Darwin's theory

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

I appreciate that, I just don't see the advantage to having gay children at this time.
I can see in the past where a mother having many male children where more and more of them are gay could be useful.
But can you give a modern example of where it's useful?

I think it's more likely to be a result of something else that is typically beneficial, a side effect or that it's an excess of something that's beneficial in smaller "amounts".

Like a strong jaw is attractive, but desperate Dan is too far.

We didn't evolve at this time though. We evolved then.

Genes aren't sentient - they don't know when they are no longer needed. And modern times are quite new, so there hasn't really been much time for evolution to catch up to the extraordinary technological and societal progress we have made.

We are now in a position out think evolutionary mechanics. We know favour lots of other factors that just genes.

E.g. A lottery winner will like get more sexual and romantic attention than they would otherwise. His unearned money, rather than his genes, would determine who he sleeps with and potentially has kids with in many instances.

So his genes may get passed whether evolution likes it or not.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Because they are the parents of the child and one of them has a recessive gene.

I don't think that's the same issue as an extended family or a community having "some" gay people for the benefit of the community.

Also, whats the benefit of being blonde? The argument here is whether or not being gay is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view.


/edit
Honestly, just try to have a good, honest debate without getting all flouncey, it really doesnt endear your point. Especially when you dont explain what it is you are attacking.

Says the guy who said he needed to dumb things down for me.

And it explains it pretty well I think. If a ginger gene can be carried by blonde people, a gay gene could be passed on by straight people.

Genes don't do things with any intent. A particular gene might result in an advantage. Those who carry out will do better through the accident of their genetics. There's no intent or design but it happened. So they will reproduce more and pass it on - even if not all members procreate.

So a gene doesn't chose to come to a dead end in a gay person. It just happens that way. But as long as it exists in others who reproduce it will be passed on,- nd their offspring will benefit in turn.

iDave

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

yet again atheism is a choice and not something you are born .

Everyone is born atheist.

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

Your problem is that you think there has to be am intended purpose or intelligence to the whole thing. It doesn't.

Sorry but I dont think that at all.
Simply, a gene/trait that helps an organism to survive will, logically, survive more than one that doesnt help the organism to survive and thus procreate.

The question was raised regarding why does homosexuality survive when, logically, it doesnt help an organism to survive and procreate since that organism doesnt procreate.

I honestly dont understand where you are getting the opinion that I think there needs to be an intelligence behind it. As you (should) well know, thats not how evolution according to Darwin works.

Doctor Jimbob

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry but I dont think that at all.
Simply, a gene/trait that helps an organism to survive will, logically, survive more than one that doesnt help the organism to survive and thus procreate.

The question was raised regarding why does homosexuality survive when, logically, it doesnt help an organism to survive and procreate since that organism doesnt procreate.

I honestly dont understand where you are getting the opinion that I think there needs to be an intelligence behind it. As you (should) well know, thats not how evolution according to Darwin works.

You're looking at things purely on the level on a single organism though. If a gene is having an overall neutral or positive effect on a population, it's going to survive. There's no reason for it not to.

gladrags

floggg wrote: »

We didn't evolve at this time though. We evolved then.

Genes aren't sentient - they don't know when they are no longer needed. And modern times are quite new, so there hasn't really been much time for evolution to catch up to the extraordinary technological and societal progress we have made.

We are now in a position out think evolutionary mechanics. We know favour lots of other factors that just genes.

E.g. A lottery winner will like get more sexual and romantic attention than they would otherwise. His unearned money, rather than his genes, would determine who he sleeps with and potentially has kids with in many instances.

So his genes may get passed whether evolution likes it or not.

The lottery winner may get lucky.

But, is this still not chance ?

For example, meeting someone accidently at an event.

The bottom line is the genes are passed on.

The lottery winner has found a way.

Cianmcliam

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're looking at things purely on the level on a single organism though. If a gene is having an overall neutral or positive effect on a population, it's going to survive. There's no reason for it not to.

Genes cannot get into the next generation by 'blending in with the crowd' individuals carrying this gene have to successfully reproduce or the gene dies off.

