As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[kkamagwi]

Hey there my new friend.

Please excuse me. Was this post addressed to me?

It was in response to the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey kylie

This was a good idea my dear! We can keep chatting while i get through our original conversation. I will be completely unshackled soon. Fun!

Anways you can always hold it over me, if i dont reply - wishful thinking. Now you have some collateral

I found this statement rather intriguing.

Lets use this same idea with giraffes. Benefit seems to be the key word here. Remember that word as it will come up somewhere. Easter egg!

Im fun... right?

Let's say that you had lots of proto-giraffes ie D and H - for need of a better term, maybe you can help, what was the ancestor of a giraffe? - in a population, each with different shaped necks.

There are many trees some are tall, others are not. Proto-giraffe H, with slightly shorter necks will not get these leaves. Thus, they are more likely to die from starvation .

Proto-giraffe D with slightly longer necks will. These marvellous animals with slightly longer neck are more likely to survive because they can eat all those nutritious leaves and thus are likely to not too starve so easily.

What you think my dear kylie?

Please excuse my attention to detail. This does not yet suggest anything about random processes v risk analysis. You will now need to explain how 2 similar animals with different ear cannals came through a random process?

As your very own giraffe example illustrates, evolution is not a random process.

It's not "random" that the giraffes with better reach to food are more likely to survive then those with less good reach to food.

It's not "random" that those with better hearing become more prevalent as they are better at detecting and subsequently escaping predators.

Also this opens up some interesting questions.

The giraffe has a long neck, a huge heart - that pumps a certain amount of kpa to the head. It also has special valves in its neck to prevent this pressure from causing damage to the animal, when it bends over. These 3 moving parts appear to be a solution.

How do you explain this when we consider a random process compared to design?

For starters, it would help to realise that the selection part of evolution is anything but random.

Obviously giraffe's with necks that kill them when they bend over, won't live to tell the tale so they most likely will not be spreading their genes.

A long neck can thus only end up in those species that also develop them in such a way that they don't get killed by them.

How about you tell me while and consider the below section into your thinking?

The Gene pool! Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool. Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV?

Homosexuality isn't an inherited trait. And, by the way, it occurs with an average 11% frequency throughout the animal kingdom - not just in humans.

What does that mean when we consider how vital reproduction is to human evolution?

It means you have a lot more reading to do.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't want to sound 'dramatic' but it seems you have a different 'religion', just because you got stuck with evolution. Why God would put a soul and spirit and call it to his liking in a evolved ape that he did not even precisely design, that doesn't make any sense.
And i'm pretty sure we have a soul and spirit. Don't you know that our soul and spirit is meant to go with our bodies along, as something that matchs/works together?

If you are really convinced that your religion is incompatible with the very fundaments of biology, then it is your religion that is incorrect - not the fundaments of biology. Biology is demonstrably pretty accurate.

 

[Aman777]

That didn't answer my question(s), at all.

You asked: And how do you do that, if you don't know what "good" and "bad" means? If you are unable to distinguish both?

I told you the difference but you cannot comprehend because you don't want to admit that only God is good and everything else is evil. Amen?

 

[the iconoclast]

It was in response to the OP.

Hey hey kkamagwi

Fair enough. God bless you saint

 

[the iconoclast]

As your very own giraffe example illustrates, evolution is not a random process.

It's not "random" that the giraffes with better reach to food are more likely to survive then those with less good reach to food.

It's not "random" that those with better hearing become more prevalent as they are better at detecting and subsequently escaping predators.



For starters, it would help to realise that the selection part of evolution is anything but random.

Obviously giraffe's with necks that kill them when they bend over, won't live to tell the tale so they most likely will not be spreading their genes.

A long neck can thus only end up in those species that also develop them in such a way that they don't get killed by them.





Homosexuality isn't an inherited trait. And, by the way, it occurs with an average 11% frequency throughout the animal kingdom - not just in humans.



It means you have a lot more reading to do.....

Hello my dear

This reply has been added to our conversation.

 

[the iconoclast]

It means you have a lot more reading to do.....

Hey hey monster What do you suggest?

As your very own giraffe example illustrates, evolution is not a random process. It's not "random" that the giraffes with better reach to food are more likely to survive then those with less good reach to food. It's not "random" that those with better hearing become more prevalent as they are better at detecting and subsequently escaping predators.

So evolution is made, done, or happened with method or conscious decision ie it is not random?

Does that suggest a catalyst?

For starters, it would help to realise that the selection part of evolution is anything but random. Obviously giraffe's with necks that kill them when they bend over, won't live to tell the tale so they most likely will not be spreading their genes. A long neck can thus only end up in those species that also develop them in such a way that they don't get killed by them.

So evolution is made, done or happened with method and a conscious decision making.

Lets backtrack.

The giraffe has a long neck, a huge heart - that pumps a certain amount of kpa to the head. It also has special valves in its neck to prevent this pressure from causing damage to the animal, when it bends over.

These 3 moving parts appear to be a solution and are integral to each other. Without 1 the whole process fails. The word integral is noteworthy.

What do you think about this solution? How could it happen when we consider Godless evolution?

Homosexuality isn't an inherited trait. And, by the way, it occurs with an average 11% frequency throughout the animal kingdom - not just in humans.

Could you please provide a reference for this figure?

Also I think you seem to have missed the point.

Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool. Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV?

The main point here is benefit and gene pool. Cheers

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey hey monster What do you suggest?

I'ld start with a proper introductory course textbook on evolution theory.
Emphasis on "proper" - no creatoinist propaganda you can find on creationist websites.

So evolution is made, done, or happened with method or conscious decision ie it is not random?

You're not making any sense.
It's not either "random" or "conscious decision".

Consider this contraption:

It's a coin sorting device. Coins go in at the top and roll to the edge on the left. There are holes in the runway in which the coins of specific types fit neatly, from small to big. Big coins will roll over the smaller holes and eventually go down in the hole that's big enough for them.

Is it random that 10c coins end up in the 10c tube?
Is someone hand picking the coins and putting them in the correct tubes?
Ironically, if someone was handpicking these, then the margin of error would be bigger.....

So, clearly, to say it's either random or it's conscious decision, is a false statement.

In terms of "randomness" and "filtering of traits", in evolution, natural selection takes on the role of the sorting mechanism in the above device. The mutations are the input, which just like in the above device, is random. You don't know what change / coin will come next. The neat thing is, you don't have to know. The non-random filtering mechanism takes care of it.

So evolution is made, done or happened with method and a conscious decision making.

As just explained: no.

Lets backtrack.

The giraffe has a long neck, a huge heart - that pumps a certain amount of kpa to the head. It also has special valves in its neck to prevent this pressure from causing damage to the animal, when it bends over.

These 3 moving parts appear to be a solution and are integral to each other. Without 1 the whole process fails. The word integral is noteworthy.

What do you think about this solution? How could it happen when we consider Godless evolution?

It ain't any different of how the rest of bodies are developed from the bottom up. None of this is a problem in a gradual process like evolution.

Could you please provide a reference for this figure?

I heared the number in a lecture once. There's plenty of studies etc, but I'm not immediatly finding one stating that specific number.

Here's a summary reference with plenty of examples:
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

Bottom line: homosexuality is anything but exclusively human. It occurs in practically every animal species we study, some more then others. In some very much and in a select few not at all.

Also I think you seem to have missed the point.
Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool. Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV?

Plenty of homosexuals actuall have kids.
And as I told you, it doesn't seem to be the case that homosexuality is genetically inherited. So why would evolution force out a trait, when it isn't something that can be passed on to the next generation in the first place?

If no homosexuals would have kids, EVER, then homosexuality would still occur.
For it to stop occuring, it seems that the species would have to go extinct.

