Darwin's theory

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory.

No, it's not. "Creation Science" is not a theory. It's a hypotheses, which has no merit - as it lacks any scientific evidence. Creation Science is largely propagated by people who take their queue from the bible first, and scientific texts second. They already constrain themselves to a preconceived idea, blinding them to performing real tests.

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

osarusan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory. But I am not so blikered as to also claim that it is also a fact. Unlike some 'scientists'. It is the theory however that best fits the observable world for me. The Darwin theory is an interesting one, and some points do seem to have some sense to it. But overall, it just doesnt add up. The most likely scenario some day, as I see it, is that Creation theory will both explain how it is consistent with Darwins observations, and explain the flaws in Darwin, putting it to bed finally.

Nobel Prize on the way.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory.

No, it's not. "Creation Science" is not a theory. It's barely a far-fetched hypothesis, which has no merit - as it lacks any scientific evidence. Creation Science is largely propagated by people who take their queue from the bible first, and scientific texts second. They already constrain themselves to a preconceived idea, blinding them to performing real tests.

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

Doctor Jimbob

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

No, it's not. "Creation Science" is not a theory. It's a hypotheses, which has no merit - as it lacks any scientific evidence. Creation Science is largely propagated by people who take their queue from the bible first, and scientific texts second. They already constrain themselves to a preconceived idea, blinding them to performing real tests.

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

:pac:

Nodin

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory. But I am not so blikered as to also claim that it is also a fact. Unlike some 'scientists'. It is the theory however that best fits the observable world for me. The Darwin theory is an interesting one, and some points do seem to have some sense to it. But overall, it just doesnt add up. The most likely scenario some day, as I see it, is that Creation theory will both explain how it is consistent with Darwins observations, and explain the flaws in Darwin, putting it to bed finally.

I have a theory, and that theory states that you don't actually believe in creationism at all, at all.

Knasher

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

The problem there is that the peer of a creation "scientist" is also a creation "scientist" and clearly they will accept any old nonsense. Show me something that has been accepted by the wider scientific community and I'll listen.

Cianmcliam

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

No, it isn't. So long as there are enough straight couples producing offspring, then the overall group is largely unaffected. In fact, homosexuality might contain a clan's population for the benefit of the group, where overpopulation becomes an issue due to food and resource concerns.

The population as a whole would only be affected if all members of a group were homosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would not exist at all.

Humans already have a mechanism to deal with expanding population size, the group invariably splits once it reaches between 80-150 people. This is pretty much universal in the anthropological literature. Only when farming arrived did it make large tribal societies possible, even then they usually segmented.

Edgarfrndly

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Humans already have a mechanism to deal with expanding population size, the group invariably splits once it reaches between 80-150 people. This is pretty much universal in the anthropological literature. Only when farming arrived did it make large tribal societies possible, even then they usually segmented.

It is one mechanism. Also, I'm not stating it as a matter of act - but rather a suggestion on how homosexuality might benefit a group.

Frito

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

isn't it great that the earth isn't too hot or too cold? kinda just right...

If there's one proposition that could steer me towards intelligent design it's that Goldilocks is the creator.

The Pheasant2

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.

I truly, genuinely, find it mind-blowing that an educated person in the First World in the 21st century can say that.

Evolution is a scientific theory - this isn't a "theory" in the conversational sense ie. suggesting doubt or conjecture or uncertainty. Scientific theory amounts to scientific fact.

I don't see you questioning the "theory" of gravity...although I suppose it's only a "theory" after all. :rolleyes:

Cianmcliam

I think the discussion is getting confused, two separate ideas are getting intertwined.
One is whether homosexuality is enviornmental or genetic or random. I doubt many still believe it is a learned behaviour, most of us agree people are born straight or gay and there's no point in trying to change this state.

The second issue is whether or not being gay was adaptive in the past ie. conferred reproductive benefits on individuals carrying these genes. I think this point is highly debatable while still believing that being gay is a state you are born into not a choice or learned behaviour.

I hope people reading this don't think that arguing that homosexuality was unlikely to be adaptive means the person arguing this case thinks it's a learned behaviour. I certainly don't think this at all. I personally think the explanation is probably hormonal events during gestation.

GreeBo

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

No, it isn't. So long as there are enough straight couples producing offspring, then the overall group is unaffected. In fact, homosexuality might contain a clan's population for the benefit of the group, where overpopulation becomes an issue due to food and resource concerns.

The population as a whole would only be affected if all members of a group were homosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would not exist at all.

Dying from hunger would contain the population, that's what happens naturally.

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

Sorry, why are you saying homosexuality wouldn't exist?
If it's what I think you mean then why does my appendix exist?

GreeBo

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I hope people reading this don't think that arguing that homosexuality was unlikely to be adaptive means the person arguing this case thinks it's a learned behaviour. I certainly don't think this at all. I personally think the explanation is probably hormonal events during gestation.

Thankfully only one poster thinks that and they have been ignored, which is nice.

One interesting point in that article was that statistically the more male offspring you have the more likely the toner ones will be gay, due to aggregating changes in the mothers body.

Defender OF Faith

Ok I didnt expect my original post to trigger a debate over such a thing I think people who are arguing about the benefits of homosexuality are missing the point while you might argue that there are, from a purely Darwinian standpoint & I repeat again homosexuality is self-evidently a disorder.

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

Homosexuals Cannot reproduce & hence cannot contribute to the population gene frequency therefore it's a disorder according to Darwin's theory and they would in a crude way require a medication like any other human disorder.

However is Homosexuality really inherited? I see people arguing about a "gay gene" which shows there lack of insight & knowledge into the research and studies done into this, well am sorry to break it to you as according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice you make the environment you grow in and the way you were raised probably lead you to taking this choice exactly like people who practice zoophilia and bestiality with animals you mean to tell me that they were born attracted to animals?.

At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive. In fact, since the early 1990s, numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable – two important requirements for study results to become accepted as fact in the scientific community.

Because of this, the current thinking in the scientific community is that homosexuality is likely caused by a complex interaction of psychosocial, environmental and possible biological factors. And the two leading national psychiatric and psychological professional groups agree that, so far, there are no conclusive studies supporting any specific biological or genetic cause for homosexuality.
It’s really the time for the LGBT community to stop fearing this word.

While the media’s headlines and reporting of such studies that claim they have found/established a gay gene have given the impression that science is closing in on a it,
it’s important to note that each study suffers from significant problems and limitations. And what the researchers themselves have said about their own work is important. Specifically, you should know that their comments have never been fully reported in the press.

"An empty-headed man becomes wise when a man is born as a wild donkey's colt." job 11:12

Edgarfrndly

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, why are you saying homosexuality wouldn't exist?
If it's what I think you mean then why does my appendix exist?

I never stated that homosexuality wouldn't exist. I was replying to the obvious notion that homosexuality is counter-productive to a species' survival, when it clearly isn't. The only way it would be is if the percentage was higher than the ratio of required offspring for a group to survive.

As for your appendix, it exists for a number of reasons. It is a vestigial organ. Whales for example still contain the skeletal structure of legs, which are of little to no benefit. However in the case of our appendix, one theory suggests that certain beneficial intestinal flora can be stored there, allowing for repopulation at a later date if needed. So it in fact, still contains a purpose. Just not the originally intended purpose, to assistance in breaking down foliage. But rather, to maintain overall gastrointestinal health.

Organs just don't disappear over a short period of time (Which is the amount of time modern humans have lived).

Edgarfrndly

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

However is Homosexuality really inherited? I see people arguing about a "gay gene" which shows there lack of insight & knowledge into the research and studies done into this, well am sorry to break it to you as according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice you make the environment you grow in and the way you were raised probably lead you to taking this choice

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. For it to be a choice, someone would have to find both sexes equally attractive and then make a conscious decision to only be with one of them.

It is certainly not a learned behaviour either, as homosexuality is visible across the animal world. Your environment does not turn you gay. You are born gay. It is not acquired over time.

Defender OF Faith

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. For it to be a choice, someone would have to find both sexes equally attractive and then make a conscious decision to only be with one of them.

It is certainly not a learned behaviour either, as homosexuality is visible across the animal world. Your environment does not turn you gay. You are born gay. It is not acquired over time.

Your entitled to your own opinion you seem to have not read what I posted in length but just remember that you are having faith that one day science will be able to support your claim however I dont think that day will ever come on thing though that I dont understand is why gay people are so afraid of the word "Choice"?

Frank Bullitt

This sorts out the "creation science" part, its not a science, it's a faith based belief with ZERO evidence and ZERO credibility.

As for the theory part, wikipedia does a great job for people who are confused about that.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

There is debate as to HOW evolution takes place, but there is no more debate among actual scientists that it has taken place, and still does.

FunLover18

I just jumped from the first page to the last page … For a second I thought Boards master command had gotten confused and accidentally transferred me to a completely different thread, what the fúck happened!?!?

Edgarfrndly

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your entitled to your own opinion you seem to have not read what I posted in length but just remember that you are having faith that one day science will be able to support your claim however I dont think that day will ever come on thing though that I dont understand is why gay people are so afraid of the word "Choice"?

Nobody is afraid of the word choice. People just take issue with the absurd misuse of the word "choice". I have already explained why it is not a choice.

Are you willing to concede that you find both sexes equally attractive? I do not find the same sex attractive. My heterosexuality is not a choice for me. In the exact same way, my gay brother does not find the opposite sex attractive. We were both brought up in the same household, with the same loving parents, in the same environment. He likes boys, I like girls. No choice involved, and it's not an issue.

It's only an issue for people like you who thinks that people like my brother consciously go out of their way to choose a sexuality that would mean they were ridiculed in school, and suffered mass anxiety and depression for trying to contemplate a way to coming out to their friends and family.

If there was a choice, I certainly wouldn't choose the one that made life umpteen times more difficult as a teen.

krudler

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed.

From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do.

I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.

I know two gay men who have kids, biological kids as well, from previous relationships before they came out. So being gay isn't the end game you're claiming in a purely biological sense. Gay men and women can still procreate, they just don't have that sexual preference. Hell there are a few boardsies who are gay and have kids.

Defender OF Faith

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Nobody is afraid of the word choice. People just take issue with the absurd misuse of the word "choice". I have already explained why it is not a choice.

Are you willing to concede that you find both sexes equally attractive? I do not find the same sex attractive. My heterosexuality is not a choice for me. In the exact same way, my gay brother does not find the opposite sex attractive. We were both brought up in the same household, with the same loving parents, in the same environment. He likes boys, I like girls. No choice involved, and it's not an issue.

It's only an issue for people like you who thinks that people like my brother consciously go out of their way to choose a sexuality that would mean they were ridiculed in school, and suffered mass anxiety and depression for trying to contemplate a way to coming out to their friends and family.

If there was a choice, I certainly wouldn't choose the one that made life umpteen times more difficult as a teen.

You are putting your emotions into this and attempting to use logic to find your way around, also the fact that you have a homosexual brother makes your argument very biased.
Science is the judge between us and so far it's on my side as i explained in my previous post.

Also people choose a lot of stuff in their life that their parents/friends may not agree with so this argument is very flawed, atheism for example do you understand how difficult it would be for a atheist to come out to his strongly practising catholic family and tell them he's an atheists? am sure many in this position will suffer anxiety and depression over it and yet again atheism is a choice and not something you are born with but simply strongly believe in similarly the case with the homosexual .

endacl

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

Do I have to go all Ray Comfort here, or wha'?

Edgarfrndly

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You are putting your emotions into this and attempting to use logic to find your way around, also the fact that you have a homosexual brother makes your argument very biased.

I was supportive of the LGBT community, long before anyone ever came out to me. I put forward a number of factual points, and valid reasons in support of my argument. You didn't address a single point.

Answer the following questions:

* If homosexuality is a learned behaviour, why does it exist in other animals?

* If homosexuality is a choice, are you stating that on the grounds that you find both sexes equally attractive and consciously choose to only be intimate with one?

* If environment dictates sexuality, then why can two family members who have an identical upbringing have different sexualities?

* Also, please provided a peer-reviewed study in favour of your claim that sexuality is a choice.

paddy1990

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.

paddy1990

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

* If homosexuality is a learned behaviour, why does it exist in other animals?

I thought pure homosexuality was exclusive to humans? Sure some animals display some gay tendencies and engage in gay sex but they will also engage in hetero sex given the chance whereas in humans you will find out and out gayness to the exclusion of any hetero behavior.

I could be wrong on this though but that was my understanding from some stuff I have read.

Oranage2

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

citrus burst

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

Homosexuality however doesn't totally dismiss procreation as homosexual humans can still reproduce. The preference is different, but the ability is still there.

Antar Bolaeisk

Oranage2 wrote: »

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles) but most haven't. Part of the problem with being human is that we tend to see things on a very, very short time-frame and tend to have difficulty grasping ideas that have a scope of hundreds of years, let alone thousands to millions of years.

ollkiller

Firstly on the idea of gay animals, oh yeah, worked in a pet store for 3 years and two male budgie's were at it every day for 3 years. Chicks in with them as well, not a look did they get.

Love the Evolution is just a theory line, right then, go to the nearest tall building, go to the top of it, jump off and see if the theory of gravity is just a theory.

Creation science, a nice extra security blanket for the religious to make them believe that what they believe is is true and to hide themselves from the fact, as all religions do, that you are afraid of dying and need something to allay that fear.