Which is it?
(M)-adman
selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Or evolution is wrong.
Which is it?
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Will in New Haven
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
Neither. You don't get to turn create false either/or questions like
that.
Being gay probably has a variety of causes. Gays often reproduce. Gay
women would have had little choice in the matter in many societies
over the years. .
--
Will in New Haven
“Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least
one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every
program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work.” Stolen
from Peter Wright on alt.fan.grrm
Anlatt the Builder
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
>
>
(1) Throughout history, gays have generally reporduced, doing what
their culture expected of them and pursuing gay affairs on the side.
(Straight men haven't been much different - extramarital sex is common
throughouthistory, especially when women are not considered equals.)
(2) Homosexuality may be both not a choice and not genetic. It can be
congenital instead, influenced by hormonal patterns during fetal
development. Choice" and "genetic" are not the only two possibilities.
(3) There are a number of complex, genetically-influenced conditions
in which some combinations of the genes involved have a positive
effect on reproduction, and some combinations a negative effect - with
the positive effect strong enough that the genes are preserved even
though there is sometimes a negative effect. For example, Google the
sickle-cell gene. For example, there is some evidence (still
inconclusive) that the genes that might lead to male homosexuality may
lead to increased fertility in females.
Do you understand these alternate possibilities now?
Friar Broccoli
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
If it's a choice, why do about 7% of rams (male sheep) choose
to be homosexuals?
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2005-2006/mp3/qq-2005-11-26a.mp3
Note that you do not need to be replicate yourself to help
other members of your family to pass on their genes.
That's what being a worker ant or bee is all about.
In many species only one pair in the group breeds:
wolves for example.
raven1
wrote:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice,
Did you choose your sexual orientation? If not, why would you think
that anyone else does?
> then homosexuallity would have been
>selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Clay Aiken just did. As have gay people throughout history. Do a
little research, fool.
Shane
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
If god is PERFECT, then the universe would be perfect, since
imperfection cannot come from perfection.
Or god is IMPERFECT.
Which is it?
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-11, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
I'm amazed that anyone can be so stupid as to make the claim that gays do
not reproduce.
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
You are wrong. And dumb. Really dumb.
Mark
A.Carlson
wrote:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
There are a couple of things wrong with this sentence.
1. It is an assumption on your part that a genetic tendency for being
gay should automatically be selected out since "gays do not
reproduce." Genetics does not always follow such a straight line.
Perhaps there are a number of genes that in one combination or another
contribute to a more nurturing father (or mother) but which can
sometimes also express "gayness". Just as with sickle cell, such
factors could have an overall positive role in the population at large
even if it occasionally leads to a non-reproductive (but not non
productive) dead end.
Some genes may also prove to be more productive when expressed in
females but less productive when expressed in males (or vice versa)
with an overall positive role to play in the population at large.
Since your genes come from both your mother and your father it is not
unreasonable for a male to get a gene that would better serve a
female.
2. Because of it's simplistic either/or approach to what is more
likely to be a far more complex problem this appears to be a false
dichotomy. Regardless, I and many other do not accept the premise to
your argument.
3. There are also a number of other issues such as nature vs nurture
and the observation that gayness is not as much of a black and white
issue, that it is more of a continuum.
>Or evolution is wrong.
There is an abundance of evidence in support of evolution. What we do
not fully understand about various evolutionary processes cannot
automatically be considered as evidence against it.
>Which is it?
How about neither.
Inez
This is another illustration of how biased your study of the world
arround you is. You badly want to disprove evolution, so you go out
of your way to try to do so without trying to take an honest look at
how the world works.
On the face of it, your premise isn't true. There are a number of
genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
is wrong.
Boikat
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Since you probably have first hand knowledge of homosexuality, why
don't you tell us?
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
If you understood the ToE, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
>
> Which is it?
You tell us.
Boikat
John Harshman
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
>
John Harshman
success of siblings (or some other close relatives), it might also be
maintained in the population. Lots of possibilities. Madman doesn't care.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Cf. cystic fibrosis
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
There are many conditions that are neither genetic nor learned.
Timberwoof
"\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
It's a false dichotomy based on a flawed understanding of genetics,
evolution, and sexuality.
Please read this and get back to us:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html#run
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
JTEM
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity
> would have been selected OUT of nature by now since
> gays do not reproduce.
Wait. Gay people never reproduce?
Many, what are you smoking....
Steven L.
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
More likely God loves homosexuals of many species, because He created so
many of them. Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Pata...@gmail.com
What if there was a genetic factor that increased the amount of
offspring but rendered a certain fraction of them gay?
It'd survive, perhaps even be selected for, despite the fact that it
results in homosexuality.
Vend
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Do you realize that if you think homosexuality is a choice then you
are a closet homosexual or bisexual?
> Or evolution is wrong.
No.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1711a859-9f34-4ce7...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com...
Rams?
What about giraffes? Practically a gay icon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Logical fallacy, "the excluded middle".
You left out a third option, that you, Adman, are an idiot.
Sexual behaviour in mammals, including humans, has a range of possibilities
from fully homosexual to fully heterosexual. Any behaviour or mix in
between is possible, and to the extent that it is biologically determined
rather than being a social or psychological condition, those with mixed
behaviour or preferences can and will continue to reproduce.
It's not like blue eyes/brown eyes, Adman.
If you think homosexual behaviour is not natural for mammals, I have one
word for you: giraffe.
Dave Oldridge
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
>Or evolution is wrong.
>
>Which is it?
Two words: kin selection.
Of course if homosexuality IS genetic, then it's potentially treatable...
Even if it's a recessive allele, it's apt to hang around indefinitely. I
once did a simulation on the introduction of a lethal recessive gene into
an existing population. The gene spreads through the population and
expresses at a fairly low level, but seems to not disappear. In my
simulation, the rate at which it expressed seemed to have some sort of
chaotic relation to the birthrate.
It's been years, so the details are fuzzy, and I've long since lost the
source code, but it was an interesting exercise. The expression levels,
incidentally were fairly similar to experienced rates of homosexuality.
Furthermore, if homosexuality is entirely genetic, it's unlikely that
it's the result of a single gene. And there's a good chance that you're
at least partly right and that there are non-genetic components.
I have a problem judging those who are attracted to the same sex because
I have no reference point from which to try to see things from their
point of view. I have no choice in that. I'm hetero. Period.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
spintronic
Thats a stupid argument.
Give me a "perfect sphere" and I'll make a "perfect mirror" imperfect,
by smashing it up with the "perfect sphere".
> Or god is IMPERFECT.
>
> Which is it?
Neither. You lose.
spintronic
wrote:
> "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in news:2CTHk.45337$kh2.3112
> @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
> > If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> >selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >Which is it?
>
> Two words: kin selection.
Two words: Sequence please.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <iuGdnUb7c_DJ-23V...@bt.com>):
> "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1711a859-9f34-4ce7...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>>> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> If it's a choice, why do about 7% of rams (male sheep) choose
>> to be homosexuals?
