…and this is a 
Perhaps I was too quick to declare that previous article the worst one yet on Ardipithecus…now the Family Research Council has weighed in. Would you believe that Ardi supports their anti-gay stance?
the article describes what C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University, says about the social organization of this species:
The males, he argues, pair-bonded with females. Lovejoy sees male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage.
So, how long has marriage (i.e., "pair-bonding") been a male-female union? About four million, four hundred thousand years, if this secular scientist is to be believed. And what was its purpose? To insure "male parental investment in the survival of offspring"--something which the advocates of same-sex "marriage" contend is now no longer necessary.
And what will we be discarding, if we change the definition of marriage from being a union of a man and a woman? Only "a hallmark of the human lineage."
Marriage is not merely a religious institution, nor merely a civil institution. It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself. And it doesn't take a Bible to prove it. In this case, evolutionary theory points to the exact same conclusion.
Wow. So much is wrong there.
Another characteristic of the human lineage is increased social behavior: Lovejoy could also talk about general male investment, or community investment. There's this concept called inclusive fitness that means non-parental relatives can also benefit from providing care…and it doesn't matter whether they are gay or not.
If you have same-sex marriage, you could have two males contributing to the success of their offspring. Male parental investment can occur in the absence of the females altogether! Another way to interpret this is that gay male parental investment is a further elaboration of this "hallmark of the human lineage."
The naturalistic fallacy is still a fallacy. Even if this narrow (and inaccurate! Human sexual behavior has always been complicated, and there were almost certainly all kinds of homosexual behaviors going on) interpretation of what our ancestors were doing was correct, it says nothing about human behavior now. We have evidence of cannibalism in some fossils, this does not imply that we ought to start eating each other's brains.
Most annoying of all to me is that the twit who wrote this piece, Peter Sprigg, also leads some of the FRC's anti-evolution initiatives. This is the guy who promotes the creationist "strengths and weakness" approach to education. He doesn't believe in evolution anyway!
Since when does the religious right use the sexual behavior of a couple of apes as a model for good Christian sexual relations?
So, basically, Sprigg is another liar for Jesus who hypocritically uses a mangled version of evolutionary theory to support results he likes, and wants it removed from our curricula when it leads to answers he doesn't like.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: rwtwm
|
October 9, 2009 7:48 PM
I did try and click on the link to amuse myself of others stupidity. However having found the link broken, I'm now feeling rather grateful that I didn't sully myself.
Thanks! you saved me from a potential sullying!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 7:50 PM
I went over to the SPLC website and was a little disappointed. They don't have FRC listed as a hate-group, which they most assuredly are.
Posted by: rock-biologist
|
October 9, 2009 7:54 PM
Evolution, which never happened, contradicts same-sex marriage, much like Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust, which never happened either.
Dammit, they make parody well-neigh impossible.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 9, 2009 8:04 PM
Here's the article!
And here's proof of miracles: the first three (out of three) comments are intelligently skeptical!
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
October 9, 2009 8:06 PM
FTFY.
You wanted to do that with every organization with "family" in the title, no?
Posted by: lesathscorpii
|
October 9, 2009 8:06 PM
Seen this? http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 8:08 PM
Wanna piss off the Family Research Council and the rest of the anti-gay industry?
Donate to your favorite LGBT organization this weekend. It's the National Equality March in Washington, DC, and a great opportunity to help in the fight for LGBT equality. I can't go to DC, but I'm throwing a small party as a fundraiser for the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition.
http://www.ndhrc.org/wp-publish/
This election season is also seeing campaigns in Maine and Washington state to take away rights from same-sex couples. In Maine, they're trying to save full marriage equality:
http://www.protectmaineequality.org/
In Washington, they're trying to protect a semi-equivalent domestic partnership statute:
http://approvereferendum71.org/
Of course, other states will have their own organizations, and there are national groups as well....
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 9, 2009 8:12 PM
Wait a second. Isn't the FRC a young earth creationist organization? How can "pair bonding" have existed for four million years if the earth is only 6000 years old? And besides, if we are not descendents of Ardi or any other ape species as the denialists claim, what does it matter if Ardi had bond pairing or not? What does their social behavior have to do with us?
"Doctor" Dobson can't have it both ways.
Posted by: rwtwm
|
October 9, 2009 8:16 PM
Thanks Pierce
The problem is of course that now I have sullied myself by giving them silly buggers web traffic, and...
There was no more to the article, What PZ quoted was pretty much it. This may not surprise some of you who may be used to this, but I've only been reading phyrangula for a couple of months so haven't been aware of much bible espousing stupidity (that and there's nowhere near as much of it in the UK).
I can't believe that someone actually typed that article up! Some dude hypothesises something that could not possibly be gleaned from the evidence, and then says 'and god said it too.'
Wow... just Wow...
See Pierce look what you did :P
Posted by: Outlaw
|
October 9, 2009 8:19 PM
I'd love to hear what the FRC thinks of female hyenas.
Posted by: Caine
|
October 9, 2009 8:19 PM
My ghast is flabbered. There is no depth to which these folks won't sink.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 9, 2009 8:27 PM
Wow. That interpretation of the significance of Ardipithecus was spun so hard that I fell over trying to read it.
All the way to condemning same-sex marriage, eh? I wouldn't have thought it possible to spiral in on one's own assholiness so tightly.
The whole "strengths and weaknesses" campaign gives me the willies. It's an advertising slogan that sets up a false equivalence. Once the false equivalence is set up, the slogan exploits my sense of fair play.
If I wanted to set up a definition for "sin" it would incorporate this kind of lie dressed in goodness.
Posted by: Caine
|
October 9, 2009 8:27 PM
MAJeff #7:
Good idea. I'm in ND and today is payday, so I'll be happy to donate a little something to the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition.
Posted by: Kaddath
|
October 9, 2009 8:33 PM
Me thinks too much complaining about gays can only mean he's secretly gay. It never fails.
Posted by: rock-biologist
|
October 9, 2009 8:45 PM
On a lighter note, it's the Ardipithecus ramidus song!
TMBG fans will most likely dig it.
"Ardipithecus ramidus, she's related to all of us!"
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 9, 2009 8:48 PM
Pam's House Blend has a good article up about the campaign in Maine. See http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13364/mormon-antigay-efforts-in-maine
Excerpt:
In other New England news: A devout mormon boy, a boy scout, and another supposedly idealistic teen boy went on a rampage and killed a nurse: http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/10/09/What-caused-Mont-Vernon/1255082728.html (video at link)
I heard an NPR broadcast about a month ago in which the announcer noted that in the case of the Maine anti-gay campaigns, the mormons were not involved like they were in California. Wrong.
Posted by: QrazyQat
|
October 9, 2009 8:54 PM
I'd love to hear what the FRC thinks of female hyenas.
They're against them.
Owen Lovejoy, now, really should either stick to his speciality of the mechanics of old bones, or do his homework when it comes to reconstructing behavior. His ancient monogamy schtick was bad in 1981 when he added it to the gathering hypothesis and presented the whole thing as his idea, and it hasn't gotten any fresher in the past quarter century.
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
October 9, 2009 8:55 PM
Wait, is this Lovejoy honestly drawing conclusions about the way males and females interacted in a 4 million year old species based solely on a few missing teeth? I'm not an anthropologist, but that seems a bit questionable.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 9, 2009 9:00 PM
I'm throwing a small party as a fundraiser for the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition.
Sorry I have to miss the party, MAJeff, I work weekends, but I'll make a point of throwing a nickle in the pot.
Throw a party on a Wednesday, I'm in!
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
October 9, 2009 9:04 PM
Of course, that's me taking the Washington Post article at face value, and I should really know better by know. Probably Lovejoy was merely speculating, the Washington Post reported this speculation as a conclusion, and the FRC idjits concluded that "science has proven that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination."
There's a joke in this: what does science journalism have in common with the game telephone?
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 9, 2009 9:04 PM
I, for one, have always bee impressed by the ability of anthropologists to manufacture whole cultural scenarios out a femur. Very creative. Ooops! Is creative a bad word round here?
Posted by: Neil
|
October 9, 2009 9:23 PM
Gee, so we should be doing everything the same way our ancient ancestors did? I know that's what religionist reality-deniers usually want, but they are usually talking about the way we did things a few hundred or thousand years ago, not millions. You know, slavery, divinely appointed all-powerful monarchs, women and children as property, burning witches and heretics, etc. I guess I underestimated the golden-agers' reach of imagination here. Can I live in a stand of fruit trees and defend my territory with a sharpened stick, as well?
I love these lines from the article:
"It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself."
Wait, I thought that nature, the world, and everything in it were all corrupted after the fall...maybe god wants us all to be gay! What kind of good christian trusts what is "natural"?
My favorite line comes next:
"And it doesn't take a Bible to prove it."
He says this like the bible has actually "proved" things. As far as I can tell, the only thing the bible proves is that many humans are stupid, mean and easily scared.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 9, 2009 9:24 PM
Ardipithecus probably ran around naked all the time, so plainly the FRC must assume clothes are immoral.
Posted by: Sophist
|
October 9, 2009 9:26 PM
Dude, chill out. If it's such a fundamental part of being human, some laws that make it non-mandatory aren't going to cause it to evaporate overnight. Besides, if gay marriage really has such a negative fitness outcome then you have nothing to worry about. Groups that don't practice it will out-compete those that do, and in 20 generations there'll be so few liberals left that we won't be able to keep you from all the woman-hating, Mecca-nuking and puppy-kicking you've been dieing to do.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 9, 2009 9:27 PM
This kind of Cre-bot really cannot open their mouths without a tide of the most foul, homophobic excrement imaginable pouring out.
It is hard to credit that they are actually attempting to employ the theory of evolution (which they ordinarily hate) as a fig leaf for their rabid hate speach.
So to these towers of intellect there must be two theories of evolution:-
a) Theory 1. Also known as the actual theory of evolution, it proves that their young earth creationism makes about as much sense as believing that a celestial lesbian masturbated the universe into existence using the very first bible. (Standard creobot response; 'boo, hiss!')
b) Theory 2. Also known as the moron's distortion of evolution, it tries (and fails dismally) to justify repugnant, woo-fuelled homophobia based on a fantasy of a "natural institution" of male/female pair bonding as a "hallmark of the human lineage". (Standard creobot response; 'yay for hatred!')
As it so happens, my sexual aesthtic runs strongly toward lady-people. Lovely, lovely lady-people . . . *goes to happy place for a few seconds*.
Err, Where was I? Oh yes, just because I am heterosexual does not mean that I feel in any way threatened by homosexuality, or that I feel any hostility toward homosexuals. Sexual orientation is only one facet of personality. A gay version of myself would not be very different from your's truly except for the fact that he would be attracted to lovely, lovely blokey-people. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. It presents no danger to anyone. Only a pathetically sexually insecure cretin could conceivably consider it threatening.
One can only imagine the depths of cretin-ness required to go to the lengths of trying to corrupt evolutionary theory to justify homophobia. What is it that is so broken about these people that they cannot see this?
rwtwm @ 9;
"there's nowhere near as much of it in the UK"
This is a fact that I am daily grateful for, but we cannot afford complacency. We have plenty of home grown fundie nutters of all brands of woo, they just aren't as powerful or vocal as their transatlantic opposite numbers, as of yet.
There, but for the grace of Cthulhu, go we.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 9, 2009 9:28 PM
Skeptical Scientist,
Lovejoy's theory is fairly accurately represented. His theory, however, does not have wide acceptance in anthropology. Among my colleagues, we refer to it as the "love and joy" hypothesis and laugh :)
As QrazyQat says, it was ridiculous in 1981 and has only become more so in the time since.
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
October 9, 2009 9:28 PM
Peter G., #21: I, for one, have always bee impressed by the ability of anthropologists to manufacture whole cultural scenarios out a femur. Very creative. Ooops! Is creative a bad word round here?
I dunno. According to the original post, the Christians fell for it. At least as long as it fit into their dogma. Very opportunistic. Oops! Is "opportunistic" a bad word to use for Christians?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 9, 2009 9:30 PM
Must be because marriage between a man and a woman is such a natural state of affairs that 50% of them fail.
Posted by: mark*21
|
October 9, 2009 9:32 PM
Re:# 16 Dr Reed Quinn's slogan "Marriage. One Man. One Woman," may be an internal statement, to remind all 'good' Mormons, that marriage is only to one wife and not the whole damn herd.
Posted by: hje
|
October 9, 2009 9:33 PM
re: "Ooops! Is creative a bad word round here?"
Yes if by "creative" you are expressing a knee-jerk kind of anti-intellectualism. Have you first examined the logic of the scientists (not the FRC) for their deductions from the data? Hint: I has nothing to do with femurs.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM
|
October 9, 2009 9:35 PM
Call C. Owen Lovejoy argument an example of the Platonic noble lie. Homosexuality is just so vile, better to knowingly lie about what one believes in, in order to convince people it is wrong to accept that homosexuality is past of human sexuality.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 9, 2009 9:36 PM
Lynna #16
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young apparently believed otherwise.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 9, 2009 9:43 PM
Relax hje, it was a joke. I have degrees in math and engineering science (specifically solid state physics) but I've always enjoyed lampooning the softer sciences. For example: What's the difference between a psychology major and a psychology professor? One has taken two half courses in statistics and one has taken three.
Posted by: Gra gra
|
October 9, 2009 9:50 PM
Isn't it interesting how christians will use science when it suits their purpose, but denigrate and downplay it when science refutes their position, and say that it's all a matter of faith.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 9, 2009 9:51 PM
'Tis @32: Correct. And I think present-day mormons are scared by their recent past as polygamists, and by their Celestial-Kingdom future as polygamists. This earthly interlude is their temporary respite from polygamy. Fear, (knowing how easy it is to slip into polygamy or any other socially unacceptable sexuality), drives part of the mormon sanctity-of-marriage obsession.
Mormons did not behave themselves even after they supposedly gave up polygamy. In 1904, mormon prophet (Joseph F. Smith, I think) testified that he had multiple wives, and multiple positions as "President" of for-profit companies.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 9, 2009 9:53 PM
I like to have at least a femur, molar and Acheulean hand-axe before I formulate my cultural scenarios. :P
Seriously, this is one way of making a name for yourself in paleoanth. Your credibility, OTOH, may take a nosedive.
Posted by: hje
|
October 9, 2009 9:57 PM
Re: "it was a joke".
OK, fair enough, but I think you & I both know physicists who think that biology is also a "softer" science. Or for that matter, biologists that think that string theory is "creative."
We often have to do the best we can with the data that is available, which is often much less than is desired.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 9, 2009 9:57 PM
The 72 virgins (or is it grapes?) rears its head again.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 9, 2009 10:04 PM
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting." -Ernest Rutherford, 1908 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 9, 2009 10:13 PM
Mormons don't limit themselves to 72. I think the idea is that in the Celestial Kingdom a man is supposed to service all his earthly wives who have now joined him in the CK, plus any single sisters who had the misfortune to remain single on earth.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 9, 2009 10:22 PM
Link fixed.
MAJeff: I didn't see any place to make donations in that link you gave us. Send me something more and I can put it in an article and maybe get a few more donations sent your way.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 9, 2009 10:28 PM
No. It's an inference from the relatively small size of the canines and knowledge of contemporary primate behavior. Our ancestors are thought not to have gone in for gape-jawed threat displays and aggression with other males to compete for mates — they would have relied more on cooperative behavior, male-female courtship, and female mate choice.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 10:39 PM
Thanks, PZ. Here's the NDHRC donation page:
http://www.ndhrc.org/wp-publish/donate
It's got a PayPal button on it.
I'd honestly encourage folks to donate to the Maine and Washington campaigns. Right now, those are the places that need help. The same bigots responsible for Prop 8 are doing their bullshit in those two places. Here's one of the more effective ads I've seen, coming out of the Washington campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHiuCHLRLNM
Here in North Dakota, a few organizations will be showing the Laramie Project on Monday night at 7:00, at the Fargo Theater (where your evening presentation was a few weeks ago). It's been 10 years since Matthew Sheperd was murdered, and the Laramie Project will have an epilogue reflecting that.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 10:56 PM
PZ, just sent you an email with some more stuff.
thanks again
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 9, 2009 10:59 PM
Thanks for reiterating the idea that among extant apes it's all about the males, PZ. Female chimps, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas all make choices in mates. Bonobos, especially, are difficult to fit into the simplistic models of behavior that Lovejoy used to formulate his hypothesis, which, incidentally, has not changed significantly in nearly 30 years in spite of the massive amounts of evidence gathered during that time regarding non-human primate behavior.
BTW, canine dimorphism might have decreased when male equipment became more visible as a result of bipedalism. Also, the enlarged testes of human males indicate that pair-bonding and monogamy were probably uncommon in our ancestors. Polygamous matings were probably more likely, but active, violent male-male competition became less pronounced and resources focused, instead, on sperm competition.
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
October 9, 2009 11:31 PM
In other words, the theory was already present, and nothing in the Ardipithecus find altered it? It was only that the presence of special teeth like chimp males use to fight for mates would have cast doubt on this theory, had they been found?Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 9, 2009 11:38 PM
Like QrazyQat said, Lovejoy came up with this in 1981, and it hasn't changed since. Even if Ardi had dimorphic canines, it wouldn't have falsified his hypothesis. He simply would have said the pair-bonding became more important later, and evolution takes time.
However, the idea is still ridiculed by a large portion of anthropologists, particularly since our knowledge and understanding of primate social systems has expanded tremendously since the Lovejoy first came up with this idea.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
October 9, 2009 11:48 PM
rock-biologist @ #3:
Yeah they're self-parodying, so they can always beat you to the punch.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Poe's Law, Peter.... You forgot to include the "smiley" or "wink".Pete G @#:
Posted by: Zetetic
|
October 9, 2009 11:52 PM
Maybe we should remind the fundies about the gay penguins. Long term partnership, and still observed instances of homosexuality among them. Not to mention, all of the other species with similar patterns.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 10, 2009 12:19 AM
The ad for the "Protect Marriage Washington" campaign can be viewed at
http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/video
There's a brief shot of Adam and Eve that seems to be taken directly from mormon art.
Posted by: Enkidu
|
October 10, 2009 12:57 AM
Well, they can't use Republicans or Christians, can they? Too much toe-tapping gay sex, coke-snorting homosexual prostitute sex, wetsuit-wearing dildo sex, South American adulterous sex, etc.A couple of apes are Shakers compared to right-wingers!
Posted by: Bob O'H
|
October 10, 2009 3:19 AM
Wait, does this mean we're in the same lineage as sea horses?Woooo!
Posted by: Porno Lily
|
October 10, 2009 3:53 AM
Oh, PZ, why you are always such grumbling old bear! The pair bondling and male parental investment, is very romantic, no? (Of course, when I act in adult movie, I always use the contraceptive because is sin for child to be concieved outside of the wedlock!)
Ardi, I think she must being good Christian woman, no? I think you cannot prove opposite of this.
Posted by: ryk
|
October 10, 2009 5:36 AM
lesathscorpii @ 6>
I still find that funny as all hell. How did any of you people find that initially? Its about as funny as the original isn't. Almost glad the first one was made so that I have the corrected version to laugh at.
anyways, back on topic...
reminds me of an english class I had at a community college a few years back. We were discussing 'Into the Wild' and somehow got on the topic of how evil 'teh gheys' are. This self righteous christian woman was going on about how horrible it was, and ended with claiming it was unnatural as well. So, I raised my hand, and when called on, pointed out that numerous species have been observed engaging in same-sex sex acts in nature, including bonobo chimps, etc., etc.
This woman practically flew out of her chair in her rush to turn around and scream at me about how 'We are not animals!!one!!!'
Instructor had to do a quick interrupt and subject change, and I was quite amused and satisfied :)
Posted by: of-the-willows
|
October 10, 2009 6:49 AM
I love it when the bigots use the "it's not natural" argument Ryk. When you point out that it occurs naturally in other species they interject with the retort you came across (in varying degrees of spittle fleckedness.) It's then that you have them in a corner. Since if it's a choice then the person who doesn't want to see the gays making that choice is a freedom-hating traitor, and I'll say it to their face.
They don't want to regulate marriage, they want to control our lives. I'm really sick of this shit.
/me visits every link posted by MAJeff
Posted by: JPS, FCD
|
October 10, 2009 7:40 AM
(A bit OT, perhaps, and a trial run with TypePad)
Re Mormons, polygamy, etc., I always liked this topical stanza from Sweet Betsy from Pike:
They stopped at Salt Lake to inquire of the way,
Where Brigham declared that sweet Betsy should stay;
But Betsy got frightened and ran like a deer
While Brigham stood pawing the ground like a steer.
And Betsy was not easily frightened . . .
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
October 10, 2009 7:47 AM
hje @37:
The problem is that human evolution is, for some historic reason, the domain of anthropologists rather than biologists. Consequently there is a whole lot more BS, handwaving, and yes, spinning long stories out of a femur or a tooth than in other areas of biology.
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
October 10, 2009 7:56 AM
Jesus Jeff, you couldve warned me dude - brought tears to my eyes.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 10, 2009 9:39 AM
Pygmy Loris, I read PZ's sentence about female mate choice as the females doing the mate choice, not the males picking the female mates. I guess it could read either way.
I still don't get how they can emphasize this so much as indicating some sort of magical male-female bond. Humans give birth weirdly because we're bipedal and have big heads. That means we need assistance during birth, hence the need for social cohesion right from the start ( reference, although behind paywall ). Then we're born at a stupidly early stage of development, also because of the big heads, so we need more than a single parent's worth of care to have a good chance of survival, hence more need for social cohesion.
Just because of how we're physically shaped and develop we need to stick together for reproductive purposes, but that doesn't mean 1 male/1 female always, and never has. In fact, a single family has traditionally always done worse than larger "family" units, and still does. (Well, as long as you don't let the woman's mother-in-law in!) It looks to me like not even a stupid conclusion, but completely nonsensical along the lines of "I have a red balloon, therefore migratory birds like to eat pumpkin seeds".
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 10, 2009 10:38 AM
PZ Myers #42
PARTY
Posted by: Jeff Eyges
|
October 10, 2009 12:12 PM
Oh, no,no,no. They don't get to do this. They don't get to reject secular science, then embrace it when it suits them, when they think they can twist it to validate their beliefs.
I'd leave a comment to that effect, but I don't want them to have my email.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
October 10, 2009 12:16 PM
Midnight Rambler,
It's not just human evolution that's part of biological anthropology, but all of primatology, including primate evolution. Quite frankly, hominin evolution has been shaped by the biocultural interaction, a factor many biologists are ill-prepared to deal with.
Like I keep saying, Lovejoy's hypothesis is not taken seriously by a great many anthropologists. In fact, most of the theories about the origins of bipedalism are taken with a grain of salt because there's just not a lot of data to put to the problem of why it happened.
Carlie,
Maybe, I read it as meaning that female mate-choice was important in the hominin lineage, but not the other apes. The idea that female apes exercise little choice in which males they mate with is still fairly rampant among non-primatologists and older primatologists.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
October 10, 2009 4:58 PM
Indeed, by Ardi was but the degenerate scion of a fallen dynasty. We should all give up on this totally declassé terrestriality and return to the sea. Let's lose those silly vertebrae while at it.Posted by: Carlie
|
October 10, 2009 6:43 PM
Pygmy Loris - I get what you're saying now. I didn't think anyone still thought female apes didn't exert some choice, so it didn't occur to me.
Posted by: BlueMonday
|
October 10, 2009 10:58 PM
Each time someone throws the naturalist argument up against homosexuality, I take the opportunity to point out to them that their argument does nothing to tell us how to treat humans--it only tells us that homosexuality should not exist. Seeing as it does exist, their argument fails to offer any insight whatsoever into what our moral responsibilities are regarding homosexuals.
Homosexuality is amoral. Treatment of other human beings, however, is very much a moral issue, and these supposed gatekeepers of the family are as bankrupt as can be.
Posted by: Draken
|
October 11, 2009 5:00 AM
I submitted a comment there. Here a Cc in case it doesn't get modded:
Calling pair-bonding a 'hallmark of human lineage' may be true when comparing humans to their nearest cousin great apes, but is otherwise an exaggeration of sorts. Only one step further are the gibbons, which also form lifelong partnerships. Interestingly, homosexuality also occurs in all of the great apes and the gibbons.
Posted by: marcus
|
October 12, 2009 11:38 AM
no mor eetin brainz?!!