Darwin's theory

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

From a purely Darwinian standpoint though, homosexuality is self-evidently a disorder I dont know how the LGBT community would react to that though

I would say the first useful reaction is to point out that this is an off topic baiting attempt.

The better second reaction however is to simply point out you are wrong. Evolutionary speaking there are some simple facts you need to consider, or at least stop ignoring.

1) Homosexuality exists in many species, not just ours.

2) Many species have non-reproducing elements and they are strengthened not weakened by this fact.

3) For a trait to become evolutionary significant in a species, it needs to have a minimum threshold level in that species to have an impact. Homosexuality is a minority trait by FAR. It simply has no evolutionary impact or relevance at all in our species at this time.

4) You are assuming that homosexuality is a selected or selectable trait, and not a by product of other traits that are themselves selected.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I repeat again homosexuality is self-evidently a disorder.

You can repeat it. But repetition of assertion does not make fact.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

According to Darwin’s theory, natural selection by definition is : “Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population."-Taken from the University of Berkeley definition of natural selection

_Exactly_ but what you write AFTER quoting this simply suggests you do not understand the quote. Or at least what you wrote AFTER it would show this.... if you had written it. But a quick google search shows your post to be a copy and paste plagarism from other websites.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Homosexuals Cannot reproduce

Since when? This is literally the first I have heard of it.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

hence cannot contribute to the population gene frequency

They are not required to in order that the gene frequency be populated or maintained. Genes can be recessive in individuals who are reproducing, or dominant but for other reasons not expressed (happens all the time and is the explanation for why two blue eyed parents can have green or brown eyed children without fear that the woman actually slept around).

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

therefore it's a disorder according to Darwin's theory

Nope. That is just wrong.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice

Research that you conveniently have not cited or referenced. Funny that.

And just because there is no gay gene does NOT mean homosexuality is not genetic. You are using a lay rebuttal of a lay hypothesis and neither hold water.

Vivisectus

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Wouldn't this then simply reduce it semantics? If this gene or package of genes is not predictably causing homosexuality but some event or sequence or combination of factors caused them to express themselves as homosexuality, is it really the genes or actually the events or random combinations that ultimately 'caused' a person to be gay? Can you still call these 'genes for x' when some other circumstance is actually causing them to be expressed in atypical way?'

Not necessarily. We know of cases where you can have a gene that has some effect by itself, but only if you inherit it from both parents do you develop the trait the gene is named after - there are a few diseases like that, like Tay-Sachs. I hate to bring up a disease in a thread like this, but it is a decent example.

paddy1990

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What subject would this be? Missed that part of the thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92551124

Vivisectus

according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice

That is a complete nonsense. We do not have any clear consensus on this at the moment: we simply cannot make statements like these based on the research done so far.

Doctor Jimbob

paddy1990 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92551124

I'm not sure what exactly you think people are avoiding. It seems like you don't like the given explanations and are just ignoring them.

nozzferrahhtoo

paddy1990 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92551124

I address it briefly in post #329. But to be honest I do not see what you think needs reconciliation exactly, or what you find requires delusion. It is bordering on "Argument from Implication" fallacy where, rather than discuss the truth of a claim, we end up discussing whether the implications please us or not.

Davidius

paddy1990 wrote: »

For all the Darwinists, how do you reconcile the fact that your emotions are basically just illusions.

Darwinism basically posits that humans are material things. We, and every other animal, are material objects. The emotions we have are just biochemical reactions in our brains that happened to be advantageous for our ancestors so they got naturally selected and don't have any absolute meaning by themselves. The reasons the biochemical pathways formed was because they were advantageous in terms of propagating genes. It just happens to be this way. If evolution had taken a different path, the biochemical pathway that produces the emotion of happiness would be different.

No doubt religious people are "deluded" as Dawkins puts it. But I think pure Darwinists have to be delusional about this subject on some level, because of the implications.

Do you not see how stupid it is to say people are deluded because you simply don't like the implications of what they believe? You're not giving an argument as to why this can't be true in spite of all evidence, you're just saying you don't like it so holding it to be true is delusion.

paddy1990

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not sure what exactly you think people are avoiding. It seems like you don't like the given explanations and are just ignoring them.

I don't see any explanations other than the one cited below your post.

To answer that one, what you experience subjectively is, by Darwinist definition, a biochemical based illusion. I don't think you quite understand what that means or what implications it has for your emotions.

paddy1990

Davidius wrote: »

Do you not see how stupid it is to say people are deluded because you simply don't like the implications of what they believe? You're not giving an argument as to why this can't be true in spite of all evidence, you're just saying you don't like it so holding it to be true is delusion.

OK, first off, Can we agree that we are by Darwins definition, physical material and our emotions are just biochemical pathways that happened to evolve that way by chance?

Doctor Jimbob

paddy1990 wrote: »

I don't see any explanations other than the one cited below your post.

To answer that one, what you experience subjectively is, by Darwinist definition, a biochemical based illusion. I don't think you quite understand what that means or what implications it has for your emotions.

You give an explanation in this post. It's all biochemical. Exactly. You haven't explained why this is an incorrect belief, you just keep talking about vague implications. What is your alternative explanation?

gladrags

GreeBo wrote: »

There is no lottery winning gene, so the point is flawed.
When the money runs out the benefit to being a lottery winner runs out.
The money isnt passed on via genes to the offspring, if the money is all spent before the children procreate then it hasnt helped, from a long-term, evolutionary sense.

Never mentioned “lottery winning gene”.


I should have made my point clearer.


Winning the lottery is secondary; but it is a means to end.


For example, he/she could have fallen on an inheritance, could have a big house, or big car, it could be, that both of course, are physically attracted to each other.


Human nature and his/her instinct to reproduce is what kicks in, and is imperative.


The instinct to fulfil his/her basic needs , and to have children,are at play.


For example, subconsciously and by instinct, humans use status, class, wealth (lottery), power, and in a lot of cases, every means at their disposal to pass on the genetic code.


They are not alone.


“When the money runs out the benefit to being a lottery winner runs out.”

The same could be said, when you lose your house, lose your savings, or lose your inheritance.


But in the same instances, life goes on. The genetic information is passed to the next generation.


This is what I meant by “chance” and relates to one of Darwin’s pet theories.


Cheers

nozzferrahhtoo

paddy1990 wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what that means or what implications it has for your emotions.

That, or you do not quite understand the answer I gave to it. I see no implication that bothers me, nor anything to be reconciled. Rather I realize that the subjective illusion that is me (if that is what in fact I am) is important TO the subjective illusion that is me. And that is all that I require.

I understand the implications deeply, and in my long study of religion and the religious I realize that the implications of it are what emotionally drive people to NEED religion even in the absence of a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that there even is a god.

That human subjectivity appears, in the light of not just some but all of the evidence we have, to simply be an emergent effect of biochemical processes however does not bother me with it's implications one iota. If it bothers you however there are ways you can work through it other than considering going down the road of subscribing to unsubstantiated woo nonsense that paper maches over your pain.

It borders on a meme I have seen going around Facebook recently saying something like "The religious accuse atheists of having nothing to live for. In fact given we have nothing to die for, which means we have EVERYTHING to live for".

Alas too many people when considering the truth of a proposition.... instead consider whether the implications of that truth please them or not.... and that is when they start thinking with the heart not the head.

Knasher

paddy1990 wrote: »

OK, first off, Can we agree that we are by Darwins definition, physical material and our emotions are just biochemical pathways that happened to evolve that way by chance?

I'd agree with the idea that our emotions are just biochemical illusions. However it seems wrong to say that they are that way by chance, perhaps you should elaborate what you mean there, because it doesn't seem like chance that the happy emotion would be triggered by doing things that result in our survival. It is hardly surprising that people who enjoy eating might have a greater survival rate than those who are ambivalent about it.

I don't see what implications this would have that would worry me though. Hell I'd go much further that just our emotions. Out entire perception of the world is just an illusion constructed by our brain, hence why we can take advantage of the deficiencies in how we construct this illusion and fool our brains using optical illusions. Or another example would be how we watch television, our eyes can only perceive images at a certain speed, so when you view related images at a speed that exceed that, then you brain constructs those into something that looks like motion. But that is an illusion, all they really are is a ton of still images shown to you quickly.

PopePalpatine

paddy1990 wrote: »

For all the Darwinists, how do you reconcile the fact that your emotions are basically just illusions.

The same way I reconcile the fact that music is just compression waves of different frequencies.

Doctor Jimbob

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The same way I reconcile the fact that music is just compression waves of different frequencies.

Or the fact that chocolate just tastes good because of the chemicals it contains?

catallus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The same way I reconcile the fact that music is just compression waves of different frequencies.

I bet one could find you in the kitchen at parties.

cdoherty86

folan wrote: »

yes, thats kinda the gist of it.

I read that Elephants will be extinct by 2020 due to humans.
What do humans depend on Elephants for?

African Elephants May Be Extinct By 2020 Because People Keep Eating With Ivory Chopsticks

I believe some things are interdependent, I just don't see how humans or elephants are critical to survival of our planet.
What do humans do that the earthworm depends on except dying? Earthworm can still survive without us.

If humans go extinct like Elephants, the world will still continue and the earthworm will still keep composting long after we're gone.

Certain organisms do behave freely, others don't ...making them completely irrelevant.

endacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I am willing to consider any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you have to substantiate this claim/belief, if you deign to attempt to offer it.

I offer for your consideration, the humble banana. Made to fit in the human hand, and each comes individually wrapped for convenience and freshness.

That kinda thing?

catallus

And peanuts.

Peanuts are definitely designed.

cdoherty86

catallus wrote: »

And peanuts.

Peanuts are definitely designed.

The earth would continue without humans, so what's our purpose here?

At least the Earthworm has a purpose, humans don't.

gladrags

According to dieticians, there is a gene for sweet and sour(salty) tastes, this is why people become addicted to chocolates and put salt on so much food.

Nothing to do with nutritional value.

Akrasia

paddy1990 wrote: »

OK, first off, Can we agree that we are by Darwins definition, physical material and our emotions are just biochemical pathways that happened to evolve that way by chance?

Our emotional and cognitive faculties evolved using the same principles of natural selection as everything else. Our perception of the world has to be reliable enough that it allows us to survive long enough to successfully reproduce. Our emotional faculties have to work in such a way as to provide survival advantages over the alternative and competing possible emotional states we could have developed.


I always find it curious when people who don't accept evolution say 'without god, how can you rely on your perceptions' when in reality, without god, our perceptions have to be reliable by virtue of our own existence (because there is no supernatural entity looking out for us and protecting us) while those who believe in god could never discount the possibility that their entire perception of the universe is just an illusion fed into their brain by their deity.

endacl

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The earth would continue without humans, so what's our purpose here?

At least the Earthworm has a purpose, humans don't.

The earthworm doesn't have a purpose. It has a niche.

paddy1990

Since we agree that emotions are just the activations of certain biochemical pathways, which arbitrarily formed due to being adaptive to generations of ancestors, then no matter what emotions you feel, there is an objective view of your subjective experience.

The Darwinist seems to AVOID integrating this objective Darwinian view of materialism into the centre of subjective consciousness.

If you accept what I've said about emotions and what they are and why we have them, which every Darwinian should, then why take them seriously? Why not reinterpret them as simply physical material that arbitrarily formed during the evolutionary process and not right or wrong in themselves? Why have strong opinions about anything?

If you interpret happiness, joy etc as simply physical material, the product of a physical process that just happened to create that particualr pathway for their activation, then, knowing how weak the basis and how false they are, why not strive to overcome them? Why does the Darwinist not strive to overcome their biasing influence, since it's objectively meaningless from a Darwinian point of view. This is where the delusion comes in. The Darwinist seems to actively buy into these biochemical based illusions, and live their lives accordingly.

PopePalpatine

Didn't you get temp-banned for trolling?

cdoherty86

endacl wrote: »

The earthworm doesn't have a purpose. It has a niche.

Niche? I didn't think an earthworm would discriminate when it came to what organic matter it would ingest and spit out.

If we are truly interdependent, what's the purpose of humanity?

What's the purpose of the Elephant except making chopsticks for humans?

Is that the best we can do?

paddy1990

Akrasia wrote: »

Our emotional and cognitive faculties evolved using the same principles of natural selection as everything else. Our perception of the world has to be reliable enough that it allows us to survive long enough to successfully reproduce. Our emotional faculties have to work in such a way as to provide survival advantages over the alternative and competing possible emotional states we could have developed.

.

I should have pointed oout that I'm not arguing for god or religious in any way.

And to answer the above post, yes I understand all of that. My points go deeper

Knasher

paddy1990 wrote: »

If you accept what I've said about emotions and what they are and why we have them, which every Darwinian should, then why take them seriously? Why not reinterpret them as simply physical material that arbitrarily formed during the evolutionary process and not right or wrong in themselves? Why have strong opinions about anything?

If you interpret happiness, joy etc as simply physical material, the product of a physical process that just happened to create that particualr pathway for their activation, then, knowing how weak the basis and how false they are, why not strive to overcome them? Why does the Darwinist not strive to overcome their biasing influence, since it's objectively meaningless from a Darwinian point of view. This is where the delusion comes in. The Darwinist seems to actively buy into these biochemical based illusions, and live their lives accordingly.

I do strive to overcome the negative emotions I feel. And I strive to experience the positive emotions, because even if they are subjective illusions, so is my perception and I happen to enjoy the subjective illusion that is happiness, so why wouldn't I strive for it.

Akrasia

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The earth would continue without humans, so what's our purpose here?

At least the Earthworm has a purpose, humans don't.

What are you talking about?

The biosphere evolved over billions of years. All of life on earth evolved together into a complex interdependent biological system. Some species are more integral to the biosphere than others, but if earthworms were all disappeared from the planet in the morning, something else would take their place (after a suitable period of upheaval)

Fuzzytrooper

catallus wrote: »

And peanuts.

Peanuts are definitely designed.

By Satan, for use in his butter