The main point here is benefit and gene pool. Cheers

The main point here, is your ignorance on how evolution works.

 

[Shemjaza]

Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool. Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV?

The main point here is benefit and gene pool. Cheers

The causes of homosexuality aren't solidly understood yet.

And you are right, that if there was a gene that only made creatures strictly homosexual then it wouldn't likely be passed on. However, there are other possibilities.

One possibility is that a genetic effect that makes some offspring homosexual, would be a survival trait in other offspring. For example there was some evidence that very fertile women had more homosexual sons.

Another idea is that homosexuality is a hormonal developmental condition so that conditions in the womb make fundamental changes not specifically found in genes. This could be another explanation for the correlation of homosexuality with fertile mothers.

It might even be a trait where being a carrier of the gene makes you more successful, but a full dose from both parents makes you gay. Kind of like sickle cell anemia kills you, but being a carrier makes you resistant to malaria.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You asked: And how do you do that, if you don't know what "good" and "bad" means? If you are unable to distinguish both?

I told you the difference but you cannot comprehend because you don't want to admit that only God is good and everything else is evil. Amen?

Maybe you should read the rest of the conversation to understand the context in which I asked the question.

That might help in giving sensible answers to what I'm actually asking.

 

[the iconoclast]

The causes of homosexuality aren't solidly understood yet.

And you are right, that if there was a gene that only made creatures strictly homosexual then it wouldn't likely be passed on. However, there are other possibilities.

One possibility is that a genetic effect that makes some offspring homosexual, would be a survival trait in other offspring. For example there was some evidence that very fertile women had more homosexual sons.

Another idea is that homosexuality is a hormonal developmental condition so that conditions in the womb make fundamental changes not specifically found in genes. This could be another explanation for the correlation of homosexuality with fertile mothers.

It might even be a trait where being a carrier of the gene makes you more successful, but a full dose from both parents makes you gay. Kind of like sickle cell anemia kills you, but being a carrier makes you resistant to malaria.

Hey hey my dear

Please excuse me. You seem to miss the point, iam not talking about inherited homosexuality.

Iam talking about benefits and the gene pool ie a homosexual cannot reproduce - and if he does stand to attention for the opposite sex, he ceases to be homosexual.

The subject matter was Reproduction and passing on ones variations - not passing on sexual orientation ie gay gene..

Anyways im not taking anymore conversations atm. Im tied up with @Kylie and tmonster right now.

Trust me, when the time is right. Ill find you

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I'ld start with a proper introductory course textbook on evolution theory. Emphasis on "proper" - no creatoinist propaganda you can find on creationist websites.

Hey hey tmoney

Excellant, i should not read creatonist propaganda. i want to learn to from - you are certain.

What should i know? Dont be shy.

It's not either "random" or "conscious decision".

So what is it?

The definition of random is made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision. So evolution is not done with method neither is it done with method.

So if it not random or intentional, what is it?

It's a coin sorting device. Coins go in at the top and roll to the edge on the left. There are holes in the runway in which the coins of specific types fit neatly, from small to big. Big coins will roll over the smaller holes and eventually go down in the hole that's big enough for them. Is it random that 10c coins end up in the 10c tube? Is someone hand picking the coins and putting them in the correct tubes? Ironically, if someone was handpicking these, then the margin of error would be bigger..... So, clearly, to say it's either random or it's conscious decision, is a false statement. In terms of "randomness" and "filtering of traits", in evolution, natural selection takes on the role of the sorting mechanism in the above device. The mutations are the input, which just like in the above device, is random. You don't know what change / coin will come next. The neat thing is, you don't have to know. The non-random filtering mechanism takes care of it.

Please excuse me. You do realise you gave me an example of a machine that involves a human catalyst and this machine is a designed thing to perform a process?

Your example does not help you in any way. It confirms a catalyst, design and creation or a process. What u think?

Seems we cannot excape design yet?

Also you are ignoring a vital point and the substance of my discussion.

The giraffe has a long neck, a huge heart - that pumps a certain amount of kpa to the head. It also has special valves in its neck to prevent this pressure from causing damage to the animal, when it bends over.

These 3 moving parts appear to be a solution. What do you think about this solution? How could it happen when we consider Godless evolution?

Please do not ignore this point again. :,(

As just explained: no.

I know. So far your position is; it is not random or intentional, what is it?

I heared the number in a lecture once. There's plenty of studies etc, but I'm not immediatly finding one stating that specific number.

So your position is based on rumour ie what you heard once?

Here's a summary reference with plenty of examples: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

Cheers. Lets have a look shall we?

"that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual". Love that word it means to explain the meaning of (information or actions). Nice word for inconclusive.

"Scientists perceive homosexual behavior in animals to different degrees". Gets better!

"According to Bruce Bagemihl, the animal kingdom engages in homosexual behavior "with much greater sexual diversity – including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex – than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."

Bruce bagemihl is supposedly an authority on the subject. But wait a disclaimer - did you actaully read what you recommended.

"Bagemihl adds, however, that this is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[7] Simon LeVay introduced caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities."

What do you think about that statement?

Now here is the best part!

"Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

What do you think about that statement? "

[8]One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]"

Interesting. This observation was not done in nature but in domestication and human involvement ie fenced in. What do you think?

Bottom line: homosexuality is anything but exclusively human. It occurs in practically every animal species we study, some more then others. In some very much and in a select few not at all.

Your supplied reference seems to suggest something different. What you think?

Plenty of homosexuals actuall have kids. And as I told you, it doesn't seem to be the case that homosexuality is genetically inherited.

My dear you are still missing the point.

Iam talking about benefits and the gene pool ie a homosexual cannot reproduce - and if he does stand to attention for the opposite sex, he ceases to be exclusively homosexual.

The subject matter was Reproduction and passing on ones variations - not passing on sexual orientation ie gay gene..

Here is the original question.

Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool - i will be clear a homosexual cannot pass on his genes through reproduction.

Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV? The main point here is benefit and gene pool.

Give it another shot my dear?

So why would evolution force out a trait, when it isn't something that can be passed on to the next generation in the first place?

Pleass re read my question as this question is not relevant.

If no homosexuals would have kids, EVER, then homosexuality would still occur. For it to stop occuring, it seems that the species would have to go extinct.

Off the track and not relevant.

The main point here, is your ignorance on how evolution works.

Well lucky for me you are here to cure myself of such a thing.

Dont run away on me. We are getting interesting my dear. Cheers i look forward to this discussion and how it will fit in with our previous one - thats coming soon hehe

Love you

 

[Kylie]

Lets use this same idea with giraffes. Benefit seems to be the key word here. Remember that word as it will come up somewhere. Easter egg!

Im fun... right?

Let's say that you had lots of proto-giraffes ie D and H - for need of a better term, maybe you can help, what was the ancestor of a giraffe? - in a population, each with different shaped necks.

There are many trees some are tall, others are not. Proto-giraffe H, with slightly shorter necks will not get these leaves. Thus, they are more likely to die from starvation .

Proto-giraffe D with slightly longer necks will. These marvellous animals with slightly longer neck are more likely to survive because they can eat all those nutritious leaves and thus are likely to not too starve so easily.

What you think my dear kylie?

I pretty much agree. In a population of proto-giraffes, some will have slightly longer necks than others, and in times of drought, this could be the difference between life and death.

Please excuse my attention to detail. This does not yet suggest anything about random processes v risk analysis. You will now need to explain how 2 similar animals with different ear cannals came through a random process?

First of all, evolution isn't random. The traits that are selected for are controlled by natural selection.

Secondly, the differences in ear canal complexity (whether straight or convoluted) will be very slight if you look at two different animals from the same generation. Any large differences will only come about over many generations.

Also this opens up some interesting questions.

The giraffe has a long neck, a huge heart - that pumps a certain amount of kpa to the head. It also has special valves in its neck to prevent this pressure from causing damage to the animal, when it bends over. These 3 moving parts appear to be a solution.

How do you explain this when we consider a random process compared to design?

Remember, the change over a few generations is going to be small. As the proto-giraffe's neck gets longer, it will only require a very slight adaptation to correct for the changes in blood pressure as the head raises and lowers.

Kylie - "which individuals do you think are most likely to pass their genes on more?"

How about you tell me while and consider the below section into your thinking?

I am not interested in telling you. I asked you because I want to hear your answer.

The Gene pool! Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool. Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV?

What does that mean when we consider how vital reproduction is to human evolution?

Cheers you diamond

First of all, homosexuality is not hereditary, it isn't a trait that can be passed on the way skin colour or eye colour is. After all, most gay offspring are born to hetero parents.

Secondly, gay offspring provide a reproductive advantage because they can help to raise other offspring that their parents produce. The evolutionary advantage of homosexuality: a sterile debate

 

[Kylie]

Please excuse me. You seem to miss the point, iam not talking about inherited homosexuality.

There's no such thing as inherited homosexuality. A person is not gay because their parents were.

Iam talking about benefits and the gene pool ie a homosexual cannot reproduce - and if he does stand to attention for the opposite sex, he ceases to be homosexual.

Not true. A gay person is still physically capable of having sex with a partner of the opposite sex, and even producing offspring.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey hey tmoney

Excellant, i should not read creatonist propaganda. i want to learn to from - you are certain.

What should i know? Dont be shy.

I'm not responsible for your education.
Don't expect me to give you a biology course on an interwebs forum.
Go do your own homework.

So what is it?

non-random.

The definition of random is made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

I'll go along with it.
Natural selection = a filtering method.

So if it not random or intentional, what is it?

Non-random.

Please excuse me. You do realise you gave me an example of a machine that involves a human catalyst and this machine is a designed thing to perform a process?

/facepalm

It's an example to illustrate how "random" and "conscious decision" are not the only two options in the output of a process.

It's not an analogy to body plans.

Your example does not help you in any way.

I can see that. But the problem doesn't seem to be the example...

It confirms a catalyst, design and creation or a process. What u think?

I think you need to learn how analogies work.

Seems we cannot excape design yet?

Your mind certainly doesn't seem to be able to. That's kind of the problem with taking on theological obligations to argue against anything that disagrees with your theology.

Also you are ignoring a vital point and the substance of my discussion.

The giraffe has a long neck, a huge heart - that pumps a certain amount of kpa to the head. It also has special valves in its neck to prevent this pressure from causing damage to the animal, when it bends over.

These 3 moving parts appear to be a solution. What do you think about this solution? How could it happen when we consider Godless evolution?

Please do not ignore this point again. :,(

I'm not sure what you are asking here.
It seems that you simply are having difficulty with understanding how gradually accumulating microchanges filtered by a process like natural selection, will result in seemingly optimised and complex body plans.

Stuff like that is what you learn in introductory courses of evolutionary biology.
Again, it would help heaps if you would actually do your own homework first.

So your position is based on rumour ie what you heard once?

No. Homosexuality is factually common in the animal kingdom.

Cheers. Lets have a look shall we?

"that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual". Love that word it means to explain the meaning of (information or actions). Nice word for inconclusive.

"Scientists perceive homosexual behavior in animals to different degrees". Gets better!

"According to Bruce Bagemihl, the animal kingdom engages in homosexual behavior "with much greater sexual diversity – including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex – than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."

Bruce bagemihl is supposedly an authority on the subject. But wait a disclaimer - did you actaully read what you recommended.

