Skylinehead wrote: » Of course you can!
Edgarfrndly wrote: » It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.
Edgarfrndly wrote: » 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.
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
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.
smcgiff wrote: » You were asserting earlier only beneficial traits are passed on. This is clearly not true. .
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
Saipanne wrote: » Wrong.
GreeBo wrote: » Please dont accuse me of trolling as a means of (failing) to explain your point eloquently.
Noblong wrote: » No Amazons?
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.
GreeBo wrote: » Could you enlighten me as to what you perceive I don't understand?.
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
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.
GreeBo wrote: » Or will it be "I am homosexual but I have sex with the opposite sex for procreation purposes"?
GreeBo wrote: » I just turned you into a Dodo, that ignore button is great!
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.
Saipanne wrote: » I don't believe you would be receptive to new ideas.
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
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.
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?
Saipanne wrote: » Darwin did not mean that at all.
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".
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
Saipanne wrote: » You can only reproduce through sex?
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.
