Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

quote:

---

A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring.

---

This is an argument from nature. Where do sperm clinics factor in? I addressed the weakness of the argument then.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

WK, there is only ONE way for evolution to take place. There is only ONE reason why a specie proliferates. There is only ONE way a mutation could be fixed in a population-- that would be by sex, whether asexual or sexual. Therefore, I stand by my sentiment that sexual selection must, by necessity, be the single greatest factor in evolution. They have been attempted to be rebutted ad hoc. The weakness of the arguments I've heard are specious, at best. I still don't see how you could not see that homosexuality and evolution are incompatible, given to such evidence.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

I'm framing the question from an evolutionary standpoint. Slowly but surely, as Admin is pointing out, certain people are making emotive arguments when the title of the forum is "Homosexuality and Natural Selection."The question is why would nature select homosexuals at all.The usual answer I get back, when purely emotive responses aren't flung around, is that nature does not intend for anything because its all up to chance. But that is not entirely true.Evolutionists routinely assert that while chance certainly plays a role, natural selection cannot be categorized in capricious terms. Natural selection is supposed to be life's filter that weeds out undesirable traits, while dominant traits thrive."Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.

​

When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating." -TalkOriginsSo my question is that if natural selection is the opposite of chance, then why did nature select homosexuality at all?My statement is that nature didn't select it, because in purely evolutionary terms, they are diametrically opposed. It seems to be psychological, rather than purely biological.But in the event that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, clearly we can see that homosexuals are weaker in evolutionary terms, because the desire for progeny is removed.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

clearly we can see that homosexuals are weaker in evolutionary terms, because the desire for progeny is removed.

---

Lets try this again...Evolutionists assert that sexual desire stems from their overall desire to procreate.Homosexuals desire to copulate with members of the same sex. They have no want or desire to be with members of the opposite sex.So, from a natural point-of-view, why is that?Just so you know, these sentiments do not necessarily mean that I am in agreement with them. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate by showing how the two theories (homosexuality and evolution) are irreconcilable without changing the fundamentals of both theories.Does that make a little more sense?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Why would evolution need a "gay uncle" when there are countless women to do that already in a communal situation, which is part of the description for early hominid life? The study of "gay uncle apes?"I just have one question: Why is it that I can't make arguments about moral relativity about beastiality, because, "animal sexuality is just too different from humans," but you get to compare ape sexuality to a humans whenever you think it might suit you?Alright, make it two questions: Secondly, does this change the dynamic of what I already claimed-- that on an individual basis, homosexuals would be evolutions cannon fodder? No.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Which obviously is saying a lot for a guy who just told me about gay uncle apes as some sort of scientific breakthrough. There ya go, exactly. So how does it work for homosexuals as it pertains to evolution? They are essentially, what, natures nanny? Come on, man. Think about what you're saying. Anastasia already pointed it out. You are speaking about natural selection in terms of it being a mindful entity.Moreover, you aren't accounting for lesbians in the wild. What job do they have? I just see a lot of ad hoc reasons that, to you, sound mildly plausible. It seems that you'll just throw one out there in hopes that I'll bite. Because homosexuality has to do with SEX, Taz! That is the angle from which the moral argument derives. And there are only a few things that can copulate where contrasting them forces the relativist to crush his own argument by saying one is okay, but the others or not, for literally, no reason other than them having some personal objections to it. I suppose I could use inanimate objects as a basis, but then there would be no moral argument.Its pretty much unassailable at this point that I am not equivocating homosexuals to anything else, being that its a moral argument. Everyone, save the boards extremists (go figure), understand what I've been saying all along. Are humans exempt from natural selection? Its pretty obvious that we are discussing humans here. We've been doing that now for several pages now. Which would be totally copacetic to me if it weren't for the fact a number of people (not sure if you were in that group) that said animal sexuality and human sexuality are different enough to where you can't draw any good conclusions from them by way of juxtaposition. And I even mentioned to, I believe, Molobigirl, that it seems awfully hypocritical. What I said is the acceptance of it comes from a liberal persuation. As for gay ducks, cats, and donkeys, the problem is that you give these animals way too much leeway for understanding. If a dog has tried to copulate with another male dog, does it prove the dog is a homosexual, or does it simply prove the dog is sexual?I've seen male dogs try to copulate with other male dogs, female dogs, cats, shoes, you name it. Does that also mean that dogs can be zoophiles if they attempt to copulate with animals of a different specie? These animals are driven by simple instinct. I think you give them far more mental credit than is warranted. Yeah, I butchered that sentence. Sorry. What I meant to say is, even supposing that homosexuality is perfectly normal within the animal kingdom, could they reasonably be construed as "weaker" in individual terms, as it relates to natural selection?I only ask, because, being that procreation is so critical within the theory of evolution, how can natural selection favor them if they have effectively lost the natural will to procreate? A cure? Can you provide data for me to review? I've never heard of this. But let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You aren't giving me a hypothetical situation, right? You are saying that researchers have actually "cured," (whatever that means), homosexuals within the animal kingdom?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Premise 1: Gay people like to have sex with members of the same sex.Premise 2: People of the same sex can't procreate.Premise 3: In order for them to procreate, they have to go against their natural proclivities in order to do so.Premise 4: This is an argument from nature.Premise 5: How is it natural, since nature continues to proliferate only by asexual and sexual means, for there to be homosexuality?Conclusion: Homosexuality is not a natural proclivity. But even in the event that it were, clearly they would be on the poorer side of natural selection, since they would, in essence, select themselves out of existence.So how natural is it for homosexuals to go against their own nature just to have children?In practical terms, what would that mean for the child? Would, say, the straight woman divvy up the child's time between herself and the father?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt