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?
conrad
> 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?
>
Besides this being a false dichotomy,
perhaps you should go and study about
evolution instead of assuming you
understand it(which is evident that
you don't from your previous posts).
All your time spent on this newsgroup
babbling about "Real Truth" and "the
universe operates by magic!" could
instead be focused on trying to
understand evolution instead of
disparaging something because
you have virtually no understanding
of it at all.
And I'll help you out, you won't
have an understanding of evolution by
reading a layman's book or two
on the subject -- (I'm still learning
new things about it everyday). It
will require work. How do you become
great at swimming? You have to swim.
How do you become good at math?
You have to do lots of math! How do
you get a solid understanding of
evolution? You have to study it!
You /earn/ your understanding, and
in so doing you may come across
valid objections over particulars. But
you are going about it all backwards.
You are questioning the validity
of evolution without knowing about it.
It is incredibly silly. It's a bit like
saying "Ah, this proof of fermat's
last theorem is all wrong because
such and such reason" when your
knowledge of math doesn't even
go beyond calculus.
If you don't realize this, then
you might want to think about
purchasing some medication pills
and taking all of them or practice
brain ecology.
--
conrad
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
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
> > 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.
Not as stupid as claiming there is a "gay gene".
Humans have about 25000 genes.
Not one linked to being "gay".
Lots of scientists eatin their hat over that one.
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?
Ralph Page
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?
I'll ignore the false dichotomy for a moment to ask if you recall when
you decided to pursue the heterosexual lifestyle? I don't recall
making a choice myself. I've never been attracted to men (I'm male).
For me, heterosexual behavior was certainly not a conscious choice.
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email
Mike Painter
"(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?
>
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"
Vend
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
>
>
> > 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.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"
Memetic mutation? :D
<snip>
(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
(M)-adman
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> On 2008-10-11, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> 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.
More like we *cannot* *have*:
Black without white
War without peace
Ignorance without Intelligence
Strength without weakness.
>
>> 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?
I do not complain about evil, I try to avoid it. Besides, just because we
need good and evil to understand the difference between the two does not
mean good and evil are not diametrically opposed to each other. I do not
like pain either. But when pain is gone, it makes me realize how good
feeling no pain is. How can i understand feeling good if i have no reference
to what not feeling good is.
> 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.
I do accept God's rich tapestry. And everything is what it will be.
But i have failed to get my meaning across to you, obviously. It was claimed
that "If god is PERFECT" then why is the world not perfect. That is bad
logic, because in order for the world to be perfect we have to understand
what imperfect is. How can we understand what perfection is that without
imprefection? Perfection is a balance of both.
>
>> 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
--
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.
r norman
wrote:
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
And you are the proof that one cannot have intelligence without
stupidity. No doubt you will get the players backwards.
(M)-adman
> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> news:2CTHk.45337$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice, then homosexuallity would have
>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>
>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
> If the inability to reproduce was a sufficient answer there would be
> no bees, or ants.
> In a large number of animal species, only the alpha male reproduces
> and most of the other animals never get a chance.
--
(M)-adman
Some of it is a choice. Some of it is not.
Mark VandeWettering
That doesn't seem very "perfect" to me. If everything were perfect, we wouldn't
even know that imperfection existed.
> How can we understand what perfection is that without imprefection?
Understanding isn't one of your core strengths anyway.
Ernest Major
In message <zM6Ik.46967$bx1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
>> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>
>Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
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
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
> 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:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
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
>
> 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.
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.
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.
raven1
wrote:
A meaningless response. Elaborate. What, specifically, do you think is
a choice, and what isn't?
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.
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.
Max
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> 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.
>
> More like we *cannot* *have*:
>
> Black without white
> War without peace
> Ignorance without Intelligence
> Strength without weakness.
>
peace. One needn't have white in a universe that is all black. Black
may cease to have any significance due to its ubiquitousness, but it's
still there. The same would apply to perfection if there really were
an objective measure to such a thing.
Kermit
<snip>
>
> I do accept God's rich tapestry. And everything is what it will be.
Your rejection of verifiable evidence indicates that you are far more
attached to your idea of how things should be, rather than an open-
minded attempt to see them as they are.
>
> But i have failed to get my meaning across to you, obviously. It was claimed
> that "If god is PERFECT" then why is the world not perfect. That is bad
> logic, because in order for the world to be perfect we have to understand
> what imperfect is. How can we understand what perfection is that without
> imprefection? Perfection is a balance of both.
