Majority of different investigations proved that Darvin’s Evolution Theory was wrong, to be more precise, it was declared that his thesis on sexual selection was a mistake. Many obvious things disagree with the theory; what is more, many of the animal behavior features, their origin and mode of transmission cannot be explained at all. Leading biology researchers and theorists gathered for an annual session of the American Association for Advancement of Science to discuss the problem of the Darvin Theory revision.
Biologist Joan Rogarden from the Stanford University told about results of investigations proving that among animals choice of a sexual partner is not restricted with representatives of just an opposite sex, and that animals copulate only with a view of reproduction. Robert Warner from the California University, Santa Barbara, spoke about a fish changing its sex. David Crewes from the Texas University presented evidence of a connection between a genetic sex and behavior. Patricia Gouti from the Georgia University told about a new hypothesis describing how animals select mates for themselves. Paul Vazei from the Letbridge University presented results of his investigations concerning lesbian behavior of Japanese female macaques.
Darvin’s law on natural selection is considered unshakable and standard even among opponents of the evolution theory. The law says that the struggle for existence is continuous among animals, as a result of which the domination of some individuals over others in a population increases or reduces. As a result of this struggle stronger, more disease-resistant and more adapted to the environmental conditions individuals survive and dominate.
However, one item of the Darvin Theory, the one on choice of a sexual partner, was called into question. Darvin’s Theory explains development and strengthening of those physical and behavior features that augment chances of animals for surviving. It means that a cat seeks to choose the strongest tom-cat, a bird chooses the most beautiful and the strongest cock, a cow deer will certainly prefer a deer that won a fight.
On the basis of such observations, Darvin reached a conclusion that female animals are very scrupulous with choice of partners and prefer male animals with the best genes that will be further transmitted to the young.
The Darvin sexual selection theory helped the scientist explain many physiological features and behavior of animals, especially of males that seemed to be unequal to the environment and to the situation. For instance, an enormous wonderful peacock train makes it more vulnerable to beasts of prey, but at the same time it serves an attraction for hens. So, in accordance with the Darvin Theory, it is a female animal that chooses a partner, not a male. But as it turned out, many features in animal behavior disagree with the sexual selection theory.
Paul Vazei describes his observations over Japanese macaques: “I regularly observed she-macaques desperately rivaling for males. I saw that he-macaques often ignored those she-macaques that sought after copulation with them.”
Rogarden says: “There are many evidence disproving Darvin’s principle of partner selection. It is difficult to say how many exclusions from the rule exist, as many experimental results were probably distorted by the Darvin preconceptions. The exclusions are so numerous that they require explanation.” Rogarden revealed an amazing number of behaviors that don’t correspond with the rules of the Darvin theory of partner selection. The scientist thinks that the theory of sexual partner selection must be grounded not only upon selection of a sexual partner, but it also must take a social factor into consideration. “I am sure that selection of a male has much more incentives for a female animal in order to obtain a leading role of a male; at that, it is a stronger stimulus than a stimulus to get just better genes.”
Anthropologist Sara Hardy studied monkey behavior in the 1980s and understood that female monkeys often copulate with many males. The anthropologist thinks that this is done for protection of their posterity. Dominating male monkeys in “a harem” regularly kill baby monkeys whom they consider not their own; that is why female monkeys protect their babies by spreading the possibility of fatherhood among many male monkeys, and further use the force of many males for protection.
Rogarden also mentioned some other sexual behavior features that are also some kind of a social harem. It can be observed among some animals that dominating strong males gather weak and young male animals around themselves. At that, the former pursues the objective of seizing a territory and gathering a harem of female animals. And the latter must protect the territory from attacks of other strong male animals. For this service the mates of a dominating male animal are rewarded, or even allowed to copulate with some female animals. It is interesting that the strongest animal among the mates succeeds to the position of the leader in the harem when the previous leader dies or becomes too old.
The Darvin theory doesn’t also touch upon homosexual behavior of animals. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingo and he-sheep, can be homosexual. It seems that homosexuality performs a social role among some species. For instance, bonobos (small chimpanzee) easily has intercourse with unisexual partners in order to relax the tension after a quarrel, or to guarantee itself a bigger share of food.
But for some species, including people, homosexual behavior may have no sense at all.
Lesbian behavior of Japanese macaques highly likely develops from a female strategy to make males they wish copulate with them. Lustful female she-macaques induce males (that are unwilling to copulate) and then copulate with them. Despite this fact, from the point of view of evolution development, this homosexual behavior among Japanese macaques is of no value and cannot be transmitted to posterity.
This discovery revealed that copulation of animals may also have some other functions besides reproduction. Besides, some species have not only males and females, they also have asexual creatures (ants, bees wasps), individuals that abstain from copulation (a sort of rodents that live underground in social groups, like bees) and creatures with labile sex (it can be changed depending upon natural conditions or social changes in a group). Sexual distinctions of some species are so much squeezed that it is difficult to classify an individual as a male or a female. Majority of plants and some kinds of fish are androgyne, it means that they can produce spawn and milt at the same time. Some lizards are unisexual (only females); they have no males, but lizards copulate with each other to exchange hormones and cause division of cells.
And some fishes can changes their sex several times (a male can turn into a female and back). For instance, on any coral reef about 25% of fish changed the sex at least once within the lifetime. Over 50 varieties of fiddle-fish, wrasse, a parrot fish and redfish can change the sex this way. Invertebrates, such like shrimps and oysters, can also change their sex.
Change of sex is caused by social conditions in a fish group. When the group lacks species of some sex, other fishes change their sex in order to fill the deficiency. For instance, if we remove a he-wrasse from a harem, or if he dies, a leading she-wrasse will take its place in ten days; it will transform the sex and soon start to milt. This behavior is not conditioned with chromosomes and cannot be transmitted genetically. Some kinds of animals have three distinct sexes.
Rogarden says that an entire context of the Darvin Theory on sexual selection collapses. In some instances, the Theory gives wrong explanations; but what is more important, the theory of sexual selection is wrong even as an approach.”
Rogarden and Gouti thin that it’s time for a revolution, but still hesitate to make steps to make the revolution. Warner adds that scientists easier take the suggestion to adjust the Darvin Theory, but they refute the idea to give up the outdated ideas.
Thus, many clauses from the Darvin Theory turned to be a mistake, and the evolution theory cannot explain why such behavior types and multi-sexuality arise. Transmission of these features to posterity is impossible, which means that reasons of appearance and improvement of the features are unknown.
This hypotheses gave rise to disputes among evolution biologists, and opponents of the evolution theory hope to shake Darvin’s Theory, the basis that has been unshakable and strong in science since the 19th century. Arguments of the last group are increasing every day.
Translated by Maria Gousseva
Read the original in Russian: http://science.pravda.ru/science/2003/6/20/57/7755_evolution.html
Indeed, how dare they run US-independent policy? They should have followed the example of the European Union that turned independent states of the Old World into US-ditto entities