Now if, as the claim seems to be, that being straight or gay became an evolutionarily stable strategy (ie. Being one or the other has no advantages or disadvantages since gay people do often reproduce) then you would have to expect homosexuality to become much more common, like different eye colours that have no effect on reproduction. This hasn't happened so there must be an evolutionary pressure against it, and given the hundreds of thousands of generations you would expect this pressure, even if slight, to reduce the carriers of the gene to the point where they are completely replaced in the population.

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

We didn't evolve at this time though. We evolved then.

I was under the impression that we are still evolving.

floggg wrote: »

Genes aren't sentient - they don't know when they are no longer needed. And modern times are quite new, so there hasn't really been much time for evolution to catch up to the extraordinary technological and societal progress we have made.

We are now in a position out think evolutionary mechanics. We know favour lots of other factors that just genes.

E.g. A lottery winner will like get more sexual and romantic attention than they would otherwise. His unearned money, rather than his genes, would determine who he sleeps with and potentially has kids with in many instances.

So his genes may get passed whether evolution likes it or not.

But unless his genes are somehow predisposed to keep winning the lottery that blip is insignificant over a couple of generations. Sure some other traits that are beneficial to procreation could be passed along, but if they are beneficial they will be passed along anyway.

floggg wrote: »

Says the guy who said he needed to dumb things down for me.

Apologies, I was clearly getting rather frustrated at your constant personal attack on a well formed opinion that differs from your own.

floggg wrote: »

And it explains it pretty well I think. If a ginger gene can be carried by blonde people, a gay gene could be passed on by straight people.

Genes don't do things with any intent. A particular gene might result in an advantage. Those who carry out will do better through the accident of their genetics. There's no intent or design but it happened. So they will reproduce more and pass it on - even if not all members procreate.

So a gene doesn't chose to come to a dead end in a gay person. It just happens that way. But as long as it exists in others who reproduce it will be passed on,- nd their offspring will benefit in turn.

I think you are missing the fundamental point between a gene(s) that causes blonde hair and one that that precludes reproduction.
If blondes were less likely to have children then you might have a point.
The gay gene can be passed on but only but only by those that are not impacted by the gene, it has to be dormant in them.

Again, I'm not saying that a gene chooses anything or has intent.
If the gene causes the organism to survive and procreate more than those without that gene then that gene survives more than some other gene that doesn't have those benefits.

The gene(s) that cause homosexuality, in my opinion, cant be seen to be beneficial for procreation due to the fact that the result of being gay is that you, the gay organism, doesnt procreate when viewed from a macro level.

GreeBo

gladrags wrote: »

The lottery winner may get lucky.

But, is this still not chance ?

For example, meeting someone accidently at an event.

The bottom line is the genes are passed on.

The lottery winner has found a way.

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.

GreeBo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're looking at things purely on the level on a single organism though. If a gene is having an overall neutral or positive effect on a population, it's going to survive. There's no reason for it not to.

Only because its that individual that either has kids or doesnt.
I'm not convinced on the hive benefit for non hive organisms.
So comparing humans to ants only makes sense if human populations come from a single mother who can pass on beneficial traits in an ad-hoc "some are gay" way.

GreeBo

Akrasia wrote: »

What do you mean by modern?

For at least 10,000 years human reporduction has been driven by many factors more than just sexual selection. The reasons why people have children are complex and vary by culture and nation. For example, in cultures with arranged marriages, feeling attracted to your mate isn't a requirement for reproduction. Being sexually attractive may not be as big a factor in the number of children you have, as the amount of money or political power you have, (for example) or the religious attitudes you hold towards contraception and/or the family and the role of women.

Going forward, being gay may not be a major barrier to having children. In societies that are repressive towards gay people, men and women will still hide their sexual preferences and have heterosexual marriages regardless of theuir sexual preference. In progressive societies, Gay women can already get pregnant via invitro fertilisation, gay men can use surrogates if they choose, a choice that might become more common as gay marriage becomes normalised and more married men feel the urge to have their own family. People of any sexual preference can sire multiple children by donating eggs or sperm etc

I think 10,000 years is modern from an evolutionary point of view.

Again, sure nowadays gay people can have children, but they are doing so outside of natural evolutionary means. In these cases being gay wasnt a benefit to reproduction, it was actually a barrier.

Knasher

GreeBo wrote: »

The question was raised regarding why does homosexuality survive when, logically, it doesnt help an organism to survive and procreate since that organism doesnt procreate.

The point I keep coming back to though, is that statement is only logical if there is a gene that codes for homosexuality and homosexuality alone. That is unlikely to be the case however, for the very reason you are pointing out.

Vivisectus

A gay gene might have beneficial effects for survival, and at the same time not always get expressed in such a way as to lead to a 100% homosexual preference... it could even sometimes not even get expressed like that at all! Thus such a gene could overcome the downsides of a decreased likelihood of procreation.

There was even one study which hypothesized that a gay gene in men could in fact make them more attractive to the other sex.

We do not have a consensus view on this yet at the moment.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

I was under the impression that we are still evolving.


But unless his genes are somehow predisposed to keep winning the lottery that blip is insignificant over a couple of generations. Sure some other traits that are beneficial to procreation could be passed along, but if they are beneficial they will be passed along anyway.



Apologies, I was clearly getting rather frustrated at your constant personal attack on a well formed opinion that differs from your own.



I think you are missing the fundamental point between a gene(s) that causes blonde hair and one that that precludes reproduction.
If blondes were less likely to have children then you might have a point.
The gay gene can be passed on but only but only by those that are not impacted by the gene, it has to be dormant in them.

Again, I'm not saying that a gene chooses anything or has intent.
If the gene causes the organism to survive and procreate more than those without that gene then that gene survives more than some other gene that doesn't have those benefits.

The gene(s) that cause homosexuality, in my opinion, cant be seen to be beneficial for procreation due to the fact that the result of being gay is that you, the gay organism, doesnt procreate when viewed from a macro level.

if the gene/gene combina stops one man in a family from reproducing, but helped give 4 others an advantage then over all the gene is advantageous to its carriers.

Those 4 then reproduce themselves, and gave four kids each, only one of each family is gay.

You know have twelve new people who can reproduce and further the spread of the gene/combination

Over all, the gene survives even if individual carriers don't pass it on.


I really don't see how it's hard to understand.

It's much like weaver birds. In weaver bird families, many birds don't mate and instead help raise their siblings. That practice is detrimental to the individual birds chances of passing on genes. However, over all the family is stronger as a result and the chances of the families genes being passed on becomes much stronger.

Now I'm not saying thats how or why it is in humans or even that homosexuality is genetic. But I am saying it's pretty clearer that in theory it could well be an evolutionary advantage.

Cianmcliam

Vivisectus wrote: »

A gay gene might have beneficial effects for survival, and at the same time not always get expressed in such a way as to lead to a 100% homosexual preference... it could even sometimes not even get expressed like that at all! Thus such a gene could overcome the downsides of a decreased likelihood of procreation.

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?'

GreeBo

Knasher wrote: »

The point I keep coming back to though, is that statement is only logical if there is a gene that codes for homosexuality and homosexuality alone. That is unlikely to be the case however, for the very reason you are pointing out.

Agreed its unlikely to be a single gene but people either are homosexual or not, they may have varying amounts of the genes that result in you being homosexual. This making being gay a dead end in itself, akin to the overly large jaw I mentioned above.

floggg wrote: »

if the gene/gene combina stops one man in a family from reproducing, but helped give 4 others an advantage then over all the gene is advantageous to its carriers.

Those 4 then reproduce themselves, and gave four kids each, only one of each family is gay.

You know have twelve new people who can reproduce and further the spread of the gene/combination

Over all, the gene survives even if individual carriers don't pass it on.


I really don't see how it's hard to understand.

It's much like weaver birds. In weaver bird families, many birds don't mate and instead help raise their siblings. That practice is detrimental to the individual birds chances of passing on genes. However, over all the family is stronger as a result and the chances of the families genes being passed on becomes much stronger.

Now I'm not saying thats how or why it is in humans or even that homosexuality is genetic. But I am saying it's pretty clearer that in theory it could well be an evolutionary advantage.

Your idea is predicated on "large" offspring working together, to give an example, this wouldn't be a successful gene(s) in China where you only have 1 child. Any minimal chance of that child being gay is a dead end for your genes.

It would be more useful when large extended families lived together, again back to where I mentioned that perhaps in the past this was useful, but is it useful now when families in the vast majority are isolated?

Something else Ive jsut thought of is that wouldnt the corresponding female trait equally be being unable to bear children?
A female who cannot bear children is just as useful to a community as a male who can/does not?

Cianmcliam

floggg wrote: »

if the gene/gene combina stops one man in a family from reproducing, but helped give 4 others an advantage then over all the gene is advantageous to its carriers.

Those 4 then reproduce themselves, and gave four kids each, only one of each family is gay.

You know have twelve new people who can reproduce and further the spread of the gene/combination

Over all, the gene survives even if individual carriers don't pass it on.


I really don't see how it's hard to understand.

It's much like weaver birds. In weaver bird families, many birds don't mate and instead help raise their siblings. That practice is detrimental to the individual birds chances of passing on genes. However, over all the family is stronger as a result and the chances of the families genes being passed on becomes much stronger.

Now I'm not saying thats how or why it is in humans or even that homosexuality is genetic. But I am saying it's pretty clearer that in theory it could well be an evolutionary advantage.

That example illustrates my point a few posts back beautifully. If such an evolutionarily stable strategy emerges in a population it spreads and becomes a normal state. For weaver birds this is a common state and is stable, for humans homosexuality has not proliferated through the population, it remains a minority, thus there simply must be evolutionary pressure against it becoming common.

GreeBo

Cianmcliam wrote: »

That example illustrates my point a few posts back beautifully. If such an evolutionarily stable strategy emerges in a population it spreads and becomes a normal state. For weaver birds this is a common state and is stable, for humans homosexuality has not proliferated through the population, it remains a minority, thus there simply must be evolutionary pressure against it becoming common.

Thats it.
If its beneficial like being a certain height then it would take off.
I dont see how the "some" are gay works.

Roger Hassenforder

floggg wrote: »

E.g. A lottery winner will like get more sexual and romantic attention than they would otherwise. His unearned money, rather than his genes, would determine who he sleeps with and potentially has kids with in many instances.

its outrageous for you to suggest that somehow money is a factor in a females selection of a mate. I demand you withdraw it immediatley, or I'm reporting you...:D

reminds me of the line: "So, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels? [1]

Knasher

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed its unlikely to be a single gene but people either are homosexual or not, they may have varying amounts of the genes that result in you being homosexual. This making being gay a dead end in itself, akin to the overly large jaw I mentioned above.

Children who inherit a genetic disease like Tay-Sachs usually die by the age of four. Tay-Sachs is still a disease that is carried on genetically.

GreeBo

Knasher wrote: »

Children who inherit a genetic disease like Tay-Sachs usually die by the age of four. Tay-Sachs is still a disease that is carried on genetically.

But not carried on by the people who die from it, same as homosexuality.

so Tay-Sachs wouldnt be considered beneficial from an evolutionary point of view.

Knasher

GreeBo wrote: »

But not carried on by the people who die from it, same as homosexuality.

so Tay-Sachs wouldnt be considered beneficial from an evolutionary point of view.

But yet it is clearly still carried on, so therefore it is incorrect to say that something would have to be considered beneficial from an evolutionary point of view in order for it to still be carried on. Agreed?

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed its unlikely to be a single gene but people either are homosexual or not, they may have varying amounts of the genes that result in you being homosexual. This making being gay a dead end in itself, akin to the overly large jaw I mentioned above.



Your idea is predicated on "large" offspring working together, to give an example, this wouldn't be a successful gene(s) in China where you only have 1 child. Any minimal chance of that child being gay is a dead end for your genes.

It would be more useful when large extended families lived together, again back to where I mentioned that perhaps in the past this was useful, but is it useful now when families in the vast majority are isolated?

Something else Ive jsut thought of is that wouldnt the corresponding female trait equally be being unable to bear children?
A female who cannot bear children is just as useful to a community as a male who can/does not?

We didn't develop the bulk of our genes in modern China. We developed them on the plains and in caves. So they would have developed at a time when we did live in large family groups.

Nowadays or partner selections are based on social factors rather than any usual environmental and genetic factors. So natural selection isn't really applicable to us now. Hunter gatherer skills and abilities are irrelevant when you have Domino's on speed dial.

So just because a particular gene isn't useful now, it doesn't mean it will be bred out of us they way it might have been when we were more primitive. And a gene won't just deactivate because it's not needed. The whales legs none example was a good case in point.

So there is no point looking at today's conditions in trying to understand our generic development.


And yes, I'm sure the same reasoning applies to women. You shouldn't read anything into my use of men as examples.

paddy1990

smcgiff wrote: »

That's a poor justification.

I agree.

Yet many Darwinists are deluded on this subject or completely avoid it.

Doctor Jimbob

paddy1990 wrote: »

I agree.

Yet many Darwinists are deluded on this subject or completely avoid it.

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

floggg

Cianmcliam wrote: »

That example illustrates my point a few posts back beautifully. If such an evolutionarily stable strategy emerges in a population it spreads and becomes a normal state. For weaver birds this is a common state and is stable, for humans homosexuality has not proliferated through the population, it remains a minority, thus there simply must be evolutionary pressure against it becoming common.

Well the estimated 5-10% of the population who are gay seems to be relatively constant, and homosexuality is observed in all cultures and throughout history.

Perhaps unlike the weaver bird that ratio was more beneficial in evolutionary terms. And perhaps it is something that developed in our pre-human ancestors who lived in larger extended family groups where a higher ratio might have been detrimental - E.g. By slowing reproduction too much.

I mean, the gay apes must have been sex with somebody. An extended family grouping would allow male /male and female /female pairings without requiring them to leave the group.

And correct me of I'm wrong but chimps and bonobos do live in large extended family groupings so we likely came from something similar.


Edit - while I don't know the how's or whys of homosexuality, I think it should be pretty clear given that it is present in all cultures and societies and had been evidenced through history that homosexuality is naturally occurring in us.

And for something to be naturally occurring, then how can it not be rooted in our genes. Even if there's not a gay gene, there must be genes which cause X and Y to occur which result in homosexuality.

I actually can't see how you can accept it's not naturally occurring without accepting that genetics play a role.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lord Trollington wrote: »

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

We likely killed them off as it happens.

But actually the question is the wrong one to ask. It is one born of human hubris. We have a unique trait or two and we ask "Why has no other species got this".

But there are numerous other species with unique traits in the world too. Why not ask the same question from their perspective? It would make just as much sense.

At which point you realize that the question should be rephrased as "Why do you feel other species SHOULD have evolved the same traits humans did?"

realweirdo wrote: »

We did evolve pretty quickly to be fair. It's strange how some animals, mammals, etc evolve fast, while others evolve extremely slowly. It's possibly related to environments, who your prey and predators are.

It is a lot more than that. Evolution does not have a fixed speed. Some things can accelerate the rate of change, some things can hamper it. Likely the speed at which our species evolved is connected to Cultural Evolution, mirror neurons and much more. Things that meant we moved from mere genetic evolution to another tier.

endacl wrote: »

Thread has gone bananas. Have we found out yet why there are still monkeys?

Yes, we know this already

paddy1990 wrote: »

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

By realizing that something being subjective rather than objective does not reduce the subjective importance of it to the subjective agent. Simples.

As such I see nothing much that even requires reconciliation in the form you suggest.

Oranage2 wrote: »

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

Who informed you that they have? If you in ANY way paid for this knowledge, go back to the person or institution involved and request a refund.

nozzferrahhtoo

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Bears mutating into whales?

And actually while he was hypothesizing based on little evidence, it turns out later that the evolution of Whales from Land Mammals is one of the great success stories of Evolution Theory. A wonderful demonstration of not just the Theory itself, but also how verification of Theory through means such as "prediction" actually work in science.

A great tool for demonstrating not just Evolution but Science 101 on the scientific method itself.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Did Darwin ever explain why earthworms compost? I mean, why do they do it?

No idea if he did. Darwin is not a prophet or a Muslim type final prophet. He originated a few ideas and they have long since themselves.... evolved..... that many of them would be unrecognizable to him were he to resurrect today.

The question to ask is not "Did Darwin do X" but "Do we as a species today have an explanation or hypothesis on X?". And there are many evolutionary pathways and explanations and reasons for why such a thing would evolve in worms.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Nobody knows why an earthworm composts, it just does.

It is just an interconnected biological system. Nothing mysterious about it. We have bacteria in our gut who do their thing, and we benefit from this too. They do not do it for us. They do it for themselves. But their processes are indispensable now as part of our digestion. It is simply a symbiotic phenotype.

Earthworm-Flora relations are pretty much the same thing, only more distinct and visible to us. They just do their thing, and plants benefit from it and have evolved to utilize it.

So the actual core of what it is you are asking here is not entirely clear to me, but if you can frame it into a question more specific, I can try and elaborate for you gladly.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Naturally, this is all just done randomly.

Evolution is not random. It is a process with a random element. That is hugely different. I am not sure what you _think_ you mean by random here, but my reading of it is that your understanding of it is simply wrong.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The horses mightn't have grass to eat were it not for earthworms, water and oxygen so obviously there's an interdependence on all the organisms and plants, animals that exist.

It doesn't strike me as a random arrangement.

Essentially it is not a random arrangement. But you are looking at the final product and imagining it all arose together. You are therefore, quite rightly and justifiably, baffled as to the rise of an interconnected interdependent system.

The error however lies in how you are picturing it arising. A few changes in how you think about it are in order but until I understand exactly where the error lies in your mind, I can not address it.

As a starting point however, imagine if you would how you would go about building an arch way bridge if I tell you that you HAVE to lay one brick at a time and no more. Using ONLY bricks and no adhesive or aid of any kind.

How do you think you would achieve it? I do not ask to be fatuous, but to give you a thinking tool that is the mental equivalent of the karate kid spending a week doing "Wax on Wax off". Really ask yourself how you would achieve it and give me your reply.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

atheistic dogmatic beliefs about the origin of universe and everything in it.

Atheism and evolution are not the same thing. They are not synonyms. They have almost nothing to do with each other. One of the Poster Boy heroes of the Evolution v. Creationism litigation in the US for example is a highly devout Catholic High School teacher.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

That it was all just random and evolved without any direction.

It depends what you mean by "direction". There was of course direction of a sort in that there is constraints on the process. Imagine a droplet of water going down a window if you will. You can likely not predict it's pathway. It will roll one way then the other. It will seem entirely random to you.

But it is not ENTIRELY random and directionless. It has constraints. Gravity for one. It will never randomly roll upwards or at right angels to the floor. There are also indiscernible imperfections in the glass which propel it off course. And much more constraints and forces than I can list here including attraction to other water on the window etc etc.

So the path of the droplet SEEMS random and directionless but actually at all times there are directions by constraints upon it.

Evolution is the same, only with more complexity as whereas the path of the water can not really change the environment (the window).... sometimes the elements evolving change their environment so there is a two way influence there.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

So, burn me at the stake.

We will leave it to the religious to burn heathens. You are simply misinformed and lacking in some knowledge. The theists can burn you. The rest of us will simply offer our time and resources to educate you.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

No, I'm simply stating that everything is interdependent and must have some intelligent thinking behind it.

And I am simply stating that that assertion is false. There is no such "must". Interdependence does not necessitate design.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

I believe there was direction, it didn't all occur randomly.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

Taking homosexuality as a persistent, pervasive trait means no offspring though.

Not really no. If our species magically became 100% homosexual in desire tomorrow, I see no reason to think procreation will cease. Perhaps you can think of a reason I have failed to?

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not planned, the stuff that works keeps working, the stuff that isnt dies off.

Which instantly begs the question that IF you are right about your interpretation of evolution theory (which I do not think you are) then WHY has such a trait like homosexuality NOT died off in line with your interpretation.

That the results in the real world do not match your interpretation of the theory merely suggests you reconsider your interpretation of the theory.

And this is all assuming homosexuality is genetic in and of itself, rather than having a genetic element. I assume the latter, not the former. You appear to be erring towards the former.

GreeBo wrote: »

All traits are passed on, the positive ones get passed on more because they are positive for the survival of the organism.

Actually this is an over simplification too. Sometimes positively detrimental traits get passed on due to selection pressures other than survival of the species.

Other detrimental traits can be passed on due to being in some way associated or inextricable from beneficial traits that get passed on. They just go "along for the ride" so to speak.

And many traits are passed on and out survive other traits from all categories simply from being selection neutral. They are all but "invisible" to evolution and selection. One might say for example Junk DNA which appears to do nothing any more, is actually more successful evolutionary speaking than many others.

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't see how some being gay can be passed on?

Then ask yourself how the genetics for being a non reproducing element of a hive species get passed on. By definition individuals with these genes can not pass those genes on. Yet the gene continues on regardless.

The answer is simple and it applies just as much to hive species as it does to homosexuality. A gene to pass itself on does not have to directly pass ITSELF on.... that is only one option..... it can also benefit the same gene in another individual in being passed on. Especially an individual in which that gene is NOT expressed.

So if the gay gene is expressed in a man, the same gay gene is not expressed in his brother, but somehow the expression of it in Man1 benefits the reproductive success of Man2..... there you have evolutionary success. That is all that is required.

In other words you need to take the genes eye view. But by that I do not mean one gene in one individual. But to take the view of that gene in the entire population as being one single entity. And then realise that getting into the next generation by any means necessary is the "goal" there, even if individual genes do not replicate themselves in the individual in which they reside.

Or to put it even shorter: A gene does not need to benefit itself, but some, any, or all copies of itself anywhere in the pool. That is enough for evolution.

But again, I really do not think there is a gene being passed on for being gay. I see no reason to believe it. I think the genetic causes and elements of homosexuality are more subtle AND more blatant than that. There is a simpler explanation of it genetically, and that explanation, if you are interested, actually not just answered but entirely BYPASSES your concern as to why it would or would not be inherited. And all that hypothesis requires is that you assume sexuality is genetic.

GreeBo wrote: »

Does that article also imply that the more fertile a mother the greater the chance of her male offspring being gay?

What appears to be coming out of research on the topic is that the probability of any male child being gay is influenced by the number of male children the mother has had before.

There is not quite enough data to declare this true or fact yet, in my opinion, but it certainly fits in perfectly with predictions made by the hypothesis related to why the trait would survive and be useful evolutionary speaking.

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

It does not preclude it. It just reduces the likelyhood of it, and / or changes the pathways and methodology by which it will be attained.

GreeBo wrote: »

But " the group" doesn't reproduce, individuals within the group do.

Individuals in the group of the species reproduce as individuals, true. But genes move through that pool in a different fashion.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

Alas that would be an irrational argument from emotion. So you would just end up looking silly. Many things true in science are not intuitive and just feel wrong. Some things that feel intuitive and correct however, also turn out to simply be wrong.

If we can be sure of one thing, what feels like it should be true (or false) is not a useful way to mediate actual truth.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

By all means regale us with this evidence if you are aware of any. Do not hold back.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even Darwin's Theory is still only, by definition, a theory. Its not Darwin's Fact.

That is like saying "I love American Baseball and the best player in it is David Beckham". People who say this simply make it clear they have no idea what they are talking about.

Theory in science and theory in the vernacular have massively different meanings and implications.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

I have. In depth. It is not a science. If you feel otherwise then I am all ears to here you substantiate, rather than assert, this.

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.