thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:41    There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists." My question is this; Would this not represent a refutation of evolution?  Or more modestly, would this not at the minimum represent a bad mutation naturally selected?  What in evolution would justify a selection of a "gay gene?"

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:51    Gay people have kids all the time.  What's the logic behind the "refutation"? Organisms with "bad mutations" can still pass their genes on.   Evolution doesn't require that only "good mutations" get passed on. Go return the straw from where you stole it from.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:11    Quote new talk uh, you're a bit behind the times there, eight ball. and no, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, unless you want to explore the exception proves the rule angle. wait, why am i bothering to respond to an idiot? forget i said anything.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:31    I just thought of something. If a gay gene were to 'refute evolution', by default wouldn't that mean the gay gene was designed? And since God, WHOOPS I mean the Intelligent Designer supposedly hates gays so much, why would he design a gay gene? It's quite a conundrum. Right up there with the Jesus-microwaving-a-burrito paradox. (Hmm. Maybe the Intelligent Designer designed a gay gene for the same reason he put dinosaur bones on earth, to test people to see if they stayed faithful and to punish them brutally if they didn't?) -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:40    Quote wait, why am i bothering to respond to an idiot? Lol. Yeah, I think most people are still in middle school when they realize that if they disagree with all the experts, it's probably not the experts who are wrong.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:51    cogzoid, So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?   So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation? What would a "gay gene" entail? This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:23    Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,21:51) cogzoid, So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?   So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation? What would a "gay gene" entail? This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence. Thordaddy, you are priceless. Quote So natural selection is really a meaningless term?   Who said that? under those bloody great wads of straw there is a simple fact that you have allready been told.  Natural selection is pressure.  It's not absolute.  Simply put, Half-wits still exist.  There is pressure being put against Half wits, but clearly they exist. Quote And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?   Uh according to the Ex gay ministries... (heh) Quote This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence. Sorry, It fits in neatly with natural selection.  It's a poke in the eye for religion and it's half-wit pseudoscience child ID. Just because you dont like it doesn't mean it's not true. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:34    My half-assed hypothesis is that homosexuality increases in proportion to the level of pressure a population places upon its supporting environment.  Not so much a gay gene as, "how many offspring do we really need gene." Since we're all in the mood for armchair science, I'd ask TD if a "god gene" will refute theology.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:48    First of all, I think this whole gay gene idea is a load of crock.  Care to cite any studies to back your claim up? But, barring that, I'm able to think abstractly and pretend that a gay gene exists.  Then ponder it's implications on our theories of science. Quote So natural selection is really a meaningless term? Care to flush out your logic?  You jumped straight from "gay gene" to "natural selection is meaningless".  How do you get from A to B? Quote And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual? Certainly, but that doesn't stop gay people from pretending to be heterosexual.  Thousands of fathers come out of the closet every year, much to the devastation of their wives.  Did you see Brokeback Mountain?  Gay people that are "scared into the closet" will often times have families to seem normal. Quote So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation? There's a chance of this, yes.  Perhaps the gene is recessive (like red hair) and only shows up when the kid happens to recieve two recessive gay genes.  This is standard practice for genes and straight out of 7th grade biology texts. Quote What would a "gay gene" entail? Exactly!  What would a "gay gene" entail?  Where did you hear about them? Quote This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence. What?!  Who drew what conclusion?

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,18:13    Hmmm....ok...couple of points The Greeks were gay,really gay,crazy gay,they loved the..... You get the point... They had kids and a healthy society, but how? Well the gay guys still had wives. Seem strange?  Not really They understood that sex created children, and since most humans want children, they had heterosexual sex. Now, if there was a Designer, then he must have designed homosexuals.  Now, he probably used the "gay gene" to design them.  In other words...God is a gay gene designer. Either way...it does, at first, reek of stupid... Either Evolution let something slip in that doesnt benefit reproduction Or a Designer designed organisms that have a difficult time reproducing. I guess the only logic could be that the Designer preferred homosexuals...good luck selling that to the ID supporters... But then again, from all the examples the designer sucks... Everything aside though, there are obviously Evolutionary pathways as well as Designer pathways that could explain the presence of a "gay gene".  So its really a mute point

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,18:23    It seems to me, Thor, that a gay gene, or for that matter a congenital development origin of gayness refutes the idea that gayness is a sin, rather than refuting evolution. It does seem difficult for a gay gene to coincide with natural selection, but it does not seem difficult for congenital devlopmental causes to fit with evolution. However, it has been pointed out that a small number of gay people in a group can enhance survival. People think it's all about having as many kids as you possibly can, but it isn't. It's about quality of life and raising the kids to adulthood. Hunter-gatherers and for that matter chimps, produce offspring about every 3-5 years. More than that is too much. If you look at a highly social animal  like wolves, you see that only one pair regularly produces offspring (the alpha male and female) while other relatives such as uncles and aunts help to care for and raise the pups. More labor, hunters, and childcare is what a group of humans needs, not just everyone to pump out as many kids as they possibly can.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,20:29    avocationist opines, Quote It seems to me, Thor, that a gay gene, or for that matter a congenital development origin of gayness refutes the idea that gayness is a sin, rather than refuting evolution. I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."  The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.  It's an example of providing the conclusion (gayness is genetic/inborn/immalleable) and finding the evidence to fit this conclusion ("gay gene").   But what would it REALLY MEAN to find a "gay gene?"  We must find a unique "modification" in self-avowed and/or practicing homosexuals.  But then the question becomes... is this really a "gay gene" or a bad mutation?  I don't think there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for survival... evolution's only purpose. Quote It does seem difficult for a gay gene to coincide with natural selection, but it does not seem difficult for congenital devlopmental causes to fit with evolution. Again, it seems that you identify with the problems of a "gay gene" and so you simply propose the next best thing, namely, homosexuality as a congenital development.  Again, we can only conclude that homosexuality must be a congenital birth defect because it REJECTS evolution's only purpose.  What would such an admission do to undercut the argument for abortion if "homosexual" fetuses were first on the list? Quote However, it has been pointed out that a small number of gay people in a group can enhance survival. People think it's all about having as many kids as you possibly can, but it isn't. It's about quality of life and raising the kids to adulthood. Hunter-gatherers and for that matter chimps, produce offspring about every 3-5 years. More than that is too much. If you look at a highly social animal  like wolves, you see that only one pair regularly produces offspring (the alpha male and female) while other relatives such as uncles and aunts help to care for and raise the pups. I think this is weak rationlization.  You seem to be saying that evolution devised a congenital birth defect that causes men to be sexaully-attracted to other men men (same for women) and NOT reproduce SO AS TO regulate life's propensity to reproduce and overpopulate themselves into extinction?  This is the nature of homosexuality?   Quote More labor, hunters, and childcare is what a group of humans needs, not just everyone to pump out as many kids as they possibly can. And yet they don't, but they need not be homosexual either.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,20:44    PuckSR opines, Quote Hmmm....ok...couple of points The Greeks were gay,really gay,crazy gay,they loved the..... You get the point...   They had kids and a healthy society, but how? Well the gay guys still had wives. Seem strange?  Not really They understood that sex created children, and since most humans want children, they had heterosexual sex. Now, if there was a Designer, then he must have designed homosexuals.  Now, he probably used the "gay gene" to design them.  In other words...God is a gay gene designer. This is fallacious reasoning.  If one believes gayness is a chosen behavior then the "gay gene" need not exist and God need not design homosexuals.  These are merely ad hoc hypotheses.  There is no scientific evidence for either a "gay gene" or a Designer. Quote Either way...it does, at first, reek of stupid... Either Evolution let something slip in that doesnt benefit reproduction Or a Designer designed organisms that have a difficult time reproducing. I guess the only logic could be that the Designer preferred homosexuals...good luck selling that to the ID supporters... But then again, from all the examples the designer sucks... Again, if homosexuality is a behavior then neither science nor ID are in trouble.  But you seem to preoccupied to see how science is being USED by certain ideologues. Quote Everything aside though, there are obviously Evolutionary pathways as well as Designer pathways that could explain the presence of a "gay gene".  So its really a mute point Please provide these "pathways."

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:39    I would have thought it would be worse if there is a gay gene. At the moment it is assumed to be purely psychological. Therefore people say it is a choice, and try to cure it through psychological means. If it is genetic, then they will say it is a disease, and no doubt the templeton foundation will fund research into a cure.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:44    Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,01:44)  There is no scientific evidence for either a "gay gene" or a Designer. Wait a minute, I thought you were on the side of ID?   Which as we all know, says there is scientific evidence for a designer.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:50    Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,01:29) Quote However, it has been pointed out that a small number of gay people in a group can enhance survival. People think it's all about having as many kids as you possibly can, but it isn't. It's about quality of life and raising the kids to adulthood. Hunter-gatherers and for that matter chimps, produce offspring about every 3-5 years. More than that is too much. If you look at a highly social animal  like wolves, you see that only one pair regularly produces offspring (the alpha male and female) while other relatives such as uncles and aunts help to care for and raise the pups. I think this is weak rationlization.  You seem to be saying that evolution devised a congenital birth defect that causes men to be sexaully-attracted to other men men (same for women) and NOT reproduce SO AS TO regulate life's propensity to reproduce and overpopulate themselves into extinction?  This is the nature of homosexuality?   No, hes saying that it seems likely that the complex of genetic variations and environmental pressures that mean you end up with homosexuals, has survived in the gene pool because in family groups in which one or two members do not  necessarily have their own children, but spend time helping rear the children of their relatives, more of the children survive to adulthood and breed.   Furthermore, what can you tell us about why men are attracted to women, and women to men?  Is it their brain structure?  Hormones?  The voice of Cupid in their ear?

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,02:05    Quote Please provide these "pathways." Purely hypothetically, assume that the "gay gene" is X-linked.  A man in a hunter-gatherer society with a "pink X" chromosome has a sister with one pink X and one non-pink X.  Humans live(d) in family groups with a fair degree of cooperation.  The gay man has no offspring, but his sister has children, some of which carry the pink X.  If the efforts of the gay hunter improve the likelihood of his nephews' and nieces' survival relative to those children without a childless uncle to help care for them, then this means that there is postive selection for the pink X trait. Not that I believe there is such a thing as a "pink X" gene.  If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it will be a more complex multi-gene trait or the byproduct of the actions of other genes regulating hormones, sexual behaviour, etc.  I think that many if not most gays are actually bisexual in varying degrees (though I'm open to correction), rather than simply 100% gay, which suggests that homosexuality is not controlled by a single gene.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:18    To actually insert just a little science into the debate ( ) http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800.html If homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce. Andrea Camperio-Ciani's team at the University of Padua, Italy, asked 98 gay and 100 straight men to fill in questionnaires about their families. They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. Aunts on the mother's side had 2 babies compared with 1.5 for maternal aunts of straight men (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004). The team suggests that gene variations on the X chromosome make women more likely to have more children, and men more likely to be gay. "We think of a gene for male homosexuality, but it might really be a gene for sexual attraction to men," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at Stanford University and a writer on sexuality. But the "maternal effect" could at most account for only 14 per cent of the prevalence of male homosexuality, the Italian team cautions. "Our findings, if confirmed, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality." -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:27    And even a book review: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721225.600.html Jim McKnight's Straight Science? asks why, if there is a homosexual gene, should the human genome maintain a population predisposed to non-reproductive sex? McKnight argues that straight men carrying just one gay gene have a reproductive advantage. That's to say they make better fathers and their children are more likely to survive. McKnight has political nous, but—let's face it—he'll still get a kicking. Published by Routledge, £14.99, ISBN 0415157330. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:48    I'll try and dig out stuff on the effects of exposure to hormones in the womb out as well.  IIRC, the idea is that a fetus is exposed to different hormones in the womb, and exposure to the "wrong" amount of some of them at the "wrong" time will lead to the parts of the brain concerned with sexual attraction being altered to a different way.  I.E. if your a homosexual man, the part of your brain related to what you find sexually attractive has been feminised in the womb.   Its a neat idea, and sidesteps a lot of the messy genetic wragling, by putting the causes back to the mother genetics and environmental circumstances.  Which is what people often overlook, the way these things are presented in the media or by some researchers amounts to genetic determinism, whereas in most cases the genese merely decide which football pitch you are playing on, rather than which side wins.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:07    I realize it's a total waste of time to argue with certain people, but here goes anyway... Quote I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."   'Political pressure'? From the mighty liberal gay lobby in Washington DC? Who on earth would THEY be? Quote The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin 'Sin' is a subjective religious construct, TD. Science cannot prove or disprove it. And no, science and religion are not the same thing. Quote and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.   'Legitimate' is not a verb, TD. Quote But what would it REALLY MEAN to find a "gay gene?"  We must find a unique "modification" in self-avowed and/or practicing homosexuals.  But then the question becomes... is this really a "gay gene" or a bad mutation?  I don't think there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for survival... evolution's only purpose. "Evolution must conform to my massively oversimplified characterization of it, or it is not valid". Where have I seen that before? Incidentally, you seem to have edited it out, but in a previous message you went on about how disease-prone and domestic violence-prone homosexuals were, and why this was evidence we should teach children in schools that gays are bad. Two questions: (a) I think your 'higher rates of domestic violence' claim is horseshlt. Got actual proof of it, from someone other than James Dobson? And (b) should kids be taught the fact that LESBIANS are less prone to sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals? If not, why not? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:28    Quote (MidnightVoice @ April 05 2006,09:18) To actually insert just a little science into the debate ( ) ... Not read the article yet. Probably will later. Quick question before I do. Is the fact that most people are heterosexual and therefore the more babies that a mother has, the probability of having a homosexual child increases considered?

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:44    Thor, Quote I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."  The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.  It's an example of providing the conclusion (gayness is genetic/inborn/immalleable) and finding the evidence to fit this conclusion ("gay gene"). There could indeed be such pressure. In that case, tho, it won't stand th test of time. But there is more than a gene. What about studies that show birth order has a role? There are also some studies showing a different brain organization, and this is what I consider the most promising. In fact, I am all but sure that this is going to turn out to be the case. The brain of the embryo gets a little different development and this changes the sexual and emotional behavior. There really is a tremendous amount of evidence that sexual behavior is brain-dependent and hormone-dependent. But again, people are complex and there could be more than one type of gayness and more than one cause. There are even more than one kind of left-handedness. The people who are convinced homosexuality is a sin are unable to look dispassionately at the evidence. The only acceptable evidence is that it is a 'behavior." It actually rather surprises me how men can think that other men are so easily swayed away from being excited by the female body. Could you? When people say that it makes me wonder if the person making the accusation is really fully heterosexual. I don't intend this as an insult but I think you can see the logic. In a normal male, the attraction to the female is strong. If one doubts that another person has a strong hold on their heterosexuality, it might mean that it is weak in their own self. The thing is, Thor, that research into development and behavior is showing (and feminists of a certain stripe aren't liking it I think) that male and female behaviors and inner feelings are pretty much hard wired from birth. Yet there is a tremendous overlap because actual brain development has a wide continuum of structure. Quote Again, it seems that you identify with the problems of a "gay gene" and so you simply propose the next best thing, namely, homosexuality as a congenital development.  Again, we can only conclude that homosexuality must be a congenital birth defect because it REJECTS evolution's only purpose. I don't assume it is a congenital defect for any other reason than that it makes so much sense in the real world, where I live among gay people and read books about the unbelievably tiny amounts of hormone during embryonic development that it takes to influence an animal's behavior for life, and where I look at men and women and see that homosexuals, especially the more "end of spectrum" effeminate gay men and masculine gay women appear in myriad ways to not have the brains typical of their gender. Are you aware that the male infant makes his own male brain with his testosterone? That things can interfere with his testosterone? I am not considering this question from an abortion angle, just a truth angle. Quote You seem to be saying that evolution devised a congenital birth defect that causes men to be sexaully-attracted to other men men (same for women) and NOT reproduce SO AS TO regulate life's propensity to reproduce and overpopulate themselves into extinction?  This is the nature of homosexuality?   It may or may not be part of nature's natural variation, but it might also be a mistake. Many mistakes get made during embryonic development. Lack of perfect nutrition means a child will not live up to his genetic potential. But producing variety does help in tight situations, because just a few individuals might have what it takes to survive the situation. And humans are the least instinctive and the most capable of varied behavior. Not every individual should have the goal of reproducing as fast and as early as possible. A society is stronger if there are some people with other skills and interests. We are not sea turtles whose main strategy is chucking out as many eggs as possible.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:57    Quote If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it will be a more complex multi-gene trait or the byproduct of the actions of other genes regulating hormones, sexual behaviour, etc.  I think that many if not most gays are actually bisexual in varying degrees (though I'm open to correction), rather than simply 100% gay, which suggests that homosexuality is not controlled by a single gene. All this is better explained through the congenital development theory. It gives you the complex spectrum of behaviors that we actually see in real life. And any gay genes could easily fit in with it, too. It also explains why many homosexuals have some heterosexual attraction, altho some don't seem to at all. I came up with the idea that much homosexuality is developmental before I knew what I had read things that confirmed it, because of close observation of some gay friends I had years ago. At that time, the psychological explanations, the cold father, the overprotective mother were all the rage, and I saw that it isn't true.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:18    A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?) who is not. And this is easily noticeable from their manners. My two cents.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:26    Quote A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?) Yes, that's perfectly grammatical, not to worry. Quote who is not. And this is easily noticeable from their manners. My two cents. You're talking about an identical twin, I assume? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:59    whereas what I wrote was not English. Apparently there are mirror image twins. My sister's husband is an identical twin but one is left-handed and one right.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:04    Quote Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution? Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no."  And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here. EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:12    Quote (improvius @ April 05 2006,12:04) Quote Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution? Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no."  And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here. EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that. No, I think TD is referring to Big Gay Gene from South Park. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:16    I thought that was Big Gay Al.  Or was Gene the name of Stan's gay dog?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:19    Quote (GCT @ April 05 2006,12:16) I thought that was Big Gay Al.  Or was Gene the name of Stan's gay dog? Yes, it is Big Gay Al. I was making a dumb joke. Yeesh, way to wreck it...   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:54    Quote There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists." Is there? Where? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

J. G. Cox Posts: 38 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,08:32    All traits have both genetic and environmental components; this includes behavioral traits. Sometimes, one or the other seems much more important than the other. For instance, how many heads you have is almost entirely controlled by genes, though certain environmental factors (e.g., not too little food meaning you have none and are dead, or environmental toxins which interfere with development giving you 2) could still exert some influence. Almost all traits are also influenced by more than one gene locus. That is why it is usually incorrent to speak of 'a gene' for something. What is usually meant is that a particular allele of a given gene affects the probability that a given organism will have one value of a trait versus another. Usually, there are multiple genes for which different alleles may affect the same trait.  So, would the existence of certain alleles that increase the likelihood that their carriers are homosexual disprove evolution? First, there is the point that pretty much no one datum or result could disprove evolutionary theory at this point, but that is a topic for another thread. The basic objection would seem to be that such alleles should reduce fitness, and therefore be selected against. This is an interesting question, in fact, as that is part of why some researchers are investigating it. (Notice that they are doing actual research into an interesting evolutionary conundrum, not simply making assertions about its potential implications). Researchers search for alleles influencing homosexuality because it is extremely unlikely that this trait is entirely a consequence of environment.  Let's assume that alleles for homosexuality do in fact reduce fitness. In an evolutionary framework, that would make such alleles a sort of genetic disease. Notice that classifying such alleles as deleterious and 'disease-causing' requires accepting an evolutionary framework. However, our definitions of disease do not correspond to what natural selection might select against. For example, brain tissue is extremely metabolically expensive; in food-limited situations, having too much brain matter could easily lead to reduced fitness, or even early death. In that case, would we declare intelligence to be a disease? Another example; I don't want to have children, which greatly reduces my fitness; am I diseased? Thus, sociological attacks against homosexuality based on it being a 'disease' i.) require acceptance of evolution, and ii.) are guilty of the same logical fallacy as social Darwinism   Let's still assume that alleles which promote homosexuality impose a fitness cost. Why might such alleles persist? Evolutionary theory gives some indication of where to look. One mechanism which might maintain such alleles is persistent mutation of wild-type alleles into mutant type, in this case one promoting homosexuality. In instances where the mutational pathway from wild-type to a particular mutant allele is short and/or probable (e.g., a single point mutation), then selection and mutation can maintain the deleterious mutants at non-trivial frequencies in a population. Another reason why such alleles might persist is simply that natural selection hasn't eliminated them yet. Remember, natural selection is simply an adjustment of the probability distribution governing the fates of different alleles; it is not wholly deterministic. Natural selection is also a continuing process, and just because a given alleles hasn't yet achieved fixation or has not been wholly eliminated does not mean that natural selection is not acting on it.   However, we cannot simply assume that alleles which promote homosexuality do in fact reduce fitness. This is where some of the research that others have pointed to in this thread comes in. Again, evolutionary theory tells us where we should be looking for answers. One possibility is that such alleles might increase inclusive fitness; this is also known as kin selection. Thus, having alleles which promote homosexuality might decrease one's own reproductive output, but might increase that of one's relatives. For instance, a homosexual male might contribute more to raising the offpsring of his sisters and mother than a heterosexual male, or might be less likely to be run off or killed by the dominant male in his social group (thus thus better able to help his relative reproduce). Unfortunately, this is very hard to test because i.) we cannot directly observe the ecological and social conditions under which our ancestors evolved and ii.) doing the appropriate experiments with humans would be considered highly unethical.  Another important point is to remember that natural selection acts on the average fitness derived from having a certain trait or allele. If having alleles which promote homosexuality on average improves fitness, then we would expect to see them in a population, at least at some frequency. This ties in to research which showed the increased reproduction of female relatives of gay men. If the increase in fitness for the females is equal to or greater than the decrease in fitness for the males carrying the alleles, then such alleles would spread in the population.   In summary, the presence of alleles which promote homosexuality would not constitue a 'problem for evolution' for two reasons. First, modern evolutionary theory predicts the presence of some deleterious alleles within a population. Second, we have no idea if such alleles are actually deleterious.

J. G. Cox Posts: 38 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,08:40    I should also emphasize that evolutionary theory gives many potential research directions for the question at hand. Does kin selection play a role? Is homosexuality in fact deleterious? Is frequency-dependent selection occurring? Should sex ratio affect allele frequency? Could different social structures influence selection for and against such alleles? Etc.  Intelligent design 'theory,' however,' proposes nothing. Either this 'aspect of the universe' was designed or not. If not, then we turn to evolution for explanations. If so, then we can't do any more research because we aren't allowed to know anything about the Designer. Science stops where ID begins.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,09:09    J. G. Cox wrote: Quote I should also emphasize that evolutionary theory gives many potential research directions for the question at hand. Except for the most important one: would evolutionary theory predict a "gay gene"? Or any other gene for that matter? Why must Darwinism wait for verification of an entity's existence before lauching its research program? Shouldn't evolutionary psychology or the ever-so-mathematically-cogent field of population genetics provide a predictive model for what changes are possible? But no, after real scientists make the discoveries, evos rush in, chisels in hand, and announce a new field to "tackle". It's easy to give answers when nothing's at stake.......but you get what you pay for. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,09:13    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 05 2006,14:09) J. G. Cox wrote: Quote I should also emphasize that evolutionary theory gives many potential research directions for the question at hand. Except for the most important one: would evolutionary theory predict a "gay gene"? Or any other gene for that matter? Why must Darwinism wait for verification of an entity's existence before lauching its research program? Shouldn't evolutionary psychology or the ever-so-mathematically-cogent field of population genetics provide a predictive model for what changes are possible? But no, after real scientists make the discoveries, evos rush in, chisels in hand, and announce a new field to "tackle". It's easy to give answers when nothing's at stake.......but you get what you pay for. Well, I see G.O. Paley is back, but since his mood is no better than before, his 'vacation' must not have been very restful... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,09:20    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 05 2006,11:26) Quote A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?) Yes, that's perfectly grammatical, not to worry. Quote who is not. And this is easily noticeable from their manners. My two cents. You're talking about an identical twin, I assume? Yes I am.

J. G. Cox Posts: 38 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,09:45    Quote Except for the most important one: would evolutionary theory predict a "gay gene"?  No, it would not, because (as far as we know) mutations are random. Thus, just because some trait might affect fitness does not affect that probability that that trait will arise; it simply means that if it does, then the probable fate of that trait will be determined by its fitness influence.  If you can come up with a way to predict mutations (not just differential probabilities of transitions versus transversions), then you have just scored yourself a Nobel. In any case, that would be incorporated right into evolutionary theory because evolution, like all scientific theories, is amenable to adjustment as new information is obtained.  ID, however, seems amenable to adjustment only as the political and legal climate changes.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,12:45    Quote No, it would not, because (as far as we know) mutations are random. Thus, just because some trait might affect fitness does not affect that probability that that trait will arise; it simply means that if it does, then the probable fate of that trait will be determined by its fitness influence. Well, I'm talking about the likelihood of natural selection preserving a particular mutation, not the odds of the mutation arising in the first place. So why can't evolution derive a probability distribution of this "fitness influence"? Quote If you can come up with a way to predict mutations (not just differential probabilities of transitions versus transversions), then you have just scored yourself a Nobel. In any case, that would be incorporated right into evolutionary theory because evolution, like all scientific theories, is amenable to adjustment as new information is obtained. Geneticists should worry about the mutation part; it's the evos responsibility to describe the other half of the RM & NS expression. Their inability to do so is one reason why evolution gets scant attention in medical textbooks. Retrodiction only goes so far, especially when people's health is on the line. Quote ID, however, seems amenable to adjustment only as the political and legal climate changes. We were the ones who saw the value in "junk" DNA, and the danger in assuming that retroviruses randomly insert themselves in the genome. But then cleaning up after Darwin is a full time job. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,13:53    Quote So why can't evolution derive a probability distribution of this "fitness influence"? Actually, you stumbled on a very interesting current area of reseach.  short answer: they have done this, in the lab. Wes posted some articles relating to this a month or so ago. scroll back and check them out, or ask Wes. as to what can be done in the field; selective pressures are extremely variable in most instances, and #### near impossible to account for every current and potential pressure on a specific trait, let alone traits that might be linked, without some serious controls in place. It makes it very difficult to calculate exact probabilites like you want, but there are folks out there trying to do that very thing. why don't you spend some time at your local university library and check it out. oh wait, that's right.  Based on your past posts about the inadequacies of cladistics, I'd say your reading comprehension is not sufficient to the task. oh well, you could always try anyway.  ####, you might learn something.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,14:31    Quote It makes it very difficult to calculate exact probabilites like you want, but there are folks out there trying to do that very thing. why don't you spend some time at your local university library and check it out. And what predictions have they made? Take your time - it's an important question. Quote oh wait, that's right.  Based on your past posts about the inadequacies of cladistics, I'd say your reading comprehension is not sufficient to the task. oh well, you could always try anyway.  ####, you might learn something. Even Mr. Brazeau conceded that several of his earlier criticisms of Arnason et al. were refuted in the literature, although this didn't prevent him from launching several more. And the fact that Arnason's work suffers from flaws does not erase the more egregious problems in the research Brazeau cited, which supports my earlier complaint of phylogenetic unreliability. But being such an expert thinker on all things fishy, I'm sure you were already aware of that. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,14:59    Quote Even Mr. Brazeau conceded that several of his earlier criticisms of Arnason et al. were refuted in the literature, but not any of the ones raised by you, nor were any of the objections raised by you logical or relevant. face it, everyone here agrees you were completely shredded there, except you of course. that says a lot about your ability to reason. Quote And what predictions have they made? Take your time - it's an important question. As usual, I'm not gonna do your work for you.  You're simply not worth more than a sidenote to any lurkers that the issue is worth investigating. Quote why don't you spend some time at your local university library and check it out.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,15:40    Quote but not any of the ones raised by you, nor were any of the objections raised by you logical or relevant. Um, who was the one who cited, summarised, and highlighted the points in the offending study? As for your second point, the very length of the thread says something about the scientific relevance of my objections. At least it's a better indicator than "Dood, you were really shredded. 9 out of 10 hyenas agree!"   Quote As usual, I'm not gonna do your work for you.  You're simply not worth more than a sidenote to any lurkers that the issue is worth investigating. Paley's translation for the lurkers: "I don't have a clue, dood." So does evolution predict a gay gene or not? Supporting reasoning/evidence would be nice. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,18:17    Or, does evolution predict a collection of genes that will defy evolution?  Isn't this the nature of homosexuality?

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:03    Quote No, it would not, because (as far as we know) mutations are random. Thus, just because some trait might affect fitness does not affect that probability that that trait will arise; If you can come up with a way to predict mutations (not just differential probabilities of transitions versus transversions), then you have just scored yourself a Nobel. And yet, it must have some logical pattern. Else, how to account for the amazing similarity between marsupial and placental animals.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:37    It seems to me that when we look at homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, suicide and euthanasia, we see phenomenon that purposely defy evolution.  If each of these phenomenon were genetically-related then a "self-destruct" gene would seemed to have evolved at evolution's own design.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,20:04    Chris, Quote The weasel program was meant to demonstrate cumulative selection not evolution. Yes, but without deciding the end result at the beginning, blind forces might never get there. The whole question of search space is an interesting one, because we may not really know the factors that would help to narrow down the search. When certain evolution detractors have put forth what would appear to be the search space, the possibility of a solution to this or that problem is often quite out of reach, no matter how many e coli you have working for you. Problem is, organizing factors or emergent properties all seem to change the nature of our universe. They all seem to require some fundamental intelligence. Why do you read several evolutionary papers per week? Quote This may be an irreconcilable philosophical difference, sufficed to say any of the laws I described would not be any more proof of this consiouness to me than if they did not exist. Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a god, but I would still need scientific evidence of his involvement in evolution. Are you familiar with cosmic fine tuning? It's not just a few laws here and there. They say, for example, that the amount of matter in the universe is within one billionth of what it needs to be in order to have a stable universe. That is, the parameters are that narrow. Nature's Destiny by Denton does a good job of explaining a wide array of them. Quote Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a god, but I would still need scientific evidence of his involvement in evolution. There is no way for God to be omnipotent or omniscient unless God is actually everywhere, and in everything. I think of evolution as an inside job, not one of an external being. It seems to me the evidence is fairly strong that random processes didn't cause this universe, or its laws, or its existence in the first place. What do you think of the information based arguments for ID? Quote I had this problem over at UD, the best way to look at it is that random means that the organism does not know which mutations will increase fitness. It's too bad you guys over there have different names and I am clueless what's going on. It may be that the organism turns on a mutation feature, and in a specific area of the genome, and then suddenly gets the mutation for digesting nylon. For me, that's just too good to be true but we must also account for the organism's ability to direct itself like that in the first place. Quote Presumably you mean that we need an evolutionary path for every single system for it to be scientifically acceptable to infer that it did evolve? I don't think so. Behe complains that there are none in the literature that are really any good. If we had a couple of quite good and plausible routes for some very complex systems to evolve, then the pressure would be off. It wouldn't matter that we couldn't explain each one. Quote I would say that modern evolutionary theory certainly does not rule it out. Saltation? Quote (homology flaw)  Why is that a flaw, have I missed something? I'm referring to the problem that homologous organs often do not arise from the same genes, and that during development, they are often grown from different body segments or in a different order or from a different group of cells. Animal forelimbs develop from different body segments. Homology is difficult because many or most genes control widely divergent body parts. The eye color of drosphila is controlled by a gene th also controls female sex organs. Mouse coat color and mouse size are on the same gene. Chickens are subject to a detrimental mutation in a single gene that causes a wide array of malformations, some of which are unique to birds and others which are shared by other vertebrates. No only do homologous structures in closely related species arise from different genes, but nonhomologous structures can arise from the same gene. Quote This may be true in some cases, but in many cases journals are so eager to publish innovative 'against the grain' work that big name journals can end up publishing bad papers. I suspect that this greatly depends on just which grains are being rubbed.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,22:14    Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,23:17) Or, does evolution predict a collection of genes that will defy evolution?  Isn't this the nature of homosexuality? Translation: *Fingers in ears* "lalalllalaaaaa I cant hear you, speak louder, llaaaaaalllaalaa" WE have already explained why your comment is utter bollocks.  Please try and understand.

Tim Hague Posts: 32 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,01:17    Quote (J. G. Cox @ April 05 2006,13:32) In summary, the presence of alleles which promote homosexuality would not constitue a 'problem for evolution' for two reasons. First, modern evolutionary theory predicts the presence of some deleterious alleles within a population. Second, we have no idea if such alleles are actually deleterious. Interesting analysis J. G. There is one additional factor that might be worth having a look at - is the human race currently under selection pressure?  In certain parts of the world it is, however in increasingly large parts of the world I would argue that millions of humans are not under any particular pressure to survive at all.   When a species is not under selection pressure, and with technology providing the vast majority of us the ability to survive, then deleterious traits would be able to spread (not being selected against).  If there are genetic influences on sexual preference, then they would not currently be affecting the survival of the species as a whole.   There's also nothing to stop a homosexual man popping down to the sperm bank to make a donation, and - for a double whammy - a homosexual woman deciding to have a baby and popping down to the same sperm bank.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,04:28    Quote There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists." I repeat: Is there? Where? I suggest this whole thread is just Thorthingy making stuff up again and chortling while a bunch of potentially productive people waste time on it. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:04    Quote (Russell @ April 06 2006,09:28) Quote There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists." I repeat: Is there? Where? I suggest this whole thread is just Thorthingy making stuff up again and chortling while a bunch of potentially productive people waste time on it. I think that there has been. Thordaddy's take is that science is trying to find a natural explanation for a gay gene for political purposes. Funnily enough he is on-side with the gays with this. They also seem to worry that a gay gene is political. Thordaddy is scared that a gay gene would make gays be considered normal. While gays are worried that a gay gene could be used as an excuse for people to hunt for (and then practice) "cures". Myself: Who cares what consenting adults do (provided it harms nobody else)? All sorts of stuff here.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:23    Thanks for the references. I remember the controversy surrounding Dean Hamer's work, but notice the silent dog in the debate: evolutionary theory. Why didn't Hamer take historical biology into account before offering his hypothesis? Answer: nobody knows what evolution predicts. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:35    Quote It seems to me that when we look at homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, suicide and euthanasia, we see phenomenon that purposely defy evolution.  If each of these phenomenon were genetically-related then a "self-destruct" gene would seemed to have evolved at evolution's own design. I agree, but I'd like to see if evolution actually makes any predictions before I hammer it with any putative inconsistencies. All of this could be avoided if evolution could provide a rigorous way to test its stories instead of leaning on other disciplines for guidance. This is why Dembski and Behe had to construct a new vocabulary before critiquing Darwin. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:39    Oh, sh**. My last post here (to Chris) was meant for another thread. I always keep two windows open since the reply screen is so cumbersome and hard to use. I will cut and paste it over there.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,08:06    Quote (Stephen Elliott: ) I think that there has been (new talk of a "gay gene" being proffered by "scientists". You provided a bunch of google hits, but what's the "new" talk? Anything from this millennium? I understand, of course, that there are and have been ongoing discussions about "nature vs. nurture" on this, as on so many issues of human behavior. But my question, specifically, is what is the "new talk"? Have any new data been found? Any new research reported? Or is it just Thorthingy perseverating on one of his compulsions? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:09    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 06 2006,11:35) Quote It seems to me that when we look at homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, suicide and euthanasia, we see phenomenon that purposely defy evolution.  If each of these phenomenon were genetically-related then a "self-destruct" gene would seemed to have evolved at evolution's own design. I agree, but I'd like to see if evolution actually makes any predictions before I hammer it with any putative inconsistencies. All of this could be avoided if evolution could provide a rigorous way to test its stories instead of leaning on other disciplines for guidance. This is why Dembski and Behe had to construct a new vocabulary before critiquing Darwin. Well, I guess this disproves my observation that IDC types never talk to each other at science blogs... PS: GOP, I think you can do better than Thordaddy. Believe me. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:10    GOP's like Albert Einstein compared to thordaddy.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:18    Quote (Russell @ April 06 2006,13:06) Quote (Stephen Elliott: ) I think that there has been (new talk of a "gay gene" being proffered by "scientists". You provided a bunch of google hits, but what's the "new" talk? Anything from this millennium? I understand, of course, that there are and have been ongoing discussions about "nature vs. nurture" on this, as on so many issues of human behavior. But my question, specifically, is what is the "new talk"? Have any new data been found? Any new research reported? Or is it just Thorthingy perseverating on one of his compulsions? Maybe I did not make myself clear. I am not claiming there is scientific evidence that there is a gay gene. I am not claiming there isn't either. I  was trying to show the stupidity of the argument. TD. Seems to think scientists are trying to prove a gay gene for political purposes to suport homosexuality. Homosexuals are worried scientists are trying to prove a gay gene for political purposes in order to "cure" homosexuality. The google list was not suposed to suport either view. Just show that people are trying to use science to fulfil a world-view. I am not talking about scientists in general here BTW. Personaly, I do not care what makes somebody homosexual. If pushed I would guess it is biological and reinforced by culture. But I do not know. I am fairly sure that my being atracted by the oposite sex has little to do with culture, but is just the way I am. Again, I am not certain. But I am fairly sure. Look at peadophiles. Nothing in society encourages that. Therefore I consider a peadophile not to be criminal but a mental defect. I reckon we do not choose who/what we atracted by. It is a mental thing that people have none or little control over.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:01    Quote I am not claiming there is scientific evidence that there is a gay gene. I am not claiming there isn't either. Yes, I understand what you're saying, and I'm pretty much of the same opinion. What I don't understand is: what's new? When ThorGuy says Quote There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists." is he referring to the stuff you found from several years ago, or is there really anything "new" to bring to the discussion? And I want to know why the ThorGuy puts quotes around "scientists". I suspect that trying to engage in this discussion without being clear on that is bound to be a waste of time. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:27    Re "Homosexuals are worried scientists are trying to prove a gay gene for political purposes in order to "cure" homosexuality." But wouldn't proving it to be environmental also have a chance of being used that way? Henry

J. G. Cox Posts: 38 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:30    Quote There is one additional factor that might be worth having a look at - is the human race currently under selection pressure?   Well, there is still strong selection against mutations that cause major (fatal) developmental defects.   My advisor brought up a good point once. In wealthy nations with declining birth rates, there is probably selection for the desire to have children. In the past, all that you needed was a libido to produce children; for instance, I don't think that most animals have a desire to produce offspring, they just want sex and offspring result from that. Now that we can have sex without producing children, many people are choosing to do just that. However, many people want lots of children also. If there are any genetic correlates to these paternal/maternal desires, then those will spread in the populations of wealthy nations. Quote nobody knows what evolution predicts. If you are claiming that evolutionary theory cannot be used to predict the fitness consequences of certain mutants (and thus their probable fates), then you are wrong. We do it all the time in Ecology. Heck, I'm building a game theoretic model right now which predicts the fitnesses of different trait values for antipredator behaviors and using it to explain certain phenomena in community ecology. It can be difficult to do because such models can be hard to parameterize, but it is still done. I don't know offhand of anyone intentionally trying to predict the fitness consequences of mutations that don't yet exist, but I can't see any point in doing so either. Why predict the outcome of a certain non-existent mutation when there is very little chance that that mutation will arise in your lifetime?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:31    What IDers must understand is that evolutionary biology doesn't make future predictions (except at a short timescale). First, they would be useless since they cannot be verified within a researcher's lifetime. Second, as J. G. said, there is far more than one evolutionary path for a given lineage. Third, we cannot predict future selective pressures (environments). However evolutionary biology produces predictions on what we can observe or detect, like transitional fossiles, the origin of Homo in Africa (Darwin's prediction), phylogenetic trees, the trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo...

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,07:38    jeannot said: Quote What IDers must understand is that evolutionary biology doesn't make future predictions (except at a short timescale). First, they would be useless since they cannot be verified within a researcher's lifetime. Second, as J. G. said, there is far more than one evolutionary path for a given lineage. Third, we cannot predict future selective pressures (environments).           Correct. Evolution makes retrodictions rather than predictions. But scientists need predictions in order to produce new technologies and carve out promising paths for future research. That's why evos must wait for discoveries in other fields before pursuing their own inquiries. Look how dependent modern evo "science" is on genome sequencing and developments in computer science; conversely, these disciplines have little use for evolution. Why? Because people would rather learn new things than explain old ones.         Which brings me to another observation: the clever way in which everyone (including creationists) constucts cofferdams (in evos's case, caissons )  to protect his philosophy from encroaching dissonance. Let's use a neutral example: I'm a big fan a baseball and its statistics. While a player's contribution with the bat can be reliably tabulated, his glovework is tougher to measure. A statistician can record assists and putouts, but do these numbers reflect a player's skill or the quirks of the team's pitching staff? And what role does his homepark's dimensions play? The manager's mindset? This problem has bedeviled everyone in the game.       Perhaps one can account for these factors by adding the total number of a fielder's plays, estimating the impact his team makes on these numbers (do the pitchers yield an unusually high number of ground balls? Is the outfield a bit undersized? Are the surrounding players unusually immobile, forcing the player to accept more chances?), and adjust accordingly. But one problem remains: a team is alloted a maximum of 27 outs. This constrains each player by "capping" his number of opportunities. An exceptional defensive player (Ozzie Smith or Andruw Jones in his prime) will reduce the number of hits while "hogging" more than his share of outs. Which means fewer opportunities for everyone else.      This problem is known to just about every statistician in the game. Unfortunately, until the advent of play-by-play data, the stats guy was unable to measure the impact of this factor. So did they admit that the traditional stats were crucially flawed and wait for better metrics? If you answered "Yes", then obviously you haven't been on planet Earth for very long. Instead, they simply ignored the gaping hole in their model, or assumed that it wasn't very important. For example, Bill James wrote an essay a couple of decades ago defending the range metrics current at the time while deriding his critics as "amateur sabermetricians". Recently, however, he came out with Win Shares, a metric that avoids the age-old problem to a much greater extent. His shiny model competes with other metrics such as Ultimate Zone Rating and Defensive Regression Analysis, which account for the precise location of every batted ball over the entire season. While flawed, each method represents a tremendous improvement over traditional statistics, and blessed with these shiny toys, the math crowd regales us with the intractable problems faced by measures of old.       Am I implying any dishonesty here? No, it's just people being people. Humans have a need to solve problems, to make a splash, to create, and they aren't going to let inadequate methods-let alone facts- get in the way. To work, however, this process must be unconscious. There must be no acknowledgement of the incompatability of past positions, because that might compromise today's glosses. Too few transitions in the fossil record? Well, kids, geology predicts that fossilization will be rare, so evolution predicts this state of affairs. And what with soil acidity, depositional bias, continental drift...it's no surprise, and only a rube would think that intermediates would be anything other than vanishingly rare....we can even calculate this....oh look at this new discovery! OOH- and lookie here! and here! See, just as we predicted - an intermediate - no, a whole slew of them! What was it you creos were saying about the poor fossil record? And we can measure the probability of fossil preservation with much more confidence - so there! Once again, the snake sheds his skin without a moment's thought - be he evo, creo, or somewhere in the middle. So what to do? I don't know either, but I do know this: when an expert says a problem doesn't count, it just might be that it can't be counted. Look around you, you'll see this phenomenon everywhere. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,08:39    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,12:38) To work, however, this process must be unconscious. There must be no acknowledgement of the incompatability of past positions, because that might compromise today's glosses. What, praytell, is the past incompatibility that has gone unacknowledged in this case? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:15    Quote What, praytell, is the past incompatibility that has gone unacknowledged in this case? Originally, evos credited the stinginess of fossil-bearing strata to simple geochemical processes. Yet now that several "intermediates" have been discovered, not only are these processes ignored, there is not even an attempt to reconcile past explanations with current data. It's as if prior rationalizations have disappeared into the memory hole. Did later stratigraphic research overturn those facts? Were the facts merely wishful thinking? What is the explanation? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:21    Ghost of Paley. I assume that you do not believe evolution is true. Why do you not state what you believe has happened? In just a few short statements if possible. How about quick answers to: How old is the Earth? When did life first apear? When did Humans apear?

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:21    So, GoP would like to throw out modern science, statistics etc?  I suppose thats par for the course.  Why dont you go and pick on fluid dynamics?  Or physical chemistry?  Why the concentration on Evolutionary biology? Heck, 20 years ago we didnt have the right equations and methods for showing how Bumble bees flew.   GoP, if you want to argue about the geological column, I suggest you actually try and get some data on the table.  Otherwise your just handwaving.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:35    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,14:15) Originally, evos credited the stinginess of fossil-bearing strata to simple geochemical processes. Yet now that several "intermediates" have been discovered, not only are these processes ignored, there is not even an attempt to reconcile past explanations with current data. It's as if prior rationalizations have disappeared into the memory hole. Did later stratigraphic research overturn those facts? Were the facts merely wishful thinking? What is the explanation? They looked for and ultimately found this fossil right where they thought it would be - in an area with lots of exposed Devonian rock.  I still have no idea what you think is not reconciled. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:49    Quote So, GoP would like to throw out modern science, statistics etc? See, this is part of what I'm talking about. My purpose was not to bash statistics, least of all baseball statistics. I was discussing the way that people process disturbing information. Instead of saying, "Yeah, that's a crippling objection for now, hopefully we'll be able to address it with future research", they use two defense mechanisms: 1) The objection is not really important, at most it's a slight gap in our knowledge 2) A smooth rationalization pops up, which is assented to by all researchers in the field, and quietly dropped when a better explanation comes along. This process appears to be large instinctive, as no mention is ever made of the switch. Just like the speaker in 1984 (heh!) changing the enemy's identity in midsentence, except the crowd doesn't rip up the obsolete banners and placards. If anyone does object, they're labeled a crank, rube, and whatever other terms come to mind. This label has some merit, as it usually does take an outsider to probe beneath the surface.  Personally, I appreciate the evolution of baseball stats, and support the new metrics. I just remember that we were supposed to be at war with Eurasia, that's all. Quote They looked for and ultimately found this fossil right where they thought it would be - in an area with lots of exposed Devonian rock.  I still have no idea what you think is not reconciled. See? Unconscious.   -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:57    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,14:49) See? No.  I still have no idea what you think is unreconciled.  Please explain. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:15    Okay. Let me try again.    During the Gish Era, a common objection to evolution was the scarcity of intermediate fossils (yes, I know that it's still common, but much more hay was made back then). I was an evolutionist at that time (now I'm a geocentric creationist, to answer Mr. Elliot's question), so I would hunt for responses to the creo charges. The most popular one was, "The scarcity of transitional forms is perfectly understandable, given how unlikely the fossilization process is. It's surprising how many fossils we do have". Then they would demonstrate this by describing the process in detail, all the time underlining the unlikelihood of the whole thing. Now, however, no one remarks on how surprising all these discoveries are, given the unlikelihood of the intermediates being preserved. Now, those same creo objections that were glossed over before are being dusted off and recast as significant problems that have now been solved, proving the validity of evolution. Look at the Stephen Jay Gould essay celebrating the discovery of Rhodocetus in Dinosaur in a Haystack. Would the objections have been recognised if the discoveries had not been made? I say no. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:30    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,15:15) Now, however, no one remarks on how surprising all these discoveries are, given the unlikelihood of the intermediates being preserved. But I thought the find was being hailed as a rare and exciting event. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:44    Evos, Regarding the ability to make predictions, I'd like to know if you knew what you know now, could you go back to the dawn of the age of mammals and predict the remarkable similarity of marsupial to placental mammals, the wolf, the mouse?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:11    No, we couldn't, for the reasons I gave. EDIT: I assume you didn't mean: "Since you know that some placental mammals and marsupials converged for several morphological traits, could you predict this if you go back before this convergence?" The answer is yes, in this case.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:30    Ok, let's go back to that. What IDers must understand is that evolutionary biology doesn't make future predictions (except at a short timescale). First, they would be useless since they cannot be verified within a researcher's lifetime. Second, as J. G. said, there is far more than one evolutionary path for a given lineage. Third, we cannot predict future selective pressures (environments). First of all, we can eliminate #3, because you would be making your prediction upon conditions that were shaping up in Australia, i.e., the existence of suitable trees and mammals coming along to create niches for predators. I've been told over and over that science is about being able to make predictions. Now, granted there is more than one evolutionary path. How can we account for not one but several incredibly similar outcomes? After millions of years of separation from very different early ancestors there arose these almost identical animals. The coincidence of just too out of range of my credulity meter. I'd rather either discard the notion that they developed separately, or come up with a new facet of evolutionary theory, such as perhaps some sort of Platonic realm of ideas in which there are just so many body forms available. the trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo... That was predicted?

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:35    Oh, yes, that is pretty much what I meant. please elaborate.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:41    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,14:49) Quote So, GoP would like to throw out modern science, statistics etc? See, this is part of what I'm talking about. My purpose was not to bash statistics, least of all baseball statistics. I was discussing the way that people process disturbing information. Instead of saying, "Yeah, that's a crippling objection for now, hopefully we'll be able to address it with future research", they use two defense mechanisms: 1) The objection is not really important, at most it's a slight gap in our knowledge 2) A smooth rationalization pops up, which is assented to by all researchers in the field, and quietly dropped when a better explanation comes along. This process appears to be large instinctive, as no mention is ever made of the switch. Just like the speaker in 1984 (heh!) changing the enemy's identity in midsentence, except the crowd doesn't rip up the obsolete banners and placards. If anyone does object, they're labeled a crank, rube, and whatever other terms come to mind. This label has some merit, as it usually does take an outsider to probe beneath the surface.  Personally, I appreciate the evolution of baseball stats, and support the new metrics. I just remember that we were supposed to be at war with Eurasia, that's all. Quote They looked for and ultimately found this fossil right where they thought it would be - in an area with lots of exposed Devonian rock.  I still have no idea what you think is not reconciled. See? Unconscious.   *Shrugs* Sure, we're human here, (I think I am anyway.)  So scientists cheat, lie, indulge in wishful thinking, make up data, etc etc.  Yet somehow, things keep getting back on track, no matter what the field.  Even if it takes 30 years, new data that realigns the field is absorbed and used to make new decisions and experiments.   I thought you were trying to show that evolution was a crock?  So far you havnt gotten anywhere.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:45    Quote (avocationist @ April 07 2006,16:30) First of all, we can eliminate #3, because you would be making your prediction upon conditions that were shaping up in Australia, i.e., the existence of suitable trees and mammals coming along to create niches for predators. I've been told over and over that science is about being able to make predictions. Now, granted there is more than one evolutionary path. How can we account for not one but several incredibly similar outcomes? After millions of years of separation from very different early ancestors there arose these almost identical animals. The coincidence of just too out of range of my credulity meter. I'd rather either discard the notion that they developed separately, or come up with a new facet of evolutionary theory, such as perhaps some sort of Platonic realm of ideas in which there are just so many body forms available. [i] the trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo...[i/] That was predicted? The selective pressures I mentioned rely on the selected traits, since these traits could not be predicted, these selective pressures cannot either, even if we know the precise selecting environments (which we don't). The concergence between certain eutherians and maruspials is nowhere near incredible. This is just rough morphology, like the wings of a bat and a pterosaur. The anatomy is quite different. Are you amazed at the convergence between different reptiles or birds? Morphological convergence is certainly the results of parallel adaptations. What is your alternate theory about it? The trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo was not only predicted, it was investigated and detected.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:52    Quote (avocationist @ April 07 2006,16:35) Oh, yes, that is pretty much what I meant. please elaborate. If you know an event, I assume you can go back through time before this event and predict it, provided you don't interfere with its cause. Shall I develop?

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:11    Quote I'd rather either discard the notion that they developed separately, or come up with a new facet of evolutionary theory, such as perhaps some sort of Platonic realm of ideas in which there are just so many body forms available. We don't need anthing as spooky as a "Platonic realm" to see why there are "just so many body forms available." In evolutionary time, nature has faced the same problems, over and over, many many times. Eyes have evolved in many diverse lineages. Sight is a good solution to the ever-present challenge of being aware of the environment. Check out a Mososaur, a big shark, and a dolphin. Simple hydrodynamics gives us a much better idea why that streamlined shape is a good idea for a large marine predator than any notion of Platonic forms. So, that the adaptive radiation of a few ancestral marsupial forms in Australia led to several derived forms that are quite similar to the derived forms of a similar adaptive radiation of placental mammals is not at all surprising, and is predicted by an evolutionary model, at least in a general sense. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:16    I personnaly wouldn't say the convergence between some marsupials and eutherians could be predicted with confidence, but it's definitely not surprising. Note that I don't know about macro-evolutionary models (is there any?).

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:26    I realize that the selection pressures were reasonably similar on the different continents. And while there may indeed be a limit on the number of different kinds of mammals that can arise, I still find the similarity between the marsupial and placental types uncanny. Quote Are you amazed at the convergence between different reptiles or birds? Are you kidding? Quote If you know an event, I assume you can go back through time before this event and predict it, provided you don't interfere with its cause. Based upon what principles would you predict the almost identical morpholigies of the marsupial and placental types? Quote What is your alternate theory about it? I could speculate, but I am clueless. Actually, I threw the question out there but I haven't read up on the genetic similarities. I'd like to know more about that. I guess I would lean to the idea that those animals were not really separated for as long as we think they were. and yet, they've got this completely different reproductive strategy.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:01    Quote Based upon what principles would you predict the almost identical morpholigies of the marsupial and placental types? Based on the post you just quoted. (???) Quote I could speculate, but I am clueless. Actually, I threw the question out there but I haven't read up on the genetic similarities. I'd like to know more about that. We don't know any particular genetic similarity between convergent marsupials and eutherians. First, we have to identify the genes responsible for a given morphology. But since these genes interact and co-evolve with others, we don't expect any genetic similarity between analogous forms. Quote I guess I would lean to the idea that those animals were not really separated for as long as we think they were. and yet, they've got this completely different reproductive strategy. They were indeed separated a long time ago and we have a remarkable convergence. Yet, this is rather common in animals and even in plants.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:15    So basically because "homosexuality" exists it must be due to an evolutionary pathway?  We just make this assumption because...?  Even though it seems, on its face, to contradict evolution?

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:22    You're basing this too much on gross morphology, I believe, which is not the same as anatomy, by which metric, convergent marsupials and placentals have preserved their idiosyncratic differences (and I don't just mean the obvious, divergent reproductive anatomy.) And your supposition about "not really separated as long as we think," or words to that effect, highlights one of the supreme difficulties facing the evolution-denier. You see, no science is an island. It all has to fit in with what is understood from other disciplines, often across quite divergent areas of inquiry. You are now at the point where the conclusions of geology have to be called into question. The breakup of Gondwana and the isolation of Australia is not very much doubted in the theory of Plate Tectonics. Island biogeography, also, can tell us a lot about the capability of different types of animals' ability to traverse the open ocean between widely seperate islands. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:29    Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,18:15) So basically because "homosexuality" exists it must be due to an evolutionary pathway?  We just make this assumption because...?  Even though it seems, on its face, to contradict evolution? Like everything else that exists, homosexuality exists because it can. It also exists because the difference between gay and straight is slight enough to occur at random at a genetic level. What evolution might predict is that any gay gene that  exists would not be absolutely gay -- it would be part of a range of effects that shifts sexual orientation and there should be straight people with so-called gay genes.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:32    Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,18:15) So basically because "homosexuality" exists it must be due to an evolutionary pathway?  We just make this assumption because...?  Even though it seems, on its face, to contradict evolution? Why do you conclude that? Because homosexuality exists, we can go back through time and predict it, like any fact or event. The evolutionary pathway is your own interpretation.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:36    Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,18:15) So basically because "homosexuality" exists it must be due to an evolutionary pathway?  We just make this assumption because...?  Even though it seems, on its face, to contradict evolution? Hey Thordaddy! What about gay penguins?: http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp Think it's genetic with them, or are they just using their free will to make wicked 'lifestyle choices'? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,16:12    Quote And your supposition about "not really separated as long as we think," or words to that effect, highlights one of the supreme difficulties facing the evolution-denier. Gosh, I hope that's not like being a holocaust denier. Anyway, if australia was indeed isolated that long ago then I think there ought to be some evolutionary principles to account for the similarity that occured. Just saying similar selection pressures isn't good enough. What do you think, Paley?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:26    Arden, When you document high incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality amongst homosexual penguins then we'll talk.  LOL!

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:44    Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:26) Arden, When you document high incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality amongst homosexual penguins then we'll talk.  LOL! What exactly have you provided in documentary evidence so-far? BTW. I would grant that AIDS/STDs and therefore earlier average life expectancy, is more prevalent amongst gay males. But it is significantly reduced in gay females. Now how about providing links to articles that back up your position?

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:48    Maybe the physical aspects of gender are produced by one set of genes, and the behavoral by a different (perhaps overlapping?) set of genes? Then some regulatory mechanism would usually correlate those two sets, so evolving gayness out of a species would mean strengthening that regulation. Maybe there aren't minor changes that would do that without breaking something else? Just thought I'd throw that idea out there, to go with somebody else's suggestion that maybe clans with a small percent of homosexuals do better than clans with fewer (or none). Re "IIRC, the idea is that a fetus is exposed to different hormones in the womb, and exposure to the "wrong" amount of some of them at the "wrong" time will lead to the parts of the brain concerned with sexual attraction being altered to a different way." Now that's interesing - the idea that older siblings might leave something behind in the womb that affects any later siblings? Huh. Henry

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,05:15    avocationist wrote: Quote Anyway, if australia was indeed isolated that long ago then I think there ought to be some evolutionary principles to account for the similarity that occured. Just saying similar selection pressures isn't good enough. What do you think, Paley? I'd have to agree that the morphological convergence between marsupial and placental mammals is a little too spooky to be accounted for by selection pressures or the cooption of regulatory genetic pathways, although this explanation might work for coarser phenomena such as convergent lifecycles. For example, how can the Darwinist explain the striking similarities between the skull and teeth of Tasmanian "wolves" and their distant placental "cousins"? And remember, scientists once considered mammalian earbones evidence for a common ancestor of the entire class, due to their intricate structure as well as the existence of a sequence of fossils that purportedly show the step-by-step modification of the earbones from the reptilian jaw. Too bad later fossils established that monotremes must have evolved their similar ear structure independently: Quote The three-boned middle ear was thought to have evolved only once in a common mammalian ancestor, before the separate evolution of monotremes and later of marsupials and placentals. But the discovery of a monotreme with a single-bone middle ear changes this simple story. A common ear Rich is excited by the findings because they suggest this complex ear structure arose separately at least twice during evolution. And he is amazed at the similarity between the middle ears of monotremes, placentals and marsupials. "They're so similar it's frightening," he says. "How close can convergent evolution be?" Convergent evolution occurs where similar traits evolve among very different groups of animals as a result of exposure to similar environmental pressures. What these pressures were in this case, no one knows. "I haven't go the foggiest," says Rich. "People haven't thought about it because it hasn't been a problem until now." The findings also mean that palaeontologists will have to reassess the way they identify mammal fossils. To date any specimen was a mammal if it had a three-boned middle ear. But since Rich's discovery, the classification of mammals won't be able to rely on this simple test alone. Rich and team did not find the whole skull of the extinct monotreme. They only had a lower jaw to analyse. But this jaw showed telltale signs that the hammer and anvil were connected to it. [all emphases due to Paley] I would be frightened too. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,10:51    Stephen Elliot, That is why I have specifically said "homosexuals" (gay males). And again I ask, given these statistics, is it wise and prudent to be teaching grade school kids the "normalcy" of the homosexual lifestyle? Remember, I speak from an American perspective and more specifically from the state of California.  If you are going to deny that this "education" is taking place then maybe you need to do a little more research like I have. As another point, IMHO people don't "choose" their heterosexuality because evolution DOES NOT NEED to provide such a choice.  Why would evolution devise ANY "sexual orientation" besides that which is needed for reproduction?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,10:55    Quote That is why I have specifically said "homosexuals" (gay males). Can we get thordaddy on as an Uncommon Descent contributor too? Red Reader wants a slot, maybe thor can get one. That would the bomb.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,12:38    Quote If you are going to deny that this "education" is taking place then maybe you need to do a little more research like I have. See, that's why I keep asking for references, citations, links... specific examples of what you think is being done wrong. All to no avail. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:12    Russell, You can't really believe that I NEED to provide you with " references, citations, [and] links," when you could easily provide those same things and refute my claims.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:46    Now, that's just really dumb. Even by your standards. You want me to provide references to education that doesn't have you all in a lather, to refute your claims that some programs are inappropriate? Geez. Do you think before you type? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,23:02    Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,18:12) Russell, You can't really believe that I NEED to provide you with " references, citations, [and] links," when you could easily provide those same things and refute my claims. Bloody ####. You actually did not know why people wanted references. D'oh! If you are going to cite suport for a claim you make, it is your responsibility to provide references. That way everyone can be sure they are using the same source.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,23:34    Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,15:55) Quote That is why I have specifically said "homosexuals" (gay males). Can we get thordaddy on as an Uncommon Descent contributor too? Red Reader wants a slot, maybe thor can get one. That would the bomb. LOL You have my vote too, steve. Hey thor, since the word "homosexual" excludes females in your book, does it perhaps also include heterosexuals with multiple partners- and doctors? Because if so, I might agree with you. You never know. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,01:16    Russell, I apologize.  I thought you were asking for statistics concerning homosexuals and their overrepresentation in various diseases and pathologies.  There seems to be a lot of denial concerning this point.  But to answer your request... stuff

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,02:06    Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,06:16) Russell, I apologize.  I thought you were asking for statistics concerning homosexuals and their overrepresentation in various diseases and pathologies.  There seems to be a lot of denial concerning this point.  But to answer your request... stuff Thordaddy, Considering that link is to an organisation that profits (or apears to at first glance) from trying to "cure" homosexuals. Do you consider there might be a bit of bias?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,08:12    "stuff" indeed. I see a whole lot of stuff there from a source that doesn't inspire much confidence in its objectivity. And - while there may be something linked to something linked to something there having to do with the issues we're talking about (morbidity and mortality) I haven't found anything except "morality" issues, a persecution complex that their position is given short shrift due to viewpoint bias, and a central notion that I find very much at odds with my perception of the data and the world around me - that a significant fraction of homosexuals can be "converted" into heterosexuals. If there's something more specifically germane to this discussion, please point it out more specifically. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,09:43    Russell and Stephen, Is it your stance that homosexual advocates ARE NOT active within the public school systems in America both at the primary and secondary level? What in those many examples of educating about homosexuality (gay lifestyle) did you disagree with?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,09:58    Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,14:43) Russell and Stephen, Is it your stance that homosexual advocates ARE NOT active within the public school systems in America both at the primary and secondary level? What in those many examples of educating about homosexuality (gay lifestyle) did you disagree with? Thordaddy, As I live in England I cannot answer your 1st question. As for you 2nd question, I am not certain what you are asking. That link you gave contains many links. Some to actual scientific studies (eventually). The home site however is preaching that homosexuality is an illnes that can be cured. I would not be happy having that taught as a fact. I do not think schools should encourage homosexuality BTW. But teaching that it is evil, sinfull or a sickness is also wrong. So lets be more specific. What would you want schools to teach? I would want something along the lines of. "A significant % of the human population are sexually atracted to the same sex. The majority of people are atracted to the oposite sex. Nobody should have to face ridicule or discrimination because of who they are atracted to." Would you have a problem with that Thordaddy?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,11:11    Stephen Elliot, Do have problems with drug and alcohol therapy? Is there not empirical evidence for transitioning from the homosexual lifestyle? Are American homosexuals not overrepresented in AIDS, STDs, etc.? I don't think homosexuality has any place in education especially K-6th grade.  Good, bad or ugly. BUT, if you are going to teach about "homosexuality" then the DETRIMENTAL and DEADLY EFFECTS due to the pratice of homosexuality should be at the FOREFRONT.   Why are we deceiving young children about a topic that has PROVEN dangerous and deadly for a large contigent of its practitioners?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,11:11    Quote What in those many examples of educating about homosexuality (gay lifestyle) did you disagree with? First of all, your "stuff" link consists of sixty-some-odd articles, among which it's hard to find any that actually deal directly with the content of school curricula. Which is what we need to see here. Second, the general message that seems to be the theme of that website and the organization that sponsors it is that homosexuality can be "cured" - a notion for which, as I've said repeatedly, I find very little support. Finally, to pull one specific quote out of the hundreds of pages of articles there that I find emblematic of everything I disagree with, I strongly disagree with the implicit approval accorded this guy: Quote Teacher Richard Thompson at West High School in Tracy, California, reportedly told students in his class that homosexuality is unnatural and allegedly told a student during a private conversation that associating with homosexuals is as sinful as being gay. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,11:18    Russell, Since you have decided to bury your head in the sand, you must unbury it. Did you read the entire article that you linked to?  Teaching 6 year olds about two daddies.  This is what our kids go to school for? What is "natural" about homosexuality, I ask?  What is "normal" about homosexuality?  Are these descriptions scientifically-based positions or simply ideological positions?  I see no science in your position, but mere ideology.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,12:38    Quote Teaching 6 year olds about two daddies.  This is what our kids go to school for? I guess at age six, the nature of families probably is a reasonable school subject. As I recall, my kid was learning the concept of "communities" at about that point, and the concept was extended from family to town to nation, etc. I see no particular problem with that. Do some kids have two mommies or two daddies? My understanding is that, yes, they do. Should that fact be part of the "curriculum" on family? Or should it be censored? I guess I lean toward not censoring it. Is that an "ideological" position? Could be. Maybe you're right. Quote What is "natural" about homosexuality, I ask?  What is "normal" about homosexuality? That reminds me of an amusing interview on the Daily Show a little over a year ago. A penguinologist explains to fake news reporter Samantha Bee about the gay penguin phenomenon. Bee responds "Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it natural".   But seriously...  It's true that sometimes a penguin, or a bonobo, or a human experiences sexual attraction toward a fellow penguin, bonobo, or human of its own sex. It happens more than rarely, and, once again, I guess I lean toward not censoring that fact. I don't think loading it up with a lot of guilt is particularly "scientific" or otherwise helpful. Now, if schools are teaching that it's perfectly normal and natural to experience strong sexual attraction to a penguin, or a bonobo - of either sex - then I'm right there with you with my picket sign! Quote Are these descriptions scientifically-based positions or simply ideological positions? That seems to me like something of a false choice. It's not "normal" to have a AB/Rh-negative blood type. But some people do. It's not "natural" to vaccinate your kids, but I highly recommend it. Are these "scientific" opinions or ideological? Quote I see no science in your position, but mere ideology. What position is that? That I don't think it's appropriate for public school teachers  to be telling kids it's sinful to associate with certain other kids? There's another thing about your NARTH website. They seem to be really down on female homosexuality, as well as male homosexuality. And, as we've discussed here, that's probably the least risky of "lifestyles". So, if your issue is about science and health and not just ideological, you'll disapprove of that at least as much as I do. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,13:14    Thordaddy, Do you think that if children are taught these statistics about homosexuality (and I don't know what they teach in the US but I was certainly taught that gays get more STDs), then a large number of men will decide not to become gay after all? Do you disagree that if we also teach these statistics, then it is also OK to say if you think you are gay this does not automatically make you a sinner or a bad person? Do you disagree that the attraction to the opposite sex is not a choice, and a person can then decide to live as a homosexual without descending into a life of drugs and promiscuous unprotected sex.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,13:58    Quote I don't know what they teach in the US but I was certainly taught that gays get more STDs), then a large number of men will decide not to become gay after all? Thordiddy might be interested to know, by the way, that I have personally taught these very statistics. (Not to high school students, but to medical students learning about infectious disease.) -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,14:09    And let's not forget that it's important for future doctors to know which are high-risk groups for AIDS (and HBV, and HCV etc) and, more importantly, that they are going to be in one (if they follow a surgical specialty). Like I've (pointlessly) asked thor before, I really hope that doesn't make surgeons "abnormal" in his eyes. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,14:21    Quote I really hope that doesn't make surgeons "abnormal" in his eyes. Well, surgeons actually are abnormal, but that's a whole 'nother story. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,14:28    I knew a few medical students when I was doing my degree, and in our city homosexuals were behind immigrants and students for STDs percentage-wise.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,14:47    Quote (Russell @ April 09 2006,19:21) Quote I really hope that doesn't make surgeons "abnormal" in his eyes. Well, surgeons actually are abnormal, but that's a whole 'nother story. Hey just wait a minute now... ...H-how did you know? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,17:49    Quote Thordaddy: Do have problems with drug and alcohol therapy? Is there not empirical evidence for transitioning from the homosexual lifestyle? Are American homosexuals not overrepresented in AIDS, STDs, etc.? I don't think homosexuality has any place in education especially K-6th grade.  Good, bad or ugly. BUT, if you are going to teach about "homosexuality" then the DETRIMENTAL and DEADLY EFFECTS due to the pratice of homosexuality should be at the FOREFRONT.   Why are we deceiving young children about a topic that has PROVEN dangerous and deadly for a large contigent of its practitioners? And African-American males ages 18-29 are also HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in the same areas.  Do you think therefore we should stop teaching children in schools that all men are created equal?  For the FOURTH F*CKING time, correlation DOES NOT imply causation. Thordaddy, you are either the most bigoted piece of sh*t to come down the pike in months, or the most stupid, or both.  How did you manage to totally ignore the studies that show that the increased risk health and social problems of gays are CAUSED in a large part to the discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence that gays are subjected to?  Sexual orientation does not cause the health problems, PREJUDICED ASSH*LES cause the health problems. Here is the 2002 Australian Medical Association report AGAIN.  Read the d*mn thing, then tell me what it says about discrimination and its negative effect on health. Quote   1.Sexual Diversity in Society 1.1 Homosexuality is defined as the sexual and emotional attraction to members of the same sex, and has existed in most societies for as long as sexual beliefs and practices have been recorded. The proportion of the population that is not exclusively heterosexual has been estimated at between 8 and 11 percent. This figure will naturally vary depending on the definitions used to describe the continuum of sexual identity that exists in our society. 1.2 Societal attitudes towards homosexuality have had a decisive impact on the extent to which individuals have been able to express their sexual orientation. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Subsequently homosexuality was recognised as a form of sexual orientation or expression rather than a mental illness.2 This move by the medical professional was instrumental in improving the health and welfare of this population. 1.3 Strong family connections are important to the health and well being of individuals, and recently there has been greater recognition of the diversity of family structures that exist in our society. These family structures could include nuclear families, single parents, blended families from remarriages as well as gay and lesbian parents. Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian is difficult to obtain, as this data is not routinely collected. However, the American Academy of Paediatrics states that ‘the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes towards parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.’ 2. Discrimination 2.1 The term “heterosexism” has been used to describe the discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) populations. Heterosexism encompasses the belief that all people are and should be heterosexual and that alternative sexualities pose a threat to society. In this way heterosexism includes homophobia, a fear of alternative sexualities, and transphobia, a fear of alternative gender identities. It may also include a fear of intersex people who do not fit neatly into the binary categories of male and female. 2.2 Discrimination may be overt as in verbal abuse and physical violence or as covert as the silence that surrounds talking about GLBTI issues. This affects all members of society as individuals comply with gender role stereotypes in order to avoid homophobic discrimination. It is a constraint on human behavior that serves to diminish individual potential for development as well as diversity in our community. 2.3 The common experience of discrimination means that the health of GLBTI populations differs from that of the general population. This discrimination leads to health problems that are shared by this group as well as health problems specific to each subgroup. For GLBTI individuals the impact of this discrimination can lead to a poorer general health status, diminished utilization of healthcare facilities and a decreased quality of health services. 3. Shared Health Issues 3.1 Society’s acceptance of diverse sexualities and gender identities is a major factor in an individual’s successful transition through various lifestages. These significant lifestages include childhood, youth, middle age and ageing. As GLBTI people transition through these lifestages there are a number of health issues that are commonly faced. 3.2 Mental health problems are statistically over-represented in this population throughout life due to exposure to discriminatory behavior. One of the main groups affected by homophobia is same-sex attracted young people, particularly those living in rural areas where there is greater social isolation from GLBTI peers and role models. A consequence of this discrimination for GLBTI young people is that they have increased rates of homelessness, risk-taking behavior, depression, suicide and episodes of self-harm compared to their heterosexual cohorts. 3.3 The experience of violence is higher for the GLBTI community than the general population10 and a recent survey of the GLBTI community in Victoria indicated that “over 70% of respondents had been subject to an experience of public abuse in the past 5 years”. This experience may range from verbal abuse to physical attack. The experience or threat of violence has the potential to have a significant impact on an individual’s physical and mental health. 3.4 Patterns of drug and alcohol use within the GLBTI community are greater that that of the general population. The increased incidence of smoking and alcohol intake is also of concern in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. There is support for the theory linking individual patterns of drug and alcohol misuse with experiences of discrimination.   AMA Position on Sexual Diversity and Health Issues If you're so worried about the health issues of gays adversely affecting society, then stop being such a d*ckheaded bigot. I apologize to the rest of the board for my strong language, but few things hit my hot button like willfully ignorant prejudice. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,18:17    again i ask, what do you folks get out of arguing with the mentally retarded? just whittling knives? what?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,21:50    Quote (sir_toejam @ April 09 2006,23:17) again i ask, what do you folks get out of arguing with the mentally retarded? just whittling knives? what? Fair point. It is frustrating arguing with somebody who is dishonest, willfuly ignorant and bigoted. Nevertheless, I find it dificult to see his drivel without chalenging it.  T-d aparently wants to impose, what he considers morals onto your society. In the process, he is twisting evidence to try to make it suport his views. I doubt t-d will ever learn that is probably best to form views around evidence (as much and the best available). On a brighter note, it is unusual to learn nothing at-all when arguing with these people. I was very surprised about that NARTH organisation. Didn't suspect there would be many people who would still try to "cure" homosexuality. Sad fact but all knowledge is better to have than be ignorant of.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,23:04    Diseases are caused by DISCRIMINATION? It seems like diseases are AVOIDED BY USING DISCRIMINATION. This is the most laughable and unscientific dogma I've come across in awhile, Mr. Aftershave. Take your liberal talking points to an unscientific forum.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,23:11    Russell, You don't believe that because something exists it is "normal" and "natural?" Wouldn't such a stance normalize and naturalize murder, rape, pedophile, necrophilia, AIDS, leprosy, etc.? Certainly you can distinguish between natural and supernatural? Certainly you can distinguish between normal and abnormal? How could you do science otherwise?