Communicator (communicator) wrote,

Stop me before I undermine evolution again

I like to post about idiotic articles that 'prove' gender differences from poor evolutionary biology. This one (William Tucker in the American Spectator) is unbelievably stupid. A full debunk is here.

The true fact behind this stupid article is that the Y chromosome accumulates junk mutations (mostly harmless) much more quickly than other chromosomes because it is only inherited from one parent, so it can't match-repair itself. This is why mutation to the Y chromosome is used to trace heredity (or they use mitochondrial DNA, which only comes from the mother). This accumulation of junk means the Y chromosome shows greater variation between humans and chimps than the other chromosomes.

William Tucker takes this relatively pedestrian fact and reasons like this:

'In crossing the evolutionary distance that exists between chimps and humans, most of the changes occurred in males.... what differentiates us from our mammalian relatives is changes to the male of the species.'

Yeah, because men are much less ape-like than women.

But what is the mechanism by which Tucker thinks males caused human evolution?

'The extraordinary innovation is "fatherhood," a role that doesn't really exist elsewhere in nature.'

Because as we know, male animals don't protect or feed their offspring anywhere in nature.

Furthermore, says Tucker, if females were in charge, we'd be having orgies instead of building up civilisation. Tsk.

It is precisely because female (Bonobos) play a dominant role .... that bonobos did not produce an evolutionary line that led to human beings. Instead, they remain a relatively minor, underpopulated species holding their orgies deep in the jungle. The larger East African chimp, where males predominate, produced the line that led to humanity.

Humans are not descended from East African chimps more than from bonobos. And is it really true that orgies are of sole interest to females? You tell me.

So, what do you conclude, Mr Tucker?

So what does all this suggest for the present? First, it says that feminism, in its most obviously primitive forms, is undermining human evolution.

But feminists aren't the only ones undermining evolution. Who else? Go on, guess.

Muslim societies have regressed to polygamy, a form of marriages that was not present in the earliest stages of human evolutionary history. This has led to a re-creation of ... a disgruntled population of excess males, which Islam has always handled very skilfully by turning it into an army of jihad warriors.

So, it turns out that science proves William Tucker to be the pinnacle of evolution. I know - he was as surprised as you are.
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic