Lesbian Japanese monkeys challenge Darwin's assumptions

Michie · Feb 19, 2003

By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent, in Denver

The promiscuous sex life of lesbian Japanese monkeys is challenging one of the central tenets of Charles Darwin. He argued that females are coy, mate rarely and choose mates to ensure the best genetic inheritance for their offspring, while males are promiscuous and fight among themselves for female partners.

But after studying Japanese macaques in the wild, Dr Paul Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge, Canada, begs to differ. He found that bisexuality is common in females and that they often compete with males for sexual partners.

"In some populations, female Japanese macaques sometimes prefer same-sex partners," he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Denver. "That occurs even when they are presented with sexually motivated, opposite-sex alternatives."

Males are often prompted into sexual intercourse only if they are first mounted by females. Dr Vasey said: "Female-male mounting in Japanese macaques is an adaptation that sexually motivated females employ to prompt sluggish or uninterested males to copulate with them."

He observed that the females gain pleasure from mounting males, often rubbing themselves against a male's back or stimulating themselves with their tails.

Dr Vasey said that once they evolved the capacity to mount males, they could gain the same sexual gratification from mounting females. "I see females competing for males all the time," he said. "I see males ignoring females that are desperate to copulate with them."

Dr Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University, said the macaque was just one of many species that did not fit Darwin's theory of sex selection.

Female langur monkeys promiscuously mated with many males, for instance. Homosexuality in animals - at least 300 invertebrates practise it - was also unexplained by Darwin.

Dr Roughgarden said that a more comprehensive theory of sex selection should take into account social as well as sexual selection. Mating could function to build and manage relationships as well as to reproduce. "Female choice, I am pretty sure, has much more to do with managing male power than it does with trying to obtain good genes."

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...02/19/waa19.xml

Angel75 · Feb 19, 2003

Hey, I am not coy, before my hubby always mated quite frequently, and rarely chose a partner that would excel the gene pool...so do my sexual exploits deserve an article contradicting darwin???

notto · Feb 19, 2003

The funny thing about this is that I have seen many people include homosexuality in the list of "evils" that the theory of Evolution and Darwin have case in society. I guess they will have to strike it from the list since Darwin proposed male dominated sexual selection of the opposite sex.

seebs · Feb 19, 2003

This doesn't really "challenge" Darwin. It's not directly explained, but it's hardly a problem.

Arikay · Feb 19, 2003

Well, really doesnt this just show survival of the fittest based on environment.

the monkeys dont fear their environment anymore, so they dont need to mate to ensure survival. However, by picking and choosing their mates, the dominant sex would end up breeding the other sex into more of their liking.
Since the definition of "the fittest" has changed in their current state, they are now propagating the traits that they want their "fittest" to have.

Does this make any sense, or do I not have a clue what im talking about?

MsAnne · Feb 19, 2003

> Lesbian Japanese monkeys challenge Darwin's assumptions

Now there's not a title you see every day.

Evening Mist · Feb 19, 2003

I *think* that this challenges the theory of sociobiology. If I'm remembering correctly. The idea that gender roles are based on an inherent drive within the individual to pass on their own genes (regardless of how "fit" those genes are.) Males are supposedly inclinded to have a lot of sex, with a lot of females, in an effort just to get their sperm "out there." While females are supposedly inclined to require commitment from a reliable male, to settle down and nuture one pregnancy at a time, since this is the only way she can ensure the survival of her own genes.

Yes, homesexuality in animals challenges this theory about gender roles. But there are any number of things that challenge ideas about gender roles. Heck, *I* challege ideas about gender roles.

It does not challenge the basic theory put forth by Darwin -- natural selection. Natural selection is about competition between the seeds themsevles.

GTX · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 05:00 PM MsAnne said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=663692#post663692)

Now there's not a title you see every day.

That's exactly what I was thinking...

Susan · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 05:00 PM MsAnne said this in Post #6

Now there's not a title you see every day.

LOL

Or at least not here, maybe over at A4, LOL :o

~.^

GTX · Feb 19, 2003

How does it challenge Darwin?

Because he theorized that homosexuality is a genetic disposition and that hetero was not necessarily the only natural orientation?

Susan · Feb 19, 2003

Oh, GTX. I thought you were Badfish for a minute. Blah. Wonder where he is anyway?

gladiatrix · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 06:59 PM Michie said this in Post #1

By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent, in Denver

[snip]

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...02/19/waa19.xml

Your link doesn't seem to work, so here's another one....

Humans are from Mars, monkeys are from Venus

Lesbian Japanese monkeys may sound less like the subject of serious scientific research than the headline of a National Enquirer exposé. But that's exactly what primatologist and Université de Montréal doctoral student Paul Vasey has been studying for the past five years, and his findings are attracting a good deal of attention in the scientific community.

"Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection states that individuals choose their mates based on their reproductive value; therefore, individuals of the same sex compete with each other for opposite-sex mates," Vasey explains. "My research indicates that female Japanese macaques engage in sexual behaviour not necessarily to reproduce, but for sexual gratification--because it feels good. That has a lot of implications."

Vasey found that male members of the species virtually never indulged in homosexual behaviour, but that many of the females were bisexual and often preferred females over males. "A lot of people feel that homosexuality occurs because there isn't any opposite sex alternative. What I've found with the macaques is that when two females are together, and if a male comes and solicits one of the females, at that moment she has a choice: she can either go with the male or remain with her female partner. Over 90 per cent of the time, she remains in the same-sex partnership."

Vasey says the choice of these females is definitely a choice, arguing that they are not lesbian but bisexual. "They have sex with both males and females. Being with females doesn't stop them from procreating."

There could be a very simple explanation for this one. There are certain species of lizardswhere there are NO males, just females. The species reproduce by parthenogenesis or "virgin birth" (all descendants are female clones of the "mother", no males involved). If one observes the sexual behavior between these lizards, one female will engage in "male" behavior (mounting another female). This "lesbian sex" stimulates ovulation.

Lesbian behavior among the monkeys may actually facilitate procreation, by stimulating ovulation.

Furthermore, the bond formed between the two females could also mean that they will aid each other in raising any offspring born to either of them (more infants survive because of better care).

Remember that the phrase"survival of the fittest" doesn't mean "the strongest, meanest Big Bad on the block", but means those who leave behind the most offspring.

Incidentally, this is just the latest example that homosexuality is NOT "unnatural", think about it.....

Oh and BTW, parthenogenesis is more common that you think. (If Jesus was really born of a "virgin" then He should really be a She!).

Jerry Smith · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 08:56 PM GTX said this in Post #10

How does it challenge Darwin?

Because he theorized that homosexuality is a genetic disposition and that hetero was not necessarily the only natural orientation?

I don't think Darwin ever theorized about the origin of homosexuality, he did not know about genes or genetics (so it is unlikely that he theorized they were "genetic" in the modern sense), and if he had theorized that homosexuality has a genetic basis, he would most likely have been correct...

This isn't the point of the OP, though. The point of the OP is that Darwin generalized that females naturally tended toward prudishness in mammals, and that sexual behavior should have a fairly straightforward adaptive explanation. The fact is that some of Darwins generalizations about a correlation between sex and adaptive behavior were on target (as generalizations!), and some may have been skewed by his Victorian era understanding of human gender roles. It is quite appropriate to question some of Darwins interpretation of sex roles, but the creationist who hopes that means that Darwin's core theory is in trouble is out of luck.

lucaspa · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 06:59 PM Michie said this in Post #1

By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent, in Denver

The promiscuous sex life of lesbian Japanese monkeys is challenging one of the central tenets of Charles Darwin. He argued that females are coy, mate rarely and choose mates to ensure the best genetic inheritance for their offspring, while males are promiscuous and fight among themselves for female partners.

First, this is not a "central tenet" of Darwin.  Darwin did propose sexual selection for some species, and in those species it is often females who choose mates, but the choice is very rarely for directly having the "best genetic inheritance". For example, the tail of the peacock chosen by the peahen is actually detrimental in and of itself.  However, it is secondarily tied to survival genes.

This is acknowledged later in the article in the sentence: "Dr Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University, said the macaque was just one of many species that did not fit Darwin's theory of sex selection."

Darwin's theory of sexual selection, as elaborated in Descent of Man, was not as specific as intimated in the article.

But after studying Japanese macaques in the wild, Dr Paul Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge, Canada, begs to differ. He found that bisexuality is common in females and that they often compete with males for sexual partners.

So? Look at the article in more depth and remember that 1 male can fertilize a large number of females:

"Males are often prompted into sexual intercourse only if they are first mounted by females. Dr Vasey said: "Female-male mounting in Japanese macaques is an adaptation that sexually motivated females employ to prompt sluggish or uninterested males to copulate with them."

The females are still choosing mates, but in this case are adapted to making sure the male mates with them.  After all, the eager male is not necessarily the one the females want.

"In some populations, female Japanese macaques sometimes prefer same-sex partners," he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Denver. "That occurs even when they are presented with sexually motivated, opposite-sex alternatives."

Not too surprising.  This is an exaptation. IOW, a behavior adapted for mating has a secondary purpose: allowing females to gain gratification with same-sex partnerships.

Vesey acknowledges as much:  Dr Vasey said that once they evolved the capacity to mount males, they could gain the same sexual gratification from mounting females. "I see females competing for males all the time," he said. "I see males ignoring females that are desperate to copulate with them."

Notice that this is also sexual selection, but here it is the males that get to do the selecting.
 
Female langur monkeys promiscuously mated with many males, for instance.

So?  In this case mating may also have advantages in holding the social group together and/or protecting the infants since every male will think that the kids could be theirs and therefore worthy of protection.

Homosexuality in animals - at least 300 invertebrates practise it - was also unexplained by Darwin.

Again, so?  It is not as tho Darwin were a prophet or Messiah that had to get everything right and know it all. 

Dr Roughgarden said that a more comprehensive theory of sex selection should take into account social as well as sexual selection. Mating could function to build and manage relationships as well as to reproduce.

Just what I said above.  For species that have year round sexuality, that sexuality has to have a primary function other than reproduction.

 All in all, I don't see the challenge to Darwinian evolution that your heading trumpets.

lucaspa · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 08:50 PM Evening Mist said this in Post #7

I *think* that this challenges the theory of sociobiology. If I'm remembering correctly. The idea that gender roles are based on an inherent drive within the individual to pass on their own genes (regardless of how "fit" those genes are.) Males are supposedly inclinded to have a lot of sex, with a lot of females, in an effort just to get their sperm "out there." While females are supposedly inclined to require commitment from a reliable male, to settle down and nuture one pregnancy at a time, since this is the only way she can ensure the survival of her own genes.

It does not challenge the basic theory put forth by Darwin -- natural selection. Natural selection is about competition between the seeds themsevles.

The sociobiology you are quoting applies specifically to humans and is not meant as a generalization to all species.  Humans have the problem of that long childhood due to neotony.  Therefore the female needs more help in raising the kids than do females of almost every other species.

Your view of natural selection is way too limited.  Darwin didn't say when or where the competition for scarce resources would come, just that it was inevitable.  There are cases of natural selection among sperm (particularly in promiscuous species), but much of natural selection comes about when the organism is an adult.

lucaspa · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 09:04 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #12 "Vasey says the choice of these females is definitely a choice, arguing that they are not lesbian but bisexual. "They have sex with both males and females. Being with females doesn't stop them from procreating." 

This is the key phrase.  Whatever lesbian relationships the females form does not stop them from also having sex with males in order to have offspring. Thus, whatever genetic traits that are involved in the lesbian behavior of the female are going to be inherited by the offspring -- male and female  -- and stay in the population.

Evening Mist · Feb 19, 2003

Thanks Lucaspa.

Late_Cretaceous · Feb 19, 2003

I suppose finding something that contradicts a single asumption that Darwin made is supposed to mean that the entire theory of evolution - which he had a hand in developing is also in error. Why is it that so many creationists seem to think that Charles Darwin is regarded as somekind of infallable sage, who all "evolutionists" bow down to - and that if they can find something wrong with the man then it calles the whole premise of decent with modification into question.

Arikay · Feb 19, 2003

The same people who think that evolutionists think Darwin is a sage are the same people who cant think beyond their religion, and since christianity has Jesus, Darwin must be the prophet for the evolution religion, as they also view evolution as a religion, not a science.

gladiatrix · Feb 19, 2003

Today at 10:55 PM Arikay said this in Post #19

The same people who think that evolutionists think Darwin is a sage are the same people who cant think beyond their religion, and since christianity has Jesus, Darwin must be the prophet for the evolution religion, as they also view evolution as a religion, not a science.

One additional "perk" of pretending that evolution begins and ends with Darwin===>Darwin was wrong about a number of things (his work was pre-genetics). Therefore, if one equates evolution NOW with "Darwinism'" THEN, it makes arguing against "evolution" (the creationist/IDist strawman version) so much easier when one can pretend that a 150 years of accumulated evidence doesn't exists.

Lesbian Japanese monkeys challenge Darwin's assumptions

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

God Made Me A Skeptic

HI

:)

gentle mother

<font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

<font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

Card-carrying EAC member

Fish out of water

Legend

Legend

Legend

gentle mother

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

HI

Card-carrying EAC member

Similar threads

<font color="#880000" ></font&g