Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around? The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors

Newsweek ^ | June 20, 2009 | Sharon Begely

[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."

[Buck W.]

Can you respond to post 40?

[Riodacat]

It must be true that we have rape genes, because evolutionists say so

Yes, one professor has a theory and therefore all "evolutionists say so"..
There's obviously a retard gene there as well..

[RegulatorCountry]

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:

... ahh, but the strawberries, that's where you had them.

You omit a reply to you before you returned fire, Cap'n. From other threads. It spread like a Forrest fire, lol.

[Buck W.]

Please post it. You’re not looking too good right now...

[metmom]

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.

Do you have reading comprehension issues, or are you really that blinded by your hatred of creationists?

Here it is again, for the literacy challenged.

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?

[Buck W.]

“... 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.”

Did you miss the fact that I responded to this, cultmom?

[Boogieman]

I disagree with this guy’s theory, and propose an alternative. It’s not that our male ancestors had “rape genes” but that some of our female ancestors instead developed “wear skimpy furs” genes. This was a beneficial adaptation, because the women with the “wear skimpy furs” genes would then breed with both men who were willing and those who were unwilling, but had been seduced by the carnal lusts the skimpy furs aroused in them. Thus the offspring of these women possessed more genetic diversity which allowed them to adapt and survive better.

[bert]

.....cultmom....

good one

[Buck W.]

It seems that we have resolved the Forrest issue, and the resolution is not in your favor. Please keep that in mind as you post.

[RegulatorCountry]

Please post it. You’re not looking too good right now...

If no one else has posted a link by then, I'll do so this evening. Until then, you should acknowledge FReeper count-your-change, who first called you Forrest, Forrest, as a direct result of my introducing you to "Tree." It was on June 17, of that I'm reasonbly certain, but do not have the time to pursue it further at present.

[RegulatorCountry]

LOL, not all of us have the ability to squat on a thread as you do, Forrest.

[Buck W.]

Please, stop digging. It’s really unseemly.

[Buck W.]

One need not squat when “search” is available.
Is it your position that I should have let your distortion of fact go unchallenged? Really, this isn’t AiG, you know.

[RegulatorCountry]

Please, stop digging. It’s really unseemly.

Speak for yourself, cap'n.

[Buck W.]

You have been exposed as a fraud. Can you do no better than to spout diversionary baby talk?

[TalonDJ]

You question both the article and the poster for questioning the article. After saying the article is not real science you scoff at everyone that questions the article. And you follow that up by playing ‘I know you are but what am I’ games. Why are you even posting on this thread? Seems faster to just go out to a street corner and randomly insult people that pass by.

[Buck W.]

What? Please cite your concerns, number them, and support them with references so that a cogent reply can be made.

[count-your-change]

Thornbill’s fantasy shows just how deeply Freud's notions of recapitulation has permeated and drawn on Darwinism.

Modern rapists, etc., are reverting to their caveman behavior, such aquired charactistics, behavior, ala Lamark, are then subject to natural selection and become part of the genetic code.

If Lamarkism was wrong, then Freud and socio-biology was wrong and Darwinian natural selection as the basis of human was wrong.

The recycled Freudian claptrap of Thornbill, et al, is just as wrong as it always has been.

[TalonDJ]

so that a cogent reply can be made.

to do that I would need a coherent post of yours to reference...

But I will try...

-In your first post (5) you insulted the poster implying his utter lack of scientific knowledge for being dismissive of the article.
-When other posters asked you to clarify you then attacked the article itself (10, 15)
-After that metmom called you on your inconsistency and asked you to clarify your position (22)
-You response was to be insulting while trying to imply the article is not related to evolution (26).
-In response she did not insult you back (29) but did point out you were evading her question relating to you being inconsistent.
-In response you further insulted her (32) while at the same time claiming the article was not at all scientific due to where it was printed (thought Newsweek did not do the study).
-From there things just degenerated into the childish back and forth with RegulatorCountry

It is pretty clear you have no motivation here other than to insult. You are not even trying to defend evolutionary theory or research. Instead you are just disparaging related research while at the same time insulting those that question it. This is an inconsistent stance and seems to be grounded only in the desire to be abrasive. I suggested a simpler method for you.

NOW do you under stand my post? Or do I have to tell it with puppets?

[count-your-change]

Forrest, as in Gump, was also BW’s sneer to me on several occasions so I no longer respond to him. Snide and insulting comments don't merit a response.