Joan Roughgarden, author of Evolution's Rainbow, was recently interviewed over at the left-wing Alternet website about her latest idea: that Darwin's theory of sexual selection was wrong. Why does she believe this? Read, and laugh...

First off, let us begin by her answer to Alternet's question as to why she first started to question the "traditional view of homosexuality in nature" (the article defines this as the "idea that since homosexuality is not a reproductive strategy, according to Darwin it's an aberration that should die off").

In June of 1997, I was marching in San Francisco's gay-pride parade. It was an epiphany. I was stunned by the sheer numbers of gay people. I had read, like everyone else, Kinsey's report that gays are one out of every 10 people -- a series of subsequent studies have backed up his original data, and even the most conservative of those put the number at one in 20 -- but to see that play out in the world was startling. I knew that my subject of biology taught that something's wrong or defective in the very people standing on the sidewalks and marching in the parade. And I felt that if a theory says there's something wrong with so many people, then maybe it's the theory that's wrong and not the people.

Ok... I won't even touch that. She goes on to say that she considers the whole "good-gene idea to be suspect" and how "scientists have been trying to prove this idea experimentally, and it never bears out." I'd like to see where she gets her data for these statements. However, this is where things begin to get weird.

Homosexuality is the other problem with sexual selection. According to Darwin, the only purpose for sex is the transfer of sperm. And if he's right, then homosexuality is a biological dead end. But he isn't right. Most mating takes place without chance of conception. Humans have sex all the time, but produce very few offspring during their lives. A typical couple has sex once a week for 50 years, but has only two offspring. If the only goal of sex is the transfer of sperm, then it's a very inefficient method for doing so.

According to modern figures, yes, in some countries, a "typical couple has sex once a week for 50 years." However, it was not always this way. She seems to be completely ignoring the fact that today, there are many, many methods of contraception that have been developed which prevent pregnancy so that people can have sex (to fulfill their ingrained sexual desires to reproduce) without having to worry about pregnancy. Hundreds of years ago there were methods of contraception, as well, but, of course, they were not nearly as widely used as contraceptives are today. She's basically applying modern statistics to all of human history. There aren't six billion people in the world today because people only have two children in their lifetimes. This is a major fallacy.

One of the other things Darwin's theory teaches us is that when a species exhibits a trait that is inefficient, it is selected against. So, unless evolution has somehow overlooked sex, making it inefficient in contrast to all the other, wonderfully adapted traits that have evolved, then mating must really be serving multiple functions of which one is the occasional transfer of sperm.

OK, sex may have multiple functions. This is a legitimate idea. However, just because it might have multiple functions does not mean that it does not also have a primary function, ie, reproduction. Unfortunately, she doesn't say this. Instead, she develops a whole new theory as to why sex exists.

So what is the purpose of sex in nature?

It's an incredibly effective form of tactile communication. It keeps animals in touch. It's very up close and personal. It also helps explain why animals have so many different parts of their brain, so many neurons, that confer pleasure. In most species, especially social species like mammals and birds, mating takes place as a way to form and manage relationships. And if you look at sex as an incredibly effective form of communication, it helps explain a lot of things in nature -- like homosexuality -- that have puzzled biologists for years. In bonobos (a primate very similar to a chimp), homosexual contact takes place as often as heterosexual contact. And bonobos are incredibly sexual. Genital contact is how they say hello; it's how they communicate. It provides a sense of group security and access to food that the animals need to survive and to raise their young.

I'll admit, I'm not a biologist. I'm a political scientist who is absolutely fascinated with various aspects of evolution and evolutionary psychology. However, it doesn't take a genius to see all the problems with this statement.

The bonobo is the Left's favorite primate. Unlike warmongering chimps, bonobos "make love, not war." They are peaceful, don't fight amongst themselves, cooperate with each other, and are always doing something sexual. Many believe that because humans most likely evolved from from an ancestor, not yet found, like chimps instead of bonobos, we also evolved with the chimp's violent tendencies. "If only we could be more like bonobos!" the Left says. I'm ranting here, I know, but I constantly hear this.

Back to the subject at hand, I don't have a clue where she got the idea that sex provides greater "access to food that the animals need to survive." And back to the bonobos, she says, "genital contact is how they say hello; it's how they communicate." Oh yes, if only we were more like those peace-loving bonobos, we could go around and touch each other's genitals instead of speaking to each other, and we can all be sexually liberated!

I can see a sexual harassment lawsuit already.

Eh, I'm ranting here. She then proceeds to take it upon herself to rename sexual selection:

A theory that fits the data. I have replaced "sexual selection" with "social selection." In social selection, animals are organized differently. Their organization is arranged to control access to reproductive opportunity, which includes everything they need to reproduce: food, nesting sites, mates. Animals use their resources as bartering chips to buy help from others. Sometimes this leads to cooperation and sometimes to competition. And this creates all kinds of familial relationships.

The problem here is that she didn't create a theory to fit the data. By her own statement, she started with an assumption that she developed at a gay pride parade and it appears that she looked at data selectively to develop a theory that matches her assumptions. This is where we get to the true reasons as to why she thinks this is important.

It seems fortuitous that your book is coming out as the rest of the nation is discussing gay marriage -- how do you think it will affect the debate?

I don't know if my book can have any impact on the gay-marriage debate in this country. I hope so. It depends in part how many people have already made up their mind versus how many people are still looking into the matter. My book does show that many of the claims from the anti-gay agenda are simply mistaken -- that homosexuality is unnatural or that homosexuality is recent. My book also considers both gender and sexuality expression in the Bible, and shows how affirming the Bible is for variation in these human dimensions. The belief that the Bible somehow condemns homosexuality across the board is simply false, and the Bible positively affirms transgender expression, in both Hebrew and Christian testaments. So, if people are interested in learning more, then the book has lots to offer. I hope reading the book is a liberating and empowering experience for each reader, and that this experience translates into better social policy than we now have.

I'll definitely have to look this book up. If that's all the book is about and doesn't have dozens of citations to studies to back up her theories, then she has little credibility. Until then, I can't pass much judgement about the content of the book.

Most importantly, however, I think this highlights something of equal importance. From what I can tell, what Joan is doing is conducting a wholescale revision of Darwinist theory, for the simple reason that many things about it are against her principles. Stephen Jay Gould tried to do this in order to convert the theory to support his Marxist principles. I hope we are not again seeing another chapter of this.

Sorry about the long post, and feel free to post lots and lots of comments.