Darwin's theory

floggg · 09-10-2014 5:40pm

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The horses mightn't have grass to eat were it not for earthworms, water and oxygen so obviously there's an interdependence on all the organisms and plants, animals that exist.

It doesn't strike me as a random arrangement. I'm not religious, but I just don't entirely agree with these atheistic dogmatic beliefs about the origin of universe and everything in it. That it was all just random and evolved without any direction.

So, burn me at the stake.

There werent any horses before earthworms, and no, the probably wouldn't exist without them.

And?

Interdependence in nature doesn't disprove Darwin at all. The theory of evolution says that organisms adapt to their surroundings.

So worms likely helped created the conditions which enabled grasses to flourish, and when they did horses and other grazers evolved over time to take advantage of the abundance of grass.

The Interdependence wasn't by design - it results from the fact that animals evolved in response to various environmental conditions and grew to depend on the continuance in being of those conditions. If you take one variable away, particularly food sources, they will struggle to survive.

If given time however, something else will evolve to take advantage of the new conditions

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 5:41pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

From a purely Darwinian standpoint though, homosexuality is self-evidently a disorder I dont know how the LGBT community would react to that though

They would most likely react by pointing out the theory that there are benefits in having close family non breeding individuals when rearing offspring.

cdoherty86 · 09-10-2014 5:41pm

folan wrote: »

ok, so you really don't understand evolution. it is a heavily interesting and complex field, which you would find very interesting.

No, I'm simply stating that everything is interdependent and must have some intelligent thinking behind it.

I believe there was direction, it didn't all occur randomly.

Egginacup · 09-10-2014 5:42pm

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Which are you?

Knasher · 09-10-2014 5:43pm

b318isp wrote: »

I call troll here. It's 2014 FFS.

You say that, but there are a couple of DUP people in government up north who have been trying to push this creationist nonsense on schools recently. So there are at least some people on this side of the Atlantic who still buy it.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 5:43pm

smcgiff wrote: »

They would most likely react by pointing out the theory that there are benefits in having close family non breeding individuals when rearing offspring.

Taking homosexuality as a persistent, pervasive trait means no offspring though.

folan · 09-10-2014 5:45pm

cdoherty86 wrote: »

No, I'm simply stating that everything is interdependent

yes, thats kinda the gist of it.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

and must have some intelligent thinking behind it.

I believe there was direction, it didn't all occur randomly.

maybe, but thats a convo for another thread.

ScumLord · 09-10-2014 5:47pm

We can actually see the early days of an ape splitting into two new species with the bonobos, in places they're just across the river from Chimpanzees and even though at first sight they look more or less the same they're beginning to develop into very different animals.

It's basically the congo river that separates these animals and it's already had a big effect on their behaviour.

It was the same for us, climate change placed a barrier between us and the rest of our species, we developed into humans seperate and the apes we could no longer breed with turned into chimps.

Galway K9 · 09-10-2014 5:48pm

http://suicideproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/aa.jpg

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 5:50pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Taking homosexuality as a persistent, pervasive trait means no offspring though.

Nope. You're forgetting the nephew or niece the homosexual rears will also contain a lot of the career's genes.

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 5:52pm

cdoherty86 wrote: »

No, I'm simply stating that everything is interdependent and must have some intelligent thinking behind it.

I believe there was direction, it didn't all occur randomly.

Some people believe in tarot cards and astrology. We can only bring you so far.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 5:57pm

smcgiff wrote: »

Nope. You're forgetting the nephew or niece the homosexual rears will also contain a lot of the career's genes.

Nope.
If, as I said, homosexuality is a persistent and pervasive trait then eventually everyone is gay and you dont get any offspring to rear.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 5:59pm

cdoherty86 wrote: »

No, I'm simply stating that everything is interdependent and must have some intelligent thinking behind it.

I believe there was direction, it didn't all occur randomly.

Think of it this way.

Everything arrives randomly.
Some stuff dies off as it doesnt get what it needs from the environment.

You are going to be left with stuff that works with and within the existing environment.
Looking at it from now it all looks beautifully planned, but you are forgetting that all the stuff that didnt work is now extinct.

Its not planned, the stuff that works keeps working, the stuff that isnt dies off.

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 6:02pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Nope.
If, as I said, homosexuality is a persistent and pervasive trait then eventually everyone is gay and you dont get any offspring to rear.

I don't understand why everyone would become gay.

Even if a gay man and a lesbian had a child (because we know they can biologically) it doesn't mean the child would be gay. They may pass the gay gene on though.

Look up the recessive gene.

Galway K9 · 09-10-2014 6:04pm

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

And the Darwin award goes to.....

floggg · 09-10-2014 6:06pm

smcgiff wrote: »

They would most likely react by pointing out the theory that there are benefits in having close family non breeding individuals when rearing offspring.

I think our reaction is why the **** is (s)he spending so much time thinking about us that the first thing (s)he thought of when evolution was mentioned was gay people.

While we are flattered by how much time (s)he spends thinking about us, it's a little unhealthy.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:12pm

smcgiff wrote: »

I don't understand why everyone would become gay.

Even if a gay man and a lesbian had a child (because we know they can biologically) it doesn't mean the child would be gay. They may pass the gay gene on though.

Look up the recessive gene.

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 6:14pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

Head explodes.

Skylinehead · 09-10-2014 6:16pm

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Can I play the piano anymore?

Of course you can!

floggg · 09-10-2014 6:16pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

You really don't understand procreation, evolution or homosexuality.

Nobody "becomes" gay. You are or you aren't.

Or your bisexual, in which case you are and you aren't.

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:17pm

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The horses mightn't have grass to eat were it not for earthworms, water and oxygen so obviously there's an interdependence on all the organisms and plants, animals that exist.

It doesn't strike me as a random arrangement. I'm not religious, but I just don't entirely agree with these atheistic dogmatic beliefs about the origin of universe and everything in it. That it was all just random and evolved without any direction.

So, burn me at the stake.

Who said its random?

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:19pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

You can only reproduce through sex?

Defender OF Faith · 09-10-2014 6:22pm

floggg wrote: »

Nobody "becomes" gay. You are or you aren't.

GreeBo wrote: »

Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

I dont think you understood what he's trying to say

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:22pm

floggg wrote: »

I think our reaction is why the **** is (s)he spending so much time thinking about us thing (s)he thought of when evolution was mentioned was gay people.

While we are flattered by how much time (s)he spends thinking about us, it's a little unhealthy.

I think its a pretty obvious question to be honest.
If Darwin "means" that only beneficial traits for an organism survive, then is homosexuality beneficial? Or is it a natural disorder that doesn't benefit the organism?
You can get into interesting things like if its beneficial for the community does it survive even if its not beneficial for the individual organism?
But then that opens up things like, if its beneficial for the community and the community supports the individual organism then perhaps thats beneficial for the organism.

Its very complex and interesting

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:24pm

Saipanne wrote: »

You can only reproduce through sex?

From a biological standpoint, yes.
Humans dont have asexual reproduction. Perhaps we will need to (or something we evolve into will need to) if homosexuality becomes pervasive.

Its unlikely that a trait will survive because an unnatural process can overcome its "drawbacks".

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 6:25pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its a pretty obvious question to be honest.
If Darwin "means" that only beneficial traits for an organism survive, then is homosexuality beneficial? Or is it a natural disorder that doesn't benefit the organism?
You can get into interesting things like if its beneficial for the community does it survive even if its not beneficial for the individual organism?
But then that opens up things like, if its beneficial for the community and the community supports the individual organism then perhaps thats beneficial for the organism.

Its very complex and interesting

I'm not for one second equating homosexuality with disease, but trying to make a point.

Greebo, you do know a lot of diseases are inherited, right?

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:25pm

GreeBo wrote: »

From a biological standpoint, yes.
Humans dont have asexual reproduction. Perhaps we will need to (or something we evolve into will need to) if homosexuality becomes pervasive.

Its unlikely that a trait will survive because an unnatural process can overcome its "drawbacks".

Wrong.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:25pm

Saipanne wrote: »

Darwin did not mean that at all.

Oh cool, thanks for explaining your view.

On a good message board answers like yours would become extinct as they serve no useful purpose.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:26pm

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm not for one second equating homosexuality with disease, but trying to make a point.

Greebo, you do know a lot of diseases are inherited, right?

Indeed I do....not sure of the point you are trying to make though.

The diseases that prevent reproduction are not inherited though, or at least not for more than one generation.

Defender OF Faith · 09-10-2014 6:27pm

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm not for one second equating homosexuality with disease, but trying to make a point.

Greebo, you do know a lot of diseases are inherited, right?

If you think about it this way then Homosexuality will be more of a choice then something you are born with

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:27pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh cool, thanks for explaining your view.

On a good message board answers like yours would become extinct as they serve no useful purpose.

I don't believe you would be receptive to new ideas.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:28pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If you think about it this way then Homosexuality will be more of a choice then something you are born with

Or will it be "I am homosexual but I have sex with the opposite sex for procreation purposes"?

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:28pm

Saipanne wrote: »

I don't believe you would be receptive to new ideas.

I just turned you into a Dodo, that ignore button is great!

endacl · 09-10-2014 6:29pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Think of it this way.

Everything arrives randomly.
Some stuff dies off as it doesnt get what it needs from the environment.

You are going to be left with stuff that works with and within the existing environment.
Looking at it from now it all looks beautifully planned, but you are forgetting that all the stuff that didnt work is now extinct.

Its not planned, the stuff that works keeps working, the stuff that isnt dies off.

There's the problem. It's impossible, frustrating, and ultimately futile to attempt to debate a topic that you actually know and understand, if the poster you are debating with doesn't know and understand, but is convinced they do...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:29pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I just turned you into a Dodo, that ignore button is great!

Ignorance button?

Knasher · 09-10-2014 6:31pm

I think you might be assuming that sexuality is predictable by a single gene, which is probably not the case. If sexuality is predictable by a group of genes, themselves predicting a whole host of different outcomes, then you can't really say that a single trait can't be detrimental to reproduction in order for it to be propagated.

In any case there are actual genetic disorders which are absolutely detrimental to both the individual and the community and which persist. Because it is much more complicated than a straight forward selection of favourable traits.

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 6:31pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed I do....not sure of the point you are trying to make though.

The diseases that prevent reproduction are not inherited though, or at least not for more than one generation.

You were asserting earlier only beneficial traits are passed on. This is clearly not true.

GreeBo wrote: »

Or will it be "I am homosexual but I have sex with the opposite sex for procreation purposes"?

Oh, that's a relief. I thought you'd been struck once too often by lightening while out of the golf course. You're only trolling.

Glad that's cleared up.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:31pm

endacl wrote: »

There's the problem. It's impossible, frustrating, and ultimately futile to attempt to debate a topic that you actually know and understand, if the poster you are debating with doesn't know and understand, but is convinced they do...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Is that aimed at me?

Could you enlighten me as to what you perceive I don't understand?
I also, in no way, attempted to purport to be an expert.

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:33pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Could you enlighten me as to what you perceive I don't understand?.

Evolutionary theory in its entirety.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 6:33pm

smcgiff wrote: »

You were asserting earlier only beneficial traits are passed on. This is clearly not true.

Oh, that's a relief. I thought you'd been struck once too often by lightening while out of the golf course. You're only trolling.

Glad that's cleared up.

All traits are passed on, the positive ones get passed on more because they are positive for the survival of the organism.
You can see they are positive because more of those organisms with that trait survive.

Please dont accuse me of trolling as a means of (failing) to explain your point eloquently.

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:33pm

Noblong wrote: »

No Amazons?

?

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 6:35pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Please dont accuse me of trolling as a means of (failing) to explain your point eloquently.

Yeah, that's the problem here.

Defender OF Faith · 09-10-2014 6:35pm

Saipanne wrote: »

Wrong.

If you could simply disagree with someone by saying their "Wrong" life would be so much easier

*Present your thesis please
Thesis: Plant can sneeze when you pepper spray them.
*Present your Dissertation please
It's wrong
*Here is your PhD thank you

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:38pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If you could simply disagree with someone by saying their "Wrong" life would be so much easier

*Present your thesis please
Thesis: Plant can sneeze when you pepper spray them.
*Present your Dissertation please
It's wrong
*Here is your PhD thank you

Wouldn't it?

ScumLord · 09-10-2014 6:38pm

If there is a homosexual gene it could already have been spread throughout the human population. If you go back to the ancient greeks men would have homosexual periods in their lives as part of their culture, it wasn't frowned upon and it didn't stop them doing their duty of having children for their community.

Things have been very, very different in the past, homosexual acts wouldn't always have been frowned on and ancient cultures might see us as weird for having the distinctions that we do.

Humans actual sexualatiy has been twisted and rewriten by civilisation for thousands of years probably millions. I'd say it could well have been one of the first tools for social manipulation just as it is with the likes of the bonobo.

Defender OF Faith · 09-10-2014 6:40pm

smcgiff wrote: »

You were asserting earlier only beneficial traits are passed on. This is clearly not true.
.

I think over the Millions of years it takes evolution to take place mostly {Only is too strong otherwise we wont have recessive x-linked diseases as you mentioned) beneficial traits will be passed

Saipanne · 09-10-2014 6:42pm

If anyone would like to know why GreeBo is talking absolute ****, I would recommend reading The Selfish Gene. In there, it explains how supposedly "non beneficial" traits may survive in the population, so long as the proportion of those genes in the population does not exceed a "tipping point". In fact, that tipping point, in theory, should be unbreachable. If you don't like Dawkins, I'm sure there are many other sources for this theory.

Joe prim · 09-10-2014 6:43pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

Your'e clutching at straws here.

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 6:43pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think over the Millions of years it takes evolution to take place mostly {Only is too strong otherwise we wont have recessive x-linked diseases as you mentioned) beneficial traits will be passed

I've no problem with the above.

Edgarfrndly · 09-10-2014 7:10pm

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

Darwin's theory

Comments