crowTrobot
die comcast
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,597
- Likes
- 208
- Points
- 63
Yeah we all have that genetic make-up
no we don't. that's the point.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah we all have that genetic make-up
no we don't. that's the point.
thanks for playing? are you 9?
i was just stating a simple fact. no matter how many "damn good points" on the matter you are presented with you can't accept that homosexuality isn't a matter of choice without invalidating your fundamentalist belief that it's a sin.
natural selection doesn't have a purpose
How about those gay penguins or polar bears?
That's where the theory of evolution runs into problems, though. If the above is really the case, there should be literally billions of mutations and species that have died out immediately over the history of the planet.
Don't forget about lesbian tigresses!
![]()
GRRRRRROWL!
My contention with this "damn good point" would be that impotence (to my knowledge) is generally something that develops over the course of someone's life. It is not a condition that people are commonly born with--certainly not 5-10% of the male population (as is claimed with homosexuality). For me to consider this to be a legitimate argument in opposition to Mags' "natural selection" point, I would need someone to identify for me a similarly commonly occurring genetic condition that inherently prevents procreation.
natural selection means individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. that's all. there is no "purpose". it is not a decree that recessive traits that prevent breeding have to be weeded out regardless of environmental pressure.
natural selection means individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. that's all. there is no "purpose". it is not a decree that recessive traits that prevent breeding have to be weeded out regardless of environmental pressure.
By "impotence" I was referring to the whole umbrella of sexual dysfunction, both male and female. It can be caused by disease (which can have genetic roots) and birth defects. Birth defects aren't necessarily genetic (though they can be), but certainly occurring prior to birth and unchosen.
Also, the exact figures (5-10%) is something of a red herring. My example doesn't have to be a perfect one-to-one mapping (mirrors homosexuality in every way) and, in fact, I never intended it to be as you can see by the disclaimer in the middle of my post. The point is that there are naturally occurring things that limit or inhibit reproduction which are quite clearly not chosen.
If sexual dysfunction doesn't work for you, we can easily select another, like those born with severe mental handicaps. While some people with minor developmental disabilities can procreate, there are those with more extreme versions who can't, because they aren't capable of the social interactions for obvious reasons. Many of these cases do have genetic/chromosomal basis.
While I feel slightly uncomfortable comparing homosexuality to these types of things, as previously mentioned, it's these types of things that have universal agreement in not being chosen, so they serve to make the point that just because something is inhibiting to an individual's ability to reproduce does not mean it's rendered impossible by "natural selection."
Also, this is the reason I question evolution. So if the mutation of "natural selection" is a slow process; then a minute change wouldn't give them an advantage at all. So if a fish needs legs and lungs to survive on land, then how would the transition be small? You would have to completely change the respiratory system enough to be able to breath out of water. There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.
There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.
Also, weren't you just insulting Mags ("are you 9?") a few posts ago, yet now you're talking about breeding in a thread dedicated to a gay genetic deviation?
So being gay is a handicap? I'm confused...
I am also not comparing them as a condition (as some might be tempted to think that since impotence is generally perceived as an affliction or a system flaw, that I am saying homosexuality is also an affliction or a flaw...something I do not believe at all).
While I feel slightly uncomfortable comparing homosexuality to these types of things, as previously mentioned, it's these types of things that have universal agreement in not being chosen, so they serve to make the point that just because something is inhibiting to an individual's ability to reproduce does not mean it's rendered impossible by "natural selection."
This is an old question that has been covered quite a few times. Really, if you want to challenge evolution, you should take the necessary classes or at least read up on it so that you've already run across these questions being asked and answered. There's no point re-asking questions that have been asked and responded to thousands of times in the past century.
This provides a very quick primer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml
The classic version of this question is "What good is half an eye?" so if you google that, you can get more information.
This is an old question that has been covered quite a few times. Really, if you want to challenge evolution, you should take the necessary classes or at least read up on it so that you've already run across these questions being asked and answered. There's no point re-asking questions that have been asked and responded to thousands of times in the past century.
This provides a very quick primer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml
The classic version of this question is "What good is half an eye?" so if you google that, you can get more information.
I've covered that in both my posts:
That's a rather elitist way to look at it. "Here, read this article". There are holes in the theory of evolution in terms of macro-evolution and the origin of life. Claiming that there are not, and pulling out the "you're just uneducated" card, shows your own ignorance, IMO.
So you are saying gay people aren't adapting to their environment? What about those "gay penguins" that were forced to be caged together? They adapted to their environment. So they won't pass that gene on? What makes that any different?
Also, this is the reason I question evolution. So if the mutation of "natural selection" is a slow process; then a minute change wouldn't give them an advantage at all. So if a fish needs legs and lungs to survive on land, then how would the transition be small? You would have to completely change the respiratory system enough to be able to breath out of water. There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.
That's a rather elitist way to look at it. "Here, read this article". There are holes in the theory of evolution in terms of macro-evolution and the origin of life. Claiming that there are not, and pulling out the "you're just uneducated" card, shows your own ignorance, IMO.
Micro-evolution has nothing to do with speciation
We aren't talking about eyes. We are talking about the respiratory and circulator systems. The slightest change can kill an animal. Being without an eye means you can still survive through the mutation. Being able to not breath in water will kill you. Not being able to convert dissolved oxygen in water will kill you.
lungs did not evolve from gills. they are separate structures, and presumably the aquatic to terrestrial transitional species had both, as do modern frogs when they transition from tadpoles to adults.
That's been my biggest problem with macro-evolution since high school. I'm not a creationist, though, so I'll put that out there.
To me, the would have to be millions/billions of genetic variances to advance a species to the point it is something different. Some people subscribe to the 'big jump' theory, but if that's the case, wouldn't there be failed examples of new species that can't survuve, even in modern times?
yes it does. speciation is the result of a lot of "micro" evolution.
lungs did not evolve from gills. they are separate structures, and presumably the aquatic to terrestrial transitional species had both, as do modern frogs when they transition from tadpoles to adults.
99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. what more do you want.
How do you know this? How did amphibians evolve? Both lungs and gills must have evolved from SOMETHING, right?
Please explain.
It's the same principle. You're asking how transitory systems can come about, which is exactly what the "What good is half an eye?" question deals with.