Oolon Colluphid

I'm glad you did -- you saved me having to!

Welcome to the forums btw. You could introduce yourself in the Welcome Forum, if you'd like to. Or not. We're pretty easy-going on this point... (sez he, realising he's not done so himself... )

Cheers, DT

echidna

From the article ...
I think that wording is fairly overstated. As long as at least one of the genders is horny, evolution seems feasible. I doubt Chuck was familiar with the lesbian macaques of Japan.

On a tangent, I can just say that in my experience the alpha male macaques of Borneo are anything but submissive. As any visitor knows, macaque monkeys are terror to the uninitiated, particularly in tourist areas.

We had returned from a walk (a little disappointed not to have spotted any monkeys I might add) to find that the camp had been overrun by an entire troop & there was even a macaque inside the room, but no ordinary monkey, an alpha, with particularly long teeth. Quite oblivious to our presence he nonchalantly wandered out of the room, but being with a young Swiss girl I was under some obligation to assert myself as the dominant primate.

A little nervous of unarmed primal combat, I elected to take advantage of my opposable thumbs & grabbed the only implement I could find being an empty plastic bottle & began waving it menacingly. Sadly the alpha seemed less than impressed but nevertheless edged slowly off the verandah. Just as I was thinking I had won the evolutionary pissing contest, he lunged, teeth bared & screaming, luckily stopping short about a metre from my face.

Well can I just say that I all but soiled myself. Fortunately the alpha retreated, but quickly grabbed the nearest female from his harem & began to doggy-style her, all the time looking at me, as if to say “you’re next fella”.

While it’s amusing to see human behaviours mimicked so closely in our distant relatives, I think this is a main reason most troglodytes resist the model of evolution, because such a difficult admission of our own psyche is just so uncomfortable.

Monkeybot

Darwin still not convinced, says he's holding out for demonstration by hot lesbian Japanese humans

ex-xian

yeah, but there's a difference in strict Darwinism and evolution as it's understood today. The theory of evolution has evolved.

anonymite

just thinking there are going to be some very disappointed fetish freaks when that article comes up after they click the link...

ex-xian

That happened to you too?

just kidding

Ensign Steve

Me too!

Dr Rick

The Telegraph article may overstate the issue, but the above assertion probably over-simplifies it.

No one at the meeting appears to be challenging the theory of evolution in any way, but some are raising serious questions about its corallary, the theory of sexual selection.

from the symposium's press release:

Sex and gender scientists explore a revolution in evolution

Darwin may have been wrong about sex. Or at least too narrow minded.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, leading researchers and theorists in the evolution of sexual behavior will gather to present the growing evidence that Darwin's idea of sexual selection requires sweeping revisions...Darwin's theories of natural selection are well established and generally accepted: ''Survival of the fittest'' leads to the evolution of a particular species over time, and species evolve from other species.

But a third theory has piggybacked upon the success of these other two: Darwin's theory of sexual selection. Sexual selection explains the evolution of physical and behavioral traits that increase the odds that an animal will reproduce. These same traits do not necessarily help the animal survive, as do naturally selected traits. The male praying mantis, for example, will sacrifice himself for love - the female begins to eat him even as they copulate. He doesn't survive long after finding his mate, but he does pass on his genes.

Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners.

Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring.

Sexual selection theory helped Darwin explain many traits, especially in males, that otherwise seemed maladaptive. The unwieldy tail on the male peacock, for instance, makes him more vulnerable to predators but more attractive to females.

Many behaviors do not fit sexual selection theory, however.

Says Vasey of his work with Japanese macaques: ''I see females competing for males all the time. I see males ignoring females that are desperate to copulate with them.''

A great deal of empirical evidence exists that refutes Darwinian sexual selection...For instance, anthropologist Sarah Hrdy studied langur monkeys in the 1980s and found that females promiscuously mate with many males...Homosexual behavior is common but unexplained by Darwin. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingoes and male sheep, practice homosexual behavior.Homosexual behavior is common but unexplained by Darwin. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingoes and male sheep, practice homosexual behavior...In female Japanese macaques, homosexual behavior appears to have evolved from female strategies to coerce reticent males to mate with them. Eager females will mount unwilling males and prompt them to mate with them - a strategy that was easily expanded to mounting other females. Despite these evolutionary origins, however, homosexual behavior among Japanese macaques may have no adaptive value.

That is probably an over-simplification, as well.

more from the AAAS press-release:
The whole context for Darwin's theory of sexual selection is dissolving,'' says Roughgarden. ''So, Darwin is incorrect in the particulars, but more importantly, [his theory of sexual selection] is inadequate even as an approach.''

Both Roughgarden and Gowaty think it's time for a revolution, but not everyone agrees.

''This may be better viewed as a refinement of Darwinian theory, rather than a revolution,'' says Warner.

Vasey agrees, however, that something has to give: ''What I'm seeing, in my one species [macaques], is an unbelievable amount of sexual diversity that is very common. I see it every day, and traditional evolutionary theories for sexual behavior are inadequate and impoverished to account for what is going on.''

What conclusions can we draw about gender and sexual diversity in humans from such findings? Both Vasey and Roughgarden caution strongly against extrapolating animal behavior to humans, as evolutionary psychologists have done for decades.

''People often look to animals to decide for themselves what's natural and what's not natural,'' says Vasey. ''I don't think that's necessarily a good thing to do. I mean, animals engage in cannibalism and infanticide. They also don't take care of elderly individuals. Just because animals do something doesn't make it right or wrong.''

Rick

Doubting Didymus

That is a myth. This does not occur in the wild, but only in captivity when the female has been starved.

Ensign Steve

What about black widows? Is that a myth, too?

I feel so disillusioned!

Jen