The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(04-05-2014 07:49 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 06:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm afraid your view of evolution is incorrect.
Evolution is random change with the results filtered by fitness. There is no driving force for change, there is no response to 'need'.

A species does not 'know' that it is in danger. Evolution is completely mindless and unguided.


Natural Selection anyone? Evolution is partly based on desired traits which is determined by habitat, mating and many other factors.

Alright my turn. Natural selection is not random the mutations that happen are. so if one part of the population had big horns and the other had large fur but they live in the grass lands the larger fured one will one. In fact both can win and make two new species. In short Natural selection is not random, but mutations are.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
04-05-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(04-05-2014 07:53 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Alright my turn. Natural selection is not random the mutations that happen are. so if one part of the population had big horns and the other had large fur but they live in the grass lands the larger fured one will one. In fact both can win and make two new species. In short Natural selection is not random, but mutations are.

Yes, what survives is better adapted for immediate, local environment. Differential reproductive success is the result of natural selection.

There is no "direction" toward any "goal" - not even survival. A species is not aware whether it might be headed for extinction or not - not even human beings.

Natural selection is not why a species moves along but how it moves along. It is an evolutionary process.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
05-05-2014, 08:13 AM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2014 08:17 AM by Chas.)
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(04-05-2014 07:49 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 06:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm afraid your view of evolution is incorrect.
Evolution is random change with the results filtered by fitness. There is no driving force for change, there is no response to 'need'.

A species does not 'know' that it is in danger. Evolution is completely mindless and unguided.


Natural Selection anyone? Evolution is partly based on desired traits which is determined by habitat, mating and many other factors.

Still no. There are no 'desired traits'.

Random mutation creates change to genes. A species might benefit from some trait, say heavier fur, but if the genes don't exist to make that trait then it won't happen. There is nothing that will 'make it happen'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 08:22 AM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-05-2014 07:49 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Natural Selection anyone? Evolution is partly based on desired traits which is determined by habitat, mating and many other factors.

Still no. There are no 'desired traits'.

Not in natural selection anyway... Sleepy

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-05-2014 07:49 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Natural Selection anyone? Evolution is partly based on desired traits which is determined by habitat, mating and many other factors.

Still no. There are no 'desired traits'.

Random mutation creates change to genes. A species might benefit from some trait, say heavier fur, but if the genes don't exist to make that trait then it won't happen. There is nothing that will 'make it happen'.


Look up Natural selection, Compare it to how species has evolved.

Take the polar bear for example. It is clear that they came from a different bear.
I think it was brown bears if I remember right or their common ancestor.

The bear could not eat very well in the arctic land it moved too and had difficulty adjusting.

So what happened? One day a gene morphed and mutated and "natural selected" itself to have white fur. This is a "desired trait" that the polar bear "needed" to fit its changing environment much better. Once that bear gave birth to cubs. THOSE bear had white fur and eventually we now see that there are no brown bears in the arctic. (although due to loss of homes, grizzly is started to move into the area)

Soon after that they got longer faces and became more adept at swimming in the ocean so they grew larger and with more insulation. AGAIN! Not random ass chance by fate and roll of dice. "Natural Selection".

Take the woodpecker, Snipe, Seagull, - These are birds that came from another bird. However, when they Evolved and "changed" it was not completely random that they acquired the "desired trait" by complete accident. Otherwise there would be far too many animals with "Undesired" traits that serve no purpose what so ever.

This is not to say that a lot of evolution does not come from random change. However, There is more than enough evidence that Natural selection plays a HUGE part in how a species adapts, grows, evolves and than leaves its previous ancestors behind in its dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
05-05-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(07-04-2014 12:45 PM)wazzel Wrote:  If the entire species would suddenly become homosexual we would indeed die out.

I beg to differ. Sperm and egg banks, man. Yes

[Image: pBvowKv.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ferdinand's post
05-05-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 05:01 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  
(07-04-2014 12:45 PM)wazzel Wrote:  If the entire species would suddenly become homosexual we would indeed die out.

I beg to differ. Sperm and egg banks, man. Yes

^I am keeping this point Ferdinand for the next time a subject like this comes up.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 04:57 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  Still no. There are no 'desired traits'.

Random mutation creates change to genes. A species might benefit from some trait, say heavier fur, but if the genes don't exist to make that trait then it won't happen. There is nothing that will 'make it happen'.


Look up Natural selection, Compare it to how species has evolved.

Take the polar bear for example. It is clear that they came from a different bear.
I think it was brown bears if I remember right or their common ancestor.

The bear could not eat very well in the arctic land it moved too and had difficulty adjusting.

So what happened? One day a gene morphed and mutated and "natural selected" itself to have white fur. This is a "desired trait" that the polar bear "needed" to fit its changing environment much better. Once that bear gave birth to cubs. THOSE bear had white fur and eventually we now see that there are no brown bears in the arctic. (although due to loss of homes, grizzly is started to move into the area)

Soon after that they got longer faces and became more adept at swimming in the ocean so they grew larger and with more insulation. AGAIN! Not random ass chance by fate and roll of dice. "Natural Selection".

Take the woodpecker, Snipe, Seagull, - These are birds that came from another bird. However, when they Evolved and "changed" it was not completely random that they acquired the "desired trait" by complete accident. Otherwise there would be far too many animals with "Undesired" traits that serve no purpose what so ever.

This is not to say that a lot of evolution does not come from random change. However, There is more than enough evidence that Natural selection plays a HUGE part in how a species adapts, grows, evolves and than leaves its previous ancestors behind in its dust.

It looks as if you're mixing up two different moments of evolution, the first is the emergence of a trait, the second is the selection between traits.
Traits appear randomly, without intention or desirability. That's the first moment, a priori, we can't say anything about how said traits will affect a species.
Then, the environment or other factors come into play and those traits become more or less useful for the specimens, affecting their ability to reproduce and thus naturally selecting those who provide a better chance of surviving or reproducing.
But the environment doesn't make changes appear, if some bears hadn't been born with white fur by luck and chance, there's not amount of snow that could make them born that way. That's why extinction is so abundant in the history of life, there are lots of species that simply couldn't get the trait on time.

Both things are true, the random nature of changes and the "naturally steered" (sorry for the misnomer) selection, that make those changes prevail or not.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
05-05-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(08-04-2014 10:37 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 10:25 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  I have heard that too. Oddly, men tend to be at either end of the sliding scale, while women fall into the middle areas and experience more bisexual tendencies.

Doesn't Thailand recognize 3-4 sexes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

According to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, that's why Thailand got hit by the tsunami. Gay people cause natural disasters. Rolleyes

There is no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 05:54 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 10:37 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Doesn't Thailand recognize 3-4 sexes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

According to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, that's why Thailand got hit by the tsunami. Gay people cause natural disasters. Rolleyes

If that is true homosexuals are gods.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: