morality, charity according to evolution

[qs]Perhaps you can start a thread and correct me on those things that I was quoting Stephen Hawking, a Nobel laurette, distinguished astrophysicist, and an all-around objective man. If you have an issue with the statement, then take it up with him because he said it, not me. Really? Then what is the Cambrian explosion all about? If they didn't appear abruptly then what need is there of punctuated equilibrium? There are two known living types of Coelecanth, the Commoros and the Sulawesi. The difference between them is about as far-reaching as the difference between a Tabby and a Calico. The fact is the Coelecanth is its own Genus, and the fossilized version is no different between livings one. So, in 350 million years it either forgot to evolve or macroevolution simply doesn't exist. Were you going to provide some information on that or do you expect me to take your word for it? Again, if that were true, then there would be no need for punctuated equilibrium. What's precisely is wrong with the formula?NJ writes: No, I'm suggesting that if there is any evidence that might even loosely interpretated as a macroevoltionary process, its scant. If giving exapmles for how evolution has proved false is barred from discussion then I'll stop mentioning it. What I take from these debates is the ability to hone my own debating skills and to learn more about inconsistencies in both theoretical aspects. Let me also say that I recoginze and appreciate their arguments, even if I disagree with many of them fundamentally. EvC has been more of a challenge than any other webforum I've been on and alot more courteous. I've yet to be attacked with ad hominem which is much appreciated.

Evidence? So far this thread has been more philosophical than biological. I've yet to see any evidence. The only evidentiary method described to me is teamwork, which consequently bears no relevance to altruism. Aside from which, I don't contend that teamwork exists in the animal kingdom. That's more than evident, which is why I'm not arguing about it.

There is too much here. If you show me that you actually want to discuss something by opening a thread I'll be interested in participating.However, I have limited will power This is EXACTLY the kind of problems you seem to have. Your paragraph is in itself confused.The differences being discussed are between extant Coelecanths and fossilised ones (NOT by the way 350 million years ago but less than a third of that - which is no material). The similarity of the living ones has NOTHING to do with the differences between the fossil ones and the living ones.All the rest of your statements contain the same kind of misunderstandings and/or errors. Open a thread and we can go into detail.ABE
And you brought up the Coelecanth on a thread about morality. That is why I called it a red herring. You need to focus.Edited by NosyNed, : Thought of something else

A population becoming entirely homosexual may well make no evolutionary sense, but then that isn't something that happens. A sporadic trait of homsexuality might however prove beneficial to a gene's spread. Indeed one of the bases for a genetic benfit linked to homosexuality lies in reciprocal altruism and particularly in the forming of mutually beneficial same-sex alliances leading to increased reproductive success for both parties. This is obviously by no means a clear analogue to what is generally considered as homosexuality in common parlance but it is not insignificant perhaps that there are large numbers of men with homosexual proclivities who nontheless have families and children. If one accepts a genetic contirbution to homosexual orientation then 'flaming' homosexuals, i.e. a Kinsey 6, may simply be the most extreme end of a spectrum of that genetic trait which is still present to a greater or lesser extent throughout the rest of the population.Really to answer these sort of questions we need to know to what extent homosexual behaviour, though obviously not in the case of exclusively homosexual behaviour, affects the reproductive success of an individual.If you want to make an argument based on the idea that humans are currently 'eviolving into homsexuals' i think you are going to have a tough time of it.TTFN,WK

How could having no sexual desire for the opposite sex, which is the only way to proliferate a species and which evolution is utterly dependant upon, somehow be beneficial? If you don't mate, your genes don't get a chance to proliferate. Its an evolutionary dead end. Homosexuals with families goes against their self-proclaimed nature. The issue is why, or how, do homosexuals evolve such tendencies if it completely undermines their own viability to proliferate? Yes, they have the physical ability to procreate with memeber of the opposite sex, but they have no desire to do so. So if natural selection has caused them to develop affinities for the same sex, how does evolution reconcile with that? How could it possibly ever reconcile with it if it undermines its entire premise? First off, I don't think anything reported by Kinsey is a legitimate scientific and/or pyschological endeavor. The man was a pedophile and a masochist. Secondly, what purpose does it serve nature to have memebers of its population evolve into homosexuals? If we were to say that its natures way of population control to help sustain the overall population, then you'd have to concede that nature has a mind and that homosexuals are deemed as canon fodder by the premise of natural selection. Anyway you slice it, you either have to abandon traditional evolutionary theory or abandon homosexuality as being propagated via genetic pathways. I personally reject both. Being that I don't think anything is evolving other than minor adaptations within any given populace, it would be moot for me to answer it. The question to you, is, "How do you explain homosexuality while still holding fast to the tenets of evolution?" How is it even possible?

It has everything to do with it. Why have they shown no signs for gradations? You either have to admit that Coelecanth haven't been around for millions of years or that evolution does not extend further than minor changes due isolation. The stark fact remains that the fossilized Coelecanth is the same as living ones. So, "why is that," is the question. Alright, I'll stop talking about the Coelecanth until a more pertinent thread opens.

Sorry for being off-topic, but....

quote:

---

The stark fact remains that the fossilized Coelecanth is the same as living ones.

---

See, this is why it is so difficult to discuss these things with creationists; they make up their own "facts".

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Hi NJ,In case you forgot (or couldn't find the thread again), I'd like to continue our discussion on the Mutations Made Easy thread.

In addition to the points made by WK regarding the potentially hidden fitness benefits of homosexuality (certainly true in the animal kingdom) we need to remember that many superficially mal-adaptive traits and sub-optimal strategies can survive in a population at low rates without ever being completely eliminated. Obviously we could not survive as a population of obligate homosexuals, but as WK points out, homosexuality is not exclusively obligate by any means, at least not in more that a small fraction of the total population. Thus it may be under frequency dependent selection - only strongly selected against when it reaches higher frequencies.For example thievery is a behavioral strategy that has evolved in many animal species as well as human societies, especially as it relates to resources needed for reproduction. A good example is the digger wasps where females have to dig a burrow for each of their larvae and provision it with a parasitized host. Many of the larger females will try and still ready-made burrows from smaller females, but thievery is a strategy that can only work when plenty of others are actually digging, so the payoff for the behavior is 'frequency dependent' in the population. The trait never evolves to be expressed by more than a small fraction of the females, because as soon as there are more thieves than diggers, the payoff for thievery vanishes and you are better of spending your time digging than looking to steal.I would predict the same to apply to exclusive homosexuality. The Christians worried about the 'spread of homosexuallity' have nothing to worry about. This is not a trait that can ever go to fixation in the population as there will be naturally imposed frequency dependent selection against it whenever it becomes too common - without any legal intervention on the part of society. And we are better off accepting the proclivity in some people than we are trying in futility to stamp it out completely. It's just not going to happen.

Even if that were true (which it isn't) it wouldn't be a problem for evolution. Body plans don't change that much if they are successful in their niche. Crocodilians and horse shoe crabs are two examples of organisms that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. The rate of evolutionary change (and the magnitude of the consequences for animal morphology) varies GREATLY among different lineages.

Show me how the fossilized Coelecanth is different from living ones and I'll gladly concede. Show me the "facts" that refutes that they haven't changed. 350 million years is a long time for something not to change.I don't particularly like this website, but the author presents a good argument, nonetheless.evolutiondeceit.com is for sale | HugeDomainsAnd then a pro-evolution site concludes that:"The 5-foot, 130-pound fish in question, called the coelacanth, ekes out an existence in cool, deep-water caves off the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean and northern Indonesia. Its lobed fins, skeleton structure and large, round scales are practically unchanged from its fossilized ancestors. This resemblance is what makes it an attractive target for sequencing, according to work published in last week’s online issue of Genome Research."http://news-service.stanford.edu/...mber1/med-fish-1201.html

From Wikipedia:

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This topic is in the "Biological Evolution" forum, and has the title "morality, charity according to evolution". All messages should have some direct connection to that topic title and/or the content of message 1.Considerations of the Coelacanth are off topic. As in OFF TOPIC, WAY OFF TOPIC, WAY WAY OFF TOPIC. A search of the topic database I keep found no Coelacanth specific topic. Someone starting such via the Proposed New Topics forum would be a good thing.As I said in the subtitle, "Get back on topic or it's closing time".Adminnemooseus

---

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if it could be that the 'spread of homosexuality' is linked to population pressures on the human species and becomes more prevalent within high-density populations? I was thinking it could be a strategy for dealing with overpopulation, but I have never heard of any studies that dealt with the subject in terms of urban as opposed to rural incidence.If it is the case, it might be linked to altruism as a sort of corollary. By resisting the drive to reproduce, it would serve to improve the species chances for survival.Edited by scoff, : Edited to clarify post's relation to thread subject.

I'm not even suggesting that homosexuality should be breed out. I don't even need to go that route. All I want to know is why would natural selection choose homosexuality if it completely undermines the entirety of evolution? This means nothing in the terms of sexual selection, which are nil, if you are an avowed homosexual. Why would natural selection choose homosexuality in the first place, however infrequent it might be in the overall population? Doesn't it mean that they are an evolutionary dead end if they are to repect their avowed, naturual inclinations and desires? No one is worried about homosexuality being propagated through genetics, least of all, Christians. But precisely what I'm arriving at is the conclusion that it has nothing to do with genetics. I would be inclined to agree that more effeminate or more masculine tendencies or traits can be transmitted via biological pathways, but not that it would somehow undermine sexuality as a whole. And since studies have attemtped to locate this elusive 'gay gene,' without success, it seems the only threat posed by it stems from sociological reasons and not biological ones.