"Bagemihl adds, however, that this is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[7] Simon LeVay introduced caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities."

What do you think about that statement?

Now here is the best part!

"Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

What do you think about that statement? "

[8]One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]"

Interesting. This observation was not done in nature but in domestication and human involvement ie fenced in. What do you think?

I don't think anything in particular about individual scientist's statements and ideas and theories.

I quoted the resource for the many examples therein where homosexual relations, including long term homosexual pairing, has been observed in species throughout the animal kingdom.

No matter what theories and ideas scientist's come up with - the facts are what they are and you can't argue the facts. Not reasonably anyway.

My dear you are still missing the point.

Iam talking about benefits and the gene pool ie a homosexual cannot reproduce - and if he does stand to attention for the opposite sex, he ceases to be exclusively homosexual.

The subject matter was Reproduction and passing on ones variations - not passing on sexual orientation ie gay gene..

Here is the original question.

Homosexuality cannot pass on its genes therefore is no benefit to the gene pool - i will be clear a homosexual cannot pass on his genes through reproduction.

Does this mean homosexuality is a dead end from an evolutionary POV? The main point here is benefit and gene pool.

Give it another shot my dear?

Plenty of individuals never get to reproduce. Even more is the set if we also add those that do reproduce but of which the off spring never reaches sexual maturity.

Some of them are gay, sure.

So what? What is the problem?

Well lucky for me you are here to cure myself of such a thing.

No, actually. I don't plan on doing anything more then just bringing your ignorance to your attention and to advice you to first inform yourself on the subject you wish to argue against.

Because clearly, you aren't interested in actually learning. If you were, then I wouldn't need to tell you this, since then you'ld have informed yourself already. Instead, you really only are looking to score points and plug holes in whatever people are telling you here, so you can feel good about yourself and your theology. The problem is that you argue from ignorance and so while you think you're scoring points, you're actually just making yourself look rather foolish.

This is why there is a meme that says:

"Debating evolution with creationists, is like playing chess with a pidgeon. It knocks down all the pieces, craps all over the board and then flies away claiming victory".

 

[tas8831]

...if he does stand to attention for the opposite sex, he ceases to be homosexual.....

If only Nature were as simplistic and black-and-white as the religionist mind needs it to be...

 

[Aman777]

You asked: And how do you do that, if you don't know what "good" and "bad" means? If you are unable to distinguish both?

I told you the difference but you cannot comprehend because you don't want to admit that only God is good Mar 10:18 and everything else is evil. Amen?

See post # 731 where I answered your post.

 

[the iconoclast]

If only Nature were as simplistic and black-and-white as the religionist mind needs it to be...

Hey hey my dear

You have got my attention. What am i missing here?

 

[46AND2]

Looks like @46AND2 cannot defend his statement ie a leprechaun/unicorn hybrid.

I already have defended it. You keep trying to argue something I haven't even claimed. I'm too busy with schoolwork at the moment to keep going around in circles with you.

I've already told you that you're not going to get me make the argument that you want me to make, because it isn't what I was arguing in the first place. If it makes you feel better to claim that I am unable to support my argument, well, I'm happy to stoke the flames of your pride. That strawman you constructed sure works well as kindling, eh?

 

[the iconoclast]

I already have defended it. You keep trying to argue something I haven't even claimed. I'm too busy with schoolwork at the moment to keep going around in circles with you.

I've already told you that you're not going to get me make the argument that you want me to make, because it isn't what I was arguing in the first place. If it makes you feel better to claim that I am unable to support my argument, well, I'm happy to stoke the flames of your pride. That strawman you constructed sure works well as kindling, eh?

I disagree.

Ill give you another shot to redeem yourself.

I have disproved your creature ie you made it up recently and do not believe it exists in reality. I know God exists and have experienced Him.

My position is God is real and can be known. Your position is He is akin to your fictitious creature.

Where should we go from here?

Dont be shy and good luck with your busy schedule.