Posted on 07/22/2009 7:28:01 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Among scientists at the university of New Mexico that spring, rape was in the air. One of the professors, biologist Randy Thornhill, had just coauthored A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which argued that rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, the 2000 book contended, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today.
Over the years these arguments have attracted legions of critics who thought the science was weak and the message (what philosopher David Buller of Northern Illinois University called "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for heinous behavior) pernicious. Biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University called it "the latest 'evolution made me do it' excuse for criminal behavior from evolutionary psychologists."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Yes, it is a good exercises to run through all of the Ten Commandments to see where your life is headed and to get errors out of ones life (by confession). Applying them to political parties, judicial activism and any other isms are even more interesting.
SCP: Are you referring to the author of this tripe or the poster who posted the article?
BW: The poster, although a case could be made for the original author as well.
BW, you've criticized ECO as being unfit to teach science based on his posting of this article, and you've criticized the author of the article for reporting the conclusions the researchers have reached, but ZILCH on the validity of the conclusions of said researchers.
So, bucky, do you not have any problem with the premise of the research and conclusions of the evolutionary scientists? Why are you criticizing the people who posted and reported and not the researchers for using the ToE to justify this garbage?
It only goes to reinforce my contention that evos are not reading the articles and are just reacting to the fact that it was posted by a non-evo.
It certainly appears that evos are so blinded by their hatred of creationists that they just knee jerk a reaction instead of really thinking about what the original article says.
Certainly explains a lot!
And evos wonder why scientists have so little credibility and then turn around and blame-shift that it's because of creationists instead of their fellow scientists.
They're shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of nonsense.
So you agree with posters that are “all about incest” eh?
What makes this “evolutionary science”? Thank God you don’t teach science either. Except, perhaps, within your cult.
Forrest is just a mindless drone, defending or rationalizing the leftist status quo where ever it may be found. So are many if not most of the “evo” posters on FR. Check their histories. The majority never reply outside Crevo threads, and are indistinguishable from posters to DU or Kos, when they do reply.
I’ve noticed.
I guess it’s no use waiting for either of you to denounce the findings of the scientists from the UNM cited in the article and their conclusions.
Very telling.
Actually, some of those things *may* be, if not “encoded”, than that we are “capable” of doing them. Importantly, for serious and important biological reasons.
To set aside the “free will” debate for a moment, look at the cellular level. To start with, reproduction, at all, is not easy, in fact it is very hard. Human males are known to have at least three kinds of sperm: fertilizing, “blocking”, and “fighting” sperm. Only the first group even try to get to the female’s egg. The other two groups stop at some point, turn around, and either try to block or actively fight with, other male’s sperm that may also be in the area. But that is simplicity itself, compared with what the female body does.
To start with, almost as soon as the male ejaculates, the female very quickly changes her internal pH, because otherwise it would kill the sperm. The semen rests in a pool, which is still a long way away from its goal, and as part of an orgasm, the female may assist the sperm by dipping the ends of her fallopian tubes into that pool, thus shortening the distance.
Sperm is also “graded”, even from the same male, so that some is optimal, with more dominant genes, and others have more active recessive genes. The female’s body “remembers” if she has had a more optimal baby, and will actually choose a less optimal baby for a second child. Clearly a genetic diversity survival scheme. Her body may even prefer a different male’s sperm, and give it preference over the male she has already had a child with sperm.
Then, with fertilization, the female pulls off an amazing trick. She shuts down her normal anti-cancer immune system, because a fertilized egg developing into a fetus acts a lot like a tumor; and she uses a temporary alternate anti-cancer system that can distinguish between a fetus and a cancer. After birth, she goes back to her primary anti-cancer system.
It is downright amazing that we can reproduce at all.
Now, that being said, the male reproductive prerogative is to spread their DNA around. But females have two prerogatives, first in getting the most desirable sperm for their egg, and second, to get the help of a male provider to help in the raising of her children. The trouble is, that when there are a lot of males around, it is unlikely that the two men are the same guy.
But humans came up with an amazing social idea that is better than basic monogamous reproduction: marriage. Marriage, when enforced by everyone, gives advantages to the male, the female, and especially their offspring. As far as pure biology goes, it is a brilliant idea.
When enforced, and this is critical, it is a promise to the male that the offspring will be his. To the female, that the male will help raise the children. And the benefits to the children from having two parents are obvious.
However, as with sperm, there are a lot of people in society who shouldn’t have children. And it is a problem when they are in competition with people who should have children.
Wolves get around this by only permitting their alpha pair to mate, and producing large litters. But people, it has been theorized, get around this problem with, of all things, prostitution and other techniques. That is, the prostitute, likely a female that should not reproduce, attracts the males that should not reproduce. This removes them from competition with breeding couples.
This may also, to a great extent, explain homosexuality. That is, they are people who should not reproduce, so they are inclined not to.
Many of the other vices that plague mankind also may have biological roots, relating to either reproduction or survival. Begging and charity may be a matched set of these, as are cowardice and bravery, etc.
However, again, only the “capability” of these things are in our genes. Whether we express them or not depends both on our upbringing, and the quality of our character.
I get some amusement when, every few years, some scientists decide that because female chimpanzees in a harem will try to cheat on the dominant male chimpanzee who rules the harem, that cheating must be “natural”, and thus it is okay for humans to cheat.
This is because I can point out that if the dominant male catches one of his females cheating with another male, he is likely to kill both of them. So if cheating is natural, so is the homicide of the cheating couple. The scientists don’t like that idea as much.
Originality is certainly not your forte, is it? I first used the moniker Forrest with respect to another poster, and now you’ve taken to use it as well. Go ahead, it just makes you appear, well, limited...
But that’s OK. Limited IS special, you know.
Not at all, cultmom. I don’t consider an article published in Newsweek to be a “scientific finding”. You, however, seem to think that it is. I guess when you’re trained to accept the unreviewed BS that passes for science in AiG and other creation rationalization sites, your behavior is understandable.
No, Bucky, I replied to you “Tree, meet Forrest. Forrest, tree,” several month ago. And, you’ve been Forrest ever since, lol.
Would you like a link to the reply?
And, actually, special is limited and general is not, relatively speaking.
Really? How special!
Special is as special does, Forrest.
If you had actually read the article you would know that it compares and contrasts “evolutionary psychology” with “behavioral ecology”, two competing scientific theories regarding human behavior.
If you actually read the article you might offer an opinion as to which you see as more valid or better at explaining human behavior.
Again, you’re the expert, in a limited sort of way.
It could be that posters don't have enough time or it could be that more prefer to stay in the stands than play on the field.
You're always caught up in a web of neener neener neener, Bucky, so it doesn't require any special expertise to keep you there.
Oh, are you referring to this post that you made to me on 6/17?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2273626/posts?page=46#46
In it, you write: “Forest, meet tree. Tree, forest.”
Hmmm, I see one “R”, not two. Hence, the reference is an arboreal one, and not at all to Mr. Gump. However, my post on 6/18 is clear:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274459/posts?page=204#204
Please let me know if you see it this way as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.