The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 05:55 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 05:54 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  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.

Hmmm...good point. Consider

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
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
05-05-2014, 06:13 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.

You miss my point. Evolution is random mutation and non-random selection.

There are no "desired traits", there is no "needed". I think you have it right except for that. Evolution is algorithmic, but it is an algorithm without goal or direction. The mutations are random, the selection is determined by differential reproductive success.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-05-2014, 07:21 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2014 07:26 PM by Free Thought.)
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.

Yes, Natural selection does indeed play a huge part in species adaptation, however I think you have a misunderstanding as to how exactly it works.

Firstly, a 'desired trait' would imply a will toward it, whereas that is certainly not the case; what you characterise as 'desired' traits are simply advantageous to the animal. They are not willed into being by creatures being faced with a predicament.
Secondly, genes do not mutate when necessary as you characterised, nor do they select themselves. Rather they cause their own selection by their end result.

For example: the clear fur and white skin of the polar bear (Yes, their fur has no pigmentation and is thus clear, not white) in your example didn't 'select itself'. The animals containing the mutation were able to survive due to the advantage they gained i.e. their camouflage allowing them to hunt more effectively and pass down the gene. Each bear with the gene would be more effective and spread the gene, while those without died out.

This is natural selection: an unconscious process of collation of advantageous traits through living and passing ones genes. It serves no purpose in the active sense you are implying in your writing; it is passive.

And for your bird analogy... That's pretty far from accurate. It was completely random as the mutation of genes which causes change is completely random, not to mention the lack of existence of anything called a 'desired trait' outside of human intervention, which is Artificial selection.

Selection works by what is allowed to reproduce.

In addition to this; most species on Earth genetically are primarily what you call 'undesired' traits: genes which serve no purpose. The human genome is something like 98% noncoding DNA; DNA which serves no purpose.
By your logic, we would be extinct but thankfully that is not how natural selection works; traits advantageous to the individual are 'selected' due to their advantage allowing greater reproduction, and harmful mutations are 'selected out' through the mass killing of it holders due to their detrimental affects and thus prevention of its spreading. However genes which balance out the harm with benefit (For instance, Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against maleria) or genes which are neither beneficial nor detrimental are also selected.

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
[+] 4 users Like Free Thought's post
06-05-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 07:21 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 04:57 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  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.

Yes, Natural selection does indeed play a huge part in species adaptation, however I think you have a misunderstanding as to how exactly it works.

Firstly, a 'desired trait' would imply a will toward it, whereas that is certainly not the case; what you characterise as 'desired' traits are simply advantageous to the animal. They are not willed into being by creatures being faced with a predicament.
Secondly, genes do not mutate when necessary as you characterised, nor do they select themselves. Rather they cause their own selection by their end result.

For example: the clear fur and white skin of the polar bear (Yes, their fur has no pigmentation and is thus clear, not white) in your example didn't 'select itself'. The animals containing the mutation were able to survive due to the advantage they gained i.e. their camouflage allowing them to hunt more effectively and pass down the gene. Each bear with the gene would be more effective and spread the gene, while those without died out.

This is natural selection: an unconscious process of collation of advantageous traits through living and passing ones genes. It serves no purpose in the active sense you are implying in your writing; it is passive.

And for your bird analogy... That's pretty far from accurate. It was completely random as the mutation of genes which causes change is completely random, not to mention the lack of existence of anything called a 'desired trait' outside of human intervention, which is Artificial selection.

Selection works by what is allowed to reproduce.

In addition to this; most species on Earth genetically are primarily what you call 'undesired' traits: genes which serve no purpose. The human genome is something like 98% noncoding DNA; DNA which serves no purpose.
By your logic, we would be extinct but thankfully that is not how natural selection works; traits advantageous to the individual are 'selected' due to their advantage allowing greater reproduction, and harmful mutations are 'selected out' through the mass killing of it holders due to their detrimental affects and thus prevention of its spreading. However genes which balance out the harm with benefit (For instance, Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against maleria) or genes which are neither beneficial nor detrimental are also selected.

This is one of the best descriptions I have ever read of natural selection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bible Belt Brawler's post
06-05-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(05-05-2014 07:21 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 04:57 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  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.

Yes, Natural selection does indeed play a huge part in species adaptation, however I think you have a misunderstanding as to how exactly it works.

Firstly, a 'desired trait' would imply a will toward it, whereas that is certainly not the case; what you characterise as 'desired' traits are simply advantageous to the animal. They are not willed into being by creatures being faced with a predicament.
Secondly, genes do not mutate when necessary as you characterised, nor do they select themselves. Rather they cause their own selection by their end result.

For example: the clear fur and white skin of the polar bear (Yes, their fur has no pigmentation and is thus clear, not white) in your example didn't 'select itself'. The animals containing the mutation were able to survive due to the advantage they gained i.e. their camouflage allowing them to hunt more effectively and pass down the gene. Each bear with the gene would be more effective and spread the gene, while those without died out.

This is natural selection: an unconscious process of collation of advantageous traits through living and passing ones genes. It serves no purpose in the active sense you are implying in your writing; it is passive.

And for your bird analogy... That's pretty far from accurate. It was completely random as the mutation of genes which causes change is completely random, not to mention the lack of existence of anything called a 'desired trait' outside of human intervention, which is Artificial selection.

Selection works by what is allowed to reproduce.

In addition to this; most species on Earth genetically are primarily what you call 'undesired' traits: genes which serve no purpose. The human genome is something like 98% noncoding DNA; DNA which serves no purpose.
By your logic, we would be extinct but thankfully that is not how natural selection works; traits advantageous to the individual are 'selected' due to their advantage allowing greater reproduction, and harmful mutations are 'selected out' through the mass killing of it holders due to their detrimental affects and thus prevention of its spreading. However genes which balance out the harm with benefit (For instance, Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against maleria) or genes which are neither beneficial nor detrimental are also selected.

^ Give this fucker some black jack and hookers.

[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
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
06-05-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(06-05-2014 12:35 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 07:21 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Yes, Natural selection does indeed play a huge part in species adaptation, however I think you have a misunderstanding as to how exactly it works.

Firstly, a 'desired trait' would imply a will toward it, whereas that is certainly not the case; what you characterise as 'desired' traits are simply advantageous to the animal. They are not willed into being by creatures being faced with a predicament.
Secondly, genes do not mutate when necessary as you characterised, nor do they select themselves. Rather they cause their own selection by their end result.

For example: the clear fur and white skin of the polar bear (Yes, their fur has no pigmentation and is thus clear, not white) in your example didn't 'select itself'. The animals containing the mutation were able to survive due to the advantage they gained i.e. their camouflage allowing them to hunt more effectively and pass down the gene. Each bear with the gene would be more effective and spread the gene, while those without died out.

This is natural selection: an unconscious process of collation of advantageous traits through living and passing ones genes. It serves no purpose in the active sense you are implying in your writing; it is passive.

And for your bird analogy... That's pretty far from accurate. It was completely random as the mutation of genes which causes change is completely random, not to mention the lack of existence of anything called a 'desired trait' outside of human intervention, which is Artificial selection.

Selection works by what is allowed to reproduce.

In addition to this; most species on Earth genetically are primarily what you call 'undesired' traits: genes which serve no purpose. The human genome is something like 98% noncoding DNA; DNA which serves no purpose.
By your logic, we would be extinct but thankfully that is not how natural selection works; traits advantageous to the individual are 'selected' due to their advantage allowing greater reproduction, and harmful mutations are 'selected out' through the mass killing of it holders due to their detrimental affects and thus prevention of its spreading. However genes which balance out the harm with benefit (For instance, Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against maleria) or genes which are neither beneficial nor detrimental are also selected.

This is one of the best descriptions I have ever read of natural selection.

(06-05-2014 12:49 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 07:21 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Yes, Natural selection does indeed play a huge part in species adaptation, however I think you have a misunderstanding as to how exactly it works.

Firstly, a 'desired trait' would imply a will toward it, whereas that is certainly not the case; what you characterise as 'desired' traits are simply advantageous to the animal. They are not willed into being by creatures being faced with a predicament.
Secondly, genes do not mutate when necessary as you characterised, nor do they select themselves. Rather they cause their own selection by their end result.

For example: the clear fur and white skin of the polar bear (Yes, their fur has no pigmentation and is thus clear, not white) in your example didn't 'select itself'. The animals containing the mutation were able to survive due to the advantage they gained i.e. their camouflage allowing them to hunt more effectively and pass down the gene. Each bear with the gene would be more effective and spread the gene, while those without died out.

This is natural selection: an unconscious process of collation of advantageous traits through living and passing ones genes. It serves no purpose in the active sense you are implying in your writing; it is passive.

And for your bird analogy... That's pretty far from accurate. It was completely random as the mutation of genes which causes change is completely random, not to mention the lack of existence of anything called a 'desired trait' outside of human intervention, which is Artificial selection.

Selection works by what is allowed to reproduce.

In addition to this; most species on Earth genetically are primarily what you call 'undesired' traits: genes which serve no purpose. The human genome is something like 98% noncoding DNA; DNA which serves no purpose.
By your logic, we would be extinct but thankfully that is not how natural selection works; traits advantageous to the individual are 'selected' due to their advantage allowing greater reproduction, and harmful mutations are 'selected out' through the mass killing of it holders due to their detrimental affects and thus prevention of its spreading. However genes which balance out the harm with benefit (For instance, Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against maleria) or genes which are neither beneficial nor detrimental are also selected.

^ Give this fucker some black jack and hookers.

[Image: bc7.png]

It wasn't really that good, surely. I was concerned that it was bad.

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
06-05-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: The strangest argument against homosexuality I have ever heard.
(06-05-2014 12:49 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 07:21 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Yes, Natural selection does indeed play a huge part in species adaptation, however I think you have a misunderstanding as to how exactly it works.

Firstly, a 'desired trait' would imply a will toward it, whereas that is certainly not the case; what you characterise as 'desired' traits are simply advantageous to the animal. They are not willed into being by creatures being faced with a predicament.
Secondly, genes do not mutate when necessary as you characterised, nor do they select themselves. Rather they cause their own selection by their end result.

For example: the clear fur and white skin of the polar bear (Yes, their fur has no pigmentation and is thus clear, not white) in your example didn't 'select itself'. The animals containing the mutation were able to survive due to the advantage they gained i.e. their camouflage allowing them to hunt more effectively and pass down the gene. Each bear with the gene would be more effective and spread the gene, while those without died out.

This is natural selection: an unconscious process of collation of advantageous traits through living and passing ones genes. It serves no purpose in the active sense you are implying in your writing; it is passive.

And for your bird analogy... That's pretty far from accurate. It was completely random as the mutation of genes which causes change is completely random, not to mention the lack of existence of anything called a 'desired trait' outside of human intervention, which is Artificial selection.

Selection works by what is allowed to reproduce.

In addition to this; most species on Earth genetically are primarily what you call 'undesired' traits: genes which serve no purpose. The human genome is something like 98% noncoding DNA; DNA which serves no purpose.
By your logic, we would be extinct but thankfully that is not how natural selection works; traits advantageous to the individual are 'selected' due to their advantage allowing greater reproduction, and harmful mutations are 'selected out' through the mass killing of it holders due to their detrimental affects and thus prevention of its spreading. However genes which balance out the harm with benefit (For instance, Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against maleria) or genes which are neither beneficial nor detrimental are also selected.

^ Give this fucker some black jack and hookers.

YEAH! Then I will have my OWN seminar on stuff...know what? Forget the science! I just want my hookers and black jack....and bring me jack denials too!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: