Natural Selection and Homosexuality

[Satchmopants]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?

[sjgog]

You can't choose whether you're gay or not.

People should not be discriminated against for anything that does no harm to unconsenting adults.

[Satchmopants]

You can't choose whether you're gay or not.

People should not be discriminated against for anything that does no harm to unconsenting adults.

Then you believe homosexuals to be inferiour, genetically or otherwise, to heterosexuals?

[sjgog]

Then you believe homosexuals to be inferiour, genetically or otherwise, to heterosexuals?

No.

[Satchmopants]

No.

So then may I ask if you do not believe in evolution?

[markd]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?You make a large leap and assumption in your second paragraph.There is no "inferior" nor "superior" in evolution.

[coodaddy]

I guess bi sexuals are the highest form of evolution.

There's no such thing as a Bi-Sexual Male. Nice handle, BTW, backwards-Satan. Welcome to the forums. :evil::hug:

[ShinGouki]

There's no such thing as a Bi-Sexual Male. Nice handle, BTW, backwards-Satan. Welcome to the forums. :evil::hug:

Not entirely true. I know a bisexual guy. He has sex with guys and girls all the time.

[DLaw911]

The fact that homosexuals have outlasted inquisitions, murder, bashings, discrimination, denial of health care, denial of housing and employment ..... I can only conclude they are SUPERIOR to heterosexuals.

And they definitely throw better parties.

[markd]

And they definitely throw better parties.Absolutely true.

[coodaddy]

Not entirely true. I know a bisexual guy. He has sex with guys and girls all the time.

Well, being a conservative white male, where I come from once you put another guys' equipment 'you know where', you're just a ***.

[markd]

Well, being a conservative white male, where I come from once you put another guys' equipment 'you know where', you're just a ***.Unless of course you also have intercourse with women which, by definition, makes you bisexual.

[bitterclingerincalif]

The fact that homosexuals have outlasted inquisitions, murder, bashings, discrimination, denial of health care, denial of housing and employment ..... I can only conclude they are SUPERIOR to heterosexuals.

And they definitely throw better parties.

Gay men are also the best girl friends any woman can ever have. Some of my best friends are gay, they have been more understanding of my problems than many of my female contemporaries.

But I don't see gays being discriminated. Walk a mile in my shoes and see what discrimination really is. I don't see how not allowing gay marriage is discrimination. There are remedies to the situation, and forcing government to define what is marriage is not a remedy. Not sure what the answer is, but what I see especially in the movement here in California is the gay community are nothing more than petulent children who will cause a fuss at the store until they get their way.

[gdoane]

Evolution doesn't choose anything but the lowest common denominator.

Take for example the fact that smart people don't breed at even the replacement rate of 2.1 children. The smarter people are, the fewer children they'll have. Morons like Octomom will flat out have 16 kids no problem, but anybody smart enough to be President almost never has more than two kids on purpose.

[Andrew_980]

Just remember that evolution has favored the cockroach over thousands of other species, most likely to include us.

[sjgog]

I think bi-sexuals are superior, because if one gender annoys them, they can just screw the other.

[captusa]

Then you believe homosexuals to be inferiour, genetically or otherwise, to heterosexuals?

Some homosexuals are superior to some heterosexuals and some heterosexuals are superior to some homosexuals.
Homosexuals have different sexual preferences than heterosexuals.
There are no other general differences.

[captusa]

Well, being a conservative white male, where I come from once you put another guys' equipment 'you know where', you're just a ***.

What about when you put your equipment you know where ?

Since Errol Flynn was a notorious bisexual, "In like Flynn" might have different meanings than originally intended.

[captusa]

Gay men are also the best girl friends any woman can ever have. Some of my best friends are gay, they have been more understanding of my problems than many of my female contemporaries.

But I don't see gays being discriminated. Walk a mile in my shoes and see what discrimination really is. I don't see how not allowing gay marriage is discrimination. There are remedies to the situation, and forcing government to define what is marriage is not a remedy. Not sure what the answer is, but what I see especially in the movement here in California is the gay community are nothing more than petulent children who will cause a fuss at the store until they get their way.

An extremely large percentage of homosexuals are not and care not to be part of any "movement".

[captusa]

There's no such thing as a Bi-Sexual Male. Nice handle, BTW, backwards-Satan. Welcome to the forums. :evil::hug:

Where did you get that idea ?

[sircharliebrown]

I think bi-sexuals are superior, because if one gender annoys them, they can just screw the other.

:))

[sircharliebrown]

Well, being a conservative white male, where I come from once you put another guys' equipment 'you know where', you're just a ***.

So does that mean if you, as a guy, put your equipment in a gal's "you know where", you're just a *****? (female part)

Couldn't resist

[coodaddy]

So does that mean if you, as a guy, put your equipment in a gal's "you know where", you're just a *****? (female part)

Couldn't resist

Nope. You're normal. You're pro-creating. You're continuing the human race. It's designed to go 'there'. You know, common-sense stuff.

[sircharliebrown]

Nope. You're normal. You're pro-creating. You're continuing the human race. It's designed to go 'there'. You know, common-sense stuff.

It was a joke.

:rolleyes:

[AeroEngineer]

Evolution doesn't choose anything but the lowest common denominator.

Take for example the fact that smart people don't breed at even the replacement rate of 2.1 children. The smarter people are, the fewer children they'll have. Morons like Octomom will flat out have 16 kids no problem, but anybody smart enough to be President almost never has more than two kids on purpose.

Ever see the movie Idiocracy?

Scary thought!

[captusa]

Nope. You're normal. You're pro-creating. You're continuing the human race. It's designed to go 'there'. You know, common-sense stuff.

By your definition if I use a condom or have had a vasectomy or my partner is on the pill or my partner is past menopause, would not consider me "normal" because I would not be procreating ?

[Samm]

I think bi-sexuals are superior, because if one gender annoys them, they can just screw the other.

... and it doubles your chances for getting a date. ;)

[DLaw911]

......But I don't see gays being discriminated. Walk a mile in my shoes and see what discrimination really is. I don't see how not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.When the law DENIES a license to an identifiable group of people, that is discrimination per se. The only issue, the one that matters, is whether the State has a compelling interest by having this discrimination in the law.

For example, 5 year olds can't get marriage licenses. That is discrimination. But the state has a compelling purpose in denying the licenses.
There are remedies to the situation, and forcing government to define what is marriage is not a remedy. Not sure what the answer is, but what I see especially in the movement here in California is the gay community are nothing more than petulent children who will cause a fuss at the store until they get their way.Maybe it seems like a fuss but to those seeking legalization of same sex marriage it's a lot more than that.

[Andrew_980]

There remains no logic outside of religious bigotry to deny gay marriage.

[Drawz]

There remains no logic outside of religious bigotry to deny gay marriage.

Well, it's also icky. ;)

[Antrel]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?Homosexuals are no more "inferiour" to heterosexuals as people born with six fingers on a hand are inferior to those born with five. Obviously they're different, but that's no indicator of natural quality. But let's take the racial analogy further. For the sake of argument, I'll cede to you that homosexuality is a choice, as I believe it is in some situations. Perhaps more relative would be the fact that being black in and of itself brings no harm to anybody, just as being homosexual does not.

The "lack of choice" argument, even if completely true, is a detraction from the argument of the freedom to simply act as we please so long as it harms nobody else, whether or not the circumstances are of our choosing.

[Kate1214]

I'm a little confused because the above paragraph (which highlights what this thread is about) gives two very rigid options. Personally I'm a center-right green libertarian, if you consider such a thing possible, but if homosexuality is a choice (which I don't think it is) people would be spending their adult lives living a lie and missing out on falling in love and more easily being able to raise a family with a partner and children. Society and biology combine to add extra challenges in marriage-and-parenthood-attaining to gay couples, and these are things that most people want, regardless of orientation.
So why would you spend your life faking it just to a prove a point that you knew you really couldn't?

Secondly, if homosexuality is not a choice (and I don't believe it is) but is rather ruled by genetic, biological, mutative, hormonal, environmental, psychological and/or other factors, all it would be in and of itself would be an atypical characteristic, something that is not necessarily conducive to inferiority.

If you adhere to the introductory paragraph, anyone who is gay is definitely only wasting their life just faking desires on how to spend it, or is inherently a lesser person, when in fact, you could look at it in several spiritual or even scientific lights as potentially "there for a purpose". For example, the Abrahamic religions teach that God created people to add love to the blank void he made into the universe...gay couples can be as "in love" as any couple and contribute to their communities. Scientifically, couples who can't reproduce help slow overpopulation (reminder that homosexuality has recently been seen in several non-human species) and in the case of gay couples, give homes to children who need them.

[coodaddy]

By your definition if I use a condom or have had a vasectomy or my partner is on the pill or my partner is past menopause, would not consider me "normal" because I would not be procreating ?

You see, this is a perfect example of why we, as a society, are in the predicament we are in. You are taking something I said, extrapolating it to Nth degree, and all I am stating is basic, logical reasoning why we are here on this planet.

[coodaddy]

It was a joke.

:rolleyes:

sorry, didn't pick up on your sarcasm.

[captusa]

You see, this is a perfect example of why we, as a society, are in the predicament we are in. You are taking something I said, extrapolating it to Nth degree, and all I am stating is basic, logical reasoning why we are here on this planet.

Some people think that there are other reasons to be on this planet besides procreating but you are entitled to your opinion.

Also homosexuals have been in the population for as long as history has been recorded.
Even after the plague when the survival of the human population WAS in danger, homosexuals remained a part of the population. The fact that homosexuals existed and still exist means they are "natural".

[Satchmopants]

The fact that homosexuals have outlasted inquisitions, murder, bashings, discrimination, denial of health care, denial of housing and employment ..... I can only conclude they are SUPERIOR to heterosexuals.

And they definitely throw better parties.

If this is true then why do evolutionary forces not want them to procreate?

[Satchmopants]

Some people think that there are other reasons to be on this planet besides procreating but you are entitled to your opinion.

Also homosexuals have been in the population for as long as history has been recorded.
Even after the plague when the survival of the human population WAS in danger, homosexuals remained a part of the population. The fact that homosexuals existed and still exist means they are "natural".






Actually it proves no such thing. Murder has also been a part of the human experiece thoughout history. By your logic that would seem to indicate that murder is also natural.

[captusa]

You see, this is a perfect example of why we, as a society, are in the predicament we are in. You are taking something I said, extrapolating it to Nth degree, and all I am stating is basic, logical reasoning why we are here on this planet.

Originally Posted by coodaddy
Nope. You're normal. You're pro-creating. You're continuing the human race. It's designed to go 'there'. You know, common-sense stuff.
So because I pointed out a falacy in your statement, we, as a society, for the predicament we are in.

I hereby apologize to we, as a society, are in the predicament we are in.

[Satchmopants]

Homosexuals are no more "inferiour" to heterosexuals as people born with six fingers on a hand are inferior to those born with five. Obviously they're different, but that's no indicator of natural quality. But let's take the racial analogy further. For the sake of argument, I'll cede to you that homosexuality is a choice, as I believe it is in some situations. Perhaps more relative would be the fact that being black in and of itself brings no harm to anybody, just as being homosexual does not.

The "lack of choice" argument, even if completely true, is a detraction from the argument of the freedom to simply act as we please so long as it harms nobody else, whether or not the circumstances are of our choosing.

I can see people are getting hung up on the wording I have used.

The point is that there is some reason, if homosexuality is innate, that the evolutionary forces seem to not want the traits of homosexuals to carry on to the next generation.

As for the inability of some heterosexual couples to procreate, this is an exception to the rule of heterosexuality. Whereas the inability of homosexuals to procreat, within the confines of the homosexual relationship, is the norm.

[Drawz]

I can see people are getting hung up on the wording I have used.

The point is that there is some reason, if homosexuality is innate, that the evolutionary forces seem to not want the traits of homosexuals to carry on to the next generation.

As for the inability of some heterosexual couples to procreate, this is an exception to the rule of heterosexuality. Whereas the inability of homosexuals to procreat, within the confines of the homosexual relationship, is the norm.

The obvious flaw in your arguement is that heterosexual couples keep producing homosexual offspring.

[GeorgiaLibertarian]

While the homosexual community would like it to be true that nature and not nurture dictates their choice a growing body of evidence points to another possibility. Consider this: Some years ago some researchers were examining the mating behavior of monkeys. They introduced a male monkey which had been raised by himself (and thus had no sexual training) to a group of sexually experienced females. The result? The untrained male failed to breed. He simply could not make it work. Another example: there was a human female some years back who had been horribly abused as a child. This young woman simply had been locked in a room and fed scraps which were thrown to her. She did not , throughout the younger years of her life, receive any human interaction. The result? She could not speak (used only grunts and screeches), could not walk, could not engage in any normal human activity. It took years of training for her to do these simple things.


We humans, like many other animals, are not born understanding sexual behavior. We learn it (along with our other behaviors) usually from our peers, parents, and other sources, This learning is through modeling, direct instruction, or Pavlovian conditioning. Could this be why millions of years of selective breeding has not extinguished homosexuality? Perhaps natural selection has difficulty extinguishing learned cultural traits.

[Satchmopants]

The obvious flaw in your arguement is that heterosexual couples keep producing homosexual offspring.

But the evolutionary forces seem to not want these humans to procreate. IF homosexuality is innate.

[Drawz]

But the evolutionary forces seem to not want these humans to procreate. IF homosexuality is innate.

Way to avoid the point of my post!
Btw, what are these "evolutionary forces" that "want" something?

[CaptainPike]

Way to avoid the point of my post!
Btw, what are these "evolutionary forces" that "want" something?

If evolution is true, someone somewhere else must be making some decisions. Or the species experiencing changes must know something about what's going on.

You don't just go from monkey to human by accident.

[Drawz]

If evolution is true, someone somewhere else must be making some decisions. Or the species experiencing changes must know something about what's going on.

You don't just go from monkey to human by accident.

Wow, really, wow. I've seen a lot of ignorance on this board. But this may just take the cake.
If that's even close to how you think the theory of evolution says life develops then you need to do some serious study before you can credibly post on the subject.

[neoINDIE]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?

Another question:

Who tends to reproduce faster, smart people or dumb people?

[neoINDIE]

While the homosexual community would like it to be true that nature and not nurture dictates their choice a growing body of evidence points to another possibility. Consider this: Some years ago some researchers were examining the mating behavior of monkeys. They introduced a male monkey which had been raised by himself (and thus had no sexual training) to a group of sexually experienced females. The result? The untrained male failed to breed. He simply could not make it work. Another example: there was a human female some years back who had been horribly abused as a child. This young woman simply had been locked in a room and fed scraps which were thrown to her. She did not , throughout the younger years of her life, receive any human interaction. The result? She could not speak (used only grunts and screeches), could not walk, could not engage in any normal human activity. It took years of training for her to do these simple things.


We humans, like many other animals, are not born understanding sexual behavior. We learn it (along with our other behaviors) usually from our peers, parents, and other sources, This learning is through modeling, direct instruction, or Pavlovian conditioning. Could this be why millions of years of selective breeding has not extinguished homosexuality? Perhaps natural selection has difficulty extinguishing learned cultural traits.

How do you explain a female who is raised in a Catholic household where everyone is straight turning out gay?

Sorry, you just don't see many babies raising themselves in isolation.

[captusa]

Another question:

Who tends to reproduce faster, smart people or dumb people?

Survival pressures are different than they were a few hundred thousand years.
Obviously people who would not have survived or procreated then can and will procreate now.

[badkarma]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?
In order for your genetically inferior argument to stand up you must assume that there is not an evolutionary plus to having a certain segment of your population being homosexual. For example, a family may prosper if it has more people to take care of children while those people are not themselves procreating, or have people provide food without having any other mouths to feed than there own.

Why do you assume genetic inferiority simply because people are attracted to the same sex?

[Tom Kalbfus]

In order for your genetically inferior argument to stand up you must assume that there is not an evolutionary plus to having a certain segment of your population being homosexual. For example, a family may prosper if it has more people to take care of children while those people are not themselves procreating, or have people provide food without having any other mouths to feed than there own.

Why do you assume genetic inferiority simply because people are attracted to the same sex?
"mouths to feed" also come with hands and arms to work. The homosexual community is rather unique in that they rely of people outside their group to produce more of their kind.

Now what happens if people outside of that group find a way through medical intervention, to not produce any more homosexual children? Would that be considered a form of genocide? Would homosexuals be screaming "bloody murder" if couples find a way to ensure that their children are not homosexual? Perhaps hormone treatment would do the trick, or genetic engineering. That is of course if homosexuality is innate.

[badkarma]

"mouths to feed" also come with hands and arms to work.
well yes, that was the entire point. A gay man can do the exact same amount of work as a straight man but he has no children to feed hence he takes less that the straight man does. That is a net gain to the community.
The homosexual community is rather unique in that they rely of people outside their group to produce more of their kind.
Go put a hundred mules in a pen, see how many new ones get born.
Now what happens if people outside of that group find a way through medical intervention, to not produce any more homosexual children? Would that be considered a form of genocide? Would homosexuals be screaming "bloody murder" if couples find a way to ensure that their children are not homosexual? Perhaps hormone treatment would do the trick, or genetic engineering. That is of course if homosexuality is innate.
in that situation I would not particularly care what homosexuals thought about a perfectly legal thing being done that does not involve them in the least. This is, of course, pretty consistent with my views on homosexual marriage.

[Greyclouds]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?

Sadly, evolutionary biology has gotten FAR more complex since the time of Darwin!

Take, for instance, ants. The majority of an ant colony cannot reproduce due to the lack of sexual organs. However, ants are QUITE successful insects and comprise a large percentage of biomass of all eukarotic species on this planet!

This is not to say that homosexuals are the equivalent to "ant drones" but that they serve evolutionary purposes within our society without directly reproducing. Namely a social purpose.

Take a look at many great human societies, and you find some forms of homosexuality. Even in our mostly "hetero" conservative cultures, we still have "guy's night out" and other forms of male bonding. There are also cases of female bonding events, and lesbianism is actually celebrated by men as a (mostly) sexually attractive situation. Slight physiological alterations to the emotional pathways that cause attraction to another human being can result in sexual homosexual behavior (mostly in the amygdala of the brain). This actually benefits society by forcing same-sex individuals to band together for common causes, since release of hormones in response to sex causes pair-bonding.

All one has to do is recall the 300 Spartans who stood at Thermopylae and held back the Persian army to witness the potency of homosexual sexual behavior, as many of the members of that phalanx were most likely sexually involved (though our culture tends not to recall that fact of agoge...).


But to different cultures, different things... Humans have been placing restrictions on themselves for as long as they've existed as social animals. It's a facet of our days as a tribal species that have survived to the modern era.

[Greyclouds]

Evolution doesn't choose anything but the lowest common denominator.

Take for example the fact that smart people don't breed at even the replacement rate of 2.1 children. The smarter people are, the fewer children they'll have. Morons like Octomom will flat out have 16 kids no problem, but anybody smart enough to be President almost never has more than two kids on purpose.

Intelligence is not a Mendelian character.

What that means: two smart people have much the same chance of reproducing a child with mental challenges as two lower-IQ people. Also, childhood experiences (and education) play a huge role in intellect.

The brain's physiology is not simply a genetic factor... so thankfully, Idiocracy won't exist unless we cull all of our teachers/libraries/universities.

[Greyclouds]

If evolution is true, someone somewhere else must be making some decisions. Or the species experiencing changes must know something about what's going on.

You don't just go from monkey to human by accident.

Then that person isn't very bright...

RuBisCo is perhaps the most overproduced protein on the planet; primarily because it is SO inefficient at its job (fix CO2 in photosynthesis) as to NEED to be overproduced to work! Scientists have already identified a way to make the enzyme MORE efficient, thereby requiring LESS of it to work!

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Satchmopants
The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

.........
However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?
There is a large group of people who wish to have a long continuing relationships with members of the same gender.
Those loving couples are discriminated against by being denied rights and protections that married hetero couples have.
The most signifigant occur when one of the same sex couple is sick, infirmed, dying or dead.
Relatives can legally usurp the rights of one of the couple.
Of what consequence is the reason why different people have different gender preferences ?

[Satchmopants]

Way to avoid the point of my post!
Btw, what are these "evolutionary forces" that "want" something?

Gee, excuse me for staying on the topic of the opening post.

Evolution seeks to best insure the survival of a species through natural selection meaning that mates will become joined, according to the theory of evolution, when they can insure the maximum potential for the survival of the species.
The theory of innate homosexuality word appear to be working against this as there is no possible way that homosexuals can procreate within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

[Satchmopants]

There is a large group of people who wish to have a long continuing relationships with members of the same gender.
Those loving couples are discriminated against by being denied rights and protections that married hetero couples have.
The most signifigant occur when one of the same sex couple is sick, infirmed, dying or dead.
Relatives can legally usurp the rights of one of the couple.
Of what consequence is the reason why different people have different gender preferences ?

The difference is that heterosexuality moves towards the evolutionary ends of insuring the survival of the species while homosexuality does not. In fact the arguement can and is being made that homosexuality works against the survival of the species.

[Drawz]

Gee, excuse me for staying on the topic of the opening post.

Evolution seeks to best insure the survival of a species through natural selection meaning that mates will become joined, according to the theory of evolution, when they can insure the maximum potential for the survival of the species.
The theory of evolution doesn't seek anything. And nowhere does that theory state that mating will occur when it assures the maximum potential for survival of the species.

[Satchmopants]

In order for your genetically inferior argument to stand up you must assume that there is not an evolutionary plus to having a certain segment of your population being homosexual. For example, a family may prosper if it has more people to take care of children while those people are not themselves procreating, or have people provide food without having any other mouths to feed than there own.

Why do you assume genetic inferiority simply because people are attracted to the same sex?

I do not and perhaps inferiority was a poor choice of words. My point is that IF evolution is correct and IF homosexuality is innate then there must be some reason why homosexuality is working against the survival of the species. Likewise if the evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest is in play then homosexuals must therefore by definition be outside the group of "the fittest" .

[Satchmopants]

The theory of evolution doesn't seek anything. And nowhere does that theory state that mating will occur when it assures the maximum potential for survival of the species.

Oh really? Have you ever heard the terms "Natural Selection", or maybe "Survival of the fittest?

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

http://www.answers.com/topic/survival-of-the-fittest

[Drawz]

Oh really? Have you ever heard the terms "Natural Selection", or maybe "Survival of the fittest?

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

http://www.answers.com/topic/survival-of-the-fittest

Yes really. Yes I have and yes I have.

[Satchmopants]

Yes really. Yes I have and yes I have.

Then you must just be attempting intentional obtuseness as both of these evolutionary forces seek to insure that only the best survive.

So once again I ask. If evolution is correct and IF homosexuality is innate, what is it about homosexuals that they seem to be working against the survival of the species?

[Drawz]

Then you must just be attempting intentional obtuseness as both of these evolutionary forces seek to insure that only the best survive.

So once again I ask. If evolution is correct and IF homosexuality is innate, what is it about homosexuals that they seem to be working against the survival of the species?

Nope, not being obtuse. Evolution theory doesn't seek anything.

Reread your question, it doesn't make sense.

Edit: Let me be more specific, evolution is not a goal it's a result.

[captusa]

The difference is that heterosexuality moves towards the evolutionary ends of insuring the survival of the species while homosexuality does not. In fact the arguement can and is being made that homosexuality works against the survival of the species.

The arguement can be made but the fact that there always have been homosexuals.

Whatever effect homosexuality has and have had on human evolution does not seem to prevented the the survival of homo sapiens and after close to a million years of homonid evolution homo sapiens have survived and some of them are still homosexual.

[captusa]

Nope, not being obtuse. Evolution theory doesn't seek anything.

Reread your question, it doesn't make sense.

Edit: Let me be more specific, evolution is not a goal it's a result.

If I might add, evolution is what has happened not what might have happened or what should have happened.

[Satchmopants]

The arguement can be made but the fact that there always have been homosexuals.

Whatever effect homosexuality has and have had on human evolution does not seem to prevented the the survival of homo sapiens and after close to a million years of homonid evolution homo sapiens have survived and some of them are still homosexual.

And there have also always been murderers, and theives. What is your point.

And as I said, If evolution is true and IF homosexuality is innate, there must be some reason why evolution does not want these people to survive.

[Satchmopants]

Nope, not being obtuse. Evolution theory doesn't seek anything.

Reread your question, it doesn't make sense.

Edit: Let me be more specific, evolution is not a goal it's a result.

I Disagree. Evolution is a process and IF you believe in evolution you must believe that it is still in motion.

[Drawz]

And there have also always been murderers, and theives. What is your point.

And as I said, If evolution is true and IF homosexuality is innate, there must be some reason why evolution does not want these people to survive.

Evolution does not want anything!

Here's a term you should familiarize yourself with:
Main Entry:
an·thro·po·mor·phism
Pronunciation:
\-ˌfi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1753
: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization

[Drawz]

I Disagree. Evolution is a process and IF you believe in evolution you must believe that it is still in motion.

Yes it is a process and yes it is still happening. And that process is a result of various circumstances: enviornment, mutation, etc.
Evolution does not seek anything it does not want anything.

[Satchmopants]

Yes it is a process and yes it is still happening. And that process is a result of various circumstances: enviornment, mutation, etc.
Evolution does not seek anything it does not want anything.

Again I must refer back to the definitions of....

Natural Selection

and

Survival of the fittest

[captusa]

And there have also always been murderers, and theives. What is your point.

And as I said, If evolution is true and IF homosexuality is innate, there must be some reason why evolution does not want these people to survive.

Evolution does not have a will.
Evolution does not have an aim or desire.

Now if you don't believe in evolution and you believe humanity is the result of an intentional purposeful creation by a Deity, then ask that Deity why he keeps making homosexuals.

[Satchmopants]

Evolution does not have a will.
Evolution does not have an aim or desire.

Now if you don't believe in evolution and you believe humanity is the result of an intentional purposefulm creation by a Deity, then ask that Deity why he keeps making homosexuals.

Attempting to change the subject I see. Must mean you have no other way to refute what has already been said.

[Drawz]

Again I must refer back to the definitions of....

Natural Selection

and

Survival of the fittest
Neither of which challange the truth of my statement.

[Satchmopants]

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

According to the definition. Why do you suppose homosexuals are considered less adapted?

[Satchmopants]

Neither of which challange the truth of my statement.

See post 74.

[Drawz]

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

According to the definition. Why do you suppose homosexuals are considered less adapted?


:lol:
The definition you post undercuts your own arguement:
"while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."
I'm not noticing a lack of gay people over the last few thousand years. Thing is it doesn't take two gay people to make a third gay person. Straight folks keep churning them out, year after year. Your arguement is bunk.

[Drawz]

See post 74.

Eah, thing is the post of mine you were responding to was about the fact that evolution doesn't seek or want anything. Care to prove me wrong?

[Satchmopants]

:lol:
The definition you post undercuts your own arguement:
"while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."
I'm not noticing a lack of gay people over the last few thousand years. Thing is it doesn't take two gay people to make a third gay person. Straight folks keep churning them out, year after year. Your arguement is bunk.

Incorrect. As the genetics of that particular homosexual person are eliminated from humanity.

My question is why do you suppose this is?

[Satchmopants]

Eah, thing is the post of mine you were responding to was about the fact that evolution doesn't seek or want anything. Care to prove me wrong?

Nice try at redirection.

I will stay on topic thank you very much.

[captusa]

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

According to the definition. Why do you suppose homosexuals are considered less adapted?

Look around.
Quite a few homosexuals have adapted much better than I.
Also Darwin's theory was stated more than a century and a half ago and has gone through many revisions, corrections and refinements.
Fact: evolution has occurred.
Fact: homosexuality exists in many species including humans.
as was stated. Evolution is what has happened and that is what has happened.

[captusa]

Incorrect. As the genetics of that particular homosexual person are eliminated from humanity.

My question is why do you suppose this is?
The genes that produced the homosexual in question would still be present in other decendents of that homosexual.
Over the past several thousand millenia homosexuality has not been eliminated from humanity(and several other species).
That is what has occurred.
I don't know why that is but I know that IS what is.

[Drawz]

Nice try at redirection.

I will stay on topic thank you very much.

So, you make repeated posts claiming that evolution seeks or wants something, Cap and myself call those statements the nonsense that they are, then when I ask you to back up YOUR OWN statements, somehow I'm attempting redirection?

Yah. Well thanks for the discussion, I'm done with you on this topic.

[Satchmopants]

The genes that produced the homosexual in question would still be present in other decendents of that homosexual.
Over the past several thousand millenia homosexuality has not been eliminated from humanity(and several other species).
That is what has occurred.
I don't know why that is but I know that IS what is.

Incorrect again as homosexuality can produce no direct decendents. Therefore unless a homosexual steps out of the homosexual relationship the genetics of that particular homosexual will disappear from existence.

[James Juno]

Incorrect again as homosexuality can produce no direct decendents. Therefore unless a homosexual steps out of the homosexual relationship the genetics of that particular homosexual will disappear from existence.

A homosexual is therefore the product of a relationship involving at least one bisexual?

[Satchmopants]

So, you make repeated posts claiming that evolution seeks or wants something, Cap and myself call those statements the nonsense that they are, then when I ask you to back up YOUR OWN statements, somehow I'm attempting redirection?

Yah. Well thanks for the discussion, I'm done with you on this topic.

I'm sure you are as you have not yet addressed the topic of the opening post.

Excuse me for staying on topic.

[Satchmopants]

A homosexual is therefore the product of a relationship involving at least one bisexual?

Excuse me but could you show me one place in this or any other thread where I have made the claim that homosexuality is genetic.

[captusa]

Incorrect again as homosexuality can produce no direct decendents. Therefore unless a homosexual steps out of the homosexual relationship the genetics of that particular homosexual will disappear from existence.

The genes that produced the individual homosexual can be present in many of the relatives of that homosexual. Not unlike genes for characteristic that seem to appear like red-headedness.
Also homosexuality has not disappeared from existance.
That is the fact.
I do not have to explain it.

[James Juno]

Excuse me but could you show me one place in this or any other thread where I have made the claim that homosexuality is genetic.

No need to excuse yourself, I'm not making any suppositions. I asked the question based on the post to which I was responding.

If homosexuality is not genetic, what is the relevance of the genetics of a homosexual?

[James Juno]

The genes that produced the individual homosexual can be present in many of the relatives of that homosexual. Not unlike genes for characteristic that seem to appear like red-headedness.
Also homosexuality has not disappeared from existance.
That is the fact.
I do not have to explain it.

Homosexuality is therefore innocuous from an evolutionary standpoint. Freckles also appear to be of no consequence for the survival of the species.

[Mobulis]

Homosexuality is therefore innocuous from an evolutionary standpoint. Freckles also appear to be of no consequence for the survival of the species.

Just because we don't know what the purpose is does not mean there's no purpose.

[James Juno]

Just because we don't know what the purpose is does not mean there's no purpose.

I didn't claim there was no purpose. As Drawz pointed out earlier, evolution does not have a purpose.

[badkarma]

I do not and perhaps inferiority was a poor choice of words. My point is that IF evolution is correct and IF homosexuality is innate then there must be some reason why homosexuality is working against the survival of the species.
But homosexuality is not working against the survival of the species. Simply because they fail to reproduce is not analogous to homosexuals not being beneficial to the species as a whole.
Likewise if the evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest is in play then homosexuals must therefore by definition be outside the group of "the fittest" .
As I said in my previous post, it is possible that having a homosexual contingent in your community that provides more food and/or services than they consume is a net gain for the community.

keep in mind, I am not offering this as a definitive solution for why homosexuals are an evolutionary benefit, I am simply saying that you can not simply assume that they are "outside the group of the fittest" simply because they do not reproduce.

[birddog1]

Evolution doesn't choose anything but the lowest common denominator.

Take for example the fact that smart people don't breed at even the replacement rate of 2.1 children. The smarter people are, the fewer children they'll have. Morons like Octomom will flat out have 16 kids no problem, but anybody smart enough to be President almost never has more than two kids on purpose.

Stupid people outbreeding the rest of the population isn't due to the effects of evolution but rather us screwing with natural selection. For example folks like Octomom would either make better choices or quickly starve to death if it was not for our screwed up social programs.

[brouski]

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

According to the definition. Why do you suppose homosexuals are considered less adapted?

There's your problem. Your arguments are based on simplistic and antiquated notions of evolutionary theory.

[Voxpopuli]

Would anyone care for a slice of a presumptive fallacy?

[Drawz]

Would anyone care for a slice of a presumptive fallacy?

I'll have mine with a scoop of willfull ignorance.

[Greyclouds]

Incorrect. As the genetics of that particular homosexual person are eliminated from humanity.

My question is why do you suppose this is?

Oh boy...


OK, do you have completely unique genes from the rest of your relatives? If you do... well... you weren't related in the first place! Haplotypes and alleles are passed vertically down your parents' lineage. In English: you came from a "gene pool" shared by all of your father's and mother's lineage.

Secondly, epigenetics (influences outside of straight genotype that result in your phenotype) could also cause homosexuality in a physiological way.

It's alot more complicated than you're making it out to be...

[Apatriot]

You can't choose whether you're gay or not.

People should not be discriminated against for anything that does no harm to unconsenting adults.

At this time, research is inconclusive about the causes of homosexuality. However, I doubt very much that it is genetic (that doesn't mean that it's not biological, though).

[Apatriot]

Some people think that there are other reasons to be on this planet besides procreating but you are entitled to your opinion.

Also homosexuals have been in the population for as long as history has been recorded.
Even after the plague when the survival of the human population WAS in danger, homosexuals remained a part of the population. The fact that homosexuals existed and still exist means they are "natural".






Yes, but natural does not mean always mean good. Schizophrenics are also "natural."

[Apatriot]

Intelligence is not a Mendelian character.

What that means: two smart people have much the same chance of reproducing a child with mental challenges as two lower-IQ people. Also, childhood experiences (and education) play a huge role in intellect.

The brain's physiology is not simply a genetic factor... so thankfully, Idiocracy won't exist unless we cull all of our teachers/libraries/universities.


That, and while it is true that more educated people are having fewer children, the average IQ in most of the industrialized world (including the U.S.) is going up. Idiocracy was a funny movie, but it was in no way prophetic.

[Apatriot]

:lol:
The definition you post undercuts your own arguement:
"while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."
I'm not noticing a lack of gay people over the last few thousand years. Thing is it doesn't take two gay people to make a third gay person. Straight folks keep churning them out, year after year. Your arguement is bunk.

Not really. (BTW, I don't think homosexuality is genetic, I think it's environmental, like handedness, but for the sake of argument...).

Healthy people produce children with cystic fibrosis. It doesn't take two CF people to make a CF child. (until recently (last 50 yrs or so), CF people rarely survived to puberty). CF is clearly genetic, yet it didn't die out, despite the fact that non CF people keep churning them out every year.

[Satchmopants]

Just to clear the air I wish to let it be known that I believe neither evolution nor innate homosexuality to be true.

[captusa]

Yes, but natural does not mean always mean good. Schizophrenics are also "natural."

I did not say natural was good.
I was pointing out that the propagation of homosexuals was not counter evolution since they are still being propagated and homo sapians are still prospering on this planet.

[captusa]

Just to clear the air I wish to let it be known that I believe neither evolution nor innate homosexuality to be true.

Fortunately or unfortunately there is overwhelming evidence that you are mistaken but I know your opinions will not be confused by facts.

[captusa]

Not really. (BTW, I don't think homosexuality is genetic, I think it's environmental, like handedness, but for the sake of argument...).
.......


Are you aying that you believe right or left handedness is enviromental and not genetic ?

[Wake-Up]

Not really. (BTW, I don't think homosexuality is genetic, I think it's environmental, like handedness, but for the sake of argument...).

Healthy people produce children with cystic fibrosis. It doesn't take two CF people to make a CF child. (until recently (last 50 yrs or so), CF people rarely survived to puberty). CF is clearly genetic, yet it didn't die out, despite the fact that non CF people keep churning them out every year.

Do yourself a favor and learn something about genetics.

It in fact takes two autosomal recessive gene parents to have a child with CF.

The life expectancy of CF has nothing to do with the genetic make up of the disease but advances in the treatment of the symptoms including better antibiotics, pancreatic enzymes, physical therapy, dietary support and earlier diagnosis.

Sure glad you have this right/left handed thing, CF, and homosexuality thing all figured out.

[Satchmopants]

Fortunately or unfortunately there is overwhelming evidence that you are mistaken but I know your opinions will not be confused by facts.

Such as.........................

[Satchmopants]

So I ask for proof that evolution or innate homosexuality is true and 24 hours later still no reply from those who claimed they had the "facts" about them.

Guess there is my answer. LOL!

[captusa]

So I ask for proof that evolution or innate homosexuality is true and 24 hours later still no reply from those who claimed they had the "facts" about them.

Guess there is my answer. LOL!

I can't teach the world elementary school biology.
Take a few courses and visit the Museum of Natural History.

BTW I did not say there was proof.
I said there was overwhelming evidence.
There is no absolute proof in science.

[Satchmopants]

I can't teach the world elementary school biology.
Take a few courses and visit the Museum of Natural History.

BTW I did not say there was proof.
I said there was overwhelming evidence.
There is no absolute proof in science.




Excuses excuses. No one asked you to teach the world. All I asked for was some of these "facts" you were all fired up to present. How amusing that when called to present them. You make up excuses.

As for schooling. You have absolutly no idea what my education level is. So I would suggest you put your condesention card away.

But the fact that you can't present any facts only goes to show that your entire arguement in this thread was worthless.

[Gabby]

well yes, that was the entire point. A gay man can do the exact same amount of work as a straight man but he has no children to feed hence he takes less that the straight man does. That is a net gain to the community.
It’s a net gain to the community only in the moment. The gay man also produces no offspring, so he does not participate in creating the next generation. It is the next generation that takes care of the gay man and his contemporaries when they are old. It is the next generation that carries on the civilization.
Go put a hundred mules in a pen, see how many new ones get born.
How many new ones get born?

[Gabby]

But homosexuality is not working against the survival of the species. Simply because they fail to reproduce is not analogous to homosexuals not being beneficial to the species as a whole. In a society where the community shares its output, yes homosexuals, or childless, persons produce more than they consume. The overage is shared by the community. In a society like ours, no one benefits from a single person’s production except the single person themselves.
As I said in my previous post, it is possible that having a homosexual contingent in your community that provides more food and/or services than they consume is a net gain for the community. Again this model does not work in our society today. The homosexual’s (or any single person’s) net gain goes into their own checking and savings accounts. None of it goes into my accounts to help me support my family of 5.
keep in mind, I am not offering this as a definitive solution for why homosexuals are an evolutionary benefit, I am simply saying that you cannot simply assume that they are "outside the group of the fittest" simply because they do not reproduce. I agree that in some societal forms this might make sense. Non-breeding members can add much needed labor to help raise the society’s children, take care of the sick, elderly, etc.

And example of how this has worked in the past is the basis for our current adoption laws.

Couples who could not have babies took in the babies that were rejected by their birth parents. This way, the non-reproducing couples contributed to the society by raising as their own the abandoned babies. Our adoption laws are an outgrowth of this.. creating a legal fiction that gives the children the same inheritance rights as a child born from that couple.

[captusa]

Excuses excuses. No one asked you to teach the world. All I asked for was some of these "facts" you were all fired up to present. How amusing that when called to present them. You make up excuses.

As for schooling. You have absolutly no idea what my education level is. So I would suggest you put your condesention card away.

But the fact that you can't present any facts only goes to show that your entire arguement in this thread was worthless.

The archeological and fossil evidence combined with comparative anatomy and DNA make up only a part of the overwhelming evidence that has convinced 99+% of the scientific community of the fact that evolution has occurred and is occuring.
I can't catalogue the entire geological history of the evolutionary record of the horse from eohippus to Secretariat in this forum.

As far as your education is concerned, I can only make conclusions from your lack of understanding of the concepts of the theory of evolution and history.
As for genetic basis for homosexuality there have been enough anecdotal evidence where persons with basically the same enviromental influences have shown evidence of different sexual orientation to strongly suggest a genetic tendency.
Add the Freudian concepts (still basically accepted)of natural latent homosexual tendencies present in everyone also stongly suggest you are mistaken.

All I said was that there is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest your opinions are mistaken.
This is true and added to the fact that next to NONE supporting them, it is highly improbable that you are correct.
There is overwhelming evidence that lacking support my body will accelerate towards the center of the earth at a rate directly proportional to product of my mass and the mass of the earth divided by the square of the distances between our centers of mass.
I can't prove this but I will accept this theory over someone suggest that it is caused by a Deity selecting what he wishes to pull down or some form of intelligent falling.
The level of certainty of evolution over some other explaination is at the same level as that of the theory of gravity (as it pertains to large bodies)

[flowercopter]

Incorrect again as homosexuality can produce no direct decendents. Therefore unless a homosexual steps out of the homosexual relationship the genetics of that particular homosexual will disappear from existence.

If a gay person has no kids, they don't have direct decendents. [Direct Decendents share 1/2 of your genes] But they do have siblings [Siblings share 1/2 your genes, as far as Natural Selection is "concerned" siblings and kids are the same. In other words, saving your sister's life is about the same as saving your kid's life, saving your niece's is the same as saving your grandchild's]

so if childless gay men or women have a tendency to help out their siblings, and their nieces and nephews, guess what? they have just enhanced the fitness of their own genes. no direct decendents are not needed.

[dbs944]

A couple of points

My neighbors are lesbians. One was married before, could have but didn't have any children. The other would love to have a child but so far hasn't. (BTW, they are great neighbors and strong contributors to their neighborhood and city - and throw great parties)

There are also no doubt many, many homosexuals who hide it, get married and have offspring.

I've heard tell that most people have some homosexual tendancies, even if they deny it to themselves. There has been recent news of ardent anti-homosexuals actually engaging in homosexual activities (wasn't Senator Craig very anti?).

No shortage of ways to distribute the genes.

[Greyclouds]

So I ask for proof that evolution or innate homosexuality is true and 24 hours later still no reply from those who claimed they had the "facts" about them.

Guess there is my answer. LOL!

Evolution is not "true," rather it is an incredibly WELL-SUPPORTED scientific theory. Here are some of the physical phenomena that support Evolutionary theory:

1. Nucleotide tautomerisms
2. Allelic variance in populations
3. Sexual recombination
4. Phenotypic variance off of polymorphisms
5. Fossil Record
6. Universal Codon Table for all living organisms
7. Mitochondria
8. Chloroplasts
9. Mobile Genetic Elements
10. Genotypic similarity between living species
11. Symbioses
12. and many many more.

If you do not understand the terminology, I'd be happy to explain some of it to you in detail. I must use terminology in this case to illustrate my point, or my post will become way too long to read.


Innate homosexuality also has some phenotypic support; albeit it is very prone to be caused by many variables:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18768725?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559854?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

So, the brain is different in hetero and homosexual men. In fact, the homosexual amygdala mirrors an aspect ratio similar to that found in heterosexual females.

[Marleysdaddy]

Evolution doesn't choose anything but the lowest common denominator.

Take for example the fact that smart people don't breed at even the replacement rate of 2.1 children. The smarter people are, the fewer children they'll have. Morons like Octomom will flat out have 16 kids no problem, but anybody smart enough to be President almost never has more than two kids on purpose.

You have it backwards...natural selection would select against Octomom...human pity, combined with ever-increasing medical technology, however, is stronger than natural selection, at least in the short run.

HUMANS have enabled one female to have 16 kids which will all receive enough support to survive and develop into breeding adults themselves. Without civilization, human compassion, and technology, it would be incredibly difficult, if not flat-out impossible, for a human female to rear 16 offspring.

I have a friend who was born with his esophagus connected to his lungs and his trachea connected to his stomach. He underwent surgery to correct that when he was an hour old.

He has now passed the genes responsible for that condition to his children...technically, this negatively impacts the gene pool of Homo sapiens on this planet, but I don't know anyone who would have insisted that the doctors just let my friend die as a newborn in the interests of the gene pool as a whole.

[Marleysdaddy]

If this is true then why do evolutionary forces not want them to procreate?

evolutionary forces don't "want" anything...you're ascribing motive where there is none.

[Marleysdaddy]

If evolution is true, someone somewhere else must be making some decisions.

Interesting premise, but that is a far cry from an axiom. Could you offer some empirical support for your premise?

You don't just go from monkey to human by accident.
This is a straw man

[Marleysdaddy]

Evolution seeks to best insure the survival of a species through natural selection meaning that mates will become joined, according to the theory of evolution, when they can insure the maximum potential for the survival of the species.
Please pick up an Introduction to Biology college textbook and read the chapter on evolutionary theory


The theory of innate homosexuality word appear to be working against this as there is no possible way that homosexuals can procreate within the confines of the homosexual relationship.
But yet homosexuality is present throughout many phyla of the kingdom Animalia....hmmmmmm :think:

[Greyclouds]

evolutionary forces don't "want" anything...you're ascribing motive where there is none.

Hey! Marleysdaddy! Good to see you again!

[Marleysdaddy]

Hey! Marleysdaddy! Good to see you again!

Ditto...it has been too long. :hug:

[PhantomPholly]

evolutionary forces don't "want" anything...you're ascribing motive where there is none.

This is absolutely true - evolution "works" only because certain traits result in better survival of the species.

In the case of attraction between people, the survival trait is nothing less than procreation. Viewed as such, attraction to the same sex could be viewed as nothing more or less than the normal bell-curve variation which does not cause damage to the individual (as would be the case if one were born without for example lungs) but likewise does not improve the survival of the species.

So, if you believe that God provided the design, then homosexuality is an "error." If you do not believe in god, or your belief in god suggests that he intended evolution, then homosexuality is just variation from the survival trait. In neither case is a union between same-sex partners cause for celebration beyond the fact that they have found happiness despite variance from the norm.

As for "Gay Marriage," that argument is a fraud - it is about nothing more nor less than the monetary benefits they are trying to usurp without following the standard process of lawmaking, attempting instead a judicial "back door" to unearned benefits.

Pun intended.

[Satchmopants]

Please pick up an Introduction to Biology college textbook and read the chapter on evolutionary theory


But yet homosexuality is present throughout many phyla of the kingdom Animalia....hmmmmmm :think:


Why? I already know the theory of evolution is full of holes. Literally.

I just love it when people assume that you must be uneducated just because you don't believe what they happen to believe.

Fact is that evolution is a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. Let me add a couple of other theories that the worlds scientists have believed in.

1.) The earth being the center of the universe with all objects orbiting it.
2.) The earth being flat and if you sail to far you will drop off the edge.

Both were put forth as fact. Just as the Theory of evolution is today.



As for homosexuality being present throughout the animal kingdom. So is canibalism. Shall we also endorse that?

[Satchmopants]

Question to evolutionists.

When the first creature craweled out of the ocean, how did it breath?

[Drawz]

Why? I already know the theory of evolution is full of holes. Literally.

I just love it when people assume that you must be uneducated just because you don't believe what they happen to believe.

I just love it when people bitch about others assuming they're uneducated right after they misuse the word "literally" in reference to a figurative expression like "that theory is full of holes".

[captusa]

Question to evolutionists.

When the first creature craweled out of the ocean, how did it breath?

Mutations in the germplasm of several fish resulted in the ability to process oxygen from air.
Their ability to breath out of water allowed them to move to areas where their predators were not. (the mudskipper is a transatory evolutionary link that has survived.)
This is one case demonstrating your lack of understanding of the theory you think you oppose.

[captusa]

Why? I already know the theory of evolution is full of holes. Literally.

I just love it when people assume that you must be uneducated just because you don't believe what they happen to believe.

Fact is that evolution is a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. Let me add a couple of other theories that the worlds scientists have believed in.

1.) The earth being the center of the universe with all objects orbiting it.
2.) The earth being flat and if you sail to far you will drop off the edge.

Both were put forth as fact. Just as the Theory of evolution is today.



As for homosexuality being present throughout the animal kingdom. So is canibalism. Shall we also endorse that?

I assume you are uneducated because your statements indicates not that you don't believe the theory of evolution but that you do not know the theory that you claim you disbelieve.

Cannabilism works well for several species.
Spiders and praying mantises have been around for enough millenia to show it works for them.(Whether or not you or I endorse it)
Evolution is what occurred not what we would have endorsed to have occurred.
Again showing your lack of understanding of the theory you think you oppose.
Gravity is also a theory.

[Satchmopants]

I just love it when people bitch about others assuming they're uneducated right after they misuse the word "literally" in reference to a figurative expression like "that theory is full of holes".

LOL! I see you didn't answer the question but beyond that.....

The theory is literally full of holes.

There are holes between the following

Fish and reptiles
reptiles and birds
birds and fur wearing mammals
fur wearing mammals and humans

just to name a few.

Of course I could go on but what is the sense I have already made my point. But please go on with your condesending attitude. It is amusing to me.

All you have is a belief. You choose to believe in man made theories. I do not.

And how does this affect you?

Now if you would answer the question.

When the first creature crawled from the water, what did it breath?

[Satchmopants]

I assume you are uneducated because your statements indicates not that you don't believe the theory of evolution but that you do not know the theory that you claim you disbelieve.

Cannabilism works well for several species.
Spiders and praying mantises have been around for enough millenia to show it works for them.(Whether or not you or I endorse it)
Evolution is what occurred not what we would have endorsed to have occurred.
Again showing your lack of understanding of the theory you think you oppose.
Gravity is also a theory.

There you go again. Assuming that I am uneducated. Your arrogance is astounding.

[Satchmopants]

Mutations in the germplasm of several fish resulted in the ability to process oxygen from air.
Their ability to breath out of water allowed them to move to areas where their predators were not. (the mudskipper is a transatory evolutionary link that has survived.)
This is one case demonstrating your lack of understanding of the theory you think you oppose.



So according to you it breathed both. Oxygen from the water and air.

[Satchmopants]

So, while you guys are off Googling your next answers to my questions I will state that this will be my last post on the topic.
You guys can continue to belittle my level of education if it make you feel better about yourselves. Quite truthfully doesn't matter to me.

Have a fun time discussing your evolution beliefs.

[Drawz]

So, while you guys are off Googling your next answers to my questions I will state that this will be my last post on the topic.
You guys can continue to belittle my level of education if it make you feel better about yourselves. Quite truthfully doesn't matter to me.

Have a fun time discussing your evolution beliefs.

Not your level of education (I never even graduated college) just your knowledge regarding the Theory of Evolution. And it's not belittling, just pointing out a deficit. There are lots of things I don't know about, most of Greyclouds more technical posts are quite beyond my ken.

Thank you, I have quite a good time discussing the science involved in the Theory of Evolution.

[Greyclouds]

Question to evolutionists.

When the first creature craweled out of the ocean, how did it breath?

With gas exchange contact surface areas akin to our lungs (albeit more primitive):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

Lungs are functionally similar to gills, albeit with far more structure than the capillary beds of the gills.

[Greyclouds]

So according to you it breathed both. Oxygen from the water and air.

Yep, and there's a fitness benefit to doing so. Organisms adapted to brief forays onto terrestrial landscapes can escape from predators, mate in privacy and find new sources of food.

Other mutations that allowed for longer jaunts, breeding on land, and digestive enzymes for cellulose/lignin/etc led to the speciation of amphibians from proto-amphibians.

Fins are developmentally similar to legs, so that would only require a small handful of mutations over time.

[Greyclouds]

LOL! I see you didn't answer the question but beyond that.....

The theory is literally full of holes.

There are holes between the following

Actually, this shows that you're hung up on phenotype. Phenotype does not equal genotype in every situation, nor does phenotype indicate the complexity of genetic differences between two organisms. A bat's wing and a bird's wing are genetically different. Moreso than a bat's wing and our arms. Bat bone structure and placement mirrors our arms more than a bird's wing does.


Fish and reptiles

An amphibian ancestral species serves as a common ancestor


reptiles and birds

Archeopteryx is a putative common ancestor.


birds and fur wearing mammals

Actually, you're making associations that don't exist in current knowledge of Evolutionary theory. Birds are a divergent group from the reptiles; mammals probably had a reptilian common ancestor as given the features of the platypus and echidna.


fur wearing mammals and humans

This is probably the shortest hop you've listed: humans are fur-wearing mammals. No logical way around it, unless you want to deny the fact that we are viviparous, milk-producing, hairy animals.


just to name a few.

Of course I could go on but what is the sense I have already made my point. But please go on with your condesending attitude. It is amusing to me.

You can continue, I'll be happy to clear up your misconceptions if you're truly seeking clarification.


All you have is a belief. You choose to believe in man made theories. I do not.

And how does this affect you?

Now if you would answer the question.

For one, man-made theories gave us these computers on which we're currently communicating.


When the first creature crawled from the water, what did it breath?

Oxygen, which is the terminal electron acceptor for ALL multi-cellular Eukaryotes that have an electron transport chain (more specifically, mitochondria).

[captusa]

So according to you it breathed both. Oxygen from the water and air.

Mudskippers and several other fish still do.
The assumption that ontology recapitulates phylogony has not been completely negated.
The entire life cycle of all amphibians traces the evolutionary steps that led from fish to amphibians.

[captusa]

So, while you guys are off Googling your next answers to my questions I will state that this will be my last post on the topic.
You guys can continue to belittle my level of education if it make you feel better about yourselves. Quite truthfully doesn't matter to me.

Have a fun time discussing your evolution beliefs.

BYE!
There are lots of things that I am not sufficiently familiar with to engage in an intelligent debate about.
Nuclear physics, Balkan history and the physiology of the euglena are some of these.
Your knowledge of biology and the theory of evolution and scientific theories seems to be at the level of my knowledge of pre-Elizabethan Bulgarian Literature.
I consider myself to be educated, intelligent and relatively erudite.
I would be as unable to discuss the relationship of King Lear with similar Bulgarian plays because of my lack of sufficient knowledge in pre-Elizabethan Bulgarian Literature as you are in biology, genetics and evolution.
BTW I am also not sufficiently knowledgable about biology to discuss the subject at Greyclouds's level but I am able to teach those subjects at the high school level(with some review).

[captusa]

So, while you guys are off Googling your next answers to my questions I will state that this will be my last post on the topic.
You guys can continue to belittle my level of education if it make you feel better about yourselves. Quite truthfully doesn't matter to me.

Have a fun time discussing your evolution beliefs.

So according to you it breathed both. Oxygen from the water and air.
This question alone indicate you lack of knowledge of the enire biology of amphibians and fish like the lungfish and mudskipper.
You could continue the discussion and learn something about a subject you are unfamiliar with.
I have learned a great deal from people that disagreed with me on this forum both directly from those posters and doing some further research.
Some of my opinions have not changed but in one case the proof given against me was so much more substantial than mine that I had to back down.
If I come across something substantial to back up my point I might raise the subject again.





There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[PhantomPholly]

And there I thought I had killed the thread when I explained that it didn't matter whether you came at the issue theologically or scientifically. Instead, it got into an argument of whether Evolution, the scientific theory which best supports the observed facts, is real or not.

Gang, it doesn't matter unless you believe in some kind of weird twisted "god." When attraction is directed towards the same sex, it serves no survival purpose whatsoever. It might be "normal variance" in the genetic programming, or it might be a personal choice based on life-experiences (nature or nurture, take your pick). The end result is a genetic dead-end.

If people don't end up having children but find happiness anyway, that is a good thing. It keeps us from having yet another class of "disabled" people the government forces us to support.

However, when it is used as an excuse to circumvent the legislative process to garner tax benefits - I will continue to describe it in the only term that fits: FRAUD.

[Greyclouds]

And there I thought I had killed the thread when I explained that it didn't matter whether you came at the issue theologically or scientifically. Instead, it got into an argument of whether Evolution, the scientific theory which best supports the observed facts, is real or not.

Gang, it doesn't matter unless you believe in some kind of weird twisted "god." When attraction is directed towards the same sex, it serves no survival purpose whatsoever. It might be "normal variance" in the genetic programming, or it might be a personal choice based on life-experiences (nature or nurture, take your pick). The end result is a genetic dead-end.

If people don't end up having children but find happiness anyway, that is a good thing. It keeps us from having yet another class of "disabled" people the government forces us to support.

However, when it is used as an excuse to circumvent the legislative process to garner tax benefits - I will continue to describe it in the only term that fits: FRAUD.

Then you support removing all governmental marriage subsidies?

[captusa]

So according to you it breathed both. Oxygen from the water and air.

Mudskippers and lungfish still do.
Tadpoles get oxygen from water until they are adults.
An example of ontology recapitulating phylogony.
See you can learn something every day.

[darknessesedge]

The arguement is being made by homosexual activists that by not allowing homosexuals to marry the people are discriminating against a segment of the population. Homosexual activists have even likened their fight for the ability to marry to the civil rights movement in which blacks fought to obtain the same rights as whites. The general logic behind this line of thinking is that homosexuality is innate and they are just as unable to control their homosexuality as a black person is able to control the color of their skin.

Speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective this would seem to indicate that homosexuals are somehow inferiour to heterosexuals. In the evolutionary thought of natural selection a species chooses the best mate in order to best insure the continuation of the species. Through homosexuality the forces of evolution seem to be ridding the population of individuals that it has deemed to be inferiour as homosexuals are not capable of procreating within the confines of the homosexual relationship.

However IF, in complete contradiction to the mantra of the homosexual activists, homosexuality is a choice then homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. The entire issue of homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that the homosexual has made for themselves.

Where do you stand on the issue?

homosexuality is a sin.

[captusa]

homosexuality is a sin.

Only to the members of 3 religions.

[darknessesedge]

Only to the members of 3 religions.

and GOD!

[Drawz]

and GOD!

To bad your imaginary dictator doesn't have a say in how this country is run.

[Mobulis]

and GOD!


She doesn't think its a sin.

[biggles53]

homosexuality is a sin.

Hmmmm....you got that particular ruling from the OT, didn't you? Same place that approves slavery, so I guess you're down with that too...? Selling your daughters anytime soon...? Planning to barbecue an ox at all....? What about wearing cotton/rayon blends...?

Like cherries, do you.....?

[Greyclouds]

homosexuality is a sin.

So?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion of the evolutionary implications of homosexuality.

[PhantomPholly]

Then you support removing all governmental marriage subsidies?

Yes - along with a general return to the constraints imposed by and expected by the Constitution. Families only need them because of our stifling tax system, which is a gross violation of the spirit of the Constitution in the first place. There should be NO tax which favors people due to race, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, or industry. Period.

Return our Federal involvement to being a few percent of GNP and our people will be so prosperous that ordinary people will be able to retire at 50 and live the life of Reilly.

[Greyclouds]

Yes - along with a general return to the constraints imposed by and expected by the Constitution. Families only need them because of our stifling tax system, which is a gross violation of the spirit of the Constitution in the first place. There should be NO tax which favors people due to race, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, or industry. Period.

I'm cool with that.


Return our Federal involvement to being a few percent of GNP and our people will be so prosperous that ordinary people will be able to retire at 50 and live the life of Reilly.

I don't really see that happening, though... retire at 50? With an average of 30 years of not-working? I think that's unrealistic.

[captusa]

and GOD!
O K
Only to the God recognized by members of 3 religions.

[natalie addict]

Question to evolutionists.

When the first creature craweled out of the ocean, how did it breath?

Read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin, an excellent book on early vertebrate evolution.

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252101187&sr=8-1

[natalie addict]

Question to evolutionists.

When the first creature craweled out of the ocean, how did it breath?

Oh drat, he already has made an exit worthy of the King of the Lemurs!

[drylok]

What the hell difference does it make if it's a choice or natural?

Who Gives A Crap? Let's All Be Free!

[camarozz]

What the hell difference does it make if it's a choice or natural?

Who Gives A Crap? Let's All Be Free!

Wow, What a bold statement...

[drylok]

Wow, What a bold statement...

Did the bold and red color make it more punctual? :lol:

[darknessesedge]

Hmmmm....you got that particular ruling from the OT, didn't you? Same place that approves slavery, so I guess you're down with that too...? Selling your daughters anytime soon...? Planning to barbecue an ox at all....? What about wearing cotton/rayon blends...?

Like cherries, do you.....?

where in the bible does it exactly say that God favored slavery?

[camarozz]

Did the bold and red color make it more punctual? :lol:


Oh, most definately!

[Marleysdaddy]

Why? I already know the theory of evolution is full of holes. Literally.

I just love it when people assume that you must be uneducated just because you don't believe what they happen to believe.

Your comments thus far demonstrate a misunderstanding of what modern evolutionary theory actually says - that is the only reason I suggested that you read the chapter on Evolution from a college biology textbook.
Fact is that evolution is a theory. Nothing more, nothing less.
Incorrect - evolution (change in the allele frequency of a population of organisms over time) is an observable fact. Marley's genome is not an exact copy of either my genome or her mother's genome - THAT is an example of evolution.

The THEORY of evolution explains how all those observed changes in allele frequency might have led to the diversity of life on this planet. That is the part that is the theory.

Let me add a couple of other theories that the worlds scientists have believed in.

1.) The earth being the center of the universe with all objects orbiting it.
2.) The earth being flat and if you sail to far you will drop off the edge.

Let me add a few other theories that the worlds scientists (and most other people) still believe

The Theory of Magnetism
The Theory of Electricity
Cell Theory
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of Plate Tectonics

Both were put forth as fact. Just as the Theory of evolution is today.
No, that sentence is a straw man. If anyone thinks the Theory of Evolution is "put forth as fact", it is because they completely ignore the word 'Theory' in 'the Theory of Evolution'

[Marleysdaddy]

All you have is a belief. You choose to believe in man made theories. I do not.


I seriously doubt that. I bet you believe in the theory of electricity...since you used it to type that sentence. :think:

[Marleysdaddy]

Bump for Satchmopants