical view that between 10 and 15 percent of children are genetically unrelated to their fathers. They support this with a range of studies which show rates of paternity discrepancy from 2 to 30 percent. In two of the larger studies to date, Ashton in Hawaii, with a sample of 2,839, gave a more conservative paternal discrepancy rate of 2.3 percent; and Edwards, in a large Metropolitan London sample (2,596), found a rate of 5.9 percent.
Perhaps the best estimate of parental discrepancy is around 10 percent. It should be remembered that this is a measure of successful inseminations, not of the myriad infidelities necessary to produce them. On the other hand these figures often include situations where the male partner is aware of and may even consent to an ex-nuptial child, or where the mother is unaware or uncertain of their child’s ex-nuptial paternity, so this figure may be an overestimate of infidelities that produce a child. For these reasons, researchers tend to speak of extra-pair copulations (EPCs) rather than infidelities, as you will recall in our discussion of EPCs in the sperm competition section of this chapter. There are a multitude of studies which point to high EPC rates in both sexes and to the theoretical complications this brings, for example, found in their sample of 4,000 British women that the more sexually experienced a woman, the more probable she would have at least one EPC: ‘17% double-mate within their first 50 copulations, 50% within their first 500, and over 80% after 3,000 copulations.’ Clearly, infidelity is a characteristic human behaviour in both sexes.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:28 am

Seven deadly sins, according to McKnight, in relation to Homosexuality, and why it persists.
This can also apply to the other two sacred cows of Modern Nihilism: sexism, in relation to male/female differences, and race.

McKnight, Jim wrote:

THE FIRST DEADLY SIN: WE ARE ANIMALS

Let us start with the proposition that we are animals. Our evolutionary descent from the rest of the animal kingdom is a mere six million years or so, a moment compared with the four billion years of life on Earth. Our immediate ancestors are only a million or so years removed and if the archaeological record is any guide, shared much in common with our current simian coevolutionists. Human life, such as we know it, has an immediate past of no more than 120,000 years. Given the brevity of human
existence it is highly unlikely that we are far removed from the immediate concerns and influences which shaped creation. Given that we are animals, it follows that the same evolutionary logic so evidently at work among other animals applies equally to ourselves. It is absolutely uncontroversial to see the forces of evolution shaping and moulding animal life and evolution is the most fundamental theory of modern biology. Ethology, the study of animal behaviour, is an honoured part of the biosciences and has led to many profound insights into our anatomy, growth and development, genetics and other areas. By the same logic, insights gained from animal studies should aid our understanding of human social behaviour. Yet we are reluctant to equate ourselves with animals and apply these insights to ourselves. This is a curious and particular blindness that limits the growth of the social sciences and restricts our vision.
Why this is so is one of the mysteries of creation. We are ready enough to anthropomorphise animals, transmogrifying them into our own image, but this is a rather one-way street. It would appear that explaining animal social evolution is a relatively uncontroversial occupation, however controversial
its findings; yet human social evolution until recently was a closed book. It is sufficient here to assert that this is a nonsense. As with all the animal kingdom we obey the same blind laws of evolution that ultimately set the bounds of our activity. Within those bounds our behaviour is lawful and, at least in principle, explicable. A critic, such as Roger Scruton, who dismisses animal-human social comparisons as: ‘small leap(s) of the imagination’ if not ‘the leap of a small imagination’ (Scruton, 1986, cited in Ruse, 1988) ignores the possibility that human social behaviour is probably rather more and, at
the same time, rather less complicated than he might imagine. A biology of social behaviour may well expand the reach and utility of the social sciences, while at the same time simplifying many of the puzzles with which it currently grapples. In any case, on purely epistemological grounds alone:
‘we should be wary of critics, whatever their political persuasion, who confidently tell us that the extension of Darwinism to the social world is bound to be flawed or inadequate’ (Ruse, 1988).
This leads us directly to the question of homosexuality. If it is the case that our behaviour is an analogue of animal behaviour we face two immediate difficulties in explaining homosexuality. First there are no real animal analogues of human homosexuality. Such homosexual acts that do occur are either pathological (Calhoun, 1962), or serve purposes clearly unrelated to human behaviour (Ridley, 1994). As many have said, it is a bit of a nonsense to talk of one rat loving another. Second, we need to account for a behaviour which on the surface at least seems a negation of evolutionary reproductive success. Both difficulties hearten those who would argue that homosexuality is a purely social behaviour, an artefact of human culture inexplicable in evolutionary terms; to explain homosexuality, they would argue, is misguided and probably unwise (Kitcher, 1985; Murphy, 1990).
At the heart of this difficulty of seeing ourselves as animals is the question ‘How animal-like are we?’ We immediately become embroiled in methodological debate. Underlying most challenges to an evolutionary analysis of human behaviour are concerns about the appropriateness of method and no more fundamental an issue arises than the appropriateness of using animals to model human behaviour. That animals may be simpler and less complex social beings is the hardest barrier to breach in the incredulity of social qua social science. Paper after paper raises the supposed inadequacy of animal models to explain human behaviour. What is the value of animal analogy?
There are a number of points to be made here.
First, that animal investigation is useful is immediately apparent when we look at the biochemistry of homosexuality and its precursors. If homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation rather than preference then we are less concerned with animal social behaviour than with the biochemistry of sexuality. What is quite annoying is the sometimes mischievous inability of critics to acknowledge that causal explanation proceeds on many levels. Animals that have sex with other same-sexed animals do so for a reason. Critics of biosocial explanations delight in pointing out the rigidity of a rat’s sexual responses and the sheer folly of comparing the intention of the act with the behavioural plasticity of humans (Vanwyk and Geist, 1995). While I am unsure just what degree of behavioural intentionality rats enjoy, I am sure that the rat’s intentions is the least important part of the comparison. Rat brains and human brains do control behaviour and while informed critics point to the enormous structural differences between various mammalian brains, what is often conveniently ignored is that their biochemistry is remarkably similar. One of the plausible arguments for a biological basis for homosexuality is the similarity of mammalian sexual triggers. What turns you on and triggers the
triggers depends on whether you are a rat or human but the triggers have a common biochemistry. Were they moulded for a common evolutionary purpose?
Second, those committed to biosocial perspectives are not relying on animal analogies to model human homosexuality. Rats do not love each other, so this criticism is misguided. We are less interested in finding homosexual animals than in asserting a similar ancestry for animals and
humanity. We share a common evolution with animals, and behaviour is shaped by similar processes even if it serves dissimilar purposes.
Homosexual love may not be part of animal life but animal sexuality is. Recall throughout this book how often explanation of some obscure point of homosexuality was clarified by observing similarities in human and animal sexuality. We may then legitimately ask if there is a common evolutionary logic underlying similar mammalian behaviour. To make the point clearer, it would be a nonsense to claim that animals are homosexual as we understand it, given the complexities that human consciousness brings, but in experiencing the same evolutionary pressures, species may arrive at similar solutions. Skua gull nest helpers may be as much victims of parental manipulation as are kin selective homosexuals and the gulls do not need to be gay to provide an insight into why Skua and human parents might benefit from nest helpers. To the extent that these pressures contribute to sexual orientation, animal analogies are useful. Of course this defence immediately raises issues of what we mean by sexual orientation but we will park that debate for the moment.
Let me give an example. In grappling with the finer points of frequencydependent sexual selection I was puzzled by the paradox of gay men signalling excessive virility as part of their mating displays (Lumby, 1978; Deaux and Hanna, 1984; Buss, 1994), yet such hypervirility was seemingly at odds with a behaviour which had limited reproductive value. Then I reread Trivers’ (1985) Social Evolution, where he makes the point that we are selected for deceit and gave a range of behaviours where birds and animals gained copulation by deception. This recalled to mind Darwin’s 1871 discussion of hypervirility and secondary sexual characteristics. As I am a social psychologist, the corollary should have been obvious to me as a member of a species where men and women invest billions of dollars each year on cosmetics, cosmetic surgery and artful tailoring to deceive each other as to their genetic potential. I then recalled Richard Alexander (1975) saying, over twenty years ago, that we are a species dedicated to lying to each other. The selective advantage of such deceptions when used by
straight men is obvious in retrospect, as is the reason why homosexual men use a more extreme form in their own displays, but it took an animal behaviour to make the connection.
Third, there is another very important point to animal analogues, one that social constructivists seem incapable of grasping, or unwilling to grasp. Human beings, at least over the last 10,000 years of our evolution, have not lived in natural environments (Symons, 1979; Irons, 1983; Badcock, 1991).
Since the invention of agriculture, human social evolution and no doubt a rising self-consciousness have made it almost impossible to decide what are the ultimate ‘real’ causes of our behaviour. You will recall our discussion in Chapter 1about whether homosexuality is natural and about the difficulties
of distinguishing between proximate and ultimate explanations of human behaviour. Given that we live in unnatural environments, environments that are atypical of those long slow years that shaped our hominid evolution, it is difficult in the extreme to give more than proximate answers to such
deceptively simple questions as why are there homosexuals? I am already on record as being dissatisfied with social constructivist theories which are simply long-chained descriptive explanations of surface phenomena. Given that our species is far from its roots, it is doubly difficult to arrive at the ultimate causes of our behaviour. Perhaps the way ahead is to seek the relative clarity that comes from observing natural behaviour in natural environments. That is, behaviour which obeys the evolutionary logic which gave it life. Perhaps the clearest examples lie in the animal kingdom,
although this does not stop us from constantly drawing parallels from today’s tribal cultures in the mistaken belief that they are somehow simpler, more natural forms of humanity, as Symons (1979) put it, ‘fantasies of ancestral utopias and matriarchies’.
There are many other defences of using animals as models of human behaviour but these in one form or another amount to a rebuttal of charges of reductionism. We will return to these later. This brings us to the second deadly sin.

THE SECOND DEADLY SIN: EXPLAINING HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNNECESSARY AND MISGUIDED

Evolutionary theory and its sociobiology attempts ‘the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior’ (Wilson, 1975). Allsocial behaviour. It is a fundamental tenet of sociobiological theory that all social behaviour rests on an evolutionary footing and that important social behaviours such as homosexuality should be explicable in these terms. So for an evolutionist, homosexuality presents an immediate challenge, but sadly few commentators see the need. Most see homosexuality as purely a product of social learning, not biology. In this enlightened age, this inevitably leads one to see homosexuality as a sexual preferencerather than an orientation—just another variant of human sexuality. From this viewpoint, critics such as
Futuyma and Risen (1984) argue it is irksome to be confronted with a steady diet of biologically oriented researchers trying to uncover the causes of a
behaviour which seems as obvious as heterosexuality: ‘For us, homosexuality is one example of the immense flexibility of human behavior.
It requires no more explanation than a preference for blondes or brunettes or for music or sports’ (Futuyma and Risen, 1984). Such research is then at best ill-considered and at worst a lingering afterglow of a worldview which saw homosexuality as a pathological deviation in need of urgent remedy. Nor are theorists alone in this view, as it is a major irritant to homosexuals themselves that their behaviour is constantly under the spotlight.
Common to all of these challenges are clear doubts as to the necessity of explaining homosexuality. The most basic challenge faced is the perennial one of defending an evolutionary view of social behaviour. One becomes inured to the unpopularity of the evolutionary viewpoint and the fact that it is far from being a respected paradigm in the social sciences. However, there seems to be a particular resistance to examining homosexuality this way (Ruse, 1988). Critics assert that sociobiology lacks a method for evaluating sexual orientation; is over-inclusive and explains homosexuality at a level of
generality that makes testing of competing hypotheses impractical; that it is so circular in explanation that it readily falls into the fallacy of affirming the consequent; and that, in any case, an evolutionary proof is impossible (Kitcher, 1985; Fausto-Sterling, 1992; Hubbard and Wald, 1993b; Lewontin,
1993; Kaplan and Rogers, 1994; McGuire, 1995). How plausible are these critiques?
Critics argue that much evolutionary theory is circular in nature and that often such explanation is simply reification, giving a behaviour a name and hoping that is sufficient explanation (Tobach and Rosoff, 1994). As an alternative, they propose that homosexuality is merely part of the immense
flexibility of human behaviour and requires little explanation (Futuyma and Risen, 1984). However, purely social accounts of homosexuality are themselves circular in nature and largely ad hoc. For example: what is homosexuality? It is part of the plasticity of our sexual repertoire. How do we
know? Because there are a variety of sexual preferences. A cursory inspection of this explanation shows an equal circularity to that claimed for evolutionary accounts. Moreover, as Seaborg (1984) noted, such arguments in effect dismiss the question of why homosexuality evolved in the first place and what is the ultimate basis of such behavioural plasticity. More to the point, is sociobiology fuzzy thinking?
Evolutionary biology posits two things in establishing the antecedents of social behaviour. If homosexuality has a biological basis then it must have genes that ‘under suitable environmental conditions program individuals to develop the trait’, and in addition that ‘over the course of generations, these genes have replaced alternative genes, which do not code for that trait’ (Futuyma and Risch, 1984). Such an explanation is not ad hocand provides a causal mechanism which, at the very least, set predispositions that may become the building blocks of later phenotypic behaviour. Finding such genetic mechanisms provides sites for sexual orientation and for subsequent differences within the human population. In the absence of identifying sites on the genome (the ultimate hope of every evolutionist) we have to infer the actions of these genes by indirect means. These include estimates of heritability by correlational and twin studies; searching for morphological
differences in brain sites and hormonal control mechanisms; insights from animal analogues and developmental psychology; andanalyses of social behaviour. Subsequent theorising as to the evolutionary mechanisms underlying the behaviour is postulational-deductive rather than exclusively
empirical but should be rigorous and predictive (Wilson, 1975). For an example of such an approach leading to several testable propositions recall the approach described in Chapter 3.
It is a problem that the very comprehensiveness of evolutionary theory lends it the appearance of explaining everything too simply. As E.O. Wilson acknowledged ‘Paradoxically, the greatest snare in sociobiological reasoning is the ease with which it is conducted’ (Wilson, 1975). Wilson argues that
modern evolutionary theorising follows the procedures of ‘strong inference’ (hypothesis testing in field studies) characteristic of biological science, rather than the older naturalistic observation methods which, although useful, are difficult to replicate. It must be realised that proof within an evolutionary account is often a matter of what will be accepted as a reasonable level of coincidence of variables. The difficulty faced by empirical researchers is that proof is often a matter of generational change and
experimental manipulations may take millennia to work themselves to a conclusion, even if procedural constraints are first overcome. For this reason what experimental proof we do have is conducted on fast-breeding simple animals such as Drosophila,which then brings us up against charges of false animal analogies again.
In the event that we identify possible genetic markers, manipulation of the genes for sexual orientation would not be possible for ethical reasons. Nor are animal analogies always acceptable models for human functioning, as their behavioural repertoire is often limited and generalisation is difficult.
These difficulties make scientific falsification quite hard to achieve but possibly less so than in most other social sciences. In any case, it is not true that evolutionary explanation lacks scientific rigour or a method. In principle, it should be relatively easy to set a standard of proof that will satisfy the sharpest critic.
Perhaps it would be unkind to suggest that these criticisms have more to do with a failure to appreciate the thoroughness of genetic and endocrinological research than any failure of evolutionary theory but in any case, as described in Chapter 2, anatomists and molecular biologists are
proving awkwardly indigestible of late. The recently identified markers for male homosexuality and several studies finding discrete differences between the brains of straight men and gay men make a strong essentialist case for homosexuality and necessitate an evolutionary account. And so to the third deadly sin.

THE THIRD DEADLY SIN: TRIVIAL PURSUITS

Other critics assert that such an investigation is trivial and even if you can make a case for a biological basis for homosexuality an evolutionary account is unnecessary. If you assume that expressedhomosexuality is socially constructed then you inevitably need to question the relative worth of studies which examine the seminal causes of behaviour. Is the aetiology of homosexuality any more intrinsically interesting than that of heterosexuality? Why bother to study a given? Is some other subject more worthy of scarce time and resources? Murphy (1990), in his review of an earlier biology of homosexuality, cogently argued this view.

It is hard to see that there is any…reason to study the origins of
behavior that is morally, medically, psychologically (and perhaps even
religiously) aproblematic. Where after all, are the psychological and
physiological accounts of devoted and monogamous spouses? Where
are the hormonal studies of dedicated scientists? Where are the
evolutionary accounts of fervent patriots, saints and heroes? That no
one is interested in the causes of these behaviors suggests that it is
anything but a disinterested desire to know that guides the hands of
scientific research and grant foundations.
(Murphy, 1990:134)


Clearly the test of scientific worth assumes that such research has a hidden agenda. While it was reasonably easy to justify enquiry based on the inclusiveness principles of scientific curiosity, it is less easy to defend against charges of bias. Even in writing this account, pursuing the causality of homosexuality led several colleagues to an ad hominemquestioning of motives. If it is unnecessary to explain homosexuality then any attempt to do so must have ulterior motives. Again Murphy neatly summarises these views:

the incentive to discover the origins of homosexuality seems to belong
to those who find homosexuality a pathological, sinful, immoral or
criminal condition. At least on the basis of these views there is reason
to try and understand the origins of homosexual behavior if only to
prevent and eliminate it. It is ordinarily some deficit which prompts
medicine, psychology and the rest to reach for a causal explanation of
behavior. (Murphy, 1990:134)


These challenges then enter the speculative area of morality. If the putative differences are trivial and the motives are suspect, then clearly the investigator is morally culpable, or at least on the slippery slope to cruel and unusual experimentation! I was impressed by the number of references in
the literature to Nazi concentration camp experimentation in reviews of the merits of looking for the biology of homosexuality (Lang, 1940; Moir and Jessel, 1989; Lerner, 1992; Hubbard and Wald, 1993b; Stein, 1994; Haynes, 1995). No less prevalent were suggestions that such enquiries were
disguised heterosexism. At best, writers from this perspective warn that curiosity is an insufficient rationale and that such enquiries should ‘pass moral muster’. In line with the social constructivist view, kinder critics argue that such enquiries are not morally neutral and are unfortunate because we become preoccupied with the causality of homosexuality and this obscures the more pressing issues of the social climate which foster homophobia and discrimination towards homosexuals. From this view, concern with causes obscures or condones: ‘the condition of their servitude’
(Murphy, 1990).

In light of these and other challenges, to assert that homosexuality is an interesting theoretical puzzle is to immediately label oneself as suspect.
Nevertheless the puzzle remains. While it is not my intention to set up stalking horses to be immediately knocked down, such arguments present major obstacles to an evolutionary analysis of behaviour and to homosexuality in particular, and need to be addressed. In answering this third challenge, let me start by observing that there is an immense literature on the causation of homosexuality and this in itself suggests the question is hardly trivial. However, as we have seen, those opposed to biological investigations claim that such studies are unnecessary and do little to advance the cause of homosexuals. Each new study piecing together homosexuality’s biological antecedents is greeted by attacks on method and disputed conclusions. While this is the very core of scientific discourse and is to be encouraged, an overview of the debate reveals several subtexts. It might be interesting to address the question of triviality by examining these
subtexts.
Let us start with ‘trivial equals maladaptive’. From an evolutionary viewpoint behaviours which are durable and widespread are probably adaptive. Contrary to Freudian and medical accounts which see homosexuality as a pathological inversion, the evolutionist is challenged to
account for homosexuality in positive terms (Weinrich, 1995). If homosexuality is adaptive, then it aids the evolution of a species and assists individual reproductive success. The challenge is to build theory to explain how this might happen. Clearly, homosexuality has had a bad press in the past and seems at first glance to be at odds with natural selection. However, as E.O.Wilson noted, sociobiological research often yields nonobvious and counterintuitive findings. If a homosexual gene can be demonstrated to be adaptive then evolutionary theory will have helped to reverse negative views of homosexuality. If it can be demonstrated that homosexuality is an adaptive variation, then a new generation will hopefully grow to be more tolerant and accepting than before. However, to put the negative case, homosexuality may well prove to be a byproduct of evolution, as not all social behaviours are adaptive. Even if homosexuality is the end of an evolutionary process rather than a link in an ongoing chain, this in itself is useful information. In either case, research into homosexuality’s causality is hardly trivial.
There is another subtext underlying the charge of triviality, that evolutionary explanation is essentially facile ‘pop sociobiology’ (Kitcher, 1985). More enlightened critics like Lewontin (1993) acknowledge the impact of genetics on behaviour but dispute the reliability of evolutionary explanation, given the variability of individual accommodations to genetic predispositions and the consequent global nature of biosocial theory. This is a more subtle challenge. A rebuttal of this position is difficult and would
involve establishing that an evolutionary analysis provides more favourable theoretical outcomes than other social science methods, a position advocated by Wilson (1975) in his Sociobiology. Wilson argues that this will eventually lead sociobiology to cannibalise and subsume other social sciences like psychology, a position not calculated to endear sociobiology to its critics.
However, perhaps a more considered view sees evolution explaining behaviour at several quite different levels (Barkow, 1989). Rather than being trivial in its global approach, critics ignore the other levels of evolutionary theorising. Sociobiology makes hard predictions at a biological (micro) level and global explanations at a societal (macro) level, neatly bracketing the other social sciences. This is confusing to those of a more reductionist view of science, which leads us to the fourth deadly sin.

THE FOURTH DEADLY SIN: A CREEPING REDUCTIONISM

As Michael Ruse has noted the sociobiology of homosexuality ‘lies more in the realm of the hypothetical than the proven’ (Ruse, 1981) and fifteen years later this is still the case, despite an avalanche of biosocial studies. Perhaps the largely untested nature of much homosexual theorising has generated an enormous press opposed to the endeavour. The pages of the Journal of Homosexualityfor the last decade have provided a forum for article after article castigating the sociobiological enterprise and the popular press was no less vehement. When aspects of Jim Malcolm’s and my research percolated their way into the media consciousness we drew sharp reactions
from the straight press like ‘Heresies: The potent myth of the gay deceiver’ (Sydney Morning Herald,23 November 1995), and gay media like ‘Biological bunkum’ (Sydney Star Observer,21 December 1995). When we mildly protested that we were simply taking pedigrees to establish rates of
homosexuality within gay and straight families, fairly mundane research, our interest was labelled ‘An abnormal sexual obsession’ (Sydney Star Observer,18 January 1996). Why is this area so controversial?
The clue came from my gay colleague who graciously supplied me with this list of sociobiology’s sins in the hope that I would repent. He ended his five pages of fairly impassioned rhetoric saying that of all the sins I might commit if I wrote this book, the worst would be ‘to degrade social theory into trite
and unhelpful biologising’. It seems that at the heart of the social constructivist disquiet with evolutionary theorising is a worry that the knowledge base of the social sciences would be eroded by ‘biologising’ social phenomena. Ruse, in his usual penetrating style, goes right to the core of the
matter:

Social scientists tend to be horrified of and hostile towards biological
science. Insecure at the best of times, they spend troubled nights
dreaming of the bogey of ‘reductionism’, of the rape of the social
sciences as biologists move into the human domain.
(Ruse, 1981:29)


This is an entirely well-founded worry. Unlike the early 1980s when Ruse made this observation, we are in the midst of a biological revolution that is rapidly pushing back the frontiers of our ignorance of genetics and shining a revealing light on many formerly obscure golden ghettos of theorising such
as homosexuality. The 20th century has been the century of the physical sciences but the 21st will be biology’s, and that this revolution is having an impact on the social sciences is an understatement! In a review of the social psychological literature, for example, there has been a 40 percent increase in
biological/evolutionary theorising in such journals as Personality and Social Psychology Bulletinand Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, formerly bastions of social constructivist explanation (McKnight and Sutton, in press). This is no less the case with an explosion of articles and books on
homosexuality that has on my count doubled every year between 1990 and 1993 and continued at a high level through 1994–1996. Social psychologists who have long owned the preserve of explaining human attraction, attitudes, sexual behaviour, aggression, helping, competition and the like, have suddenly discovered that population and behavioural geneticists, molecular biologists and zoologists are writing far more eruditely on aspects of social psychology that were formerly only trespassed on by anthropologists and sociologists! Here we must leave homosexuality for a moment and consider the nature of scientific explanation.
There are any number of reasons why social scientists might fear a reduction of their area but we will mention three. Let us start with psychology’s lack of a grand theory. As long ago as 1933 J.R.Kantor, in A Survey of the Science of Psychology,lamented that psychology lacked a unifying theory and was an interesting collection of information and approaches but hardly a science. The nature of a science is that it collects information and synthesises it by connecting all the information in all its parts, and generates grand theory. Science by this definition is the art of interrelation of disparate information. Now while this is a task which is incomplete and perhaps never to be completed, at least the skeleton of the enterprise should be becoming obvious and this is not yet evident in psychology. Yet psychology does have an armature, a skeleton that will interrelate all the parts and provide a grand theory: it is synthetic Darwinism, and this is only gradually becoming obvious to psychologists and other social scientists despite being available for at least the last sixty years (Crawford, 1989).
Darwinism is not philosophy, or psychology, or anthropology, or sociology, or ethology, or ethnology, or economics but it underpins them all.
Now the nature of grand theory is that it is a more fundamental, all embracing level of explanation than that which it seeks to interrelate. It is not that it is psychological in explaining psychology but that it embraces all that is psychological and gives it order and relates it to other sciences. To underpin a discipline may be seen as reductionism and there is no doubt that sociobiology, which seeks to integrate all social sciences within a biological framework, is a more fundamental level of explanation. The quite realistic fear then of social scientists is that, being without a grand theory,
they are not yet sciences and, being protosciences at best, they are at risk of being colonised by some other science’s meaning system with a superior, or at least a grand theory.
The second concern of social scientists is that reductionism will erode the knowledge base of their discipline and over time disciplines such as psychology will become simply descriptive meta-languages for more fundamental levels of explanation. There is some truth in this, as knowledge is hierarchical or at least seems that way to the human mind, which automatically classifies and readily adopts taxonomies. What then is left for the practitioners of the subsumed knowledge system? This is a less
sophisticated concern than the first, as all knowledge is hierarchical and the trend is reductive and all sciences are descriptive meta-languages for those more fundamental. Michael Ruse (1981) noted that social scientists were not alone in their fear of reductionism: ‘biologists have much the same fears
when faced with the physical sciences: “Every biologist suffers from physics envy”’. The intrusion of a more fundamental approach to ordering information is reductionist and does change the way we study and integrate information. For example, the advent of molecular biology into genetics caused such a profound change of direction that forty years after its advent I searched for six months to find a classical geneticist in Australia who felt competent enough to read this manuscript, where once the work of Fisher and Waddington and Haldane would have been common knowledge.
Perhaps one of the ironies of the advent of sociobiology is that it is colonising areas abandoned by biology (and for that matter psychology and other social sciences).
However, change does not equal subsumption and the arrival of molecular genetics into the biosciences has vastly expanded the reach and grasp of biology.
The third concern flows from the first two. If biology makes better sense of psychology than does psychology (or anthropology, or sociology, or ethology, or ethnology, or economics) then what place is left for psychologists? Put another way, is psychology a biological rather than a social science and, if it is, should psychologists become biologists? Perhaps.
On my reading, psychology has been rapidly transforming itself into a cognitive and biological science since the early 1980s and in my country most universities training psychologists now do so from a cognitive-behavioural perspective and as biological scientists, rather than as liberal arts, social
sciences, or humanities graduates.
Perhaps worries over creeping reductionism are simply a misapprehension about evolutionary theorising. One of the purposes of this chapter is to use homosexuality as a thinly disguised vehicle to argue for a more profound approach to social theory than we currently have but it is not designed to
devalue psychological explanation. Rather, it is to bolster psychological and other social explanation by showing how it all relates. Much of the current dissatisfaction with social theorising is that the sheer behavioural plasticity of human behaviour defeats meaningful explanation and this is why some social scientists hunger for the illusory simplicities of reductionism. There is always an exception to your rule and an obscure branch of human culture that does it differently. Within social psychology, for example, this led to such a crisis of confidence that for twenty years the profession selfdestructed publicly with many onlookers predicting its imminent demise. We recovered, but this crisis did enormous damage to a valuable discipline and led to a haemorrhaging of researchers and research funds (McKnight and
Sutton, 1994). Social psychology is not alone in the social sciences in having such a crisis of confidence. Perhaps the core of the problem was sheer human diversity. Homosexuality is one such behaviour; it is so variable and diverse that the literature is a vast confusion from which few clear answers emerge. Why is this so?
Perhaps part of the answer is that we keep asking the wrong questions about homosexuality. We seem preoccupied in asking how homosexuality came about rather than why it persists and the latter question is by far the more fundamental. Mayr, in a profound article in Science,about the nature
of causation, distinguished between ultimate and proximate causative theories (Mayr, 1961). While both explanations are valuable, ultimate causative theories are far more important as they interrelate behaviour and lead to the grand theory characteristic of science. By continually asking why
some men are homosexual we descend into a welter of developmental, genetic, social and cultural explanations which in the end are nothing more than a long chain of proximate descriptions of causality. While understanding that a gene for homosexuality may exist on the long arm of
the X chromosome (Hamer et al., 1993), and that it might be a hypervariable site in the genome (Turner, 1995), and that such variability is imprinted prior to conception (Pollard, 1996), and probably because a parent was stressed (Dorner et al., 1991), and that this led to hormonal changes in the foetal brains of homosexuals (Ellis and Ames, 1987), which may have led to anatomical differences in the hypothalamus underpinning sexual orientation (LeVay, 1991), may sound like a reasonable explanation of the aetiology of homosexuality, it still has not answered why are there gay men? Donald Symons (1979) observed that with proximate explanations ‘it is possible to provide a complete proximate explanation of a behavior pattern without reference to, or knowledge of, evolution or evolutionary processes’.
While we do so we ignore the basis of a truly predictive psychology of human sexuality.
This is not a partisan approach to the question but rather a sober evaluation of the explanatory power of each approach. Ultimate, or evolutionary, explanations relate to the grand theory which underpins them and in so doing interrelate all the elements that provide an answer to the ‘why’ question not addressed above. To return for a moment to what is possibly the longest sentence in this book, you need to ask yourself if the causal chain in the last paragraph was a sufficient explanation of homosexuality? If it seems okay, ask yourself why such a hypervariable site arose and why it continues to exist if it is deleterious to the person who has it. Ultimate explanations provide answers in terms of the evolution of the behaviour and its adaptive fitness. This is not just another type or level of question but a more fundamental answer to why we have the biochemistry, or stress, or imprinting or whatever causes the homosexuality. Alexander wrote that:

Although proximate and ultimate causations are separate—and equal
in the sense that each provides challenging scientific problems—they are not equal in their potential for providing a general theory of
behavior: no theory of behavior remotely compares in usefulness or
generality to evolutionary theory.
(Alexander, 1975, cited in Symons, 1979:Cool


Now all of the above is not designed to denigrate psychology or the other social sciences, but to set boundaries to their existential and epistemological reach. Proximate and ultimate explanations are coextensive but different.
Social psychology tells us how the homosexual thinks, feels and acts, and evolutionary psychology tells us why he does so. Each has their place. That one is more fundamental and has broader explanatory power necessarily means that the other is superior in the fine-grained detail.

THE FIFTH DEADLY SIN: SLY DETERMINISM

Perhaps at the bottom of resistance to biological research on the causes of homosexuality are deeper fears. Whether homosexuality is adaptive or otherwise, many commentators suggest that biological research may absolve us from changing prejudicial attitudes and behaviour (Gould, 1982).
Rather, we should just abort homosexual foetuses and then genetically engineer a heterosexual tranquillity for those unlucky in life’s lottery. Then again, if homosexuality is innate, perhaps our prejudices are too, and once again intolerance is excused as we are simply reacting to a biological reality (Gallup, 1995). As Ruse (1985) noted, resistance to biological theories of homosexuality ultimately boils down to concern that such explorations will reduce human freedom. Irrespective of the reasoning, sociobiological theory is viewed as a retrograde step, dragging homosexuality research back into a determinist ghetto it has long struggled to escape. Two points might be made
here.
First, many feel that biology equals determinism, indeed that the terms are synonyms. However, this is not the case and in saying this I am expressing an opinion. All controversial views have adherents who take a harder or softer line to add emphasis to their views. In a multidisciplinary area like evolutionary theory (or indeed sexuality) this is particularly true.
There are hard sociobiologists, like Wilson, usually from the zoological end of the profession, who are quite determinist. However, on my reading of the discipline as it unfolds, few theorists or researchers would be so definite, particularly as one’s theorising deals with more complex organisms. The
most that a moderate sociobiologist would claim is that homosexuality has a genetic basis. This does not mean that an individual possessing those genes will become a homosexual. Our genes set predispositions from which the individual constructs their life. All other factors being equal, if an individual has homosexual genes then they will identify as homosexuals.
However, it is rarely the case that all things are equal and many environmental factors influence our sexual orientation. Given a genetic basis to homosexuality, it will probably be polygenic in nature. So the strongest prediction a sociobiologist would make is that the degree of genetic predisposition will be reflected in the degree of homosexual identification.
This is a considerable source of confusion among critics of sociobiology and shows an incomplete appreciation of evolutionary theory. Sociobiologists do not claim a biological determinism. Evolution is both a social and biological process. The individual is nothing without a genetic basis and nothinwithout a phenotypic expression which includes behaviour. As one goes up the phylogenetic tree, instinct, or routinised behavioural responses, are less controlled by an individual’s genes and more so by their environment.
Ultimately it is the sheer plasticity of our responses to our genetic heritage that has enabled the rapid evolutionary advances made by human beings.
Second, even if it were the case, as Napoleon suggested, that biology equals destiny, human beings are a perverse lot and our history is one of transcending the limits set by our biological nature. As Katherine Hepburn said in the film The African Queento Humphrey Bogart: ‘Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above’ (quoted in Ridley, 1994). In a trite example, evolution has not equipped us with wings, so we go hang-gliding or build jumbo jets. In a similar way the genetics of our sexual orientation are not determinist. A strong predisposition towards homosexuality may meet and be overcome by a stronger desire for social conformity in a climate hostile to homosexuality. We do not have to perpetuate ourselves nor obey the dictates of our genes, although obviously some limits are harder than others. All that a sociobiologist would argue is that you may discern the evolutionary logic of our behaviour by analysing its functional significance. Sociobiologists fashion hypothetical-deductive postulates by building and testing mathematical models as do other sciences.
They determine the impact of genes and behaviour by looking for trend lines through the middle of all the individual accommodations human beings make to their genetic endowment. In this sense, sociobiology is globally predictive even if it is not individually determinist.

THE SIXTH DEADLY SIN: SOCIOBIOLOGY IS MORALLY BANKRUPT

My answer to this is an unqualified yes and we will not waste much time on it! Sociobiologists may not be morally neutral, the uses sociobiology findings are put to may not be morally neutral, and the interpretations of others including the critics may not be morally neutral, but the truth always is. At the risk of digressing at this point, an enormous amount of time is wasted debating the morality of science. Science is, of necessity, value-free. Too much fuzzy thinking asserts that science is what scientists do, and because scientists are human, science is a fallible process and hence must be value laden. All of this is true. Unfortunately, by the same logic, theorists and critics alike must be equally tainted. Therefore, if we accept that science is impossible to do without a human element, then it is a moot point who has the superior insight, the theorist or the critic. Let the research speak. Equally,
one of the most contentious areas of human endeavour is—what is moral? A casual glance at history shows there is no absolute morality slowly trying to reveal itself. Five decades of trying to interpret and apply the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be sufficient to
highlight the difficulties. Morality is relative to time and place. Homosexuality is one area where the morality of scientific enquiry is hotly contested. This demonstrates the importance of sexual orientation to the community and, incidentally, the importance of the evolutionary viewpoint.
This is not to say that all evolutionary theorising is sane. As Symons observes:

The search for morality in nature has led [sociobiologists] to
sentimentalizing and romanticizing nonhuman animals and preliterate
peoples, to unsupported implications that selection favors groups,
populations, cultures, societies, and ecosystems at the expense of the
constituent individuals, to fantasies of ancestral utopias and
matriarchies.
(Symons, 1979:61)


Still sensible sociobiologists, like other scientists, are simply trying to bring their own peculiar insights derived from evolutionary biology and the social sciences to an understanding of homosexuality. In this they should be encouraged, as this will ultimately prove to be the quickest way to precipitate the debate if they are mistaken. Self-righteous indignation about the ultimate purposes of sociobiological enquiry into homosexuality is not only ponderous but also counterproductive. By all means, critique
sociobiological insights as this will hasten its demise if it is fallacious, but second-guessing the morality of theorists’ intentions will only waste time. In the absence of agreement as to what is moral, the only solution is to encourage scientific debate.
On rereading my last few paragraphs it is obvious that my disquiet about critics’ ad hominemattacks has led to naked special pleading for the freedom
of sociobiological enquiry. Still, I think a bit of special pleading is necessary, for there is too much righteous indignation apparent in these criticisms and, in my view, too little science. One even detects a note of febrile anger in some criticism that sociobiologists persist in trying to explain homosexuality (see for example Ricketts, 1984, or Murphy, 1990). Michael Ruse’s (1984) comment that critics see ‘sociobiology’s persistence in trying to relate human to evolutionary biology [as] proof that their real motivation is underhand and not genuinely scientific’ sums this up. What a nonsense! Surely the question is one of good or bad science. Whether it is, or not, is not decided by questioning motives, or even worrying about possible applications, but by determining if homosexuality has a biological basis. Sociobiologists think so.
It is the task of critics to dispute this with better science, not impute motives.
This of course will alarm those cautious thinkers who write on the morality of science and worry about its applications. Yet my reading in the sociology of scientific enquiry shows that too often scientific enquiry is vitiated by a too passionate moral scrutiny. Nonsensical? Two analogies will suffice. First, it might be instructive to count the number of times sociobiological enquiry is linked by analogy to Nazi experimentation in articles by sociobiology’s friends and foes. This is a non sequitur. It seems implicit in much critical comment that to acknowledge a biological basis to homosexuality is to start on the slippery slope to eugenics and the gas chambers. A second analogy points to the importance of pursuing theory not motives. It might be instructive to examine the race-IQ debate, particularly as it developed in its later years as an evolutionary issue. The hostility of illconsidered assignations of motives and ad hominemattacks may well have made the truth unreachable and there are many uncomfortable parallels the race-IQ debate and the search for the biological roots of homosexuality. As more evidence accumulates that sexual orientation is biological, it would be unfortunate if we went down a similar path.
Before we leave morality it might be instructive to examine the gene’s morality. Books like Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene(1976) and The Blind Watchmaker(1986) have done a fair bit to anthropomorphise the gene in the public mind. From recent radio talks one is left with an impression of a gene plotting to ensure its survival and using all manner of underhand and
devious tricks to get its way. This is certainly the impression in my students’ minds. However, fact is far from fancy. Natural selection is a non-conscious, cold, impersonal and even ruthless process. While not quite a matter of ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, as human emotion certainly underlies sexual orientation (and its study), the underlying mechanics of evolution admit to no emotions. As Wilson (1975) noted in his opus, the gene knows no morality, and perhaps nor does the truth.

THE SEVENTH DEADLY SIN: SOCIOBIOLOGY IS SEXIST

To end on an even more controversial note, many like Fausto-Sterling (1992), Hubbard and Wald (1993b), Kaplan and Rogers (1994), and Ardill (1996) find an evolutionary analysis of homosexuality sexist. This critique flows two ways. One branch notes that most of the studies concentrate on male
homosexuality and see this as evidence of entrenched male gender bias, even among those who are its victims; and the second more sustained attack notes that evolutionary accounts of homosexuality support patriarchal views of sexuality.
To tackle the second criticism first it would be sufficient to rely on the freedom of enquiry defence we discussed under the sixth deadly sin.
However, I know this will not suffice, so may I further risk my credibility by saying that I think human sexuality is inherently, quite naturally, sexist.
When viewed from an evolutionary perspective, sexuality is neither fair-nor equitable. Men and women follow quite different reproductive strategies and several fairly hard findings emerge when we consider the massive literature on human mating and sexual selection. As Gordon Gallup and Susan Suarez (1983) note in their summary of these findings:

Males…have the capacity to father many offspring and are largely
exempt from having to contend directly with the biological
consequences of conception. Thus lacking genetic assurance as to their
relatedness to offspring, males should be selected for high frequency
sex with a large number of females. Whereas the optimal female
strategy would be to postpone copulation for purposes of assessing
mate quality and signs of commitment, males should be motivated by
concerns of relatively immediate sexual gratification. Similarly, since
males can be cuckolded, males should be more prone to commit
adultery, and at the same time, more offended than females by an
adulterous mate.
(Gallup and Suarez, 1983:317)


For these reasons, childrearing is also a female-linked behaviour: it reflects women’s greater need to protect their relatively few offspring. Matriarchy as we understand it is a direct consequence of these differing sexual strategies.
Only since we have had reliable contraception have we had the possibility of revising these roles. The feminist revolution which freed women from large families has paradoxically intensified this pressure by reducing even further the number of chances women have to pass on their genes. By the same logic, men now have even more sexual freedom and the much higher rates of male extramarital infidelity, incest, infanticide, neglect of step-children (and children), and indeed patriarchy itself, reflect a clear, if unpalatable evolutionary logic. I suggest that if anyone needs to be convinced of the
inherently sexist nature of sex they should read David Buss’s (1994) The Evolution of Desireor Robin Baker’s (1996) Sperm Wars,two excellent popular accounts of the inequities of sexual selection. At this point I would like to repeat what was said when discussing the fifth deadly sin. Biology is only destiny to the degree that human ingenuity has so far failed to bend its rules!
What has this to do with homosexuality? Let us start with semantics. In a moment we will return to considering why gay men might collude in their oppression. However, if in the unlikely event that it were true that evolutionary outcomes such as homosexuality are patriarchal, is this necessarily a bad thing? Patriarchy is a descriptive label for a system which vests control of resources and reproduction in male hands. Lately it has become a pejorative word but it still retains all of its descriptive power. To label an explanation as patriarchal may be a fairly pointless exercise if we shift the baseline on its use. Evolutionary explanation seeks not to explain or pass judgement on current behaviour but to decide its adaptive value. To do this it compares the behaviour to the natural environment in which it arose. A
current behaviour is adaptive if it reflects the evolutionary logic that gave rise to it over the long haul of our primate evolution. As Symons (1979) notes, any behaviour today that is judged maladaptive may be ‘a byproduct of an adaptive behavior’ or ‘it may be a relic of a formerly adaptive
character in the process of being lost’. What is important in deciding this question is not whether it is beneficial but its function (Williams, 1966). To say that a homosexual scenario is patriarchal may just be a neutral description of the conditions under which it arose. As we no longer live in natural environments (recall the discussion of novel environments in Chapter 4) all our behaviour may be functionally maladaptive (unlikely). Deciding if homosexuality is adaptive or maladaptive is not an example of patriarchy at work but a comparative judgement. I think critics who would
see evolutionary explanation as unconscious patriarchy are using too short a baseline. ‘Patriarchal’ is a pejorative adjective only if the critic assumes the theorist describing a patriarchal system commends it as a lifestyle to be followed by all.
Then of course we need to decide if male sexual agendas and homosexual variants arepatriarchal in natural environments. This is unlikely. As long ago as 1951 Ford and Beach demonstrated that while power and resources may be held by men in most but not all cultures, women were firmly in control of reproduction and this is the most fundamental aspect of patriarchy. Women’s fertility is the limiting variable in the human mating system and, as Baker (1996) demonstrates, women have evolved an
impressive and extensive armoury of tactics to ensure that reproduction occurs on their terms. It may be that a historical analysis of patriarchy’s oppression of Western women is epiphenomenal when judged against a long prehistory of ‘wimmin’s business’.
Evidence either way is speculative but Gallup and Suarez (1983) advanced a theory of male homosexuality which has enjoyed some considerable interest and supports this contention. They argue that homosexuality arose as a consequence of women’s control of the reproductive agendas in our
natural environments. Because women are selected to be cautious and to delay sex, men are counterselected to become seductive, urgent and demanding. As the resolution of this basic impasse requires patience, skill and tactics on the part of the seducer, this inevitably advantages those experienced in the seduction game. As young males are neither patient nor skilled and have poor access to females, they may turn from frustration to their own sex for sexual relief. This theory has much going for it as it amplifies our understanding of the early adolescent homosexual phase so characteristic of male development. Baker and Bellis (1995) have used this prehomosexual frustration as one of the bases of their sperm competitive advantage theory of homosexuality. What is important here is that Gallup and Suarez argue a different case for lesbianism. Sexual selection is essentially a matriarchal system, so lesbians are little different from their heterosexual sisters and lead relatively quiet and inconspicuous lives compared to their gay peers.
This brings us back to the first criticism: why are theorists ignoring lesbianism in our discussion of homosexuality? Probably because gayness and lesbianism are unrelated phenomena. Because each orientation prefers its own sex we assume a similarity. This may be mistaken. Irrespective of the
political correctness of having a combined homosexual lobby, the evidence is fairly clear that gay men and lesbians are dissimilar and that each has more in common with their heterosexual counterparts than with each other. If there is one clear finding to emerge from research on homosexuality it is that gay men share more in common with straight men than they do with lesbians or heterosexual women in their attitudes, feelings, fantasies and behaviours.
To put this another way, gay men are men first and homosexuals second and it seems the same for lesbians as women. What is the evidence for this?
Male and female homosexual behaviour is quite different and obeys a different evolutionary logic. Male homosexuals are much more preoccupied with the sex act than are lesbians and this suggests they are following the logic of their sex, not that of their orientation. In surveys from the two early Kinsey studies (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953), through the two Kinsey Centre reports (Bell and Weinberg, 1978; Weinberg et al., 1994b), to the large UK survey of Johnson and her colleagues (Johnson et al., 1994), consistent differences between gay men and lesbians have been reported. Summarising these differences: gay men are markedly more promiscuous, with many reporting over 1,000 sexual partners whereas lesbians had a median range of 3–8. Gay men will engage in anonymous sex with complete strangers without concern for the other person, whereas lesbians seek love and
commitment. Bell and Weinberg’s (1978) sample found that over 90 percent of gay men had: ‘routinely engaged in sexual contact with strangers’. Few lesbians have ever had sex with a stranger. While gay men spend a significant proportion of their time: ‘“cruising” in homosexual bars or on the street’ (Gallup and Suarez, 1983), lesbians do not and these women typically found their partners through mutual interests or friendship networks and unlike gay men tend to build long-term monogamous relationships based on love and commitment (Sharp, 1995).
These differences are evident when you study the content of contact advertisements placed by homosexual men and women. Gay men will advertise for sex and display a narcissistic list of their own physical attributes, while lesbians offer friendship, commitment and display their hobbies and interests (McKnight and Sutton, 1994). All of these findings reflect Gallup and Suarez’s summary of the differences between heterosexual men and women’s reproductive agendas, perhaps to a heightened degree.
Not only are these differences indicative of the separate goals of lesbians and gay men but they are a source of some tension within these communities. As
a lesbian colleague remarked, ‘Gay men want to meet the meat, we want to meet the mate.’
Differences in attitudes and actions reflect the biological difference between the two groups. Hamer and his colleagues have found no causal link between the markers for male homosexuality, and female heterosexuality, or lesbianism (Hu et al., 1995). It seems the aetiology of lesbianism has different pathways than for homosexual men (Pattatucci and Hamer, 1995).
To the extent that hormones in early development influence the brains of homosexual men and women (an open question) they are proposed to follow differentiation pathways opposite to their gender, leaving lesbian brains relatively masculinised and gay brains relatively feminised (Byne and
Parsons, 1993), suggesting quite different developmental progressions.
Perhaps the best evidence for a difference between gay men and lesbians is the penetrance of each phenotype in the community. Proband studies and wider community surveys regularly report a ratio of four to one in favour of gay men.
All the above suggests that male and female homosexuality are quite different orientations with little in common. So why are we ignoring lesbians? As we noted in the Preface, at present scientific studies of lesbianism are woefully inadequate. Not only are they fewer in number than gay men but they are a less visible population, hard to target and harder to characterise. The lesbian press avoids the ‘gay’ label and sharply differentiates each community. My suspicions are that lesbianism and male homosexuality have very little in common at an evolutionary level but this is simply a guess, no more. Nevertheless, it is a guess based on accumulating evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Where are we then? At the conclusion of such a book the author should be able to offer a few erudite pronouncements on the state of homosexuality and provide directions for future research. While we have done the latter in many areas, unfortunately the evidence is far from complete and the problem with which we started remains. Why there are homosexuals, and why does homosexuality survive, are still questions to be answered. Yet our analysis has not been a futile enterprise and several trends are gradually emerging.

• Male homosexuality is a separate sexual orientation from lesbianism and has a different aetiology.

• There are a range of male homosexualities with at least five types of homosexual aetiology.

• There is a substantial biological basis to at least two forms of male homosexuality and a genetic basis to at least one type.

• Genetics merely provide a predisposition towards homosexuality rather than mandating it. That is, the gene/s are variable in penetrance.

• Nevertheless, in aggregating these predispositions, it is clear that gayness is as much a matter of orientation as of preference.

• Therefore, human variation both genetic and behavioural will ensure a range of sexual behaviours, fantasies and emotional attachments ranging from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual.

• The genetics of male homosexuality are variable in penetrance and are
likely to be modified by other genes (polygenic transmission).

• The genes for homosexuality cause differential development between gay men and straight men at stages following conception and at puberty.

• The homosexual genotype’s phenotypic expression is influenced by environmental factors.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:32 pm

Thornhill, Randy; Palmer. Craig wrote:
The Evolution of Sex Differences
Harbor seals are monogamous,and the males and the females are nearly equal in size. In contrast, male elephant seals are much heavier and longer than females, and a male elephant seal may inseminate as many as 100 females. Furthermore, the pronounced differences between the brains of male and female elephant seals produce vastly different sex-specific behavior patterns throughout their lives. For example, there are male-female differences in diet and in migration patterns. Perhaps
the most striking sex-specific behavior among elephant seals, though,is the violent physical confrontations between males during the mating season.
The male-female differences in the brains, other body parts, and behavior of elephant seals are attributable to the simple fact that males and females in ancestral populations faced very different obstacles to reproduction. Hence, over thousands of generations, Darwinian selection favored different adaptations in males and females.
To understand why selection produced such different male-female adaptations in elephant seals but lesser differences between the adaptations of male and female harbor seals requires an understanding of what Darwin called sexual selection: the selection of traits that increase the quantity and/or the quality of an individual's mates rather than increasing the individual's ability to survive. Not incidentally, an understanding of sexual selection is also necessary to an understanding of the differences between the adaptations of male and female humans, and thus to a complete understanding of rape.

Sexual Selection in Humans
If female ancestors faced different environmental obstacles to reproduction than were faced by male ancestors in human evolutionary history, natural selection and sexual selection will have formed different adaptations in females and males.
It
is obvious that men and women have evolved different physical adaptations. For example,the fact that women have functional breasts implies that female ancestors fed their infants with breast milk,and
the greater upper-body strength of males implies physical competition among male ancestors. Although such evolutionary explanations of physical differences are relatively uncontroversial, many social scientists appear to be unaware that the examples just described are also evolved behavioral differences. Functional breasts would not have evolved without the simultaneous evolution of behavior patterns involving the placing of an infant to the breast (and the behavior pattern of sucking in the infant). Greater upper-body muscle mass in males would not have evolved without the simultaneous evolution of certain movements of those muscles (e.g.,punching,shoving,grabbing). Furthermore, the evolution of these behavioral patterns implies psychological adaptations, both cognitive and emotional, to guide those behaviors. Acknowledging the evolution of physical (evidently referring to parts of the body other
than the brain) sex differences while denying the evolution of the accompanying behavioral and psychological sex differences is not scientifically tenable.

Life Effort
To understand why human females and males have evolved different psychological and behavioral attributes, it is helpful to examine the evolutionary concept of life effort, defined technically as the total time, energy, and risk expended by an individual over its entire lifespan.
Although all the activities of an individual organism over its lifespan may influence its reproductive success, biologists often conceptually divide
activities into reproductive effort and survival effort. Reproductive effort (or reproductive investment) refers only to risks, structures, and activities that are directly related to reproduction; survival effort refers to all activities, bodily structures, and risks taken in association with the survival, maintenance, and growth of the individual. The components of survival effort are conceptually distinct from those of reproductive effort in that their effects on reproductive success are less direct. Typically, reproductive
effort and survival effort both require investments of time, energy, and risk taking. That is, what an organism allocates to one form of effort cannot be used to promote the other.
If natural selection has equipped organisms with adaptations (i.e.,traits that evolved because they increased reproduction more than alternative traits did), why don't organisms devote all their effort directly to reproductive effort?The answer is that sometimes reproductive success is promoted by growing larger, by living longer, by learning complex skills, and/or by teaching offspring. Complex social skills can be acquired through the social learning processes of imitation and instruction. The types of skills that are generally acquired through these processes of survival effort increased the reproductive success of our ancestors when they reached adulthood. Social learning after adulthood has been reached also represents this form of effort.
One subcategory of reproductive effort is investments related to producing offspring, including energy and time expended on acquiring mates.
Many human emotional, cognitive, and motivational mental mechanisms fall into this category (referred to as mating effort] because they promote successful courtship and the maintenance of sexual relationships. But reproductive effort also includes the effort that goes into aiding offspring, grandchildren, siblings, nieces, nephews, and cousins.
A Natural history of Rape - Biological Bases for Biological Coercion

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:57 pm

What evolution tells us about life, is that reproduction takes precedence over survival, as is proven by the mating rituals of many organisms.
Dawkins called it the 'selfish gene' to express this contrary to what the mind things behavior.

An organism does not know it is fighting because ti has to pass on its genes, so that it survives in posterity.
All it does is act, intuitively, instinctively, driven by a genetic programming it is not aware of.
If it were aware it might deter it, as it often does in many humans - intelligence proving how detrimental to fitness, in the biological sense, it can be.
To be oblivious only increases the efficiency and effectiveness of your performance.
Self-Consciousness makes it less graceful, fluid - focused...in the sense of being 'in the zone' as they say in sports lingo.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:59 am

Thorhill; Palmer wrote:
However, the main reason for the denial that rapists are sexually motivated almost certainly stems from political ideology. Debates about what causes rape have been evaluated not on the basis of logic and evidence but on the basis of how the different positions might influence people to behave.
Consistent with this analysis is the fact that ideology has always
played a role in support for the "not sex" explanation of rape.
"The 'rape as violence' position,"Estrich (1987,p.82)states," has always seemed to
me the better approach both theoretically and strategically." Muehlenhard etal.(1996,p.123) observe that" feminist theorists...argued for the utility of conceptualizing rape as violence." Scully and Marolla(1995,p.66) state that "in an effort to change public attitudes that are damaging to the
victims of rape.. ,many writers.. .discount the part that sex plays in the crime." MacKinnon(1990,p.5)characterizes the feminism that put forth the "not sex" argument as "a movement that took women's side in everything."
The main reason the "not sex" explanation of rape was seen as good for women is that the fallacy of genetic determinism causes sexual desires to be mistakenly equated with uncontrollable lust. As Symons (1979,p.279) notes,"many writers seem to fear that to admit sex as a motive for rape is to risk condoning rape: lust is presumed to be less easily controlled through an act of will than are other possible motives for rape, hence, in this view, if lust motivates rape, the rapist cannot be held fully accountable for his actions."

--------------

The application of statutory-rape laws to women as old as the late teens may have to do with their fathers' (and in some cases other genetic relatives') interests.
Humans, like all other organisms, are evolved to pass on their genes by means of their offspring. Egg bearers are a limiting resource for the population's sperm bearers. An egg bearer's future parental investment is precious and should be expended only in the best circumstances for reproductive success.
Parents may try to manipulate, even coerce, long pre-sexual periods for daughters, thereby making them more valuable on the mateship market because men prefer to invest their parental efforts in
women with restricted sexual histories.
Parents may also try to manipulate the romantic relationships and the mateships of their children ,and especially their daughters.

The Natural History of Rape

I have said that sex is a very intrusive act, from the female's perspective, demanding the overcoming of already evolved fight/flight mechanisms, in both males and females, but this is more so for females who are often the ones intruded upon, and may have to tolerate the advance and submission to a larger male.
Accumulated energies, libido, and the need to rid the body of them, may account for the frenzy characterizing mammalian copulation, and what precedes them, finalizing in a trembling release, orgasm, which will be experienced as pleasure.
The organism need not know what or why, only that it is overtaken by a hormonal desire, and is seeking gratification.

Lust, is the mechanism whereby the fight-flight mechanism is subdued long enough for copulation to occur.
love is directly linked to it, as the mechanism of bonding, overcoming selfish needs, individual survival, to make weening possibly, for larger brained organism that require out of uteri maturation, then evolving in the social instinct making tolerance of others, in close proximity, and in cooperative unities, possible....cultivating cooperative survival strategies.

Since all is a causal chain, I can only seek the root of lust, in what all organism possess - hunger, as the sensation of lack of energies, caused by the attrition of interactivity - flux.
Lust expresses itself in many of the same organic ways...through biting, licking, pulling, almost wanting to consume the other, to absorb him/her.
It follows that this would be felt more passionately by the female who must tolerate a foreign organ into her body, and then its ejaculate, and the fetus that slowly grows.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Evolution Theory

Back to top Go down
 
Evolution Theory
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Orbital Evolution of a Saturn-Jupiter configuration within a disk
» Tidal evolution of habitable planets
» 2011: John Manning revised his '2D:4D finger length' theory!
» A Cosmetic Dentist in New York talks about the Evolution of Dentistry
» The Most Logical Rapture theory

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: LYCEUM-
Jump to: