Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Natural Selection.
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 243 (414324)
08-03-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by pelican
08-03-2007 7:40 PM


Re: Short lived
One of my own adult children just happens to be in a same sex relationship.
Ah, thank you for clarifying.
That Theodore Roosevelt talks a load of shit, doesn't he?
Uhhhhh, well, I guess if you think so. I'm not sure what he said that you think is a "load of shit," but I should add that the quote has nothing to do with my post. Its an option available to all posters in the "Profile" menu.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by pelican, posted 08-03-2007 7:40 PM pelican has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5986 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 167 of 243 (414331)
08-03-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CDarwin
09-05-2006 9:36 PM


CDarwin
This is a problem I have because if I say it is not I am called Anti -Gay and homophobic which I am not.
Well perhaps the better explanation for the prevalence of homosexuality is that the area of the brain that governs homosexuality expression is not selected against since there is no survival threat present by it being there. In the same way that heterosexuality has expressions that have nothing to do with reproduction yet are not selected against either.
Of Course , you could tell them to piss off and quit being so heterophobic and learn to deal with you as you are despite their discriminating biases. It is a waste of time to try to expect people to understand you through a filter they have in place but ,more to the point, it is a waste of your time to try to change their perception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CDarwin, posted 09-05-2006 9:36 PM CDarwin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 8:59 PM sidelined has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 243 (414339)
08-03-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by sidelined
08-03-2007 8:27 PM


Arguments from science, not emotion
Well perhaps the better explanation for the prevalence of homosexuality is that the area of the brain that governs homosexuality expression is not selected against since there is no survival threat present by it being there.
But isn't there? Since the entire theory of evolution is based on sexual selection, what purpose would it serve nature to select a specie that does not have the desire to reproduce?
Obviously the argument extends to survival, since virtually all theories concerning evolution revolve around reproduction.
That begs the question: If nature, having no mind or will, does not intend for homosexuality, rather, that it simply happened, couldn't we reasonably view homosexuals to be inferior in evolutionary terms?
In Darwin's estimation, life is only made clear in terms of winners and loser, living or dead. Where then does homosexuality fit in that?
you could tell them to piss off and quit being so heterophobic and learn to deal with you as you are despite their discriminating biases.
Discrimination doesn't factor in to the equation when we are speaking about nature. This is an argument from nature. There is no political correctness in nature. It simply is what it is. So for this once, lets not make emotive arguments and just answer the questions appropriately-- which is from the view of science-- nothing more, nothing less.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by sidelined, posted 08-03-2007 8:27 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by DrJones*, posted 08-03-2007 9:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 172 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2007 5:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 240 by sidelined, posted 08-11-2007 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 169 of 243 (414343)
08-03-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Hyroglyphx
08-03-2007 8:59 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
what purpose would it serve nature to select a specie that does not have the desire to reproduce?
Who said homosexuals don't have the desire to reproduce? They have a sexual attraction to the same sex, that doesn't mean that they're incapable of reproducing or lack the desire.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 8:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 12:35 AM DrJones* has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 243 (414390)
08-04-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by DrJones*
08-03-2007 9:14 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
Who said homosexuals don't have the desire to reproduce?
Umm, well, okay...
A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring. A man and a man are incapable of producing offspring. If they want to copulate with only members of the same sex, that would prevent the desire of reproduction.
*sheesh* what kind of a doctor are you?
They have a sexual attraction to the same sex, that doesn't mean that they're incapable of reproducing or lack the desire.
I'm aware that they are physically capable of reproducing. The issue is with the socioevolutionist trying to come up with compelling reasons for why things are the way they are. Homosexuals seem to be the very antithesis to the theory of evolution, as it literally, serves no evolutionary purpose to be one.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by DrJones*, posted 08-03-2007 9:14 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by DrJones*, posted 08-04-2007 3:25 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 171 of 243 (414428)
08-04-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2007 12:35 AM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring.
And so they get a sperm donor.
A man and a man are incapable of producing offspring.
And so they get an egg donor and a rental uterus.
If they want to copulate with only members of the same sex, that would prevent the desire of reproduction.
False.
Homosexuals seem to be the very antithesis to the theory of evolution, as it literally, serves no evolutionary purpose to be one.
Kuresu provide a rebuttal to this way back in Message 3
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 12:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 1:34 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 172 of 243 (414434)
08-04-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Hyroglyphx
08-03-2007 8:59 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
Since the entire theory of evolution is based on sexual selection
Do you just not know what 'sexual selection' means or just not know what the hell you're talking about?
I know there are a lot of people on this board who are keen to emphasise the role of sexual selection in evolution but I very much doubt you would find even the most hardcore of them saying that it is what the 'entire theory of evolution' is based on.
Its this sort of plainly wrong attempts at 'science' that make people think that you don't realy care a whit for arguing from science Nem. You've been making the same stupid assertions about what gya people can and can't do or want and don't want this entire thread and they have been rebutted ad nauseum.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 8:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 1:43 PM Wounded King has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 173 of 243 (414436)
08-04-2007 5:45 AM


What the ?
I'm still reading the posts and I still don't get why this line of enquiry? I just don't get it. Is it just a topic of conversation?

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3503 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 174 of 243 (414437)
08-04-2007 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by pelican
08-03-2007 6:01 AM


Re: bull shit
[/qs]I did spit the dummy a little and I apologise if I have offended anyone. I tend to get a bee in my bonnet when my children are concerned. A lioness protecting her cubs interests.[/qs]
Funny. My mom once told me that the only thing that really changed for her after I came out was that she felt much more on the defensive when people made ignorant or hateful comments. That really blew me away. I am still in awe of that statement.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by pelican, posted 08-03-2007 6:01 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by pelican, posted 08-04-2007 8:30 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 175 of 243 (414447)
08-04-2007 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Jaderis
08-04-2007 6:04 AM


Re: bull shit
I guess I know how your mum feels. Anything bordering on de-humanizing my child drives me insane. I'm not too keen on labelling of any kind and I do feel this forum discussion is trying to categorize a group of people.
I see homosexuality as another form of hetrosexuality. A relationship between two people. I don't need to be examined to discover why I choose one relationship and not another. I am drawn to some and not to others. It's simple and normal.
Why is deemed un-natural for same sex relationships? I just don't get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Jaderis, posted 08-04-2007 6:04 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 176 of 243 (414448)
08-04-2007 8:30 AM


Forum Guidelines Alert
The last time a homosexuality discussion spun out of control it became a huge mess. I will shut this thread down immediately at the next sign of incivility.
EvC Forum will not play host to the sensibilities of the easily offended. If you do not like what is being said in this thread to the point where you cannot maintain civility then stop participating before you ruin it for everyone and force me to shut this thread down.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by pelican, posted 08-04-2007 9:24 PM Admin has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 243 (414505)
08-04-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by DrJones*
08-04-2007 3:25 AM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
quote:
A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring.
And so they get a sperm donor.
This is an argument from nature. Where do sperm clinics factor in?
Kuresu provide a rebuttal to this way back in Message 3 (Thread Homosexuality and Natural Selection. in Forum Social Issues and Creation/Evolution)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DrJones*, posted 08-04-2007 3:25 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by DrJones*, posted 08-04-2007 2:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 243 (414511)
08-04-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Wounded King
08-04-2007 5:26 AM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
I know there are a lot of people on this board who are keen to emphasise the role of sexual selection in evolution but I very much doubt you would find even the most hardcore of them saying that it is what the 'entire theory of evolution' is based on.
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.
Its this sort of plainly wrong attempts at 'science' that make people think that you don't realy care a whit for arguing from science Nem. You've been making the same stupid assertions about what gya people can and can't do or want and don't want this entire thread and they have been rebutted ad nauseum.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2007 5:26 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2007 2:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 241 by Nuggin, posted 08-11-2007 7:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 179 of 243 (414523)
08-04-2007 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
This is an argument from nature
Ok, a gay man wants to have a child, therefore he has sex with a woman, baby produced. Or are you trying to say that if someone doesn't want to do something, they will never ever do it even to satisfy another desire?

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 1:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 2:04 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 180 of 243 (414533)
08-04-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2007 1:43 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
There is only ONE way a mutation could be fixed in a population-- that would be by sex, whether asexual or sexual.
Sex doesn't fix a mutation. Sex isn't any type of selection. You have quite clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what 'Sexual Selection' actually means.
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.
Your ability to write in coherent English appears to have collapsed. I agree that the weakness you claim to find in the arguments is specious. You have not made one single effort to actually rebut them however you just keep restating your narrow minded initial assumptions over and over again.
I still don't see how you could not see that homosexuality and evolution are incompatible, given to such evidence.
Because there is no evidence, only your hollow assertions.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 1:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024