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2005-2006/mp3/qq-2005-11-26a.mp3
>>
>> Note that you do not need to be replicate yourself to help
>> other members of your family to pass on their genes.
>> That's what being a worker ant or bee is all about.
>> In many species only one pair in the group breeds:
>> wolves for example.
>>
>
> Rams?
>
> What about giraffes? Practically a gay icon.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
>
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Cerpin Taxt
If the universe was perfect, destruction would arguably not be
intrinsic to that universe.
Incidently, why is it that when someone demonstrates a logical fallacy
by way of analogy, one of you fruitcakes tries to disprove the analogy
as if it was an argument?
Not that I'm complaining; the irony is delicious.
> > Or god is IMPERFECT.
> >
> > Which is it?
>
> Neither.
*sigh*
(M)-adman
> On Oct 10, 6:51 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is another illustration of how biased your study of the world
> arround you is. You badly want to disprove evolution, so you go out
> of your way to try to do so without trying to take an honest look at
> how the world works.
>
Nonsense. You would be surprised how unbiased I am. And I do not want to
disprove evolution. I want evolution to be defined for exactly what it is
and is not. Evolution, no matter how many times you knee-jerk, is not
responsible for every living thing on this planet coming from one life form
that animated itself into life in some primordial pond billions of years
ago.
> On the face of it, your premise isn't true. There are a number of
> genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
> cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
> advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
> homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
> is wrong.
I made no mention of "Genes". AFAIK there is no "gay gene". So your genetic
disorders analogy is a bad one. Furthermore, to say that the family of the
homosexual can still pass the gay gene is moot because there is no gay gene
to pass on.
My premise is not out of line here. If homosexuality is not a choice, and
homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not passed on by genes,
then by evolutions own criteria we have a natural selection based on
nonreproduction.
(M)-adman
> spintronic wrote:
>>
>>> If god is PERFECT, then the universe would be perfect, since
>>> imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>>
>>
>> Thats a stupid argument.
>>
>> Give me a "perfect sphere" and I'll make a "perfect mirror"
>> imperfect, by smashing it up with the "perfect sphere".
>
> If the universe was perfect, destruction would arguably not be
> intrinsic to that universe.
>
> Incidently, why is it that when someone demonstrates a logical fallacy
> by way of analogy, one of you fruitcakes tries to disprove the analogy
> as if it was an argument?
>
> Not that I'm complaining; the irony is delicious.
It has to be a proper analogy. Which in this case it was not.
>
>>> Or god is IMPERFECT.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> Neither.
>
> *sigh*
--
heekster
wrote:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
>Or evolution is wrong.
>
>Which is it?
It is a false dichotomy.
(M)-adman
Bad analogy.
For things to be perfect, they have to be complete.
Every top has a bottom; every left has a right. Light has darkness. You
cannot fully understand pleasure with out the experience of pain. Likewise,
perfection will have imprefection.
I cannot count the times i have read from atheists: "If God were perfect why
do we see..." this or that.
Well there is your answer. For things to be perfect, they have to be
complete. That means there has to be bad if there is going to be good.
Now, if you want to argue homosexuality is the flip side of hetersexuality
then you would have a point.
(M)-adman
> (M)-adman wrote:
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> More likely God loves homosexuals of many species, because He created
> so many of them. Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
I would agree. Homosexuality seems to be as simple as the opposite of
hetrosexuality.
(M)-adman
> On 11 Ott, 03:51, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Do you realize that if you think homosexuality is a choice then you
> are a closet homosexual or bisexual?
Maybe if i were from PLUTO
(M)-adman
That would mean there is a gene that can be passed on. Has there been a gay
gene discovered?
(M)-adman
> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in news:2CTHk.45337$kh2.3112
> @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> Two words: kin selection.
>
> Of course if homosexuality IS genetic, then it's potentially
> treatable...
>
> Even if it's a recessive allele, it's apt to hang around
> indefinitely. I once did a simulation on the introduction of a
> lethal recessive gene into an existing population. The gene spreads
> through the population and expresses at a fairly low level, but seems
> to not disappear. In my simulation, the rate at which it expressed
> seemed to have some sort of chaotic relation to the birthrate.
>
> It's been years, so the details are fuzzy, and I've long since lost
> the source code, but it was an interesting exercise. The expression
> levels, incidentally were fairly similar to experienced rates of
> homosexuality.
I do not understand how you could loose something that sounds like it would
have uses on many levels.
>
> Furthermore, if homosexuality is entirely genetic, it's unlikely that
> it's the result of a single gene. And there's a good chance that
> you're at least partly right and that there are non-genetic
> components.
Homosexuality could be as simple as the opposite of hetrosexuality. No real
explination needed.
>
> I have a problem judging those who are attracted to the same sex
> because I have no reference point from which to try to see things
> from their point of view. I have no choice in that. I'm hetero.
> Period.
Dave, you are quite the paradox at times. You claim to be firmly grounded in
your religious beliefs.
Inez
> Inez wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 6:51 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >> Which is it?
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > This is another illustration of how biased your study of the world
> > arround you is. You badly want to disprove evolution, so you go out
> > of your way to try to do so without trying to take an honest look at
> > how the world works.
>
> Nonsense. You would be surprised how unbiased I am.
On the contrary, you would be surprised at how biased you really are,
since yo uapparently can't see it.
>And I do not want to
> disprove evolution. I want evolution to be defined for exactly what it is
> and is not. Evolution, no matter how many times you knee-jerk, is not
> responsible for every living thing on this planet coming from one life form
> that animated itself into life in some primordial pond billions of years
> ago.
>
And here is your bias, shining through in the form of assumed certain
knowledge which you really don't have.
> > On the face of it, your premise isn't true. There are a number of
> > genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
> > cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
> > advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
> > homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
> > is wrong.
>
> I made no mention of "Genes". AFAIK there is no "gay gene". So your genetic
> disorders analogy is a bad one.
If you are not talking about genetics then why mention evolution? Do
you even know what evolution is? Are you talking about some sort of
non-genetic evolution?
> Furthermore, to say that the family of the
> homosexual can still pass the gay gene is moot because there is no gay gene
> to pass on.
You have no idea if this is true or not. This is another example of
your bias, you assume it to be true because it fits your world view,
rather than because you know that the question has been answered.
> My premise is not out of line here. If homosexuality is not a choice, and
> homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not passed on by genes,
> then by evolutions own criteria we have a natural selection based on
> nonreproduction.
>
If homosexuality is not passed on by genes then it is not subject to
evolution, which has to do with the modification of genes.
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Inez
A perfect mirror is unbreakable, because fragility is a flaw in
mirrors. Or else fragility isn't a flaw in which case the mirror is
perfectly able to form perfect shards when smashed, and remains
perfect.
Mark VandeWettering
Ah, but that's the real problem. God didn't just make the perfect sphere
and the perfect mirror, he made the perfect you as well.
Mark
Inez
> Vend wrote:
> > On 11 Ott, 03:51, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> > Do you realize that if you think homosexuality is a choice then you
> > are a closet homosexual or bisexual?
>
> Maybe if i were from PLUTO
>
been a choice. Otherwise, you would know that it isn't true for many
of us. Thus you would have to be bisexual, since you are able to be
attracted by either gender. The logic works throughout the solar
system, on both dwarf and regular planets.
Mark VandeWettering
> Shane wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:51:42 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>>
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> If god is PERFECT, then the universe would be perfect, since
>> imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>>
>> Or god is IMPERFECT.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> Bad analogy.
>
> For things to be perfect, they have to be complete.
>
> Every top has a bottom; every left has a right. Light has darkness. You
> cannot fully understand pleasure with out the experience of pain. Likewise,
> perfection will have imprefection.
Black is white.
War is peace.
Ignorance is real strength.
> I cannot count the times i have read from atheists: "If God were perfect why
> do we see..." this or that.
>
> Well there is your answer. For things to be perfect, they have to be
> complete. That means there has to be bad if there is going to be good.
So, why complain about any evil in the world at all then? If it's all part
of God's rich tapestry, just accept that all the evil you seen in the world
(even those Satanic evolooshunists) are just part of what has to be.
> Now, if you want to argue homosexuality is the flip side of hetersexuality
> then you would have a point.
I wouldn't argue that anything is simple enough to fit your retarded
prejudices. But you can if you like. But you should really get back to
testing your assumptions. For example:
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2008/news/081006/cover.jpg
Mark
Bill
> On Oct 11, 5:18 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 5:20 am, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:51:42 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
> > > > If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> > > > selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> > > > Or evolution is wrong.
>
> > > > Which is it?
>
> > > If god is PERFECT, then the universe would be perfect, since
> > > imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>
> > Thats a stupid argument.
>
> > Give me a "perfect sphere" and I'll make a "perfect mirror" imperfect,
> > by smashing it up with the "perfect sphere".
>
Thats the best you can come up with?
LMFAO.
Ernest Major
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
subject to selection. That implies that it is at least partly
genetically determined.
--
alias Ernest Major
Cerpin Taxt
> Cerpin Taxt wrote:
> >
> > If the universe was perfect, destruction would arguably not be
> > intrinsic to that universe.
> >
> > Incidently, why is it that when someone demonstrates a logical fallacy
> > by way of analogy, one of you fruitcakes tries to disprove the analogy
> > as if it was an argument?
> >
> > Not that I'm complaining; the irony is delicious.
>
> It has to be a proper analogy. Which in this case it was not.
I think you'll find that the analogy was apt.
Take note of your direct response to Shane:
> Bad analogy.
>
> For things to be perfect, they have to be
> complete. That means there has to be bad if there is going to be good.
Shane's argument wasn't that god was perfect, imperfect or anything
else for that matter.
The analogy was that his perfect god vs. imperfect god 'dilemma' was a
false dichotomy; whether or not the statements he used are correct is
completely irrelevant.
spintronic
Hi david, I'm spin.
> Of course if homosexuality IS genetic, then it's potentially treatable...
1) It's not.(genetic)
2) Why would you want to treat it?
> Even if it's a recessive allele,
Errr, no.
No allele.
> It's been years, so the details are fuzzy,
They always are.
> And I've long since lost the source code, but it was an interesting exercise.
Shame. I would love to r.i.p that one to pieces.
> The expression levels, incidentally were fairly similar to experienced rates of homosexuality.
Expression levels of what sequence?
Gees, I'd love to know. PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Someone upload the sequence.
WOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
there isn't one.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW.
> Furthermore, if homosexuality is entirely genetic,
NOT EVEN Slightly genetic.
> it's unlikely that it's the result of a single gene. And there's a good chance that you're
> at least partly right and that there are non-genetic components.
Partly? Hmm.
> I have a problem judging
Why would you judge? No human has that right.
raven1
wrote:
>Pata...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not homosexuality has a genetic basis, you still haven't
answered why you might think it would be a "choice". Did you choose
your sexual orientation? If not, why would you think anyone else does?
Mike Painter
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
>
If the inability to reproduce was a sufficient answer there would be no
bees, or ants.
In a large number of animal species, only the alpha male reproduces and most
of the other animals never get a chance.
Mike Painter
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:e86a4eb5-511b-4815...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Will in New Haven
“Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least
one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every
program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work.” Stolen
from Peter Wright on alt.fan.grrm
" In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi
has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of
a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who
is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period,
just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of
one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf
of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that
seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be
only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans
will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along
under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something
fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out
of such a trifling investment of fact. "
- Mark Twain "Life on the Mississippi"
(M)-adman
you seem to think biology and evolution are on the same level.
Evolution hides behing the real science of biology
Chris Krolczyk
> Nonsense. You would be surprised how unbiased I am.
Now *that's* the funniest joke you've written, and you
didn't even have to plagiarize it.
-Chris Krolczyk
Cerpin Taxt
>
> you seem to think biology and evolution are on the same level.
>
> Evolution hides behing the real science of biology
This is so mindbogglingly idiotic it's beyond words.
For a start, evolution is the process through which biological systems
change over time. It doesn't 'hide' behind anything. The fact that
you'd even employ the term in this manner betrays your staggering
ignorance of the topic.
Then there is evolutionary _theory_ - the CORNERSTONE of biology. No
other model even comes *close* to unifying the various disciplines of
biology as well as the theory of evolution. If you have a better
scientific (you know the drill; testable, falsifiable, can be used to
make accurate predictions) explanation for the diversity of life,
however, I'd like to hear it.
(M)-adman
That is only true if you think evolution and biology are synonymous. I think
biology is a science that can stand on it's own while evolution (if you even
want to consider it a science) cannot stand with out biology.
(M)-adman
> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
> If the inability to reproduce was a sufficient answer there would be
> no bees, or ants.
> In a large number of animal species, only the alpha male reproduces
> and most of the other animals never get a chance.
--
(M)-adman
Some of it is a choice. Some of it is not.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-11, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>> news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>>
>> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>
> Then they are not true homosexuals.
Yes, I'm sure all those silly homosexuals really don't realize that they
are actually bisexual!
Keep it up. This stuff makes me laugh.
Mark
Boikat
A lot of biology would not make sense without the concept of
evolution.
But being, dumbshit, you probably would not notice the difference
Boikat
Boikat
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >> Patas...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Oct 11, 12:51 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >>>> Which is it?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >>> What if there was a genetic factor that increased the amount of
> >>> offspring but rendered a certain fraction of them gay?
> >>> It'd survive, perhaps even be selected for, despite the fact that it
> >>> results in homosexuality.
>
> >> That would mean there is a gene that can be passed on. Has there
> >> been a gay gene discovered?
>
> > Your "argument", which you quote above, assumes that homosexuality is
> > subject to selection. That implies that it is at least partly
> > genetically determined.
>
> That is only true if you think evolution and biology are synonymous. I think
> biology is a science that can stand on it's own while evolution (if you even
> want to consider it a science) cannot stand with out biology.
>
That is so stupid, it truely shows the depths of your ignorance.
1) Biology without the ToE is like abowl of chili without the chili.
2) The last part, "evolution cannot stand without biology", is so
blindingly a stupid comment to make, one wonders if you even know what
"biology" means. One can only guess that you were trying to come up
with a new and witty catch phrase, and failed to understand that you
need to have "wit" first. The problem is, you're too stupid to even
be considered a "half wit".
Boikat
wf3h
> Shane wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:51:42 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>
> >> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >> Which is it?
>
> > imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>
>
> > Which is it?
>
>
> For things to be perfect, they have to be complete.
>
> cannot fully understand pleasure with out the experience of pain.
except, of course, the pain we suffer, including death, watching the
death of others, etc, is far, far greater than most of the pleasures
'god' seeks to 'give' us.
wf3h
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
>
it's truly astonishing how little creationists know of evolution.
i'm a chemist, not an evolutionary biologist. and yet even i've read
that since homosexuals often are attentive to males, believe it or
not, they may enhance the survival rate of other males by promoting
'altruistic' forms of behavior leading to higher survival rates of
homosexuals.
now, then, what is the theocon concept of the presence of gays?
besides, of course, needing someone to hate...
wf3h
>
and god hides behind your false view of theology.
wf3h
>>
> Nonsense. You would be surprised how unbiased I am. And I do not want to
> disprove evolution. I want evolution to be defined for exactly what it is
> and is not. Evolution, no matter how many times you knee-jerk, is not
> responsible for every living thing on this planet coming from one life form
> that animated itself into life in some primordial pond billions of years
> ago.
sure it is. at least, that's what the evidence shows. but in your case
there's no accounting for the effects of religion.
>
> My premise is not out of line here. If homosexuality is not a choice, and
> homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not passed on by genes,
> then by evolutions own criteria we have a natural selection based on
> nonreproduction.\\\
uh...no. differential reproduction is a little more sophisticated than
your simplistic, fundie theocon outlook would have us believe.
Shane
> On Oct 11, 5:20 am, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:51:42 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>>> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> If god is PERFECT, then the universe would be perfect, since
>> imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>
> Thats a stupid argument.
Indeed, as it was meant to be in order to show that Madmans argument was
also stupid. Isn't it instructive how you chose to comment on my stupid
argument but not his? Note also that as stupid as it is, iit is
biblical, (Matthew 7:18).
> Give me a "perfect sphere" and I'll make a "perfect mirror" imperfect,
> by smashing it up with the "perfect sphere".
So what?
>> Or god is IMPERFECT.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> Neither. You lose.
Actually I win, for that "neither" is the answer I was seeking, (lthough
getting it from Madman would have been best). because it is the same
answer that his OP merits.
Here is your prize and thanks for playing.
Robert J. Kolker
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
>
Male homosexuals can reproduce. They just aren't happy doing it.
Bob Kolker
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:51:42 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>>
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> If god is PERFECT, then the universe would be perfect, since
>> imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>>
>> Or god is IMPERFECT.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> Bad analogy.
It's not an anaology, its just your bad argument cast in terms that you
can see the flaw in, as opposed to your view of evolution which you
cannot see your biases in.
> For things to be perfect, they have to be complete.
> Every top has a bottom; every left has a right. Light has darkness. You
> cannot fully understand pleasure with out the experience of pain. Likewise,
> perfection will have imprefection.
Got any science to back that up?
> I cannot count the times i have read from atheists: "If God were perfect why
> do we see..." this or that.
And I cannot count the times that I have seen religionists run away from
answering it. OH, I have also seen religionists ask the question also,
usually after something very bad, and completely avoidable by an
omnipotent deity, has happened to a loved one rather than some stranger.
> Well there is your answer. For things to be perfect, they have to be
> complete. That means there has to be bad if there is going to be good.
So how is the supposed period after the return of chirst, or nirvana, or
any utopian period supposed to be utopian? Are you suggesting that the
garden of eden was somehow less that paradisical because evil was not
there yet?
> Now, if you want to argue homosexuality is the flip side of hetersexuality
> then you would have a point.
Not surprisingly you missed my point, but have inadvertantly supplied
the answer I sought anyway.
Pata...@gmail.com
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
What about population genetics and genetic algorithms?
Anlatt the Builder
> Inez wrote:
> >> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >> Which is it?
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > arround you is. You badly want to disprove evolution, so you go out
> > of your way to try to do so without trying to take an honest look at
> > how the world works.
>
> disprove evolution. I want evolution to be defined for exactly what it is
> and is not. Evolution, no matter how many times you knee-jerk, is not
> responsible for every living thing on this planet coming from one life form
> that animated itself into life in some primordial pond billions of years
> ago.
>
> > genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
> > cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
> > advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
> > homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
> > is wrong.
>
> I made no mention of "Genes". AFAIK there is no "gay gene". So your genetic
> homosexual can still pass the gay gene is moot because there is no gay gene
> to pass on.
>
> homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not passed on by genes,
> then by evolutions own criteria we have a natural selection based on
> nonreproduction.
>
>
If there is no gay gene, then gayness has nothing to do with
evolution, so your original question - "or is evolution wrong?" -
makes no sense at all.
It still doesn't mean it's a choice. Something can be non-genetic and
still not be a choice.
Anlatt the Builder
>
> Bad analogy.
>
> For things to be perfect, they have to be complete.
>
> Every top has a bottom; every left has a right. Light has darkness. You
> cannot fully understand pleasure with out the experience of pain. Likewise,
> perfection will have imprefection.
>
> I cannot count the times i have read from atheists: "If God were perfect why
> do we see..." this or that.
>
> Well there is your answer. For things to be perfect, they have to be
> complete. That means there has to be bad if there is going to be good.
>
>
Therefore: God, who is perfect, must have an evil side as well as a
good side.
(M)adman, is this true? PLEASE ANSWER.
raven1
wrote:
>Mike Painter wrote:
>> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>> news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>>
>> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>
>Then they are not true homosexuals.
Tell that to Clay Aiken.
Max
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
>
formed in the early stages of childhood but become relatively fixed.
And if it is genetic, it could continue to be expressed through those
who carry the "gay gene" but aren't actually gay. It must also be
considered that many gay men have children.
And in end, even if it is a choice so what? It is their choice.
raven1
wrote:
A meaningless response. Elaborate. What, specifically, do you think is
a choice, and what isn't?
Max
> On Oct 11, 5:20 am, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:51:42 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
> > > If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> > > selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> > > Or evolution is wrong.
>
> > > Which is it?
>
> > imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>
>
> Give me a "perfect sphere" and I'll make a "perfect mirror" imperfect,
> by smashing it up with the "perfect sphere".
>
are imperfect.
Kermit
> Inez wrote:
> >> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >> Which is it?
>
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > arround you is. You badly want to disprove evolution, so you go out
> > of your way to try to do so without trying to take an honest look at
> > how the world works.
>
> Nonsense. You would be surprised how unbiased I am.
<snort!>
> And I do not want to
> disprove evolution. I want evolution to be defined for exactly what it is
> and is not. Evolution, no matter how many times you knee-jerk, is not
> responsible for every living thing on this planet coming from one life form
> that animated itself into life in some primordial pond billions of years
> ago.
And yet, the evidence indicates that (ignoring the peculiar
representation of 200 millions years of abiogenesis).
>
> > On the face of it, your premise isn't true. There are a number of
> > genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
> > cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
> > advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
> > homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
> > is wrong.
>
> I made no mention of "Genes". AFAIK there is no "gay gene". So your genetic
> disorders analogy is a bad one. Furthermore, to say that the family of the
> homosexual can still pass the gay gene is moot because there is no gay gene
> to pass on.
I don't remember ever deciding to choose a preference for young,
athletic, human females.
("Hmmm. I could be attracted to fat horses, or dean old men. Naw... I
think I'll go with intact, intelligent, human female athletes.")
One of the striking characteristics of fundamentalists is their
bizarre notions of human nature. We can choose what to do, but we
can't directly choose what to *like. Let alone what turns us on.
>
> My premise is not out of line here. If homosexuality is not a choice, and
> homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not passed on by genes,
> then by evolutions own criteria we have a natural selection based on
> nonreproduction.
Yes. Unless homosexuality has reproductive benefits. Adult onset
diabetes is the result of paleolithic adaptations running into modern
diet and exercise patterns. We weren't chosen to be diabetic, we were
chosen to deal with exercise, famine, and available food efficiently.
We don't know if homosexuality might be like that, or perhaps like
sickle cell anemia, as others have suggested. It might be like my
extreme myopia. I didn't choose this, and neither did my wife. It
might be partly environmental. As my daughter said, if this were
20,000 years ago she would never have been born. Nearsightedness
doesn't "disprove" evolution. There has to be inheritable variability
for natural selection to *select anything. Maybe your straightforward
and unthinking assertion that gays don't have a reproductive advantage
is correct. There probably weren't as many nearsighted paleolithic
hunters as there are in the modern population, and *maybe there
weren't as many gays. We simply don't know yet.
We do know that gay sex is rampant throughout the non-human animals as
well. Geese, dogs, seagulls, hyaenas, giraffes, sheep, and many
others.
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
By their fruits shall ye know them. You say you speak truth, but you
ignore verifiable data, you misrepresent evolutionary theory, you snip
posts and respond only to insults. You could learn, but you choose not
to.
Evolutionary theory does not predict that all organisms alive would be
perfect. And you haven't established that homosexuality is a
reproductive flaw. (Your distaste for it is not evidence for this.
Look at your distaste for learning.)
Kermit
Nomen Nescio
On Oct 11, 6:27 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:09:12 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Painter wrote:
> >> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> >>news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> >>> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> >>> Which is it?
>
> >> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>
> >Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
> Tell that to Clay Aiken.
Clay Aiken the Poofter Amerikan Idol loser? He shot his load into a
test tube, that's far from being a true father. Imagine how embarrassed
his child will be when he goes to school and hears "My Daddy says your
Daddy is a Queer, you must be a Queer too" Of course Clay will likely
be broke by then, his fifteen minutes are almost over now. They will
most likely live in subsidized housing of some type, cohabitating with
substance abusers, alcoholics, sexual deviants and thieves.
This is a new feature of APH called The Emerson Wainwright k00ksuit
watch. Every day we shall observe the clock ticking and count the days
since Faggot Emerson Wainwright lied about pursuing a lawsuit, which
is referred to herein as what it actually is, a k00ksuit. You are
invited to post any outragous, interesting comments and/or lies made
by Emerson Wainwright or any of his sockpuppets which include:
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
ScottyFLL
Enos Penvy
There are others. Points will be gives for each new sock that is
discovered.
The official Wainwright k00ksuite clock
____________________________
/ Saturday 11 October, 2008 \
/) ,-----------. o (\
( | 6 : 00 pm | /_\ ))
\) '-----------' " (/
\____________________________/
The Emerson Wainwright k00ksuit watch:
How long has Scott been lying?
192 days and counting.
"And as I've told you before, nothing will happen, not a damn thing"--
James Riske
The Daily k00kwrightism:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is obvious you are having what is known as a "meltdown".
Turn yourself in to the local nut ward, they will take care of you"--
James Riske
The Emerson k00kwright hall of shame archives.
"I've not been humiliated. You are incapable of humiliating me. I'm
honest, I have integrity, I admit when I make a mistake"--k00k Emerson
Wainwright posting with his current sock Guillaume Ier de Normandie
"Public newsgroups are public, I'm part of the public, and if I want
to
post a picture of a nipple on alt.bible or alt.religion, I'm gonna do
it"-- k00k Emerson Wainwright shows his *integrity*
"I do not use sockpuppets and i am not a troll"--Emerson Wainwright
"Public newsgroups are public, I'm part of the public, and if I want
to
post a picture of a nipple on alt.bible or alt.religion, I'm gonna do
it"-- k00k Emerson Wainwright shows his *integrity*
"Stick that up your ass and smoke it"--Emersons Freudian slip is
evidence of how much mouth to anal/shite contact is woven into Faggot
life.
"Suit will be filed in Broward county"--Emersons lie is obvious to
everyone that see's it.
"Naw. One doesn't have to be rich to file suit. One doesn't even
need a lawyer -- I can file the action myself against John Doe,
present my evidence to a judge, and have subpoenas issued. Some
lawyers will take cases on a contingency basis, especially in Broward
County, whose juries don't like online libel one bit"--Well, Emerson
is consistent if nothing else.
"Ah. But see, I DID enter a complaint with IC3. Which means that I
have gotten further than the others you've run in to who threaten
suits"--Laughingly, Emerson thought IC3, an entity that tracks
internet terrorists, credit-card con-men, thieves, child
pornographers, etc. would join in his pathetic usenet troll
shananigans.
"That'll be too late if he wants to keep his identity secret, though.
The subpoenas to the ISPs will bypass him; he can't be served until we
know exactly who to serve. One of my correspondents said something
about a pre-summons settlement that could be done without revealing
his identity and with a privacy clause (in which case I wouldn't be
able to reveal anything about the case), but Blobby still thinks I'm
bluffing"--Emersons fantasies get the best of him. I'm not Bob but i
still think he's bluffing :-)) Perhaps he thought somebody would offer
him cash?? LOL!!!
"I have linked your WebTV account to your AOL account. I have headers
of scores of messages in which you libel me. Many of your libellous
messages remain online as you have had dozens of accounts banned due
to TOS violations.
Really all I need to do is:
1. Get the subpoenas issued and out and wait for the responses (from
WebTV, AOL, and Google).
2. Go into the judge's chambers, show him your tortious behavior, and
wait for him to tell me how much money I should expect to receive.
Blobby, your ONLINE SURPRISE is almost ready!!! I wanted to reveal it
to you TODAY, and in fact almost DID! But then I thought I should
wait until I've REALLY got some goods.
Just gonna wait another day or two. Wish I could show you NOW, I
really do!
HINT: the information I'm getting is gonna make you fill your
panties!
More later! (Read: when I decide to reveal!)
G'night, Blobby! Don't worry be happy! :-))"--A perfect example of
poor upbringing and the absense of any life whatsoever for poor
unemployed Emerson Wainwright
"There it is for all to see. Libel pro se. Not posted anonymously,
either, but rather through AOL. 205.188.116.69
Gee, I wonder if AOL has a record of this.... Naw. Not AOL.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you say "libel per se"?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"--Emersons meltdown is
complete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LC recognizes that AUK's Secretary of Homintern is nothing but a
common troll and a usenet loser.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/a826e61fa
9194a15?hl=en&
Or see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/aukTROLL
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass for his support'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2
211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-kiss-my-ass-for-his-
support.html
Blithering idiot?
Obama thinks the treatment for asthma is a breathalyzer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJLdE9DELs
Obama thinks there are 57 states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCgeQsjFeU
Obama is caught red handed in a lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY5CQnOn75c&NR=1
"You will never
find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" -- Obi-Wan Kenobi.
k00kologist #24 AUK.
Owner and trainer of Emerson Wainwright and his current sock Guilaume
Ier de Normandie
(M)-adman
no.
(M)-adman
> On Oct 11, 7:28 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>
>> you seem to think biology and evolution are on the same level.
>>
>> Evolution hides behing the real science of biology
>
> This is so mindbogglingly idiotic it's beyond words.
>
> For a start, evolution is the process through which biological systems
> change over time.
No it's not. Evolution is a theory that a kook came up with based on old
bones and some observations while in the jungle. Evolution has been elevated
to the status of real science but actually it hides behind biology's (a real
science) hard work..
[\]
(M)-adman
No. That is not true.
(M)-adman
What percent of nature is homosexual? IF that figure is 3% and mankind has a
5% rate, then 2% make a choice to be gay.
Boikat
> Cerpin Taxt wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 7:28 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> >> you seem to think biology and evolution are on the same level.
>
> >> Evolution hides behing the real science of biology
>
> > This is so mindbogglingly idiotic it's beyond words.
>
> > For a start, evolution is the process through which biological systems
> > change over time.
>
> No it's not.
You are wrong.
> Evolution is a theory that a kook came up with based on old
> bones and some observations while in the jungle.
Darwin was not a kook, you are wrong again.
> Evolution has been elevated
> to the status of real science but actually it hides behind biology's (a real
> science) hard work..
If you actually understood science, biology, and evolution, you'd
realize how slack-jawed stupid that statement is.
Boikat
Boikat
(Church Lady)
"Then could it be....oh.... just a guess.....maybe it's.... SATAN!!!"
(/Church Lady)
Boikat
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John McKendry
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>> news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>>> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>>
>> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>
> Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
In other words, if reality doesn't match up with your definition
of "homosexual", then reality is mistaken. See, there's that Word
Magic thing again.
This is not the only thing that's wrong with your argument; a
bigger error is the assumption that anything that's not a choice must
be genetically determined. Another word game.
In fact, children of gay parents are no more likely to be
gay than are children of straight parents.
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080612225134AAfnofL
And note that the studies cited are about *offspring*, i.e. biological
children.
<snip>
The sad thing is that there's the germ of an interesting question
in your argument, and you have no interest in learning anything
from it. What a waste.
John
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Google "homosexuality" and "kin selection": 8720 hits, many
to scientific papers which should answer your question. If
you still don't know after reading them come back and open a
thread about it; there's far too much info to post all of it
directly.
>Or evolution is wrong.
>
>Which is it?
Neither; false dichotomy. *You* are wrong.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
A.Carlson
wrote:
>Inez wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 6:51 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
<Clip>
>> On the face of it, your premise isn't true. There are a number of
>> genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
>> cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
>> advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
>> homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
>> is wrong.
>
>I made no mention of "Genes". AFAIK there is no "gay gene". So your genetic
>disorders analogy is a bad one. Furthermore, to say that the family of the
>homosexual can still pass the gay gene is moot because there is no gay gene
>to pass on.
Genes, whether they are labeled "gay" or not, is what is being passed
on. And it is your premise that is bad because you assume without
foundation that any prospective gene that may contribute to one's
"gayness" cannot contribute positively in other ways.
> My premise is not out of line here. If homosexuality is not a choice, and
>homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not passed on by genes,
Weren't you the one who just stated that you weren't talking about
genes?
>then by evolutions own criteria we have a natural selection based on
>nonreproduction.
Or that gene expression is a lot more complicated than you are willing
to concede.
Mike Dworetsky
Amazingly moronic denial plus ad hominem, even for you.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
raven1
wrote:
Again, where did you get the idea that sexual orientation is a choice?
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented \(M)-adman broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> What percent of nature is homosexual? IF that figure is 3% and mankind has
> a 5% rate, then 2% make a choice to be gay.
Why is it important whether it is a choice or not?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
The Daily Beagle <http://larseighner.com/Daily_Beagle/>
Q. What did Palin do that Obama could not do?
A. Got me to vote for Obama.
Cerpin Taxt
> Cerpin Taxt wrote:
>
> > For a start, evolution is the process through which biological systems
> > change over time.
>
> No it's not. Evolution is a theory that a kook came up with based on old
> bones and some observations while in the jungle. Evolution has been elevated
> to the status of real science but actually it hides behind biology's (a real
> science) hard work..
Once again, I ask: what biological alternative explains and unifies
the various processes which are studied in biology?
I hear that you're prone to running away from things, and I'm sure
you'd benefit from a chance to dispell such vicious rumours by
answering this simple question.
> A cup of coffee and some truth
Personally I think you might need to ease off the coffee.
Perhaps you could consider decaf, or even cut down to 13 spoons of
sugar.
Desertphile
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1711a859-9f34-4ce7...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> >> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
> >>
> >> Or evolution is wrong.
> >>
> >> Which is it?
> >
> > If it's a choice, why do about 7% of rams (male sheep) choose
> > to be homosexuals?
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2005-2006/mp3/qq-2005-11-26a.mp3
> >
> > Note that you do not need to be replicate yourself to help
> > other members of your family to pass on their genes.
> > That's what being a worker ant or bee is all about.
> > In many species only one pair in the group breeds:
> > wolves for example.
> Rams?
>
> What about giraffes? Practically a gay icon.
Like John Travolta.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
Idiot.
> Or evolution is wrong.
It is impossible for a natural phenomena to be "wrong."
Inez
> Inez wrote:
> >> Inez wrote:
> >>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
> >>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
>
> >>>> Which is it?
>
> >>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >>> arround you is. You badly want to disprove evolution, so you go out
> >>> of your way to try to do so without trying to take an honest look at
> >>> how the world works.
>
> >> Nonsense. You would be surprised how unbiased I am.
>
> > On the contrary, you would be surprised at how biased you really are,
> > since yo uapparently can't see it.
>
> >> And I do not want to
> >> disprove evolution. I want evolution to be defined for exactly what
> >> it is and is not. Evolution, no matter how many times you knee-jerk,
> >> is not responsible for every living thing on this planet coming from
> >> one life form that animated itself into life in some primordial pond
> >> billions of years ago.
>
> > And here is your bias, shining through in the form of assumed certain
> > knowledge which you really don't have.
>
> >>> genetic disorders which are highly selected against (such as sickle
> >>> cell anemia) where having only one copy of the gene confers an
> >>> advantage. I don't know if that is what is happening with
> >>> homosexuality, it probably isn't, but it does show that your premise
> >>> is wrong.
>
> >> I made no mention of "Genes". AFAIK there is no "gay gene". So your
> >> genetic disorders analogy is a bad one.
>
> > you even know what evolution is? Are you talking about some sort of
> > non-genetic evolution?
>
> >> homosexual can still pass the gay gene is moot because there is no
> >> gay gene to pass on.
>
> > your bias, you assume it to be true because it fits your world view,
> > rather than because you know that the question has been answered.
>
> >> choice, and homosexuals do not reproduce, and homosexuality is not
> >> natural selection based on nonreproduction.
>
> > evolution, which has to do with the modification of genes.
>
>
Huh? I didn't say anything about the relative "levels" of biology and
evolution. Do you want to respond to what I actually wrote, or is
your bias to great to address actual arguments against what you
write?
(M)-adman
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:09:12 -0500, \(M\)-adman wrote:
>
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>>> news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>>
>>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>>
>> Then they are not true homosexuals.
>>
>
> In other words, if reality doesn't match up with your definition
> of "homosexual", then reality is mistaken. See, there's that Word
> Magic thing again.
Nonsense. If a homosexual mate, then they are bisexual.
The very essence of the word ["bi"sexual] is your clue.
[snip BS]
Mark Isaak
> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
> selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>
> Or evolution is wrong.
>
> Which is it?
Religion is wrong.
If homosexuality is genetically determined, then homosexualtity would
have been selected OUT of nature by now whether evolution is wrong or
not. Yet homosexuality is common throughout nature, known from hundreds
of species.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dave Oldridge
a862ef...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>On Oct 11, 10:31 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in news:2CTHk.45337$kh2.3112
>> @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
>> > If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have been
>> >selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>> >Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>> >Which is it?
>>
>> Two words: kin selection.
>
>Two words: Sequence please.
I never said I had one.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Dave Oldridge
news:dG2Ik.46859$bx1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in news:2CTHk.45337$kh2.3112
>> @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>
>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> Two words: kin selection.
>>
>> Of course if homosexuality IS genetic, then it's potentially
>> treatable...
>>
>> Even if it's a recessive allele, it's apt to hang around
>> indefinitely. I once did a simulation on the introduction of a
>> lethal recessive gene into an existing population. The gene spreads
>> through the population and expresses at a fairly low level, but seems
>> to not disappear. In my simulation, the rate at which it expressed
>> seemed to have some sort of chaotic relation to the birthrate.
>>
>> It's been years, so the details are fuzzy, and I've long since lost
>> the source code, but it was an interesting exercise. The expression
>> levels, incidentally were fairly similar to experienced rates of
>> homosexuality.
>
>I do not understand how you could loose something that sounds like it
>would have uses on many levels.
Try having a hurricane come through your wall and depart with the roof!
>> Furthermore, if homosexuality is entirely genetic, it's unlikely that
>> it's the result of a single gene. And there's a good chance that
>> you're at least partly right and that there are non-genetic
>> components.
>
>Homosexuality could be as simple as the opposite of hetrosexuality. No
>real explination needed.
>>
>> I have a problem judging those who are attracted to the same sex
>> because I have no reference point from which to try to see things
>> from their point of view. I have no choice in that. I'm hetero.
>> Period.
>
>Dave, you are quite the paradox at times. You claim to be firmly
>grounded in your religious beliefs.
I am...and when I can't make an honest judgment, I leave the work to God.
Note that I am neither defending nor attacking homosexuality (which,
unless the urges are acted upon, is not a sin in any version of
Christianity anyway. I'm merely pointing out some of the possible
genetic parameters.
John McKendry
And I say again that you are playing games with words, rather
than observing what actually happens. You claim that there are
three words for sexual orientation, "homosexual", "bisexual", and
"heterosexual", and therefore there are three categories, and everyone
belongs to exactly one of those three categories. I say your words
are wrong. Sexual orientation exists along a continuum, and people's
positions on that continuum can change over time, and even the idea
of "position" is misleading because a person's position is not a
point but an interval. This is conventional wisdom among people who
actually do research on sexual orientation, rather than arguing on
the basis of how they think people should behave. You could begin
to learn something on the subject by looking at
http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=48
and following the links there to two papers on the subject that appeared
in Scientific American - Mind in the past two years. Or google "sexual
orientation continuum". There's lots of information out there.
> [snip BS]
I'm disappointed that you don't even try to respond to the rest of
my post, which was really the more important part. I'll give you another
chance. The major problem with your argument is the unspoken assumption
that every human characteristic is either chosen or determined by
simple off/on Mendelian genetics.
John
Dave Oldridge
news:b4199d53-939f-414d...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>On 11 Oct, 10:31, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Hi david, I'm spin.
>
>
>
>
>> Of course if homosexuality IS genetic, then it's potentially
>> treatable...
>
>
>1) It's not.(genetic)
And you know this how?
>
>2) Why would you want to treat it?
If you knew your child was genetically homosexual and that treatment
would render that child heterosexual, what wo9uld be your choice,
considering everything you know about how homosexuals get treated?
>> Even if it's a recessive allele,
>
>
>
>Errr, no.
>
>
>No allele.
Again, you know this how?
I sincerely doubt ANYONE knows this.
>
>
>
>> It's been years, so the details are fuzzy,
>
>
>They always are.
>
>> And I've long since lost the source code, but it was an interesting
>> exerc
>ise.
>
>
>Shame. I would love to r.i.p that one to pieces.
>
>> The expression levels, incidentally were fairly similar to
>> experienced
> rates of homosexuality.
>
>
>
>Expression levels of what sequence?
>
>Gees, I'd love to know. PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Please take a course in remedial reading. When you can read English for
comprehension, we will discuss the matter. In the meantime try your own
simulation of the introduction of a LETHAL (totally prevents
reproduction) gene into a simulated population. Make sure the simulated
gene is recessive with respect to its alleles and report back what
happened in detail.
>
>Someone upload the sequence.
The simulation was not about any particular sequence, just a hypothetical
lethal recessive mutation. It need not have anything to do with sexual
preference. For example, it could simply prevent sperm and ovum
production. Or any other effect that precludes reproduction. Your latent
homosexuality or homophobia are getting in the way of your obectivity.
You need to reign them in a bit--unless your goal is to just look stupid.
>
>
>WOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
>
>there isn't one.
Whooops! It's irrelevant to the hypothesis being discussed.
>
>
>WHAT DO YOU KNOW.
I can read English for meaning. That's more than YOU know.
>
>
>
>> Furthermore, if homosexuality is entirely genetic,
>
>
>
>NOT EVEN Slightly genetic.
Again with this utterly unsupported assertion.
>
>> it's unlikely that it's the result of a single gene. And there's a
>> goo
>d chance that you're
>> at least partly right and that there are non-genetic components.
>
>Partly? Hmm.
>
>
>
>> I have a problem judging
>
>
>Why would you judge? No human has that right.
Certainly not in the absence of facts. But YOU seem to think that YOU
are non-human. Are you?
Garamond Lethe
wrote:
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:b4199d53-939f-
<snip>
> >2) Why would you want to treat it?
>
> If you knew your child was genetically homosexual and that treatment
> would render that child heterosexual, what wo9uld be your choice,
> considering everything you know about how homosexuals get treated?
Raise 'em like any other normal kid, 'cause that's what they are. And
if they go on to become Chair of the House Financial Services
Committee, well, all the better.
<snip>
heekster
wrote:
>Cerpin Taxt wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 7:28 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>
>>> you seem to think biology and evolution are on the same level.
>>>
>>> Evolution hides behing the real science of biology
>>
>> This is so mindbogglingly idiotic it's beyond words.
>>
>> For a start, evolution is the process through which biological systems
>> change over time.
>
>No it's not.
Yes, it is.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution
>Evolution is a theory that a kook came up with based on old
>bones and some observations while in the jungle.
Darwin was on a ship, the Beagle, not in the jungle. He was looking
at finch beaks, not bones. Also, modern evolutionary biology is based
on the genetics work of Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk and
botanist whose experiments in breeding garden peas led to his eventual
recognition as founder of the science of genetics, was in the
Augustinian Abbey of St. Thomas in Brno (now in the Czech Republic).
The flora of the Galapagos islands is equally interesting and diverse.
The Galapagos has three marked zones: the littoral zone, the arid
zone, and the transition zone. The miconia zone and fern-sedge zone
are also found on the islands. Mangroves are the main flora found in
the littoral zone, where the plants can tolerate high levels of salt.
> Evolution has been elevated
>to the status of real science but actually it hides behind biology's (a real
>science) hard work..
Another unsubstantiated, ignorant delusion, and a rank imbecility.
heekster
wrote:
Here we have a classic example of the logical fallacy known as the
"non sequitur".
heekster
wrote:
>John McKendry wrote:
No, it is possible for someone to have sex with someone that does not
fit their sexual orientation, whether for intentional procreation, or
simply having had too much to drink the night before.
>The very essence of the word ["bi"sexual] is your clue.
You suffer from an egregious lack of clues; you should not be giving
them away so freely. You need every clue you can get.
(M)-adman
been there done that.
I said fuck the T-shirt. I did not want it
Glad you are ok.
>
>>> Furthermore, if homosexuality is entirely genetic, it's unlikely
>>> that it's the result of a single gene. And there's a good chance
>>> that you're at least partly right and that there are non-genetic
>>> components.
>>
>> Homosexuality could be as simple as the opposite of hetrosexuality.
>> No real explination needed.
>>>
>>> I have a problem judging those who are attracted to the same sex
>>> because I have no reference point from which to try to see things
>>> from their point of view. I have no choice in that. I'm hetero.
>>> Period.
>>
>> Dave, you are quite the paradox at times. You claim to be firmly
>> grounded in your religious beliefs.
>
> I am...and when I can't make an honest judgment, I leave the work to
> God.
>
> Note that I am neither defending nor attacking homosexuality (which,
> unless the urges are acted upon, is not a sin in any version of
> Christianity anyway. I'm merely pointing out some of the possible
> genetic parameters.
nods
(M)-adman
I suggest a look at the dictionary.
You will see 2 different definations
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:27:49 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
> wrote:
>
> >Cerpin Taxt wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 7:28 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> you seem to think biology and evolution are on the same level.
> >>>
> >>> Evolution hides behing the real science of biology
> >>
> >> This is so mindbogglingly idiotic it's beyond words.
> >>
> >> For a start, evolution is the process through which biological systems
> >> change over time.
> >
> >No it's not.
>
> Yes, it is.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution
>
> >Evolution is a theory that a kook came up with based on old
> >bones and some observations while in the jungle.
>
> Darwin was on a ship, the Beagle, not in the jungle. He was looking
> at finch beaks, not bones. Also, modern evolutionary biology is based
> on the genetics work of Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk and
> botanist whose experiments in breeding garden peas led to his eventual
> recognition as founder of the science of genetics, was in the
> Augustinian Abbey of St. Thomas in Brno (now in the Czech Republic).
Darwin travelled on land during his voyage on the Beagle, especially
through the Amazon and South American high plains, New Zealand forests,
and of course Patagonian forests. He did not base his ideas on finche
beaks, but on the turtles of the Galápagos Islands.
Mendel's genetics is not what modern genetics is based on. All the
principles of modern genetics were independently rediscovered, and
labeled "Mendelian" only to preculde priority disputes.
Wallace was in the jungles of Mayasia and Indonesia as we now call them,
when *he* came up with evolution by natural selection.
Not that adman is right on anything, but it pays to be accurate.
>
> The flora of the Galapagos islands is equally interesting and diverse.
> The Galapagos has three marked zones: the littoral zone, the arid
> zone, and the transition zone. The miconia zone and fern-sedge zone
> are also found on the islands. Mangroves are the main flora found in
> the littoral zone, where the plants can tolerate high levels of salt.
>
> > Evolution has been elevated
> >to the status of real science but actually it hides behind biology's (a real
> >science) hard work..
>
> Another unsubstantiated, ignorant delusion, and a rank imbecility.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John McKendry
Of course you do. I suggest a look at actual gay men and lesbians.
Which of us is more likely to understand correctly how gay men
and lesbians behave?
> You will see 2 different definations
I'm sure I can find at least that many, although I don't find any
at all in my OED. Possibly in the Supplement. I am not going to argue
from dictionary definitions. That's your game, and your mistake.
What do you make of the fact that the word "homosexual" was created
in 1869? Were there no homosexuals before that year? What was the
reality when there was no entry in the dictionary for "homosexual"?
Can you formulate your argument in the language of 1868?
John