Darwin's theory

murphk wrote: »

and yet no peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:

There are articles. Lots and lots of them. But its just not the kind of thing that you will read reviews of.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even Darwin's Theory is still only, by definition, a theory. Its not Darwin's Fact.

I don't think you understand what the term "theory" means in a scientific context. It is not a casual observation about how something works. In order for something to become a theory in a scientific sense, the proposition must follow the scientific method where it is tested and confirmed through observation and thorough experimentation. All work must go through scrupulous peer-review before being accepted as a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory, and also a fact. In the same way as germ theory is a theory, but also a fact.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

Well, I've used google in relation to it once before, and the only question that such searches ever raised in my mind where whether certain persons were chancers, or genuinely believed what they were coming out with. So - do please direct us to these people, so we might learn something new.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

'But but that's just because the mean old scientists won't let us play with them'

Its a conspiracy by the saucer people in conjunction with the reverse vampires in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner:pac:

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

and yet no peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:

floggg wrote: »

Em...

I already clarified that.
Think mankind when you read people.
I'm not in any way attempting to state that specific people become gay. I'm pretty sure evolution isn't quite that quick.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

Again no such thing as creation science just science

if you have to add something to the start of it then your saying basically it doesn't follow the rules I.E. the scientific method as opposed to the creationist method

Creation method:
step 1 read bible
step 2 burn witches
step 3 go back to step 1

Knasher

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

You can't get a degree in creation science from a reputable university. You have to go to a nonsense, private university that has been set up specifically to shield people from the real world to get a "degree" in it.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

Science is observed and explained, it's not made up by humans, the universe takes care of it and we observe and try to understand it.

You are talking about creating science. That's where you make things up not based on observation but on how you would like them to be. It doesn't stand up to the simplest of testing. It requires faith to get past the holes. That's not science, that's stories.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

Em...

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.

murphk wrote: »

Theres no creation science just science

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

Do please enlighten us then. Certainly my knowledge of it would lead me to conclude it had no validity whatsoever.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even Darwin's Theory is still only, by definition, a theory. Its not Darwin's Fact.

you do realize that a theory in scientific terms is the highest level of science not a theory like we use in ever day conversation

a scientific theory is what best explains, after strenuous test all the scientific facts

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Could they not just have a **** like?

If **** calmed them down like sex did, then young lads in their teens wouldn't bate the heads offof each other.

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.

GreeBo wrote: »

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

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Including Creation Science ?

Theres no creation science just science

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It is still your belief. And you are entitled to take that point of view. I wont argue it with you.
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.
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.

Just checking do you know how the scientific method works (roughly)
1. observation
2. hypothesis
3. test hypothesis
4. confirm/reject hypothesis (by many different studies)
5. if confirmed form a theory if not back to step 1

and then
6. new evidence
7. adapt/change theory or start again

Basically we take all The available evidence and form an explanation which best explains it and use that as our "understanding" of the topic

so being a "scientific fact" is not really just a perspective it by definition encompasses all we know about the subject

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.

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

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.

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

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.

Even Darwin's Theory is still only, by definition, a theory. Its not Darwin's Fact.

Edgarfrndly

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: »

It is still your belief. And you are entitled to take that point of view. I wont argue it with you.
And it may indeed be scientific fact. On this, I probably agree with you. But there is more to the world than science.................

...yet no evidence or proof of that "more" is known. A bit odd, that.

Knasher

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: »

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

Including Creation Science ?

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.

smcgiff wrote: »

Goodnight Greebo. Sweet dreams.

Huh?

Edgarfrndly

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.