Homosexuality vs evolution

1. 0

   Denno66posted 14 years ago

   someone looking for ladies?

   report
2. 61

   Colebabieposted 14 years ago

   Hehe. Down boys!

   report
3. 0

   Denno66posted 14 years ago

   Ruff!

   report
4. 88

   Len Cannonposted 14 years ago

   Do you ACTUALLY want to talk about evolutionary psychology or is this just a thinnly veiled attempt to attack one or both of your topics?  I think I know the answer but I figured it was worth checking before sitting down and discussing something of actual intellectual merit.

   report
   1. 68

      drej2522posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Len, the exhaustion of this thread has reached its end. I have no longer the strength to continue any pursuit of happiness here.

      report
   2. 0

      thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You mean do I want more bad guesses with over simplified meanings, an allusive timegod and bones? No, I got enough of that in school. Final thought is it really learning if you never question it? Goodnight all!

      report
      1. 88

         Len Cannonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         So, "no."

         report
5. 53

   spwottonposted 14 years ago

   I think it could be a form of population control... after so many random variations of the human genome, it's bound to express itself like that after a while wouldn't you think? I know we all think of ourselves as individuals but anyone who believes in some kind of a "oversoul"/god/higher consciousness will tell you that all human consciousness and life is interlinked, so I think it could regulate itself via something like population. homosexuals do not increase the population, so it would serve as a form of population control. also if someone somehow twists this into me spouting hate speech you're ignorant.

   report
6. 74

   Satoriposted 14 years ago

   At the risk of lobbing a can of worms into the thread, the issues here seem to be that a) someone finds evolution difficult to accept as valid, b) has an axe to grind with homosexuality, and c) wants to use b) as a means to prop up a).
   
   In terms of a), we've managed to demonstrate evolution as a valid process by simulating it with digital algorithms.  Thomas S. Ray created a program that successfully evolved artificial life, which would compete, adapt, improve and innovate.  See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_%28 … ulation%29
   Tierra's pretty exciting, I've been interested in it for years.  Ray designed a virtual creature with 60 lines of code, and figured it was the optimal, fittest creature within the parameters he'd defined.  He used this creature to fill his artificial environment, and left the machine on for a couple of days.  When he came back to it, he found that it had evolved creatures to do the task in just 30 lines of code... and then 28 lines.  The machine had evolved program-creatures which used obscure and highly technical software engineering concepts we had already developed - it had re-invented the wheel, using evolutionary algorithms.  Artificial life systems have been created, and currently are assessed to lack the open-ended evolution that seems to be present in the real world.  The creatures in these systems tend to adapt, evolve... and then the adaptation reaches a fitness plateau and levels off.  This is most likely due to the fact that our computers can only generate environments that are small and limited, and overlooks the fact that our world, too, is finite... and that given enough time, we'd level off too.  We simply haven't, yet.  If the amount of time that life has been on the planet were one calendar year long, the amount of time the human race has been around would be equivalent to one second.  That's not a lot of time to get a decent vantage.
   
   As far as b) is concerned, I'll present my argument in the form of a counter-question.  Rather than ask, "If evolution is true, where does homosexuality come from?" (many people have already given answers to this, including the Gaia hypothesis that originated with James Lovelock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis - which suggests that the earth is a self-regulating system and that when you get too much of one thing, something emerges to bring the situation into balance), I'll ask the opposite question.  "If Creationism is valid AND our Maker has a beef with homosexuality, where did it come from?"  I mean really.  The concept of sin is a metaphor from archery, when someone sins by missing the mark.  For someone to miss the mark and take them out of alignment with their Maker, they must have malevolence in their heart.  I don't know what kind of sex most people are having, but any malevolence I involve in my sex is consensual and an expression of intimacy - where's the sin in that?
   
   For those who'd like to think that homosexuality came from the evil in men's hearts after the Fall from Grace, remember that Christianity holds that only humans ate from the Tree of Knowledge of both Good AND Evil (because God only ever Created Good)... and that we get gay animals all the time.  Heck, according to Harper's Index, the chances that a ram is gay are one in eleven.  It would take an awful lot to convince me that God made evil animals.  Most of them are far more compassionate than the vast majority of humans.  Similarly, I don't think Satan is sneaking around tempting animals to be gay out of sheer boredom.  Being gay isn't a choice, it's innate.  If you disagree, try choosing it yourself for about a week and see how far you get with it.
   
   
   Be well,
   
   - Satori

   report
7. 83

   kerrygposted 14 years ago

   10 pages in, there probably isn't any point in offering a serious answer to the OP's question of how the continued existence of homosexuality fits into the theory of evolution, but what the heck? I enjoy wasting my time in pursuit of science education.
   
   First of all, if you look at the natural world, you will notice that bisexuality is actually more common among animals than either pure homosexuality or pure heterosexuality. This means that the trait of homosexuality would easily be passed on because most animals that engage in homosexual behavior also engage in heterosexual behavior and would have the opportunity to pass on the trait to their offspring.
   
   Of the animals who are "pure" homosexuals, by preference or simply in practice, it is believed that they contribute to the survival of the population as a whole, even if their individual genes are not passed on. Depending on the type of animal, homosexual animals can contribute to the survival of their relatives' young in several ways:
   
   1. By helping to care for them
   2. By relieving population pressures - in some species, researchers have documented a rise in the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual behavior when a population becomes stressed by overcrowding. When the population returns to healthy levels, the percentage of homosexual activity declines back to normal levels. Non-procreative sexual activity allows animals to relieve sexual urges while increasing the chances of survival of any young who are born by not adding to the overpopulation problem.
   3. By ceding breeding privileges to stronger males. In many social animals, young males live in "bachelor" bands where homosexual activity is rampant. The strongest individuals will eventually leave the bachelor band and go on to lead a group of females and sire children. Weaker males will live out their lives in the bachelor band. Again, the homosexual activity allows them to relieve sexual urges, but by ceding breeding rights to the stronger males, the weaker ones contribute to the survival of the population as a whole.

   report
8. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   No more pot for him.

   report
   1. 59

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Imagine how smart he'd be without it.

      report
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         That was scary!

         report
9. 80

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   Homophobia is simple to understand. .... and see in your religious agenda.

   report
   1. 62

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder if homophobia is an evolved response (only half-joking... and by "evolved" I don't mean "advanced", I hope it is realized... :-/ )

      report
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Could be. As we discover other peoples sexuality and openly speak about it the religious fear factor blows the scale, so yeah.....

         report
10. 73

    spiderpamposted 14 years ago

    If you lack an intelligent response scream "homophobe!"
    
    Great topic truth. I'm surprised how little evolutionist know about evolution. Did you hear that radio show a couple weeks ago?
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkzBTpkMg8E

    report
    1. 80

       earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I know you are a homophobe, that is evident in your beliefs.

       report
    2. 0

       thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Hey spider

       report
11. 73

    spiderpamposted 14 years ago

    Right on cue!

    report
    1. 80

       earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       And totally true!

       report
       1. 73

          spiderpamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Sure.

          report
          1. 62

             AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Who's spiderspam -- that's a really cool name...

             report
             1. 73

                spiderpamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                If that was sincere thanks, if not thanks. Have a good night.

                report
                1. 62

                   AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Yep. Sincere

                   report
                   1. 73

                      spiderpamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Thanks! Spiderpam out!

                      report
12. 61

    EdwardO.posted 14 years ago

    
    
    Right...

    report
    1. 62

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Hehehehehe. Is "Edward O." short for "Edward O. Wilson"?

       report
       1. 61

          EdwardO.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Heh Nope, I lack originality it's my first name and the first letter of my last name.

          report
    2. 73

       spiderpamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It's true.
       http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … amp;id=660

       report
       1. 62

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Here is the bottom line: if evolution was proved wrong tomorrow, for all time, I STILL wouldn't believe in the Genesis account... because it is SILLY.
          
          I mean, it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not, in that sense. The Old Testament contains some incredibly, wonderfully, silly stuff, and the beginning is one of those bits.
          
          For example (as I heard recently), what day was the sun created? Not the first right? So how was the first day a day at all if there was no sun... see, it's just silly...

          report
       2. 61

          EdwardO.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I find it interesting that it was released by an organization best known for there advocacy of intelligent design. So yeah it's not true
          
          http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Renka_pa … design.htm
          
          http://ncse.com/creationism/general/dou … ve-license
          
          It's amazing what you can find through Google.
          
          
          
          You're in luck because it hasn't been.

          report
          1. 62

             AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             True indeed. I mean, imagine people debating a principle of mechanical engineering on a thread like this; why do lay people (like me ) think that biology, paleontology, etc., can be discredited by non-scientists? It's odd. Are we going to debate the composition of the elements next?
             
             But the Creation Story exists in a few short pages. (I assume) that all translations and all source texts say roughly the same thing, so a specialized knowledge is not required. And if it is internally inconsistent, then end of story. I mean, aren't there two contradictory accounts of how woman came to be. Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from, or did they marry their sisters, and if so, THIS is supposed to be an authority on morality...?

             report
             1. 61

                EdwardO.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I'll I know is if I'm in the wrong religion God probably hates me. Why do I need God to be a good person?

                report
                1. 62

                   AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Buddhism. Go with Buddhism. (Seriously, what small things I know about it seem right on)

                   report
                   1. 61

                      EdwardO.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      I need a way to relieve stress, I'm going with the religion Helio Gracie started BJJ.

                      report
             2. 70

                aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Nah.... I think Genesis was God's way of bookmarking His Creation and He had a couple of problems... see as you just said;
                
                "imagine people debating a principle of mechanical engineering on a thread like this; why do lay people (like me ) think that biology, paleontology, etc., can be discredited by non-scientists? It's odd. Are we going to debate the composition of the elements next?"
                
                Now imagine God trying to dictate to a mere human from about 4,000 years ago, the REAL explanation about how He CREATED a universe, then created life on this little rock that hangs suspended in space ate EXACTLY the right position to allow His life created to survive.
                
                How would you  (or any scientist) describe the DNA code to an Amazon tribe that had never seen a McDonalds?
                
                ... and anyhow....
                
                WHO WROTE THE DNA CODE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

                report
                1. 59

                   Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Would they have understood three dimensional shapes, Daddy?

                   report
                2. 83

                   kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   And that right there is EXACTLY why the Bible and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. If you assume that God is real and that He created the universe and then chose to tell a bunch of pre-literate Bronze Age shepherds how, doesn't it make sense that He would use metaphors to do it, and not give an exact account? Why, then, are you taking the creation story literally? Why do you assume that one day for God is the same as one day for man? (That's a pretty big assumption, if you ask me.) One day for God could easily be one billion years, and if you consider that as a possibility, the first few pages of Genesis actually match up surprisingly well with what scientists believe happened.

                   report
          2. 73

             spiderpamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             So because you disagree, it's a lie? ummmm. That's not science. Those are all real people some ex-evolutionists, some still evolutionist. some Creationist(young earth and old earth), what's your beef. Darwin's theory has serious holes that's why its still a theory. I really gotta run.  See ya Truth!

             report
             1. 61

                EdwardO.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I'll assume you didn't read the links above apparently some of the people that signed expertise isn't apparent, some affiliation and credentials have been questioned and even some signers were mislead. Evolution is a theory and it doesn't claim to be truth unlike Creationism which claims is. You know getting a bunch of people who really haven't studied the facts and go with what they were taught isn't science either. It's a circle jerk.

                report
             2. 88

                Len Cannonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think you know what a theory is when it is used in a scientific discussion.

                report
                1. 62

                   AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I say again, is it seriously being suggested that I should choose my religious beliefs based on whether evolution is a fact or not? I mean WTF is the connection????
                   Again, if evolution were proved wrong tomorrow, I still would not believe in Creation, because it is very, very silly. Period.

                   report
13. 80

    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    How many homophobes does it take to replace a light bulb?

    report
    1. 70

       wyanjenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       They don't replace light bulbs that burn out.
       
       It's much easier to judge people when you are in the dark.
       

       report
       1. 80

          earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          

          report
14. 61

    redneckdaddy2009posted 14 years ago

    Well alot of people say it is judging when others condone homosexualitty and it is not judging it is living the proper way and it says in the bible that women was created from man for man. It does not say anywhere in there that another man was created for man. And then when it talks about marriage it says that wifes are to submit to their husbands Ephisian 5:22 and in verse 24 it says that the husband is to love their wives and the lord loves the church. And in those verses it does not say that men are to love other men as their wives. So YES homosexuality is a SIN and it is adam and eve not adam and steve.
    
    So i guess if you want to say that i am judging you then you are in for a reall rude awaking when the Lord Jesus comes back since He will be judging everyone for their works and their sins. And the people that are doing the homosexuallity things will have to explain why they are doing it and they will not beable to use the reason that they were born that way cause it says in the Bible that the Lord created us in his own image and that people who say they were born that way say the Lord is gay and he sure AIN'T!!!
    
    Homosexuallity is a choice and it is a wrong choice that they have made  and i do hope that they do change their ways so they will not be judged for it later.

    report
    1. 61

       EdwardO.posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       What if he doesn't exist? Are you screwed if you're in the wrong religion? He could gay. He should be a brown guy instead every picture I've seen suggests he's white (not even a tan).

       report
    2. 62

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I don't want to state what should be an obvious argument, but if sexual "preference" is a choice, did all you hetero-sexual Christians/Muslims/Orthodox Jews *choose* *your* sexual preference? I suspect not... Silly, so much of this is so silly...

       report
    3. 74

       Satoriposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Speaking of, how many people here know what the sin of sodomy actually was?  It wasn't gay sex.  Check it out:
       
       http://www.emergingtruths.com/the_sodom … mites.html

       report
       1. 79

          Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Ooh, never heard that one before

          report
          1. 0

             thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             and never seen that before!

             report
15. 80

    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    All the major religions are homophobic as far as I know.

    report
16. 82

    pay2cEMposted 14 years ago

    Why can't evolution be true AND homosexuality be regarded as a defect, but not a "sin?"  In evolutionary terms, "defect" refers to any trait that leads towards extinction rather than evolution. Obviously, if everyone born from now on was homosexual, the human race would be extinct within 100 years.  Thus, we can conclude that homosexuality is a defect.
    
    BUT...does that mean homosexuality is "wrong?"  I would argue no for a couple different reasons.
    
    1.  If every newly married couple from now on decided they didn't want to have kids, humans would become extinct within 100 years.  Are you going to now argue that refraining from bringing a child into this world is morally depraved?
    
    2.  Scientists, biologists, and zoologists have documented homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animal, both wild and captive.  This includes dogs, pigs, dolphins, lions, a large number of brds, and almost all primates.  There are even some species of birds whose males partner for life, and are given "adopted" eggs by females to hatch and raise as their own.  If homosexuality is "unnatural," as Fundamentalist shout from the rooftops, someone (God?) forgot to inform nature.
    
    Let's be very clear.  Homosexuality is not a biological issue, it's a theological one. And of dubious merit, at that.  And given what we know about the "gay" animals, one only has 2 choices: (1) Either God made them gay, or (2) they evolved by natural selection, with a small percentage exhibiting the defecting homosexual tendency.

    report