Poll: Darwinian Evolution

[warbeak2099]

"organisms just happen"

See this is why religious people piss me off. This is not evolution. They make it into something completely contrary to what it actually is, and then they use that to excuse themselves from accepting it. Evolution is not "something from nothing." Stop using that tired, stupid, lazy, old argument. It's wrong and it doesn't make any sense. You're doing your faith a great disservice by not understanding that which you reject. Read (gasp!), learn, and then try to make a decision. The logic you've made your decision on presently is ridiculous.

[bornl33t]

Yes, hence natural selection and evolution of "successful" species over time.

Under this logic we can safely say that gay isn't natural but purely choice. Because if it were natural then this "mutation" would have become extinct right? See this is the problem with lies they always bite you in the cheeks some how.

[BobTheCow]

Under this logic we can safely say that gay isn't natural but purely choice. Because if it were natural then this "mutation" would have become extinct right? See this is the problem with lies they always bite you in the cheeks some how.

Except that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, so natural selection isn't involved in the process. Keep in mind many animals outside of humans express homosexual tendencies. Are we trying to argue every major social issue at once in this thread now?

[Ando]

I see the mod hammer in this threads future

The downward spiral has commenced

[vf-xx]

Under this logic we can safely say that gay isn't natural but purely choice. Because if it were natural then this "mutation" would have become extinct right? See this is the problem with lies they always bite you in the cheeks some how.

Actually you could call it a form of natural population control... Just saying.

The way I see it, we can prove evolution exists now. We cannot "prove" how life/the universe/and everything began. Just theories.

So as a Christian I have no problems with evolution in and of itself, as an active phenomenon today.

[grEnAlEins]

Except that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics

Except that it is, in all likelihood a genetic trait...

While a gene or set of genes has not yet been isolated in humans (not that I have read anyways, but I do not actively read the academia surrounding genetics, as it is not my field) it has been isolated in scores of species. They actually engineered a colony of homosexual fruit flies at some university (forgot which one) a few years ago. I personally found it humorous that they chose to use the fruit fly for this experiment (no offense intended to anyone).

With respect to the gay not being natural because gays are not extinct, that is ridiculous as they have no mutated into a new species and replicated. Not all genetic anomalies are evolution in motion. Some are just anomalous occurrences that come as a part of the natural world. Really, homosexuality is not all that different from sterility with respect to the "not natural" argument. They can both be natural and hinder reproduction, and not indicate a new species.

[Hilltop Customs]

Ok...I'll try this: A genetic mutation actually enhancing an organism instead of making it weaker? Sounds like a good movie...I'll call it X-Men...yeah. -_-

Do you base all requirements in your life off science fiction movies? Why dont you read up on RNA viruses if you dont believe mutations which enhance organisms exist.

"Space flight? Sounds like a good movie....I'll call it Star Trek..."




About the whole homosexual traits breeding out. The urge to reproduce outweighs most everything in nature. It is completely possible a homosexual could have a heterosexual relationship to reproduce(if a heterosexual relationship is even required) then continue on with their homosexual life. In that case the tendency to be homosexual is passed down. Many cultures did not place limits on sexuality, much less attempt to lock people into a single relationship for their lifetime. Even with the social requirement of a heterosexual relationship, a homosexual is then forced into a heterosexual relationship and ends up producing offspring.

So no, homosexuality would not breed out unless it overpowers the want to reproduce, and a negative attitude toward homosexuality actually forces the homosexuals into a situation where they are more likely to have hereditary children.

[PrimoRocker]

See this is why religious people piss me off. This is not evolution. They make it into something completely contrary to what it actually is, and then they use that to excuse themselves from accepting it. Evolution is not "something from nothing." Stop using that tired, stupid, lazy, old argument. It's wrong and it doesn't make any sense. You're doing your faith a great disservice by not understanding that which you reject. Read (gasp!), learn, and then try to make a decision. The logic you've made your decision on presently is ridiculous.

That's right, except Darwins Origin of Species doesnt have any explanation for the origin of species.

[BiNumber3]

Under this logic we can safely say that gay isn't natural but purely choice. Because if it were natural then this "mutation" would have become extinct right? See this is the problem with lies they always bite you in the cheeks some how

Humans have so many mutations that have not become "extinct" it's not even funny, our population is probably one of the primary reasons we will not see the end of these mutations for a great long while, assuming of course that the tendency to become homosexual is indeed due to mutation...
Though there have been homosexual tendencies since the Greek times, and very likely since even before that


as for coincidences, every mammal has exactly 9 cervical vertabrae, 4 limbs, red blood, mammary glands, the list goes on... this doesn't make anyone wonder at the possibilty that a millenia ago, all mammals may have come from series of mutations that made mammals diverge from say insects? archeia? crustaceans? Just a thought

WE can contemplate these ideas all we want tho, many of us require "proofs" including myself, whereas others rely on faith... and yet even as I say that, I'm taking it on faith that humans landed on the moon, even if I have never directly encountered anything other information through books "proving" that it is true...

So, some of us put all our faith in books created by humans... and some of us put all our faith into a book created by humans through divine guidance.......


Last edit lol: I also find it interesting that the church among other institutions, would condemn sciences, more so in the past, and yet, we as humans would not be as we are, living in cities, eating processed foods etc. if science did not have some truth in it...
Didn't the Church condemn Galileo (or was it Coppernicus? or some other dead dude?) for saying Earth was not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the Solar System?

And don't even get me started on the notion of Earth being Flat..... if anyone still believes that, all I can really do is lol

[CaliMagFan]

Just a thought I have about homosexuality. This is a hypothesis that would speak to the fact that homosexuality is ever-present, controlled by genetics, but does not get eliminated completely by natural selection.

Not all traits in the phenotype* are as simple as on/off or a single set of dominant and recessive alleles. Thus the appearance of homosexuality in a population could come in a spectrum of "degrees of gay".

I know that sounds silly, but think of it like height or skin color. Skin color is controlled by a set of about 6 genes in humans, height is controlled by something like 10. So, a black person and a white person are more genetically similar (when it comes to skin color) than a very tall person and a very short one.

This could be the same for homosexuality. It is only when a person gets enough of the genes for being homosexual that he or she would actually have the behavioral trait. It would be a small part of the population- analogous to something like the percent of people over 7 feet tall. Lots of people are some gay, but few are gay enough to act it and that's just fine.


*Phenotype is the term for the observable look of an organism- or any other biochemical difference in its make up. This is different from a genotype. Genotype is the actual configuration of the alleles. For a Mendelian genetic example let's look at eye color:

B (capital) is the dominant allele for brown eye color
b (lower case) is the recessive allele for blue eye color

if your dad and mom both have brown eyes (phenotype) and both have a genotype of Bb then your possible inherited genotypes for eye color are: BB, Bb, Bb, bb.

That's a one in four chance of blue eyes (phenotype). -- lucky you

Ok, enough day one genetics for you.

----- Many thanks to all for your comments, they've been good, keep them coming and please keep them civil----

[SCpoloRicker]

/generally accepts evolution
//(Hopefully) non-jerkish agnostic.

[bornl33t]

So then if it's not genetic then it is either choice or psychological disorder? It's fun to watch you guys talk like you are all knowing because of what you believe. You cannot prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything you speak of is true, yet you take it for fact? Isn't that bad science? Proving a theory right instead of wrong? It sounds to me like you "believe" in evolution. Is this not a form of faith also? I mean, I personally have never seen anything evolve, have you?


I feel sorry for you people, in thinking you are wise you became fools. I'm not pushing my believes either. Cause if I'm wrong I lost nothing, if I'm right I won everything. I like those odds.
What I would like to achieve is less of these stupid threads....

[Ando]

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt...

-Abraham Lincoln

[Shirow]

I feel sorry for you people, in thinking you are wise you became fools. I'm not pushing my believes either. Cause if I'm wrong I lost nothing, if I'm right I won everything. I like those odds.
What I would like to achieve is less of these stupid threads....

Well, not necessarily. What if some other religion is right and by not believing in that one, you will go to their form of 'hell'?

You're not really hedging your bets by just following Christianity

[bornl33t]

Well, not necessarily. What if some other religion is right and by not believing in that one, you will go to their form of 'hell'?

You're not really hedging your bets by just following Christianity

who said anything about Christianity? I'm just saying these guys are wrong. I figured out how they argue, by just keep telling others their wrong and never putting out any information I can only win. But since you bring it up, any religion is a better chance then the lack of religion right?

And like I said I don't care..I'm just tired of these threads cause we all know it's not about "gathering information".