We are decedents of space traveler’s; not monkeys

[xianghua]

Wow, that list is hilarious. Did you actually read any of the references or even look to see if the references are what they are claimed to be?

A quick look through shows that reference 182 is duplicated. On the one hand it is claimed to be a study about Carboniferous "spores" but then also claims to be about Carboniferous brachiopods.

Then you have other hilarious mistakes that indicate that whoever put the list together doesn't know geology or paleontology. The compiled list references an Art Boucot paper on the Devonian and how some fossils were reworked from lower strata into Middle Devonian strata (there is no such thing as the "Medial" Devonian. The person compiling this list doesn't even know how to properly reference the geologic timescale). Reworking of fossils into younger strata (which is what the bulk of this list is) isn't disproof of evolution or the fossil record in even the slightest. It is fairly common to find fossils getting reworked into younger strata because of erosion and redeposition. And there are noticeable and testable pieces of evidence to show the fossils are reworked and not in situ. Presuming paleontologists don't know how to identify fossils is quite stupendously arrogant

2 things:

1)so we can see that we can find fossils in the wrong place. we may find explanation to this phenomenon, but they still in the wrong place.

2)if it's a scientific claim that we can test, where is the limit in terms of years that we can push fossils back?.

 

[curiouskay]

Last I heard, studies have shown.,,..,.,., and the distribution is strongly skewed to right-handedness, but the degree of left-handedness or cross-dominance is unpredictable.

Let's do a study. Get three wives/fathers to use only their left hands when around their new born child for three months. How many children turn out to be left handed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

2 things:

1)so we can see that we can find fossils in the wrong place. we may find explanation to this phenomenon, but they still in the wrong place.

You seem to have forgotten. You did not find any fossils "found out of place".

2)if it's a scientific claim that we can test, where is the limit in terms of years that we can push fossils back?.

It is testable. We are still waiting for a real example of a fossil that does not fall within the theory of evolution model.

I know that this claim of yours was refuted, you started out by using a bad source. That almost always ends up in disaster for the poster. You made no response once you failed and here you are bringing up your failed claim again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's do a study. Get three wives/fathers to use only their left hands when around their new born child for three months. How many children turn out to be left handed?

Three families wouldn't be enough to give significant results; but I don't know the answer - has such a study been done? As I understand it, a number of controlled twin studies have been done that establish the genetic contribution (controlled for parental and sibling handedness, among other things). For example, identical twins are more likely to share handedness than non-identical twins when raised in different households, and so-on.

But if you know of studies that cast doubt on this, I'd be interested to see them - I'm not an expert and I'm not up to date with the latest research.

As for male-female brain differences in general, a recent study has shown that both sexes have brains that are a unique 'mosaic' of features that are more common in males and features that are more common in females, which suggests that the 'men are from Mars, women are from Venus' trope is a myth, and is consistent with gender identity sexual orientation (among other features) not always being in sync with gender - although it doesn't identify the source of the differences - see The Human Brain Mosaic.

E.T.A. Oops - I meant 'sexual orientation' rather than 'gender identity'.

 

[curiouskay]

a recent study has shown that both sexes have brains that are a unique 'mosaic' of features that are more common in males and features that are more common in females.,.,.

A mosaic is a piece of art or image made from the assemblage of small pieces of colored glass, stone, or other materials. It is often used in decorative art or as interior decoration. Most mosaics are made of small, flat, roughly square, pieces of stone or glass of different colors, known as tesserae. Some, especially floor mosaics, are made of small rounded pieces of stone, and called "pebble mosaics". Others are made of other materials.
study has shown that both sexes have brains that are a unique 'mosaic' of features

How does this definition determine right or left hand use-?
i.e. example would be nice -

 

[Nithavela]

You're wrong. Debate over.

 

[Gene2memE]

This is where you and I go down separate paths. I do not believe homosexual is a gene derived condition.

Here you're just wrong. It doesn't matter what you believe, you're demonstrably wrong.

The South African Academy of Sciences did a meta-analysis of homosexuality genetic and social research in 2014, and their conclusions were:

Role of Biological Factors:
There is substantial biological evidence for the diversity of human sexualities and for sexual orientations in particular. Studies have found significant linkage between male sexual orientation and regions of the X chromosome. This particular region on the X chromosome is also associated with other elements of sexual development. ... The mechanisms through which gene expression impacts on sexual orientation remain to be determined. Although less well studied, there is also considerable evidence for a biological component for same-sex orientation in women.

Role of Environmental Factors:
There is a lack of evidence to support the idea that the way parents bring up their children, or the relationships formed between children and parents, impacts on sexual orientation. While family environment may shape other elements of sexuality and the way sexuality is expressed, and while construction of gender and sexual identities have social and cultural components, orientation is not directly correlated to family upbringing.

Acquisition of Sexual Orientation through Social Contagion:
No evidence could be found to support the notion that sexual orientation can be acquired through contact with LGBTI persons. Instead, there was substantial evidence to show that tolerance of same-sex orientation not only benefited LGBTI persons but impacted positively on public health, civil society and long-term economic growth. Peer pressure, although a powerful influencer of young people’s behaviour, has not been shown to influence same-sex activity or the development of same-sex sexual or bisexual orientations.​

Also, from the executive summary of their report:

Socio-behavioural research demonstrates unequivocally that both heterosexual and homosexual men feel that they have/had no choice in terms of their sexual attraction. The majority of women who experience same-sex attraction also express a lack of a sense of choice in their sexual orientation, although there is evidence for much greater fluidity in sexual orientation among women of all sexual orientations.​

I know it doesn't meet with your ideological position, but when ideology and reality meet, ideology should give way.

It is a social conditional that is learned for one reason or another. But the “gene” you suggest existing; does not exist. Sorry, if you need to believe this to sleep at night; by all means continue to believe it.

Nope. See above.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... How does this definition determine right or left hand use-?

I don't think it does - the reference was in respect of male-female brain differences in general, with potential relevance to what we'd been discussing e.g. sexual orientation (apologies for any confusion - I used 'gender identity' in my earlier post when I meant 'sexual orientation').

 

[TBDude65]

2 things:

1)so we can see that we can find fossils in the wrong place. we may find explanation to this phenomenon, but they still in the wrong place.

2)if it's a scientific claim that we can test, where is the limit in terms of years that we can push fossils back?.

The fossils in that list aren't in the "wrong" place. A fossil in the wrong place would be a species being found in older sediments than it could be logically found in. For instance, if you found a mammal in sediments that predate the evolution of mammals.

Your list is (and it is a list that is based on old literature nonetheless) a bunch of fossils that have been transported and redeposited like grains of sediment. Because that's how sedimentary rocks work. You throwing out a list like this indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.

Let me put it this way, if I walk out into a gravel parking lot where I am right now, I guarantee you I will find crinoid debris as part of the broken fragments of the Fort Payne Formation that dominates the bedrock in middle Tennessee. Are those Mississippian fossils in the "wrong" place? No, they are fragments that have been broken up and transported and deposited into a new location. If they lithify into a new rock, you will have a Quaternary aged sedimentary rock with ~360 million year old fossils in it. Does that in any way disprove evolution because preexisting rock has been broken up and redeposited? Not in the slightest.

As for how old are the oldest fossils we have? Geochemcial evidence for life goes back ~3 billion years. Trace fossils (i.e. stromatolites) go back billions of years too.

 

[xianghua]

The fossils in that list aren't in the "wrong" place. A fossil in the wrong place would be a species being found in older sediments than it could be logically found in. For instance, if you found a mammal in sediments that predate the evolution of mammals.

so if the first mammal is date about 150 my, then a finding of a 155 my mammal fossil will falsified evolution?

Your list is (and it is a list that is based on old literature nonetheless) a bunch of fossils that have been transported and redeposited like grains of sediment. Because that's how sedimentary rocks work. You throwing out a list like this indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.

so you can claim it for any fossil that will find in the wrong place.

 

[TBDude65]

so if the first mammal is date about 150 my, then a finding of a 155 my mammal fossil will falsified evolution?




so you can claim it for any fossil that will find in the wrong place.

If the earliest mammal is from the Mesozoic and we find a mammal in the Paleozoic, that would easily disprove evolution. Let us know when you find one.

As for your latter statement, you should educate yourself on geology and paleontology before you prattle of nonsense

 

[curiouskay]

Although less well studied, there is also considerable evidence for a biological component for same-sex orientation in women.

Considerable evidence means; there are leading indicators of, a supposition, for lack of any “found” facts, it’s a maybe

No evidence could be found to support the notion that sexual orientation can be acquired through contact with LGBTI persons.

Unless you just like lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender folks and being associated with one you are considered one of them even if you are just a friend with no direct contact whatsoever. .

Peer pressure, although a powerful influencer of young people’s behavior, has not been shown to influence same-sex activity or the development of same-sex sexual or bisexual orientations.

No comment

both heterosexual and homosexual men feel that they have/had no choice in terms of their sexual attraction.

No comment except to say you have not provided that one’s preference towards same sex individuals is nothing more than a fondness’, likeness, a carrying for a fellow human being; i.e. very close friends. There is nothing wrong with liking your neighbor of either sex. No laws broken.

This is a topic I have nothing to contribute to.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is a topic I have nothing to contribute to.

Question: How old were you when you decided not to be gay?

 

[TBDude65]

We have something we can agree on; it's a mutation. Personally, I have nothing against a homosexual person, you are what you are. But as another poster pointed out, as for the human race, it's a dead end journey that adds nothing to our future.
-

This is an exceptionally short-sighted opinion that presumes that only the ability to reproduce adds benefit to humanity. Sexual reproduction isn't the only way people contribute to the benefit and survival of our species.

 

[Speedwell]

so you can claim it for any fossil that will find in the wrong place.

Here is where you run into difficulties from not having any background in the science you are arguing about.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA how a scientist would make a decision like that.

 

[curiouskay]

they are watching us right now

smile -

 

[HitchSlap]

they are watching us right now

smile -

Question: How old were you when you chose not to be gay?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if the first mammal is date about 150 my, then a finding of a 155 my mammal fossil will falsified evolution?

No, pushing the date back only 5 more million years in no way falsified evoltuion.

so you can claim it for any fossil that will find in the wrong place.

A Precambrian Bunny Rabbit could not be explained.

 

[Gene2memE]

Considerable evidence means; there are leading indicators of, a supposition, for lack of any “found” facts, it’s a maybe

No. Considerable evidence means there is strong but not overwhelming support for the hypothesis - in this case that genetics form a part of the basis in determining human sexual orientation.

Unless you just like lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender folks and being associated with one you are considered one of them even if you are just a friend with no direct contact whatsoever.

Huh? That's just bizarre.

I'm in an office right now. To my immediate left is a gay (Muslim) man. One row of desks over from me is another gay man, and sitting besides him is a bisexual woman. I also have some LGB extended family and have a few long term friendships with gay and lesbian men and women.

None of that association, whether professional, personal or familial, means that I'm "considered one of them".

No comment except to say you have not provided that one’s preference towards same sex individuals is nothing more than a fondness’, likeness, a carrying for a fellow human being; i.e. very close friends.

You do realise that fondness and friendship towards people is not the same as sexual attraction. Don't you? Those are two fundamentally different things.

There are plenty of gay men I'm friends with, but it doesn't mean I'm attracted to them. I'm just not wired that way.

There is nothing wrong with liking your neighbor of either sex. No laws broken.

Sure. Neighbours can be nice people and even friends (or more than friends). But in around a third of all countries world wide, having same-sex attraction to your neighbour and then acting on that attraction IS illegal.

Do you think that being attracted to people of the same sex and acting on that attraction should be illegal?

This is a topic I have nothing to contribute to.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Unless you just like lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender folks and being associated with one you are considered one of them even if you are just a friend with no direct contact whatsoever.

Statistically, it's pretty likely that one of your friends or colleagues is one of the LGBT community; probably undeclared, judging from your posts on the subject.