The implications of Evolution

You totally lost me there.What theories concerning the implications of evolution even exist?Who has ever claimed evolution has any intentions?

You seem to be wandering off into areas totally unrelated to either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.For example you five premises.

quote:

---

Here are the unspoken premises.

​

Premise 1 Evolution by natural selection is true and describes the origin of any aspect of being human

​

Premise 2 All human attributes must be described as persisting due to survival benefits

​

Premise 3 Homosexuality is not a spandrel (ie a harmless trait that has limited impact on the species and could be described simply as a trait that was created without being adaptive)

​

Premise 4 Homosexuality must be explained primarily in terms of its survival value

​

Premise 5 All explanations must reduce to a mechanical materialist world view.

---

Every one of those statements seems to be utter nonsense, unsupported assertions and factually false. In addition, not one of them is in anyway related to either the fact of evolution or to the Theory of Evolution. Zoom. There you go again.What theory? Do you even know what a Theory is?Are you trying to open some discussion about stuff like whether or not homosexuality is somehow wrong? Is that your problem?

Regardless of the source they are still factually false and have nothing to do with either the fact of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution so yet again, what is your topic? What is it you want to discuss?

Again, that is simply nonsense.Homosexuality is not a challenge at all for evolution nor can I see anyway anything experienced at the individual level could be a challenge for evolution.There are in fact no barriers to homosexual individuals procreating. In fact, there have even been cases where one married parent with children has then announced they were attracted to members of their own sex and so left a marriage.Again, I think you are arguing matters related to morality and philosophy and theology and social dynamics which have nothing to do with either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

Lots of folk say really stupid stuff. Lots of really stupid ideas are also very popular. No scientist expects all behaviors to be explicable in terms of their heritability and survival value.The fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution deal with populations, not individuals. I don't like puddings or yogurt or green peas. Those facts really do not threaten either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution. Why. If I can point to a single example of a person who is homosexual ever fathering or being the mother of a child your position is refuted.But I think the real issue is that you are creating a false dilemma. Sure there are folk that posit ideas like you seem to be calling "theories" but that is simply a misuse of terminology.

You do realize that neither Dennet or Dawkins is a participant in this thread. What Dennet or Dawkins might say really has little or nothing to do with this forum or this topic or this thread.So what again is the subject you want to discuss?