Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,195 Year: 5,452/9,624 Month: 477/323 Week: 117/204 Day: 17/16 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 5065 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 120 of 243 (312693)
05-17-2006 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2006 8:12 PM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
[content deleted]
Edited by U can call me Cookie, : posted via slip of the mouse...will post full post soon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 8:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 5065 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 121 of 243 (312699)
05-17-2006 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2006 8:12 PM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
I'm asking why they exist at all if it undermines expressed intent of natural selection.
Ok 1st off (just an observation, but)...You seem to have a fixation on natural selection (NS). NS is not the be-all and end-all of evolution (Geez...i don't know how many times i've repeated this point).
It is possible for traits that do not have a distinct advantage, to persist in populations. This may be due to the trait being selectively neutral, which would imply that it would not be selected against. Another possibility is that the trait is caused by an allele that is linked, physically, to an advantageous allele, and so is inherited on the back of the latter's selection (genetic hitchhiking).
And why wouldn't it be avoided if they have no sexual desire for members of the opposite sex??? So, homosexuals have to go against their own self-proclaimed natural desires in order to genetically survive?
Where have you been living all this time? Homosexuals in most large societies are persecuted, sometimes to the extent of death. i'd expect that only a minor proportion of them are strong enough to step out of the closet. Most will pretend to lead "normal" lives; which includes rearing a family. So yes, they do suppress their natural urges, and not necessarily to just "genetically" survive.
There is no sexual selection because ovaries don't exist in the rectum, and cunnilingus or synthetic phalluses cannot impregnate anyone. I think that sufficiently removes all doubt.
Maybe you need a primer on sexual selection (SS)...EZ might oblige you on this. I would think that there does exist the possibility of SS. There exists the idea that homosexual, or at least more effeminate, men are more suited to child rearing than those that are super masculine. Women, unless they're financially independent, choose a parner based more on their ability to raise and take care of a family. The cline that possibly exists among men, in terms of child rearing, might actually provide fertile ground for SS.
Maybe if you aligned yourself more with Mendel rather than Darwin, there might have actually been some veracity to your allegations.
Are you so certain that Mendel's and Darwin's thoughts are presently held as two opposing schools...

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 8:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 10:51 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 5065 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 123 of 243 (312707)
05-17-2006 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2006 9:09 PM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
I thought my sarcasm was going to be understood. Aside from which, if homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal occurance, couldn't we just exonerate pedophilia and beastiality under the same pretense? Should those avenues be morally acceptable if they were found to be the result of some glandular disturbance or random mutation?
If you are equating bestiality and paedophilia to homosexuality, in that they are caused by one's nature i.e. one has little control over whom one desires sexually, then maybe those that have these desires should not necessarily be judged against.
However... There is a very distinct difference between Homosexuality and the other two... In homosexual relationships there usually exists two consenting individuals. Since children and animals are arguably unable to give their informed consent, this places the acts (not the desires themselves) of paedophilia and bestiality on less stable ethical grounds.
Maybe not for discussion in this thread... but interesting nonetheless...Coffee House anybody?

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 11:06 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 5065 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 134 of 243 (313080)
05-18-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Hyroglyphx
05-17-2006 10:51 AM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
And now I have presented three instances that run counter and totally undermine the entire premise of the theory that they've been saying.
The last 20 or 30 posts have served to refute many of your claims, or at least, to provide viable and valid alternatives, totally in keeping with ToE. That you choose to ignore them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
The hilarity of it is, after the evolutionary model has been explicitly described, some have the temerity to invent theorums that implicitly run counter to the former theory.
Would you believe it...none of what i said runs counter to ToE, and in fact has been apart of the theory for most of its lifespan. Really, no "temerity" and "invention" on my part... That you do not know enough about the theory is no one's fault but your own...
That's the beauty of science... it "evolves" with the fresh garnering of knowledge.
If you don't have the physical ability to impregnate a memeber of the same sex or lack the physical ability to be impregnated by a member of the same sex, then that kind of precludes any sort advantageous or neutral trait.
Now i'm really beginnening to wonder where you've been...
Face it... Homosexuals can and do have heterosexual sex.Just because the desire is not there doesn't mean the physical ability isn't.
This level of persecution occurs in Wahhabi-friendly, Islamofascist countries. The only danger presented to the average American or European homosexual is the fear of being patronized to death.
Persecution of homosexuals occurs worldwide. Death is the extreme; many simply hide it to avoid shaming their family. Hey, even in the US...even Oprah did a show on it!
Even supposing that was true, how does this make any sense speaking from a naturalistic point of view? Evolving into homosexuals should not be the route that NS wants to go because heterosexual sex is the only way to proliferate genes
Again... They have heterosexual sex. And it has been mentioned by someone else, you don't need to pass on your genes, when your brother or sister can do it for you...
And why would nature need more women to rear children when the majority of species are female? Why would nature need for a male to be effeminate so they can be more affective at child rearing.
You clearly have no idea what sexual selection is. Either that, or you're sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La la la!"
The selection factor here is what women want...someone to take care of a family.
We're talking about homosexuals, not the normal and average people
Still applies....
I guess that would depend on who is asking the question.
And whether or not they know anything about the subjects?

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 5065 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 135 of 243 (313084)
05-18-2006 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
05-17-2006 11:06 AM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
Yeah, maybe homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, and rape is just an instance of a person expressing their normal and natural biological urges. I mean, for us to get mad about our children being raped is as valid as getting angry at someone born with blue eyes. There's no need to think of it as some squalid aberration, but rather embrace these notions with an abundance of smootches and huggles.
My post was very clear in what it said... and it was not the above.
Biology and ethics don't mix. Since there are alot of pedophiles out there, is it the product of biological evolution or the product of some reprehensible minds?
That you choose to mangle my words, and dismiss the qualification of my point with an arguably baseless assertion, is very telling on your part...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024