And to argue that evolutionary science is wrong, you would have to
understand it. You have demonstrated time and again that you have
not.
<snip>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 11, 4:41 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > On 2008-10-11, \(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.
>
> > not reproduce.
>
> Not as stupid as claiming there is a "gay gene".
>
> Humans have about 25000 genes.
>
> Not one linked to being "gay".
>
> Lots of scientists eatin their hat over that one.
No gene has been found that correlates more than 0.04% with
intelligence. Does that mean intelligence is essentially non-genetic?
If so, does that mean slow people *choose to be that way?
How about the athlete gene?
Kermit
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.
>
>
> >> 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
(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
>
>
> 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
What you describe is utopia, Nirvana. Not perfection.
>
>> How can we understand what perfection is that without imprefection?
>
> Understanding isn't one of your core strengths anyway.
How can you know what light is with out standing in the dark?
>
>> Perfection is a balance of both.
>
>>>> 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
--
(M)-adman
No. That is not true.
Friar Broccoli
> In the destroying the author's own argument category.
>
> In message <zM6Ik.46967$bx1.21...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
> <g...@hotmail.ed> writes>> Gays can and do reproduce. They always have and they always will.
>
> >Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
> alias Ernest Major
I think you need to restore the cuts you made and re-submit
your Chez Watt, because without the line:
>> If homosexuallity is NOT a choice,
it is not clear that he is arguing that homosexuality IS a
choice and thus that he believes there can be no such
thing as a "true homosexual".
(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.
(M)-adman
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> 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...
>>>> been selected OUT of nature by now since gays do not reproduce.
>>>>
>>>> Or evolution is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>
>> Then they are not true homosexuals.
>
> they are actually bisexual!
If they have sex with the opposite sex, then yes, they are now BIsexual.
They have sex with both sexes.
>
> Keep it up. This stuff makes me laugh.
>
> Mark
A true homosexual has no intrest in mating with the opposite sex. When they
do they become bisexual. Why is that funny?
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
Mark VandeWettering
Sounds pretty perfect to me? In what way should we view Nirvana as being
imperfect?
>>> How can we understand what perfection is that without imprefection?
>>
>> Understanding isn't one of your core strengths anyway.
>
> How can you know what light is with out standing in the dark?
If there was nothing but light, we wouldn't have to ask this question.
Or are you saying that your God can't create a universe where people don't
suffer?
Mark VandeWettering
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2008-10-11, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> 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.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure all those silly homosexuals really don't realize that
>> they are actually bisexual!
>
> If they have sex with the opposite sex, then yes, they are now BIsexual.
No. They are not.
> They have sex with both sexes.
That's not generally how bisexual is defined.
>> Keep it up. This stuff makes me laugh.
>>
>> Mark
>
> A true homosexual has no intrest in mating with the opposite sex.
No doubt you are drawing on your own personal experience about true
homosexuals when you choose to speak for them.
Even if what you said were true, there is this thing called "artificial
insemination". Perhaps you've heard of it?
> When they do they become bisexual. Why is that funny?
Your stupidity and ignorance are entertaining.
Mark
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?
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.
TomS
<5d5f4975-fd7c-4914...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Cerpin Taxt
stated..."
>
>(M)-adman wrote:
>> 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.
It is possible to take the attitude that an extremely complex
pattern in the world of life does not suggest that there be
an explanation for it.
Rather like, if I were wandering across a heath, and came upon a
watch, I might not have any curiosity about whether the watch had
a designer. There is nothing that forces me to draw a conclusion
about the origins of that watch.
So, too, I may live my life without ever wondering about explanations
for the vertebrate eye, the bacterial flagellum, or the tree of life.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Friar Broccoli
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> Mike Painter wrote:
> >>>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!
>
> If they have sex with the opposite sex, then yes, they are now BIsexual.
> They have sex with both sexes.
>
>
>
> > Keep it up. This stuff makes me laugh.
>
> > Mark
>
> A true homosexual has no intrest in mating with the opposite sex. When they
> do they become bisexual. Why is that funny?
Because this is biology, and very few things in biology
are sharply divided. Some people are completely heterosexual,
some are completely homosexual, and a lot are bisexual.
Within the bisexuals there is a continuum from mostly
homosexual to mostly heterosexual.
You are talking black and white in an environment where there
are many shades of gray, and a lot of other colors as well.
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."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz