Darwin's theory

smcgiff · 09-10-2014 05:52PM

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 05:57PM

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 05:59PM

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 06:02PM

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 06:04PM

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 06:06PM

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 06:12PM

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 06:14PM

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 06:16PM

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Can I play the piano anymore?

Of course you can!

floggg · 09-10-2014 06:16PM

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 06:17PM

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 06:19PM

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 06:22PM

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 06:22PM

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 06:24PM

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 06:25PM

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 06:25PM

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 06:25PM

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 06:26PM

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 06:27PM

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 06:27PM

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 06:28PM

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 06:28PM

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 06:29PM

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 06:29PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Ignorance button?

Knasher · 09-10-2014 06:31PM

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 06:31PM

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 06:31PM

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 06:33PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Evolutionary theory in its entirety.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 06:33PM

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.

Darwin's theory

Comments