Darwin's theory

Saipanne

Noblong wrote: »

No Amazons?

?

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

Please dont accuse me of trolling as a means of (failing) to explain your point eloquently.

Yeah, that's the problem here.

Defender OF Faith

Saipanne wrote: »

Wrong.

If you could simply disagree with someone by saying their "Wrong" life would be so much easier

*Present your thesis please
Thesis: Plant can sneeze when you pepper spray them.
*Present your Dissertation please
It's wrong
*Here is your PhD thank you

Saipanne

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If you could simply disagree with someone by saying their "Wrong" life would be so much easier

*Present your thesis please
Thesis: Plant can sneeze when you pepper spray them.
*Present your Dissertation please
It's wrong
*Here is your PhD thank you

Wouldn't it?

ScumLord

If there is a homosexual gene it could already have been spread throughout the human population. If you go back to the ancient greeks men would have homosexual periods in their lives as part of their culture, it wasn't frowned upon and it didn't stop them doing their duty of having children for their community.

Things have been very, very different in the past, homosexual acts wouldn't always have been frowned on and ancient cultures might see us as weird for having the distinctions that we do.

Humans actual sexualatiy has been twisted and rewriten by civilisation for thousands of years probably millions. I'd say it could well have been one of the first tools for social manipulation just as it is with the likes of the bonobo.

Defender OF Faith

smcgiff wrote: »

You were asserting earlier only beneficial traits are passed on. This is clearly not true.
.

I think over the Millions of years it takes evolution to take place mostly {Only is too strong otherwise we wont have recessive x-linked diseases as you mentioned) beneficial traits will be passed

Saipanne

If anyone would like to know why GreeBo is talking absolute ****, I would recommend reading The Selfish Gene. In there, it explains how supposedly "non beneficial" traits may survive in the population, so long as the proportion of those genes in the population does not exceed a "tipping point". In fact, that tipping point, in theory, should be unbreachable. If you don't like Dawkins, I'm sure there are many other sources for this theory.

Joe prim

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

Your'e clutching at straws here.

smcgiff

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think over the Millions of years it takes evolution to take place mostly {Only is too strong otherwise we wont have recessive x-linked diseases as you mentioned) beneficial traits will be passed

I've no problem with the above.

Edgarfrndly

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

Defender OF Faith

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

Well.....
Welcome to boards!

kowloon

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

That would be your problem right there.

Fuzzytrooper

Skylinehead wrote: »

Of course you can!

Well I couldn't before! Diddlediddledidledooo.

smcgiff

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Well I couldn't before! Diddlediddledidledooo.

Still implies ability prior to the statement, so the joke doesn't quite work

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I dont think you understood what he's trying to say

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

You're right, I don't.

I don't think he does either.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its a pretty obvious question to be honest.
If Darwin "means" that only beneficial traits for an organism survive, then is homosexuality beneficial? Or is it a natural disorder that doesn't benefit the organism?
You can get into interesting things like if its beneficial for the community does it survive even if its not beneficial for the individual organism?
But then that opens up things like, if its beneficial for the community and the community supports the individual organism then perhaps thats beneficial for the organism.

Its very complex and interesting

Ask the Ants.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed I do....not sure of the point you are trying to make though.

The diseases that prevent reproduction are not inherited though, or at least not for more than one generation.

You don't understand genetics too well. Admittedly neither do I, but I know it's quite possible to have ave recessive genes, genes that only increase the likelihood of x occurring or that onky result in x I'm certain circumstances or combinations.

folan

floggg wrote: »

Ask the Ants.

What has Adam Ants band got to do with anything?

Fuzzytrooper

smcgiff wrote: »

Still implies ability prior to the statement, so the joke doesn't quite work

Help me Dr Zeas

Gbear

smcgiff wrote: »

They would most likely react by pointing out the theory that there are benefits in having close family non breeding individuals when rearing offspring.

Also, failing that, if there were several beneficial, each of which conferred an evolutionary advantage, but combined made you gay, then so long as the positive impact of the individual genes on procreation outweighed the negative impact of a % of those with the genes not procreating at all, the genes could survive.

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

You really don't understand procreation, evolution or homosexuality.

Nobody "becomes" gay. You are or you aren't.

Or your bisexual, in which case you are and you aren't.

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

As has been pointed out, if you don't understand how genetics and inheritance works it's difficult to debate with you.

SaveOurLyric

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

smcgiff

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

That's the only part of your paragraph that I agree with.

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

If being a queen bee was a useful pervasive trait then all bees would be queen bees. Or would they ?

Lord Trollington

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

SaveOurLyric

smcgiff wrote: »

That's the only part of your paragraph that I agree with.

Yeah, me too. And they are more or less convincing, but some from the evolution side of things do try to pick holes in their research. But a little more time will clinch the case definitively for creationism.

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

Ask the Ants.

Ants come from a single queen, so a queen that has both gay and straight offspring could benefit her give.

floggg wrote: »

You're right, I don't.

I don't think he does either.

The problem seems to be your interpretation of "more people would become gay"
You have decide it means people switching from straight to gay. Since this is a thread about evolution, I assumed you would understand that "more people" means more of the population over time, offspring, children, yunno evolution.
My mistake, I'll dumb it down next time, for the less evolved amongst us.

Cianmcliam

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

I assume you mean to our level of intelligence? Because they don't need to. The human brain is extremely hungry for energy and when all you need to do is find food, a partner and avoid death then some basic intelligence and sound instincts are all you really need. Extra brain power would bring little benefit and you would need to hugely increase your food intake just to support it.

Humans live in large social groups of non-relatives, which means they must learn to live with and trust people not related to them. To do this you need an extremely good memory for how others treat you or people they come in contact with. You also need a much higher level of intelligence to work out the motives of others so that you can ferret out potential cheaters or dangerous individuals before they can do you harm. Cheaters and dangerous folk need to evolve counter-measures against cheater detection so humans became locked in an intelligence arms race with ourselves.

endacl

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

Welcome. I admire your intent, but be warned, you may end up tearing your hair out. The question has been addressed many times in many ways by many posters, to no avail. Check out the 'Origin of Specious Nonsense' thread for a lesson in futility.

There are none so blind as will not see, etc...