Darwin's theory

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

I presume you accept that humans are mammals, by scientific definition? If so - I'd be curious to hear your explanation for why humans meet the criteria for being mammals, but do not meet the criteria for being apes? Such an explanation would include your definition to what an "ape" is.

And it is not my "belief" that men are apes. It happens to be a scientific fact. We are Homo Sapiens. It is not possible to be a member of the Homo genus without being an ape. I think the problem you have is understand what the term "ape" means. It doesn't mean a knuckle-dragging hairball, that spend it's time eating leaves and swinging from trees. It has a much more specific definition, which today is backed up by phylogenetics.

I think once you get past your preconceived notion for what you believe an ape to be, and rather acknowledge the scientific classification for what it is - you may begin to understand exactly why it is humans are apes.

Fun fact for you: Humans and chimps are more closely related than chimps are to gorillas. So naturally, we would expect to see that humans and chimps are genetically closer to each other when analysing the genome of each species, right?

And that's exactly what we find. Humans and Chimps are more genetically alike than Chimps are to Gorillas.

smcgiff wrote: »

It's probable that the 'gay gene(s)' that contribute to a gay trait are recessive.

So, even if two parents had recessive gay genes (but be straight themselves), then there would be an approximate chance of 1 in 16 of having a gay child.

To be clear, if someone has gay genes they themselves would not necessarily be gay. That's important to understand how gay genes can transfer to the next generation.

I get that, but if a mother is going to have some gay kids to protect the others or the kids of the others, it's almost guaranteed that somewhere along the line, some mother will only have gay kids.
That doesn't seem like a good idea for an organism trying to continue its line.

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't disagree, but passing on genes results in traits or some parts of traits being passed on.

I didn't say they will be selected against, I said that things are passed on by procreation, if you don't procreate how are they passed on?

Sure you can have kids if you are gay, but I don't think your genes are relying on you having asexual reproduction.

Okay so lets say that being gay was predictive by 2 genes. It is possible that two parents might each carry one each, so perhaps some of their children end up being gay because they got both, and some only got 1 and end up straight. The straight children will still carry the gene that they inherited, and in the next generation they might meet somebody that carries the other gene, and the cycle continues.

Now that is almost definitely a simplification, chances are that sexuality is linked to a whole host of genes, and that those genes are involved, with others, in a host of traits. Some of those traits might also be advantageous to reproduction, like how active your sex drive is.

GreeBo wrote: »

So you disagree that the point or purpose of an organism is to procreate?

I strongly disagree that being gay doesn't decrease your chances of procreating.
You state yourself that some gay people get married and some of them may even have children.
I'd wager those odds are less than the odds of straight people procreating.

Absolutely, yeah. Organisms don't have a purpose. They just exist and procreating is one of many characteristics of things that live.
Living things also die. Is that the 'point' of an organism?

And as for your disagreement with the idea of gayness not decreasing an individuals chance to 'procreate' : they certainly evolved the same way we did and so must have been around in some form or another as long as every other modern human. The mechanism of this is muddy but it doesn't make sense any other way, in terms of evolution. Unless they're all making it up, which I'm sure isn't what you're suggesting.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

for good info refuting the above go to talk origins web site

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

And until creationism can come up with actual evidence which has been peer reviewed by the wider scientific community the rest of us are fully justified in dismissing any of their claims!!

If anything, creationists are proof you can evolve backwards. What a pack of fuppin dullards.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It is still your belief.

It is not a belief. I do not believe in scientific facts, I accept them as being fact. I believe it may rain tomorrow, but I cannot be certain. But I am certain, based on scientific evidence that humans are apes, and evolved from apes.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

And it may indeed be scientific fact. On this, I probably agree with you. But there is more to the world than science. And being a 'scientific fact' does not necessarily tell the full story. It is just one perspective.

It's not a perspective. It's not conjecture. It provides a factual statement.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Similarly, by your definition of what a man is, and what an ape is, you deduce that a man is an ape. OK. But only by your definitions.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of biologists worldwide. You have yet to provide your definition for what an ape is, and why humans do not meet that criteria. You have also yet to comment on the massive amounts of shared DNA between humans and other apes. Your argument isn't very solid, I'm afraid.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

there is more to the world than science

Only if you believe in the existence of some deity.
Everything else is science I'm afraid.

And right now the proof or even hint of proof of existence of any deity is rather lacking.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why must gay purple have been around as long as humanity? perhaps it's a relatively new mutation?

It is something that has been observed in other animals, e.g. dolphins, so it is very unlikely to be a recent mutation.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why must gay purple have been around as long as humanity? perhaps it's a relatively new mutation?

Bisexuality exists in a huge array of different species. It isn't unique to humans. It is visible in all apes. It is only logical to deduce that it existed when homo sapiens in their modern form evolved, given that prior members of the Homo family (no pun intended) exhibited bisexual behaviour.

Bonobos (our closest relative) are a great example of how bisexuality can actually benefit a species. In their ranks, sex is used as an activity to relax and calm tensions. Bonobos engage in sex at a much higher frequency than Chimps, and as a result are much less aggressive.

So bisexuality can actually improve the chances of a clan survival's chances. Straight up homosexuality is probably just a more expressed version of whatever the mutation exists that allows for sexual attraction between animals of the same sex.

I don't see why it's actually an issue.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Including Creation Science ?

Oxymorons are not science I'm afraid.
To be called "science" implies you follow certain rules, scientific method. Story telling doesn't count.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Including Creation Science ?

Theres no creation science just science

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Bisexuality exists in a huge array of different species. It isn't unique to humans. It is visible in all apes. It is only logical to deduce that it existed when homo sapiens in their modern form evolved, given that prior members of the Homo family (no pun intended) exhibited bisexual behaviour.

Bonobos (our closest relative) are a great example of how bisexuality can actually benefit a species. In their ranks, sex is used as an activity to relax and calm tensions. Bonobos engage in sex at a much higher frequency than Chimps, and as a result are much less aggressive.

So bisexuality can actually improve the chances of a clan survival's chances. Straight up homosexuality is probably just a more expressed version of whatever the mutation exists that allows for sexual attraction between animals of the same sex.

I don't see why it's actually an issue.

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed.

From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do.

I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.