The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News0 min ago
Can Evolution Explain ...........
40 Answers
The Chrysalis?
What environmental pressures could ever have brought about the the process of catterpillar, chrysalis, to butterfly?
What possible use / strengths woulfd the intermediate stage have?
Still there is a God!
What environmental pressures could ever have brought about the the process of catterpillar, chrysalis, to butterfly?
What possible use / strengths woulfd the intermediate stage have?
Still there is a God!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Homosexuals can indeed help in the raising of children, but I fail to see how it would offer a greater advantage to a heterosexual, but if homosexuality is genetic are they genetically pre programmed not to reproduce?
A homosexual is just as likely to be as skilled or non-skilled as a hunter gatherer as any other member of the tribe, so what benefit is to be gleaned?
If someone is genetically programmed to be gay, then is someone genetically programmed to be violent?
In a tribal community such a proclivity may be considered advantageous.
I tend to follow Chaka's reasoning if you follow entirely the evolutionary idea then it's pure randomness would allow an answer.
I dread the day a gay gene is found (and I don't mean a stone washed Versace with a boot cut) for the simple reason that science can then produce a "cure" a mother could find out in the womb her child's gay and decide to abort.
Free will is this I like women (rather too much to be truthful) so I date women, gay men don't they dig on dudes and if they did'nt like it they would'nt do it.
A famous gay writer (although he never described himself as such) said that sexuality was'nt set in stone and that it could fluctuate, I can't remember his name but he died recently.
How do you explain bi-curious?
How many people will have tried it and decided it was'nt for them?
A homosexual is just as likely to be as skilled or non-skilled as a hunter gatherer as any other member of the tribe, so what benefit is to be gleaned?
If someone is genetically programmed to be gay, then is someone genetically programmed to be violent?
In a tribal community such a proclivity may be considered advantageous.
I tend to follow Chaka's reasoning if you follow entirely the evolutionary idea then it's pure randomness would allow an answer.
I dread the day a gay gene is found (and I don't mean a stone washed Versace with a boot cut) for the simple reason that science can then produce a "cure" a mother could find out in the womb her child's gay and decide to abort.
Free will is this I like women (rather too much to be truthful) so I date women, gay men don't they dig on dudes and if they did'nt like it they would'nt do it.
A famous gay writer (although he never described himself as such) said that sexuality was'nt set in stone and that it could fluctuate, I can't remember his name but he died recently.
How do you explain bi-curious?
How many people will have tried it and decided it was'nt for them?
Homosexuals can indeed help in the raising of children, but I fail to see how it would offer a greater advantage to a heterosexual, but if homosexuality is genetic are they genetically pre programmed not to reproduce? A homosexual is just as likely to be as skilled or non-skilled as a hunter gatherer as any other member of the tribe, so what benefit is to be gleaned?
You're missing the point. Evolution works on populations, NOT individuals. If more of the population survives to pass on its own genes as a consequence of any given trait, that trait will be passed on and will become more prevalent until the entire population has it.
If someone is genetically programmed to be gay, then is someone genetically programmed to be violent?
In a tribal community such a proclivity may be considered advantageous.
If violence is a necessary trait for ensuring the population survives to reproduce, then yes, the genes that promote it (violence not being a trait in and of itself) will be selected. Various pieces of research attest that this is certainly true in pre-state societies. (Try K Otterbein's "The evolution of war: A cross-cultural study.")
I tend to follow Chaka's reasoning if you follow entirely the evolutionary idea then it's pure randomness would allow an answer.
Evolution is not in the slightest bit random.
I dread the day a gay gene is found (and I don't mean a stone washed Versace with a boot cut) for the simple reason that science can then produce a "cure" a mother could find out in the womb her child's gay and decide to abort.
It's possible. On the other hand, it would hamstring the cred of any religiously-motivated homophobia.
You're missing the point. Evolution works on populations, NOT individuals. If more of the population survives to pass on its own genes as a consequence of any given trait, that trait will be passed on and will become more prevalent until the entire population has it.
If someone is genetically programmed to be gay, then is someone genetically programmed to be violent?
In a tribal community such a proclivity may be considered advantageous.
If violence is a necessary trait for ensuring the population survives to reproduce, then yes, the genes that promote it (violence not being a trait in and of itself) will be selected. Various pieces of research attest that this is certainly true in pre-state societies. (Try K Otterbein's "The evolution of war: A cross-cultural study.")
I tend to follow Chaka's reasoning if you follow entirely the evolutionary idea then it's pure randomness would allow an answer.
Evolution is not in the slightest bit random.
I dread the day a gay gene is found (and I don't mean a stone washed Versace with a boot cut) for the simple reason that science can then produce a "cure" a mother could find out in the womb her child's gay and decide to abort.
It's possible. On the other hand, it would hamstring the cred of any religiously-motivated homophobia.
Free will is this I like women (rather too much to be truthful) so I date women, gay men don't they dig on dudes and if they did'nt like it they would'nt do it.
'Rather too much'? You're subject to court order?
A famous gay writer (although he never described himself as such) said that sexuality was'nt set in stone and that it could fluctuate, I can't remember his name but he died recently.
Was he an expert in the field or just a lay person?
How do you explain bi-curious?
As I've already said, we don't know for sure what the mechanism for homosexuality is, so who knows for certain? I've a notion it may turn ourn that some homosexuals are born that way and that others choose to be homosexual, or become homosexual through nurture, but it's not based on any hard evidence because we just don't know.
How many people will have tried it and decided it was'nt for them?
Give in. How many? Even if they do, so what? I've tried lots of things and decided they weren't for me without it being remotely traumatic. Celery, for one. It's not necessarily anything to be concerned about.
'Rather too much'? You're subject to court order?
A famous gay writer (although he never described himself as such) said that sexuality was'nt set in stone and that it could fluctuate, I can't remember his name but he died recently.
Was he an expert in the field or just a lay person?
How do you explain bi-curious?
As I've already said, we don't know for sure what the mechanism for homosexuality is, so who knows for certain? I've a notion it may turn ourn that some homosexuals are born that way and that others choose to be homosexual, or become homosexual through nurture, but it's not based on any hard evidence because we just don't know.
How many people will have tried it and decided it was'nt for them?
Give in. How many? Even if they do, so what? I've tried lots of things and decided they weren't for me without it being remotely traumatic. Celery, for one. It's not necessarily anything to be concerned about.
Avocado. Tried it, didn�t like it. Can�t see the point of them myself.
It is an interesting proposition though, I wonder whether many people (including those exhibiting homophobia based on non-religious motivations, ie paranoia and it being �rubbed off� on them) would play with gene therapy (so to speak) so that a homosexual foetus was �made� heterosexual, or vice-versa or aborted.
Who would have thought it years back? Technology is moving fast, already people can pay to decide what sex their unborn child will be and are doing so. In 20 years, scientists believe we will be able to design our babies, deciding on eye colour, hair colour etc. even if the technology is only available for the rich.
It is an interesting proposition though, I wonder whether many people (including those exhibiting homophobia based on non-religious motivations, ie paranoia and it being �rubbed off� on them) would play with gene therapy (so to speak) so that a homosexual foetus was �made� heterosexual, or vice-versa or aborted.
Who would have thought it years back? Technology is moving fast, already people can pay to decide what sex their unborn child will be and are doing so. In 20 years, scientists believe we will be able to design our babies, deciding on eye colour, hair colour etc. even if the technology is only available for the rich.
Very droll Waldo, in terms of homo-phobia I see, hear and view far more homo-phobia from non-theists than believers.
It's not to the point I know but the reality is (for me) out and about most every day is that the worst people I have deal with are the non-believers.
I actually appreciate your contribution (even the sarcasm) you're the first person to efer attempt to explain the genetics of homosexuality that I've come across.
I still view it as choice rather than compulsion, I feel the notion of loving the same sex as something that makes them happy is far more preferable to it's the way they're made.
As to the writer who's name escapes me, I could'nt tell you what he is (or was) only that he'd written several books on the subject and that his death was considered important enough to warrant something like a quarter page article in The Metro.
Thanks for the reading matter, but to be blatantly honest, I don't take the mystery of life the universe and everything that seriously at the moment I'm undecided as to whether I should begin to read "Commodore" by Sir James Bissett, "Titanic And Other Ships" by Charles Herbert Lightholler or "China Witness" by Xin Ran. That's a bit more my speed.
It's not to the point I know but the reality is (for me) out and about most every day is that the worst people I have deal with are the non-believers.
I actually appreciate your contribution (even the sarcasm) you're the first person to efer attempt to explain the genetics of homosexuality that I've come across.
I still view it as choice rather than compulsion, I feel the notion of loving the same sex as something that makes them happy is far more preferable to it's the way they're made.
As to the writer who's name escapes me, I could'nt tell you what he is (or was) only that he'd written several books on the subject and that his death was considered important enough to warrant something like a quarter page article in The Metro.
Thanks for the reading matter, but to be blatantly honest, I don't take the mystery of life the universe and everything that seriously at the moment I'm undecided as to whether I should begin to read "Commodore" by Sir James Bissett, "Titanic And Other Ships" by Charles Herbert Lightholler or "China Witness" by Xin Ran. That's a bit more my speed.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Scanning back a little Chaka said mutations are random and as far as I understand the whole theory evolution is based on genetic mutation with a hereditary principle.
Although I fully understand what is meant by the word mutation it may prove a contentious use of words for those of a more sensitive or deliberately provocative nature ie some people may object to being described as mutants whilst others may revel in describing them as mutants, it sounds very PC I know but may I politely suggest to those who espouse this idea to use the word variation, you'e much less prone to misquoting and although misquoting is the tool of decievers and nay sayers it can indeed con the gullible.
Although I fully understand what is meant by the word mutation it may prove a contentious use of words for those of a more sensitive or deliberately provocative nature ie some people may object to being described as mutants whilst others may revel in describing them as mutants, it sounds very PC I know but may I politely suggest to those who espouse this idea to use the word variation, you'e much less prone to misquoting and although misquoting is the tool of decievers and nay sayers it can indeed con the gullible.
123everton, the mutations are random but the subsequent sorting out of those mutations by natural selection means that the evolution process as a whole is not random. Why not learn something about it? There are plenty of books on the subject.
I'm sure that evolutionary scientists will take solemn note of your objection to the term 'mutation' and will amend all their text-books, articles and lectures accordingly.
I'm sure that evolutionary scientists will take solemn note of your objection to the term 'mutation' and will amend all their text-books, articles and lectures accordingly.
I've no objection to the word mutation in this context (I know what you mean) all I'm saying that the use of that word may serve as a distraction if you were discussing it with some people.
I feel that choice is empowering, to view homosexuality as a choice tells everyone that they're happy as they are, and rightly so.
I feel that choice is empowering, to view homosexuality as a choice tells everyone that they're happy as they are, and rightly so.
Everton, that's not empowering, it's patronising, and its insulting. Why should homosexuals feel the need to tell anyone they're happy as they are? They don't choose - that's who they are - and it's no ones business but theirs. They don't need to explain, they don't need to seek approval, and they most certainly don't need to be patronised.
Naomi it's a question and answer site, on a day to day basis I agree entirely it is nobody's business what sexuality they are (it's one thing I disagree with Tatchell and his outrage group about) I fail to see how it can be insulting to say that someone is doing something they enjoy and that makes them happy and to be supported in that, and in their right to be that way and to express it pretty much how they choose.
Eh?
How can I insult and patronise a group of people whose proclivities I don't share but whose activities I support?
I'm not in the least bit perturbed by homosexuality, it is a perfectly acceptable and respectable lifestyle for those that indulge.
Spare me your exasperation and incredulity, you're scratching where it does'nt itch, I don't agree with the idea of genetic sexuality, I don't object to or vilify the choice of ones sexuality.
How can I insult and patronise a group of people whose proclivities I don't share but whose activities I support?
I'm not in the least bit perturbed by homosexuality, it is a perfectly acceptable and respectable lifestyle for those that indulge.
Spare me your exasperation and incredulity, you're scratching where it does'nt itch, I don't agree with the idea of genetic sexuality, I don't object to or vilify the choice of ones sexuality.
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News7 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics9 mins ago
