i like how he said in the beginning he gets a thrill on the mystery of science, and not knowing, then later on, towards the end, he talks of how he hates the idea that anything is possible in a supposed infinite number of universes, via string theory. kinda ironic, i happen to find that whole anything possible thing to make sense, thru the cosmic natural selection idea he also touched on.
Well while you lot have been twittering on with your pseudo science I made a proper video response... it might not get approved by the channel owner but that doesn't matter because I have to update it anyway and at least it's on-topic :P
It must come as a shock to both atheists and christians to learn they are wrong and that the intelligent desingner is designing the universe from within and not without.
@MsPerduta No, what comes as as shock to this non-christian, non-atheist is that someone could produce such a pile of garbage and believe it constitutes an argument of some sort. I initially thought you were just having a joke due the comments here, but now I see you seriously mean it. Whatever the merits of the idea of internal design, your video was not a very good ambassador for it.
I wanted my video to be no more than 5 minutes because I didn't think anyone would watch for that long even, I'm a noob at making videos and have no talents.
If you expect perfection you will always be disappointed.
@MsPerduta If you're going to string together disconnected chunks of video then at least add a narration/ subtitles to clarify what you're saying. To me it looks like a nebulous claim for a designer tacked on to some "staggering" physical facts which induce awe. Then we, the awestruck, are shown, in the rapture of our awe, images of a mysterious woman. And thus via mere juxtaposition in our giddy moments, rather than through any actual thought, we come to see one in the other.
The intelligence of the designer resides in what is being designed. We can easily see this in evolution: It is the living that make all the intelligent decisions how to survive...
@MsPerduta You say, "The intelligence of the designer resides in what is being designed. We can easily see this in evolution: It is the living that make all the intelligent decisions how to survive..."
That is your opinion and should be qualified as such. If not an opinion, then your concept needs to expand so as to make it definable.
Of course what you say is true, and of course what you say is false. Perhaps DNA could be seen as a designer, but that's a stretch.
Gentlemen, I have to go. You may notice that in some of my posts I agree with some facets of what each of you say. Once again, a civil conversation has been enjoyable.
I could tell by your tone/words that you are not advocating anti-gay. Most people who can construct a sentence are not anti-gay, anti-black, or anti- any other thing that does not impact them, their friends or their society.
In the United States, we have very vocal groups that are actively trying to bring religion into education. I am opposed to that. The groups trying to bring religion into the schools are 99% non-Catholic, non-Mormon Christians. Catholics and Mormons have their own schools.
@jimnpatcavell I don't think anyone is denying that homosexuals sometimes have children. The point was that they probably (almost certainly) have less children on average that heterosexual people.
@DJockovic1 In modern Western countries where homosexuality is accepted, there is a growing tendency for homosexual couples to live together and consequently not to have children. From my understanding, when homosexuality was not accepted, I feel sure that many people married and had children for the sake of "respectability". In the modern/Western world, I agree with your position that heterosexual people have more children and furthermore that the proportion is increasing.
@jimnpatcavell Not that it really matters anyway, because the original point was that an anti-gay morality is easily derived from evolution. An important caveat being that this does not mean you can't derive a pro-gay morality as well. In fact, you can derive anything from it at all. Just look at evolutionary psychology.
Contd. Approximately 1 in 25 adults of European origin carry the cystic fibrosis gene. In round figures, this means that one in every 625 marriages would result in both parents carrying the gene. As the gene is recessive, it means that only one in four of their offspring would have CF. Until very recently, the children died in a very early age and never reproduced. My niece died of cystic fibrosis when she was 12 years old. Approximately 1 in 2500 children of European parents are born with CF.
Until very recently,until very recently, people born with Cystic Fibrosis, CF, died at a very early age and consequently could not reproduce. I posted the following yesterday. This does not prove nor am I suggesting that homosexuality is a result of a recessive gene. However, it does offer an alternate potential line of research. (Continued)
I was raised a Christian both. I was always in trouble with the teachers; priest and my parents for questioning the bible. I was told ‘don’t ask questions boy just accept the word of god’. Well this just made me want to find out more as they seemed to either not know the answer or were hiding something. I did my research and was an atheist by the age of 16. This resulted in my Farther disowning me as a ‘godless pagan’ and not speaking to me from that day to this.
@HappyandAtheist Let's imagine everything you say is true. What does that have to do with me and my children and your desire to remove them from my care?
Rofl. These comments are hilarious. Just a load of dumbasses writing fancy equations to try and masturbate their ego's and make themselves think that they are intelligent scientists or something.
lots of self proclaimed expert in all kinds of fields, while watching a real expert lecture... lol there is a community for people that doesn't like technologies/science.. think they're called the Amish people.. you should look it up or just stfu and take notes from Krauss.
I'm hearing about the universe, everyone else seems to be hearing about biological evolution, child abuse and homosexuality. I must have missed something somewhere.
Why don't YOU and your buddies go spam up some pseudo religious morality forum. Your attempts to link your amateurish philosophy to quantum physics via evolution are utterly pathetic. The only good thing that can come from your verbal vomits here is that youtube might realize we channels need facilities to exclude spammers.
@MsPerduta You're the one complaining. And nobody is attempting to link philosophy, amateurish or otherwise, to quantum physics via evolution. We are discussing the social consequences of certain forms of atheism on this atheist channel with an atheist speaker giving a talk to a group of atheists about, amongst other things, atheism. Now, as Michael Winner put it, calm down dear.
Lawrence Krauss is an expert in physics and cosmology not in atheology, sociology, or evolution. The video is about the origin and end of the universe from the point of view of physics and cosmology. You should watch it one day and actually listen to what he he has to say rather than hearing what you want.
Regarding atheism the only relevance is that according to physics and cosmology it is possible for the universe not to have needed an external creator.
@MsPerduta I know all that. But the wider context of the talk means it is reasonable to discuss atheism in general. Anyway, check out an article on the web called 'One Day They Were Simply Gone', and see if you can assess the tremendous impact the termite argument would have had. And since that's that, that's that.
@DJockovic1 You said, "We are discussing the social consequences of certain forms of atheism on this atheist channel with an atheist speaker giving a talk to a group of atheists."
The social consequences are not relevant to this channel. Why?
Watch it, and if you don't see that, watch it again and again and again...
@scienceandmusiclover I have watched it and I saw enough to see that the social consequences are very relevant. Krauss, for example, seems to be adopting a nihilistic philosophy which has very far reaching consequences for society if it were to be adopted more widely. I'm not sure we should start hauling babes from their mother's arms if they refuse to subscribe that that nonsense.
@scienceandmusiclover He does, but he says a good few other things as well. He is also introduced by R. Dawkins, and the talk is sponsored by RDF, which is basically a pressure group promoting intolerance. In this was Krauss lends his science to a morally odious organisation and, as far as I can see from the things he says, he supports the odious moral doctrine of that organisation. I therefore think it is wholly appropriate to discuss such issues here.
@sjatox I'm not saying evolution has an anti-gay morality. I said it is very easy to see how someone might derive such a moral code through an (mis)application of evolutionary theory. I also see you still haven't explained your desire to remove children from their parent's house if the parents tell them about a God of universal and unconditional love.
@sjatox No it's not true. And I'm not trying to swipe you off, I'm asking, for the 100th time, who are you to determine what people tell their children under penalty of having them removed from their care. You say you don't support this but you do, how else would you deal with persistant child abusers.
@sjatox The official US State Department position is that there are approximately 300,000 non-Muslims (mainly Christians) living in Iran.
The best Iranian vodka was made by a company called Ittehadia, a Jewish company. I suspect that this company no longer exists because of its association with vodka rather than being run by Jews.
But you would teach your kids about allah if you had been born in Iran - a wrong god that you shall be killed for believing in.
God cares where we are born? He has favourite countries?
Tell children how flowers grow, how the tide works, how to fix a car - not that they shall respect and love a man who will toture them if they do not.
@sjatox But you have been arguing for hours now that I would be abusing my children if I tell them something different from your uninformed view. Don't tell me the whole point of your argument is simply that you want to call me names! That is, if you really mean it about abuse then we all know what must follow. This is the point you refuse to discuss and insetad just keep launching into yet another ill-informed attack on religion.
@sjatox In general, I agree with the concept although I do not agree with the example that you have given, namely Iran. I have lived in Iran (more than 40 years ago) and non-Muslims (Iranian born members/participants of what comes close to the Greek Orthodox Church) are freely accepted. Saudi Arabia is far less tolerant and would probably be a better example for your statement.
If the universe is made by god - then the universe is made by a being that tells us what to do and what to think. Constantly making sure that we do as he has told us to.
Otherwise we must forever suffer.
Now that is crazy talk - and to tell children that it is how things are, is a form of psycological abuse - they ought to present it as a story - not an absolute truth.
@1spiders1 It is a fact, it seems to me, that anti-gay sentiments follow very easily from any morality based on evolutionary theory. That is, it's not at all difficult to see how such views could be justified by recourse to what's natural, and what's "fit" to (be allowed to) survive.
Homosexuality is a natural response to over population.
It is not only benign but actually beneficial to survival as it allows more productive people to contribute to society while consuming fewer resources for child care. I think you are jumping to conclusions as well as way off-topic.
@DJockovic1 But, evolutionary theory would say that gay people will die out simply because they're not reproducing. So all we have to do is leave them alone and they'll disappear without any interaction from us whatsoever. People that don't reproduce are obviously not the fittest and will die out because of evolution.
@Cheapo15 You could say that, but it's also easy to see how what you've already said is offensive enough. Leave them alone and they might die out! The point is that you've already derived a negative view, and all you're now concerned about now is the precise method of extermination - natural or assisted.
@DJockovic1 No. What I said has absolutely nothing of person opinion in it. It is simple fact. Not, they "might" die out. They will. You don't reproduce, when you die, that's the end. I have gay friends, of both sexes, and happen to like them very much. You can actually talk to them more easily about certain things than you can to anybody else. That doesn't change the fact that when they die with no children, their line ends utterly and completely.
@Cheapo15 You are missing the point. The point is that it's easy to derive antigay morality from evolution. It has been done. It's easy to derive a lot of odious moralities from evolution. Anything deemed unfit get's the chop, for example. It was tried a little while ago in Germany (and in the US to a lesser extent).
'It's easy to derive anti-gay morality from evolution'.
Uhm..?.
Your point regarding Darwinism as immoral is interesting, and correct.
But, how on earth does evolution in any sense support an anti-gay position?. Homophobia actually has a quite reasonable explanation. Sexual competition between heterosexual tactics for reproduction and homosexual 'sneakier' tactics.
@bluesrockfan36 I'm not saying Darwinism is immoral. I am saying lots of horrible moral views can be derived from it (have been derived from it) with ease. All you need to do is spin some yarn about survival of the fittest and about our duty to preserve the "fit" and limit reproduction of the "less fit" so not to weaken the species, and all manner of prejudices suddenly seem to have scientific support. I'm not saying this right, in fact I'm saying it's wrong, but it is easy done.
Indeed I agree, Darwinism is nature, nature is not subject to our notions of right and wrong, which mind you is a great argument against a 'loving' God. There is nothing 'wrong' about the parasite who eats the eye from within causing excruciating pain.
But to say homosexuals are not reproductively fit, when statistically they're very good at reproduction, even better than heterosexuals as long as their population stays smalls (under 10%), is not very accurate.
@bluesrockfan36 I'm perfectly happy to believe that gay people have more sex or sex with more partners than straight people, but that's a far cry from claiming that their reproductive fitness is as high. That is, most gay sexual encounters, as far as I am aware, have very little chance of being reproductively succesful. Given that last fact, my original point stands. That is, from facts like these one could eaily derive an anti-gay morality.
Not only do they have more sexual encounters, with a wider range of mates, but they're also more socially apt than their heterosexual counterparts.
You can find a mathematical, statistical point, where these heterosexual encounters, by homosexual individuals surpass both in frequency and range than those of heterosexual individuals.
Keep in mind that what comes into play for adaptability is the range of different mates, not the frequency of encounters with a single mate.
It is proven, that homosexuals are quite reproductively adaptive, even surpassing their heterosexual counterparts, when their population (to maximize opposite sex encounters) is below 10%, usually 7-6% ish.
After that, they lose their reproductive advantage over heterosexuals, which is a nice explanation why across the cultures, homosexuality stays in that range.
It does not provide an explanation or derivation for an anti-gay morality at all.
@bluesrockfan36 There is a very straigtforward measure of reproductive fitness and that's how many children you have. Now, I simply do not believe that on average gay people have more children that straight people. If it is true then tell me the average reproduction rates for for the two groups and tell me where you got the stats.
@MsPerduta People aren't termites. There's no way you're going to derail an ardent homophobic movement fuelled by "science" with talk of termites. You are mistaking how convining you find your own argument for a convincing argument. And you are forgetting all the interplay of factors that goes into people being convinced by an argument. Thus it is easy to see how evolution could be used to prop up a anti-gay stance.
Try thinking about 3rd world countries where women have an average of 13 children and then consider whether their survival as a community might be enhanced if a larger proportion of the men were gay.
@MsPerduta I'm not advocating an anti-gay morality based on evolution. I'm just saying it is easy to see how a certain reading of evolution could be used to prop up an anti-gay stance. It's already been done, and I didn't see anyone raise the termite or third world country objections, and if they did, they had little effect unsurprisingly.
@MsPerduta I've said about five times that I am NOT deriving my morality from science. I am simply pointing out how easy it is (read the article) to derive abhorrent moral principles from evolution. To continue to miss this point so many times seems to me to be only possible if deliberate. And with that, I bid you a goodnight. Read the article if you don't believe me, and if you want facts, as opposed to your airy pronouncements.
I'm not saying that on average gay or in a better term, bisexuals have more children than heterosexuals. Again it depends on the population, if they're around 7-6% then yes, otherwise in order for the population remain constant they must reproduce more.
The condition that must be satisfied, to account for the fact that the homosxual/bisexual population remain constant is a differential equation:
T*/T = Log(M*)/Log(M) is an interesting equation, and I have not seen it as applied here, but in itself, as presented here, is not a differential equation.
Perhaps a differential equation was solved elsewhere and this was a particular or general solution.
Don't you think the maths are a bit superfluous if it hasn't yet been established to what degree the phenomenon is hereditary? Homosexuality may be able to come from nothing due to quantum fluctuations... it could even result in a big gang bang :O
@bluesrockfan36 I am confused. You posted 1) @scienceandmusiclover lmao :D N was supposed to be constant actually *troll troll*:D You posted 2) @bluesrockfan36 trivial, absolutely trivial the ODE ist dN/dt = rN You posted 3) @scienceandmusiclover assuming that r=const. .... I didn't say that r was constant, did I? You appear to change your mind in your posts. Is post 1) correct or not? Is N a variable or not? Is post 3) correct or not? Is r a constant or a variable? How does r vary?
A first strand of sickle cell anemia helps fight malaria, two strands is deadly. It will still propagate this gene, since it's cost/beneficial for the population to do so.
Cysitc fibrosis helps against diarrheal illnesses, which is a quite common symptom for several diseases.
The carriers of CF do not have enough abnormal chloride channels to be detrimental, enabling them to more successfully combat, say cholera.
But this comes at a certain price as you've noticed.
dN/dt implying the rate of change over time. It's more accurately posited as N(t)/d(t).
Actually it is written as (d/dt) of N. At least it is in the college where I teach advanced Calculus and Physics. Some places may use different symbols.
In the UK, the symbol/letter " j " is used to represent √-1.
In the US, the symbol/letter " i " is used to represent √-1.
You write the correct form of the differential equation, for population growth (the very same one I written without the derivatives of the N function).
Then you say it's not a differential equation, and call me an idiot?. Wow.
You're also not accounting for the fact, that it involves two populations not one.
dN/dt = N(t)
r = M^t
M = N(0)
Get it now?.
Small advice, stop calling people idiots when you display such qualities of ignorance yourself.
@bluesrockfan36 lol:D haha. Well the point is that you have written the solution of the ODE, which is by no means a differential equation, but a function ok? do you understand that? and no I don't get it, are you talking about a system of coupled differential equations? where is the second population? M is constant ;) (trivial)
Yup, the solution is not a differential equation, but rather a function, I think I said that.
What I posted anyways, is not the solution to the differential equation, but the division of two solutions (constant population overall) in the same period of time. T*/T = log(M*)/log(M).
The only manner in which I can see a solution to your T*/T = log(M*)/log(M) formula would be for the time rate change of M to be directly proportional to M; therefore dM/dt=kM, where k is constant. Thus ∫1/M dM = ln(M) = kT+c. IF c=o, and one also wanted M’, then ln(M')=kT'.
Dividing would cancel k and leave T'/T=log(M' )/log(M). (Note: ln = log to base e)
I am not implying any opinion as to the usefulness of the formula, just solving the math.
From that equation you can deduce, the reproductive rate of bisexuals/homosexuals:
If say heterosexuals have 4 children, and bisexuals have 2 in a given time T, then:
Log(2)/Log(4) = 0.5. This implies they must reproduce the same (amount of children) on a time T* which 50% of time T. In order to maintain a constant population.
There's more about the subject if you're interested in Robin Baker's site.
@bluesrockfan36 I understand the equation and the implication.
But i see one mistake. It assumes that bisexuals can only come from bisexual parents. But that is not the case. Heterosexual offspring simply has a probability of being Homosexual/bisexual. So i don´t see how you equation helps describing this effect.
Yes you're correct, it doesn't account for several factors, after all we don't quite know where sexuality is entirely genetic, and what type of genes intervene in it.
It's just a mathematical explanation that disproves the notion that homosexuals and bisexuals don't reproduce.
After all their population is somewhat constant across cultures.
@bluesrockfan36 Imagine the number of people with tattoos remains relatively constant. Does that mean that people with tattoos are succesfully reproducing or just that some people like getting tattoos?
That really is entirely nonsensical. But in sense true.
If you assume that people who get tattoos do so, as a tactic to appeal to the opposite sex and gain sexual favor in exchange, then that tactic would propagate over populations.
But in the core of your argument, you're saying that there is no genetic component for homosexuality/bisexuality. What makes you think that sexuality, the prime reason for reproduction is not adaptive?.
@bluesrockfan36 You are missing the point. Your whole argument rests on the idea that homosexuals have homosexual children and so the continuing existence of homosexuality must be explained through the reproduction rates of homsexuals. That is complete fantasy and there is no need to go down that route at all. Similarly, there may be a genetic component to liking tattoss (who knows) but there is no need for such a herditary component to explain the tattoo rate.
No, my whole argument does not depend on homosexuals having homosexual children.
That's a straw man fallacy.
My argument rests on the adaptability of homosexual behavior. This means, that homosexuals/bisexuals propagate the genetic predispositions for their behavior across the population. It may be direct, it may be indirect jumping some generations even.
But they do propagate.
Claiming that something as important as sexuality is simply a 'cultural' thing is nonsense.
@bluesrockfan36 I didn't claim it was a cultural thing. I said we don't need to go down your route at all. And your route had better have been about the reproductive prowess of homosexuals or else what was the point of even raising it. In fact, what was the point of rasing it anyway? How does it in any way effect my argument that you can derive anti-gay morality from evo? It doesn't.
The evidence is pretty conclusive that homosexuals/bisexuals reproduce, at high enough rates to be even competitive, or out compete heterosexuals given their population.
So... if homosexuality/bisexuality was adaptive, how can you possibly derive an anti-gay morality from evolution, under the premises of being non-adaptive?.
@bluesrockfan36 What evidence do you have that homosexuals outcompete heterosexuals other than you circular argument based on the assumption of heredity? And you miss the point of my argument about what can be derived from evo. The fact of the matter is that such a morality has already been derived from evo. That pretty much leaves you with nothing to say.
They do not out-compete heterosexuals, not unless their population falls below the statistical average observed consistently across cultures, then the math comes in.
There are several studies regarding this issue, just google search for articles, hundreds come up: evolutionary psychology homosexuality. They provide much better sources than what I can write in youtube.
No, such morality has not been derived from evolution. It has been derived out of ignorance of evolution.
@bluesrockfan36 Maths only comes into it i you make the erroneus heredity assumption. If you don't make that assumption then you don't need to indulge in the fantasy notion that men who find the idea of sex with women repugnant are doing it (like rabbits) to get their numbers up. And nobody said the morality was valid, nor that it was "correctly" derived or well thought through. That's why I say you are missing the point. And that's what makes you nonsense irrelevant.
Wow, do you always argue using so many straw man fallacies?. I suggest you go over my posts and read them again. I'd hate having to repeat myself.
Sexual behavior is hereditary, I'm not implying it's easily genetically explained, but nevertheless it's the most important hereditary behavior of them all.
The only other alternative, is that sexual behavior is cultural and completely independent of genetics.
@bluesrockfan36 There are a host of other options. Imagine a gene linked to outrageous fertility in women also produced a 50% homosexual rate in male children. Then not a single gay man ever need have sex with a woman and still there would be plenty gay men around.
It's easy to imagine things without evidence, sooner and later you end up in religion.
But if we entertain this notion of yours (completely fallacious though) then by definition homosexuality is adaptive. Given that it adapts through female fertility, homosexuality is 'good' as it pertains to thew whole of the species.
Can't draw an anti-gay morality.
'Not a single gay man'
That's not what we observe either in humans nor nature.
@bluesrockfan36 Firstly, I thought you would say that, that's why I ciited a recent scientific study which suggested exactly that. The reasearch suggests that the female siblings of gay men tend to have more children than average and so the "gay" gene is favoured even though many of the men with it have less children that average.
With regard to the other stuff, you are simply not listening to what I have said. And you are misquoting horribly.
@DJockovic1 I do so hope that you did not think I was serious. Obviously, some recessive genes have found a way to continue. Or, they would not be with us today.
@bluesrockfan36 please see my post regarding how CF is still with us today even though people with CF never had children.
@jimnpatcavell I knew, because there would have been no reason for you to come up with that seriously. I mean, what are the chances that you would pick just the wrong thing to say.
I think I should also make clear that I am not advocating an anti-gay morality for anyone reading this discussion who thinks I might be. Not in the slightest, I find such a morality repugnant.
@bluesrockfan36 Or say homosexuality resulted from a very specific timing of certain hormone during preganacy but that there was only a 1 in 10 chance of it happening just the right way to produce a homsexual. Again, no gay person ever need have sex witjh a member of the opposite sex and yet still 1 in 10 people would be gay.
I suspect you don't know what a strawman is. You said that homosexuals outcompete heterosexuals when thir numbers are down.
The key part of your obvious straw man statement was:
'men who find the idea of sex with a woman repugnant'.
See it again?. You're talking about the extreme cases of homosexuality (incredibly low statistically), and expanding it to cover the whole of the homosexual/bisexual community.
@bluesrockfan36 You brought in bisexuality first. I never intended to refer to that at all. Secondly, lot's of gay men find the thought of sex with women repugnant.
That's simple observable fact. Pure homosexuality is statistically rare. How would you know if there are plenty of men who find sex with a woman repugnant?. Did you subject them to MRI's?. There's a difference between sexual arousal, and repugnance.
'Is Down syndrome adaptive'
A red herring now?.
I'm sure you can find out the reasons and explanations for this.
Does their population stay constant across cultures and time?.
@bluesrockfan36 Now you're just scrambling around spouting any old rubbish. The simple fact is that the number of homosexuals is not directly linked or even linked strongly with the number of homosexual people having children. Nobody except you thinks that. And you now have three examples of things clearly detrimental to "fitness" which probably have maintained a fairly constant rate. CF, Down''s syndrome, and hemophilia. There is therefore no reason to buy your fantasy tale.
Uhm, M, in the equation I wrote can very well be the number of children they have or the propagation rate of the genomes.
Either way, it holds.
As for the 'counter examples' I suggest you read my post to Jimnpatcavell.
They do not disprove natural sexual selection. Yes they're detrimental, but why, are they recessive genes, do they benefit certain populations as a whole?.
@DJockovic1 "“You can derive anything from it at all. Just look at evolutionary psychology" that’s a good point it’s a genius idea, it can stop start from where ever it chooses and whenever it wants, it can be retracted or extended, its just a brilliantly worded story it only requires more words, it’s just a fairy tale with scientific vocab.
And easily disproved given how it's present in all cultures and across history, and very prevalent in the animal kingdom as well.
If homosexuality/bisexuality wasn't adaptive, it would've died out when it first presented itself
That's my point
Non-adaptive behaviors and genetic predispositions tend to die out very quickly
The tattoo analogy is a very poor one, since you need to provide statistical evidence for it's uniformity across cultures. Then we can talk about adaptability
@bluesrockfan36 But the reason homosexuality hasn't died out has nothing to do with how many gay people have children. That's my point. That is, even if no gay person ever had a child homosexuality would still be alive and well. And that defeats your intial argument which was that homosexuals (not simply genes they share with heterosexuals) out-compete hetrerosexuals when their numbers are low. That is rubbish. They don't. And how would they know anyway - advanced gaydar?
'if no gay person ever had a child homosexuality would still be alive and well'
That may be the case, but we really don't know.
We do know however, from ethoecological studies of primates and birds that homosexuals do reproduce, even those who display 'strict homosexuality'.
The argument I gave you was a statistical one. In order for the population to remain constantly uniform statistically across cultures, that must occur.
As funny as the gaydar hypothesis is, it does not occur that way.
You're thinking too individualistically, instead of population wise.
If say there were 2 homosexuals in the entire world, chances are... their sexual encounters would be mainly with heterosexuals. Given the ease of social adaptability they have in comparison to heterosexuals, they will out compete them.
If the homosexual population was 40%... then it would drastically lower their reproductive rate.
@bluesrockfan36 I read something some time ago the genes don’t have anything to do with being gay and the matter is disputed and it is weak opinion lacking evidence and that it is simply a choice.
@bluesrockfan36 You say pederrasty seldom included active homosexuality and then you say you have no good statistics. You are just making it up as you go along.
Do you think there is any X which can be derived as morally wrong through evolution? If so, what?
Natural and sexual selection tends to have check and balances to prevent 'evolutionary stupid behaviors' from arising.
If it was culturally accepted to amputate your leg... those people would tend to die out fairly quickly
Even if you assume the premise that it's not genetic at all (which is not really the case), it most definitively affects the propagation of the genes of those who display such behavior
Evolution, hardly ever opts for the suicidal approach to genetic propagation
@bluesrockfan36 1. I love the way you're now citing the female fertility explanation as part of your well-informed argument, when only a few hours ago you told me it was "completely fallacious" when you thought it was a "notion" of mine.
2. If evolution really does favour homosexuality, as you suggest, then it must be easy to derive an anti-hetero morality from evolution.
1. I was being generous with you in order to demonstrate how the point still stands in spite of that arguement. I never once agreed with it, and the notion that there's a gene that increases female fertility but causes 50% chance of producing homosexual offspring, is beyond ridiculous and fallacious.
2. It's easy to derive an 'anti-hetero'.
Nonsense, false dichotomy much?.
What makes you think heterosexuality is not also favored by nature?. They're separate reproductive strategies.
@bluesrockfan36 So they are favoured absolutely and exactly the same amount? I mean, if one was even slightly more beneficial then in virtue of that fact alone the other must be slightly detrimental by comparison. It seems are you are arguing in reverse order from what you want to be the case to the biologial details rather than vice versa.
You're not showing understanding of evolution nor the equation I posited. First you can't compare degrees of natural 'favor' to draw any type of morality.
Cancer resistant genes are favored slower than cancer predispositional genes... hence we must be for cancer?.
Secondly, go read my equation:
If homosexuals are in number, on their balance statistical point (around 10%) they're equally favored.
If they're below they're more favored, if they're over, less
@bluesrockfan36 I understand that if something is a higher productivity strategy than another then that other is a lower productivity strategy than the first.Thus unless they are identically succesful, we can say that an anti-that one morality can be derived for one from evo.
No it cannot. You're assuming evolution to be static system instead of the dynamic one that it is.
Are you saying that if the population of homosexuals/bisexuals is below 6-7% (when they're more reproductive successful), then it's correct to draw an anti-heterosexual position?. You really aren't making any sense at all.
They're different strategies, you cannot compare them. How many liters are there in a mile?.
@bluesrockfan36 And you were the one who brought up the point that there should be little variation across cultures, but when I showed you variation across cultures, you said it was wrong to compare cultures. How else can we test the variation across cultures without comparing them? You are just making it up. You are saying any old thing.
@bluesrockfan36 If your point is that no moral judgement of anything, eg, genocide, blowing up the entire world etc, is possible from an evolutionary standpoint then why not just say that rather than making up fanciful statistics as if it made a blind bit of difference what the statistics say. That is, if we cannot derive anything ever from evo then what difference do the staistics make?
i like how he said in the beginning he gets a thrill on the mystery of science, and not knowing, then later on, towards the end, he talks of how he hates the idea that anything is possible in a supposed infinite number of universes, via string theory. kinda ironic, i happen to find that whole anything possible thing to make sense, thru the cosmic natural selection idea he also touched on.
who's with me?
patrickcummins79 10 hours ago
Richard Dawkings looks high as fuck.
guyonthebenchful 12 hours ago
Well while you lot have been twittering on with your pseudo science I made a proper video response... it might not get approved by the channel owner but that doesn't matter because I have to update it anyway and at least it's on-topic :P
MsPerduta 17 hours ago
@MsPerduta I sincerely hope that last comment, and your video, was a joke. Talk about pseudoscience.
DJockovic1 17 hours ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 17 hours ago
@DJockovic1
I do understand.
It must come as a shock to both atheists and christians to learn they are wrong and that the intelligent desingner is designing the universe from within and not without.
MsPerduta 13 hours ago
@MsPerduta
what every you are smoking please stop
HappyandAtheist 12 hours ago
@MsPerduta No, what comes as as shock to this non-christian, non-atheist is that someone could produce such a pile of garbage and believe it constitutes an argument of some sort. I initially thought you were just having a joke due the comments here, but now I see you seriously mean it. Whatever the merits of the idea of internal design, your video was not a very good ambassador for it.
DJockovic1 7 hours ago
@DJockovic1
Sigh - well I did try to communicate.
I wanted my video to be no more than 5 minutes because I didn't think anyone would watch for that long even, I'm a noob at making videos and have no talents.
If you expect perfection you will always be disappointed.
MsPerduta 2 hours ago
@MsPerduta If you're going to string together disconnected chunks of video then at least add a narration/ subtitles to clarify what you're saying. To me it looks like a nebulous claim for a designer tacked on to some "staggering" physical facts which induce awe. Then we, the awestruck, are shown, in the rapture of our awe, images of a mysterious woman. And thus via mere juxtaposition in our giddy moments, rather than through any actual thought, we come to see one in the other.
DJockovic1 7 hours ago
@MsPerduta I should also say I have significant sympathy with the viewpoint expressed in your video.
DJockovic1 4 hours ago
Comment removed
scienceandmusiclover 2 hours ago
@DJockovic1
thanks :)
The intelligence of the designer resides in what is being designed. We can easily see this in evolution: It is the living that make all the intelligent decisions how to survive...
MsPerduta 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsPerduta You say, "The intelligence of the designer resides in what is being designed. We can easily see this in evolution: It is the living that make all the intelligent decisions how to survive..."
That is your opinion and should be qualified as such. If not an opinion, then your concept needs to expand so as to make it definable.
Of course what you say is true, and of course what you say is false. Perhaps DNA could be seen as a designer, but that's a stretch.
scienceandmusiclover 2 hours ago
Comment removed
scienceandmusiclover 17 hours ago
Comment removed
scienceandmusiclover 17 hours ago
Oops stepped on the convo sorry.
Sure is quiet around here. Hmmm have this funny feeling.
ElysianFields100 18 hours ago
Gentlemen, I have to go. You may notice that in some of my posts I agree with some facets of what each of you say. Once again, a civil conversation has been enjoyable.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
I could tell by your tone/words that you are not advocating anti-gay. Most people who can construct a sentence are not anti-gay, anti-black, or anti- any other thing that does not impact them, their friends or their society.
In the United States, we have very vocal groups that are actively trying to bring religion into education. I am opposed to that. The groups trying to bring religion into the schools are 99% non-Catholic, non-Mormon Christians. Catholics and Mormons have their own schools.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jim McGreevey, the ex-Governor of New Jersey has two children, both girls, and is an admitted homosexual. Homosexuals do reproduce.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell I don't think anyone is denying that homosexuals sometimes have children. The point was that they probably (almost certainly) have less children on average that heterosexual people.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DJockovic1 In modern Western countries where homosexuality is accepted, there is a growing tendency for homosexual couples to live together and consequently not to have children. From my understanding, when homosexuality was not accepted, I feel sure that many people married and had children for the sake of "respectability". In the modern/Western world, I agree with your position that heterosexual people have more children and furthermore that the proportion is increasing.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell Not that it really matters anyway, because the original point was that an anti-gay morality is easily derived from evolution. An important caveat being that this does not mean you can't derive a pro-gay morality as well. In fact, you can derive anything from it at all. Just look at evolutionary psychology.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Contd. Approximately 1 in 25 adults of European origin carry the cystic fibrosis gene. In round figures, this means that one in every 625 marriages would result in both parents carrying the gene. As the gene is recessive, it means that only one in four of their offspring would have CF. Until very recently, the children died in a very early age and never reproduced. My niece died of cystic fibrosis when she was 12 years old. Approximately 1 in 2500 children of European parents are born with CF.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Until very recently,until very recently, people born with Cystic Fibrosis, CF, died at a very early age and consequently could not reproduce. I posted the following yesterday. This does not prove nor am I suggesting that homosexuality is a result of a recessive gene. However, it does offer an alternate potential line of research. (Continued)
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Non-existent supernatural rubbish , the same as god.
HappyandAtheist 1 day ago
@kkkeldav
I was raised a Christian both. I was always in trouble with the teachers; priest and my parents for questioning the bible. I was told ‘don’t ask questions boy just accept the word of god’. Well this just made me want to find out more as they seemed to either not know the answer or were hiding something. I did my research and was an atheist by the age of 16. This resulted in my Farther disowning me as a ‘godless pagan’ and not speaking to me from that day to this.
HappyandAtheist 1 day ago
@HappyandAtheist Let's imagine everything you say is true. What does that have to do with me and my children and your desire to remove them from my care?
DJockovic1 1 day ago
wow i must be smart to have gotten all that except the meaning of
perspicacity and (fa-she-sis-t).
lazzerbear 1 day ago
Rofl. These comments are hilarious. Just a load of dumbasses writing fancy equations to try and masturbate their ego's and make themselves think that they are intelligent scientists or something.
ChainsawVsGod 1 day ago
It's so funneh to read all crazy comments xD
lots of self proclaimed expert in all kinds of fields, while watching a real expert lecture... lol there is a community for people that doesn't like technologies/science.. think they're called the Amish people.. you should look it up or just stfu and take notes from Krauss.
icchiism 1 day ago
That's talking, not taking, by the wat.
dm1121ww 1 day ago
Can't you guys start taking by email or texting??????
dm1121ww 1 day ago
I'm hearing about the universe, everyone else seems to be hearing about biological evolution, child abuse and homosexuality. I must have missed something somewhere.
dm1121ww 1 day ago
@dm1121ww
+1 I totally agree :) We can't get any insights here into the origins of the universe because people keep blathering on about morality issues
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta Why not join a physics forum if this place bothers you so much?
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
I've got a better idea.
Why don't YOU and your buddies go spam up some pseudo religious morality forum. Your attempts to link your amateurish philosophy to quantum physics via evolution are utterly pathetic. The only good thing that can come from your verbal vomits here is that youtube might realize we channels need facilities to exclude spammers.
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta You're the one complaining. And nobody is attempting to link philosophy, amateurish or otherwise, to quantum physics via evolution. We are discussing the social consequences of certain forms of atheism on this atheist channel with an atheist speaker giving a talk to a group of atheists about, amongst other things, atheism. Now, as Michael Winner put it, calm down dear.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Lawrence Krauss is an expert in physics and cosmology not in atheology, sociology, or evolution. The video is about the origin and end of the universe from the point of view of physics and cosmology. You should watch it one day and actually listen to what he he has to say rather than hearing what you want.
Regarding atheism the only relevance is that according to physics and cosmology it is possible for the universe not to have needed an external creator.
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta I know all that. But the wider context of the talk means it is reasonable to discuss atheism in general. Anyway, check out an article on the web called 'One Day They Were Simply Gone', and see if you can assess the tremendous impact the termite argument would have had. And since that's that, that's that.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DJockovic1 You said, "We are discussing the social consequences of certain forms of atheism on this atheist channel with an atheist speaker giving a talk to a group of atheists."
The social consequences are not relevant to this channel. Why?
Watch it, and if you don't see that, watch it again and again and again...
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
@scienceandmusiclover I have watched it and I saw enough to see that the social consequences are very relevant. Krauss, for example, seems to be adopting a nihilistic philosophy which has very far reaching consequences for society if it were to be adopted more widely. I'm not sure we should start hauling babes from their mother's arms if they refuse to subscribe that that nonsense.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DJockovic1
Your imigination runs wild.
Krauss explains a theory on how the universe may have came to be.
Whther or not humans are here today is not the point of the video.
Impact of this science would be the subject for another channel.
Many who post here loves clining to philosophy. It provides a manner to chat all day and say nothing.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
@scienceandmusiclover He does, but he says a good few other things as well. He is also introduced by R. Dawkins, and the talk is sponsored by RDF, which is basically a pressure group promoting intolerance. In this was Krauss lends his science to a morally odious organisation and, as far as I can see from the things he says, he supports the odious moral doctrine of that organisation. I therefore think it is wholly appropriate to discuss such issues here.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DJockovic1
You reveal, "RDF, which is basically a pressure group promoting intolerance."
Doesn't take long to seek out the motives behind many posts here.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
@scienceandmusiclover You're right. My motives are to fight intolerance. How naughty of me.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DJockovic1
You said, "Why not join a physics forum if this place bothers you so much?"
Are you saying that seriously?
Look at the name of the channel and the name of the video and the content of the video and get off of this physics forum.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell
They get along because they know it is best - not because of their holy book.
sjatox 1 day ago
@sjatox As a nonbeliever, allow me to say amen to that.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Then you don't know the bible.
And now you say that evolution has a non-gay morality? You are really something.
Just like the universe doesn't care about us - evolution doesn't either. It just is.
And if people are gay - well then they are not going to reproduce - simple. Most people are not gay - so therefore we keep repruducing and mutating.
sjatox 1 day ago
@sjatox I'm not saying evolution has an anti-gay morality. I said it is very easy to see how someone might derive such a moral code through an (mis)application of evolutionary theory. I also see you still haven't explained your desire to remove children from their parent's house if the parents tell them about a God of universal and unconditional love.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Ill informed???
Is it not what the bible says - yes or no. Easy question. Kill nonbelievers - stone them to death. Who wants this to be true???
You can't just swipe me off with your "ill informed" argument.
We are not the center of the universe - we are just a living species among millions of others. The most evil yes but not the most great.
sjatox 1 day ago
@sjatox No it's not true. And I'm not trying to swipe you off, I'm asking, for the 100th time, who are you to determine what people tell their children under penalty of having them removed from their care. You say you don't support this but you do, how else would you deal with persistant child abusers.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@sjatox The official US State Department position is that there are approximately 300,000 non-Muslims (mainly Christians) living in Iran.
The best Iranian vodka was made by a company called Ittehadia, a Jewish company. I suspect that this company no longer exists because of its association with vodka rather than being run by Jews.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
No i will not.
But you would teach your kids about allah if you had been born in Iran - a wrong god that you shall be killed for believing in.
God cares where we are born? He has favourite countries?
Tell children how flowers grow, how the tide works, how to fix a car - not that they shall respect and love a man who will toture them if they do not.
sjatox 1 day ago
@sjatox But you have been arguing for hours now that I would be abusing my children if I tell them something different from your uninformed view. Don't tell me the whole point of your argument is simply that you want to call me names! That is, if you really mean it about abuse then we all know what must follow. This is the point you refuse to discuss and insetad just keep launching into yet another ill-informed attack on religion.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@sjatox In general, I agree with the concept although I do not agree with the example that you have given, namely Iran. I have lived in Iran (more than 40 years ago) and non-Muslims (Iranian born members/participants of what comes close to the Greek Orthodox Church) are freely accepted. Saudi Arabia is far less tolerant and would probably be a better example for your statement.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@MsPerduta
Because they are linked.
If the universe is made by god - then the universe is made by a being that tells us what to do and what to think. Constantly making sure that we do as he has told us to.
Otherwise we must forever suffer.
Now that is crazy talk - and to tell children that it is how things are, is a form of psycological abuse - they ought to present it as a story - not an absolute truth.
sjatox 2 days ago
@sjatox And if they don't, you'll be there with the nice atheist foster parents and the prison key.
DJockovic1 2 days ago
@DJockovic1 Or even worse they will give them to gay foster parents. what happened to natural selection
1spiders1 1 day ago
@1spiders1 It is a fact, it seems to me, that anti-gay sentiments follow very easily from any morality based on evolutionary theory. That is, it's not at all difficult to see how such views could be justified by recourse to what's natural, and what's "fit" to (be allowed to) survive.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Homosexuality is a natural response to over population.
It is not only benign but actually beneficial to survival as it allows more productive people to contribute to society while consuming fewer resources for child care. I think you are jumping to conclusions as well as way off-topic.
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta You misunderstand my point. My point was that it is easy to derive anti-gay vews from a morality based on evolutionary theory.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1 But, evolutionary theory would say that gay people will die out simply because they're not reproducing. So all we have to do is leave them alone and they'll disappear without any interaction from us whatsoever. People that don't reproduce are obviously not the fittest and will die out because of evolution.
Cheapo15 1 day ago
@Cheapo15 You could say that, but it's also easy to see how what you've already said is offensive enough. Leave them alone and they might die out! The point is that you've already derived a negative view, and all you're now concerned about now is the precise method of extermination - natural or assisted.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1 No. What I said has absolutely nothing of person opinion in it. It is simple fact. Not, they "might" die out. They will. You don't reproduce, when you die, that's the end. I have gay friends, of both sexes, and happen to like them very much. You can actually talk to them more easily about certain things than you can to anybody else. That doesn't change the fact that when they die with no children, their line ends utterly and completely.
Cheapo15 1 day ago
@Cheapo15 You are missing the point. The point is that it's easy to derive antigay morality from evolution. It has been done. It's easy to derive a lot of odious moralities from evolution. Anything deemed unfit get's the chop, for example. It was tried a little while ago in Germany (and in the US to a lesser extent).
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'It's easy to derive anti-gay morality from evolution'.
Uhm..?.
Your point regarding Darwinism as immoral is interesting, and correct.
But, how on earth does evolution in any sense support an anti-gay position?. Homophobia actually has a quite reasonable explanation. Sexual competition between heterosexual tactics for reproduction and homosexual 'sneakier' tactics.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 I'm not saying Darwinism is immoral. I am saying lots of horrible moral views can be derived from it (have been derived from it) with ease. All you need to do is spin some yarn about survival of the fittest and about our duty to preserve the "fit" and limit reproduction of the "less fit" so not to weaken the species, and all manner of prejudices suddenly seem to have scientific support. I'm not saying this right, in fact I'm saying it's wrong, but it is easy done.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Indeed I agree, Darwinism is nature, nature is not subject to our notions of right and wrong, which mind you is a great argument against a 'loving' God. There is nothing 'wrong' about the parasite who eats the eye from within causing excruciating pain.
But to say homosexuals are not reproductively fit, when statistically they're very good at reproduction, even better than heterosexuals as long as their population stays smalls (under 10%), is not very accurate.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 It's not an argument against a loving God, it's possibly an argument against, if anything, an omnipotent AND loving God.
Also, I don't believe for a second that gay people have on average more children that straight people. I just don't believe it.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
True, either a God who doesn't care, or not an omnipotent one.
You don't have to believe me, that's the beauty about science, you can check the facts yourself.
Feel free to read on Robin Baker's theories, and look up his ethoecological studies on the subject.
What comes into play is a complex dynamic system. Meaning homosexuals overall have more sexual encounters with more mate than heterosexuals.
But how many are heterosexual encounters?. That's where population comes in.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 I'm perfectly happy to believe that gay people have more sex or sex with more partners than straight people, but that's a far cry from claiming that their reproductive fitness is as high. That is, most gay sexual encounters, as far as I am aware, have very little chance of being reproductively succesful. Given that last fact, my original point stands. That is, from facts like these one could eaily derive an anti-gay morality.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Not only do they have more sexual encounters, with a wider range of mates, but they're also more socially apt than their heterosexual counterparts.
You can find a mathematical, statistical point, where these heterosexual encounters, by homosexual individuals surpass both in frequency and range than those of heterosexual individuals.
Keep in mind that what comes into play for adaptability is the range of different mates, not the frequency of encounters with a single mate.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
It is proven, that homosexuals are quite reproductively adaptive, even surpassing their heterosexual counterparts, when their population (to maximize opposite sex encounters) is below 10%, usually 7-6% ish.
After that, they lose their reproductive advantage over heterosexuals, which is a nice explanation why across the cultures, homosexuality stays in that range.
It does not provide an explanation or derivation for an anti-gay morality at all.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 There is a very straigtforward measure of reproductive fitness and that's how many children you have. Now, I simply do not believe that on average gay people have more children that straight people. If it is true then tell me the average reproduction rates for for the two groups and tell me where you got the stats.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Termites for instance most of them don't reproduce at all yet they are indispensible for survival of their species.
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta People aren't termites. There's no way you're going to derail an ardent homophobic movement fuelled by "science" with talk of termites. You are mistaking how convining you find your own argument for a convincing argument. And you are forgetting all the interplay of factors that goes into people being convinced by an argument. Thus it is easy to see how evolution could be used to prop up a anti-gay stance.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Try thinking about 3rd world countries where women have an average of 13 children and then consider whether their survival as a community might be enhanced if a larger proportion of the men were gay.
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta I'm not advocating an anti-gay morality based on evolution. I'm just saying it is easy to see how a certain reading of evolution could be used to prop up an anti-gay stance. It's already been done, and I didn't see anyone raise the termite or third world country objections, and if they did, they had little effect unsurprisingly.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
If you want to derive your morality from natural science you should use actual observations rather than vacuous pontifications.
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@MsPerduta I've said about five times that I am NOT deriving my morality from science. I am simply pointing out how easy it is (read the article) to derive abhorrent moral principles from evolution. To continue to miss this point so many times seems to me to be only possible if deliberate. And with that, I bid you a goodnight. Read the article if you don't believe me, and if you want facts, as opposed to your airy pronouncements.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
I'm not saying that on average gay or in a better term, bisexuals have more children than heterosexuals. Again it depends on the population, if they're around 7-6% then yes, otherwise in order for the population remain constant they must reproduce more.
The condition that must be satisfied, to account for the fact that the homosxual/bisexual population remain constant is a differential equation:
T*/T = Log(M*)/Log(M)
Where T is time, and M the number of descendants.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36
T*/T = Log(M*)/Log(M) is an interesting equation, and I have not seen it as applied here, but in itself, as presented here, is not a differential equation.
Perhaps a differential equation was solved elsewhere and this was a particular or general solution.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scienceandmusiclover
Don't you think the maths are a bit superfluous if it hasn't yet been established to what degree the phenomenon is hereditary? Homosexuality may be able to come from nothing due to quantum fluctuations... it could even result in a big gang bang :O
MsPerduta 1 day ago
@scienceandmusiclover
It derives from one, but I can't write the whole thing in youtube without taking several posts.
It's just the general solution for a population model based on a linear differential equation, it's used quite commonly in biology.
The original, if interested is:
N(n) = N(o) * M^n
Where N(o) is the initial population, M is the number of children fostered by that particular population.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 trivial, absolutely trivial
the ODE ist dN/dt = rN
x1x2x3ct 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct
The solution to dN/dt = rN is found by integrating 1/n*dn/dt and gives ln(n)=r*t+c.
From which n=C*e^t.
n= (initial n) *e^t
Therefore it is not the solution used by bluesrockfan.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
@scienceandmusiclover assuming that r=const. .... I didn't say that r was constant, did I?
x1x2x3ct 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct
If r is not constant, you should have said so, furthermore, you should have detailed it.
You were too interest in cutting someone down by saying "trivial, absolutely trivial."
Typical chatroom mentality.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
@scienceandmusiclover lmao :D N was supposed to be constant actually *troll troll*:D
x1x2x3ct 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct @x1x2x3ct Please explain to me so I can better understand the Math.
N is a constant yet dN/dt means the rate of change of "N" with respect to "t".
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell
N is not a constant, N is the population in a specific time.
dN/dt implying the rate of change over time. It's more accurately posited as N(t)/d(t).
With N(0) being the starting population for the model.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell
So many posts contradicting each other on a simple equation.
Yes, by the way, the correct Leibiniz formulation for differential is the one you wrote:
The equation is:
(dN(t)/dt) = M(t)*N(0)
Where M(t) = M^t.
Being M the number of children they have.
As for CF, same happens with Sickle Cell anemia. It's called balances polymorphism.
Meaning certain allele of the gene may be beneficial to more individuals than it's rare detrimental counterparts.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell
A first strand of sickle cell anemia helps fight malaria, two strands is deadly. It will still propagate this gene, since it's cost/beneficial for the population to do so.
Cysitc fibrosis helps against diarrheal illnesses, which is a quite common symptom for several diseases.
The carriers of CF do not have enough abnormal chloride channels to be detrimental, enabling them to more successfully combat, say cholera.
But this comes at a certain price as you've noticed.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bluesrockfan36 You wrote:
dN/dt implying the rate of change over time. It's more accurately posited as N(t)/d(t).
Actually it is written as (d/dt) of N. At least it is in the college where I teach advanced Calculus and Physics. Some places may use different symbols.
In the UK, the symbol/letter " j " is used to represent √-1.
In the US, the symbol/letter " i " is used to represent √-1.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct You said, "N was supposed to be constant actually *troll troll*:D"
You are fucking up a little worse with each post.
scienceandmusiclover 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct You posted:
trivial, absolutely trivial, the ODE ist dN/dt = rN
You later posted that "r was not constant".
dN/dt has a value. What is the rate of change of "r"
This is not an ODE as it is in three dimensions/variables, the N, the t and the r axis/planes.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@x1x2x3ct
Let me get this straight:
You write the correct form of the differential equation, for population growth (the very same one I written without the derivatives of the N function).
Then you say it's not a differential equation, and call me an idiot?. Wow.
You're also not accounting for the fact, that it involves two populations not one.
dN/dt = N(t)
r = M^t
M = N(0)
Get it now?.
Small advice, stop calling people idiots when you display such qualities of ignorance yourself.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 lol:D haha. Well the point is that you have written the solution of the ODE, which is by no means a differential equation, but a function ok? do you understand that? and no I don't get it, are you talking about a system of coupled differential equations? where is the second population? M is constant ;) (trivial)
x1x2x3ct 1 day ago
@x1x2x3ct
Yup, the solution is not a differential equation, but rather a function, I think I said that.
What I posted anyways, is not the solution to the differential equation, but the division of two solutions (constant population overall) in the same period of time. T*/T = log(M*)/log(M).
M is a constant (propagation rate). M^t isn't.
M = heterosexual propagation rate.
M* = homosexual/bisexual propagation rate.
bluesrockfan36 23 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bluesrockfan36
The only manner in which I can see a solution to your T*/T = log(M*)/log(M) formula would be for the time rate change of M to be directly proportional to M; therefore dM/dt=kM, where k is constant. Thus ∫1/M dM = ln(M) = kT+c. IF c=o, and one also wanted M’, then ln(M')=kT'.
Dividing would cancel k and leave T'/T=log(M' )/log(M). (Note: ln = log to base e)
I am not implying any opinion as to the usefulness of the formula, just solving the math.
scienceandmusiclover 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct You posted:
trivial, absolutely trivial, the ODE ist dN/dt = rN
You also posted that N was a constant and that r was not constant.
That makes no sense. What are the variables?
jimnpatcavell 23 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct You posted:
@scienceandmusiclover lmao :D N was supposed to be constant actually *troll troll*:D
x1x2x3ct 4 hours ago
jimnpatcavell 23 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@x1x2x3ct You posted:
@scienceandmusiclover assuming that r=const. .... I didn't say that r was constant, did I?
x1x2x3ct 8 hours ago
jimnpatcavell 23 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 N(n) = N(o) * M^n isn't a differential equation you idiot
x1x2x3ct 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
From that equation you can deduce, the reproductive rate of bisexuals/homosexuals:
If say heterosexuals have 4 children, and bisexuals have 2 in a given time T, then:
Log(2)/Log(4) = 0.5. This implies they must reproduce the same (amount of children) on a time T* which 50% of time T. In order to maintain a constant population.
There's more about the subject if you're interested in Robin Baker's site.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 I understand the equation and the implication.
But i see one mistake. It assumes that bisexuals can only come from bisexual parents. But that is not the case. Heterosexual offspring simply has a probability of being Homosexual/bisexual. So i don´t see how you equation helps describing this effect.
HeavyweightThinker 1 day ago
@HeavyweightThinker
Yes you're correct, it doesn't account for several factors, after all we don't quite know where sexuality is entirely genetic, and what type of genes intervene in it.
It's just a mathematical explanation that disproves the notion that homosexuals and bisexuals don't reproduce.
After all their population is somewhat constant across cultures.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 Imagine the number of people with tattoos remains relatively constant. Does that mean that people with tattoos are succesfully reproducing or just that some people like getting tattoos?
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'Imagine the number of tattoos'
That really is entirely nonsensical. But in sense true.
If you assume that people who get tattoos do so, as a tactic to appeal to the opposite sex and gain sexual favor in exchange, then that tactic would propagate over populations.
But in the core of your argument, you're saying that there is no genetic component for homosexuality/bisexuality. What makes you think that sexuality, the prime reason for reproduction is not adaptive?.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 You are missing the point. Your whole argument rests on the idea that homosexuals have homosexual children and so the continuing existence of homosexuality must be explained through the reproduction rates of homsexuals. That is complete fantasy and there is no need to go down that route at all. Similarly, there may be a genetic component to liking tattoss (who knows) but there is no need for such a herditary component to explain the tattoo rate.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
No, my whole argument does not depend on homosexuals having homosexual children.
That's a straw man fallacy.
My argument rests on the adaptability of homosexual behavior. This means, that homosexuals/bisexuals propagate the genetic predispositions for their behavior across the population. It may be direct, it may be indirect jumping some generations even.
But they do propagate.
Claiming that something as important as sexuality is simply a 'cultural' thing is nonsense.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 I didn't claim it was a cultural thing. I said we don't need to go down your route at all. And your route had better have been about the reproductive prowess of homosexuals or else what was the point of even raising it. In fact, what was the point of rasing it anyway? How does it in any way effect my argument that you can derive anti-gay morality from evo? It doesn't.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
The evidence is pretty conclusive that homosexuals/bisexuals reproduce, at high enough rates to be even competitive, or out compete heterosexuals given their population.
So... if homosexuality/bisexuality was adaptive, how can you possibly derive an anti-gay morality from evolution, under the premises of being non-adaptive?.
It pretty much, directly disproves your argument.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 What evidence do you have that homosexuals outcompete heterosexuals other than you circular argument based on the assumption of heredity? And you miss the point of my argument about what can be derived from evo. The fact of the matter is that such a morality has already been derived from evo. That pretty much leaves you with nothing to say.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
They do not out-compete heterosexuals, not unless their population falls below the statistical average observed consistently across cultures, then the math comes in.
There are several studies regarding this issue, just google search for articles, hundreds come up: evolutionary psychology homosexuality. They provide much better sources than what I can write in youtube.
No, such morality has not been derived from evolution. It has been derived out of ignorance of evolution.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 Maths only comes into it i you make the erroneus heredity assumption. If you don't make that assumption then you don't need to indulge in the fantasy notion that men who find the idea of sex with women repugnant are doing it (like rabbits) to get their numbers up. And nobody said the morality was valid, nor that it was "correctly" derived or well thought through. That's why I say you are missing the point. And that's what makes you nonsense irrelevant.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
Wow, do you always argue using so many straw man fallacies?. I suggest you go over my posts and read them again. I'd hate having to repeat myself.
Sexual behavior is hereditary, I'm not implying it's easily genetically explained, but nevertheless it's the most important hereditary behavior of them all.
The only other alternative, is that sexual behavior is cultural and completely independent of genetics.
This makes little sense.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 There are a host of other options. Imagine a gene linked to outrageous fertility in women also produced a 50% homosexual rate in male children. Then not a single gay man ever need have sex with a woman and still there would be plenty gay men around.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'Imagine a gene linked to outrageous fertility'
It's easy to imagine things without evidence, sooner and later you end up in religion.
But if we entertain this notion of yours (completely fallacious though) then by definition homosexuality is adaptive. Given that it adapts through female fertility, homosexuality is 'good' as it pertains to thew whole of the species.
Can't draw an anti-gay morality.
'Not a single gay man'
That's not what we observe either in humans nor nature.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 Firstly, I thought you would say that, that's why I ciited a recent scientific study which suggested exactly that. The reasearch suggests that the female siblings of gay men tend to have more children than average and so the "gay" gene is favoured even though many of the men with it have less children that average.
With regard to the other stuff, you are simply not listening to what I have said. And you are misquoting horribly.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'the research suggests'
Then again, by definition it's statistically beneficial for the population (humanity) as a whole to have homosexuals, is it not?.
How can you draw an anti-gay morality from that?.
'And you are misquoting horribly'
Is that so?, can you point an instance when this occurred?.
If you don't agree with your own quotes, that's your problem, it usually means you changed your mind.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1 Are you serious? I suppose that next you will be spouting some other nonsense such as "men inherit hemophilia through their mothers."
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell No, but I'll be arguing that hemophilia is adaptive otherwise it would have been selected out.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1 I do so hope that you did not think I was serious. Obviously, some recessive genes have found a way to continue. Or, they would not be with us today.
@bluesrockfan36 please see my post regarding how CF is still with us today even though people with CF never had children.
jimnpatcavell 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell I knew, because there would have been no reason for you to come up with that seriously. I mean, what are the chances that you would pick just the wrong thing to say.
I think I should also make clear that I am not advocating an anti-gay morality for anyone reading this discussion who thinks I might be. Not in the slightest, I find such a morality repugnant.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@jimnpatcavell And I did know, for what it's worth. I heard it in a documentary about european royalty.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'fantasy notion that men who find the idea of sex with a women repugnant are doing it (like rabbits) to get their numbers up'.
I'll leave this statement unanswered, read it yourself, it's the very definition of Straw Man fallacy.
'Nobody said':
Uhm...
'It's easy to derive an anti-gay morality from evolution (...) anything deemed unfit gets the chop'.
Your words, not mine.
It's not easy to derive it, nor it's unfit.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 Or say homosexuality resulted from a very specific timing of certain hormone during preganacy but that there was only a 1 in 10 chance of it happening just the right way to produce a homsexual. Again, no gay person ever need have sex witjh a member of the opposite sex and yet still 1 in 10 people would be gay.
I suspect you don't know what a strawman is. You said that homosexuals outcompete heterosexuals when thir numbers are down.
Also "deemed" is vital.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'certain hormone'
Evidence?. Or is it again, just more make belief?, what if God made 1/10 people homosexuals?.
And again the same argument draws.
Why would there be a hormone that propagates through the population, over time... if it's not beneficial to anyone?.
That's my point. Evolution is crude, but draws beneficial characteristics (for survival) out.
It completely disproves the notion that you can draw an anti-gay morality.
I quite know what a straw man is.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
The key part of your obvious straw man statement was:
'men who find the idea of sex with a woman repugnant'.
See it again?. You're talking about the extreme cases of homosexuality (incredibly low statistically), and expanding it to cover the whole of the homosexual/bisexual community.
It is again, the very definition of a straw man.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 You brought in bisexuality first. I never intended to refer to that at all. Secondly, lot's of gay men find the thought of sex with women repugnant.
Is Down's syndrome adaptive?
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'You brought in bisexuality first.'
That's simple observable fact. Pure homosexuality is statistically rare. How would you know if there are plenty of men who find sex with a woman repugnant?. Did you subject them to MRI's?. There's a difference between sexual arousal, and repugnance.
'Is Down syndrome adaptive'
A red herring now?.
I'm sure you can find out the reasons and explanations for this.
Does their population stay constant across cultures and time?.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 Now you're just scrambling around spouting any old rubbish. The simple fact is that the number of homosexuals is not directly linked or even linked strongly with the number of homosexual people having children. Nobody except you thinks that. And you now have three examples of things clearly detrimental to "fitness" which probably have maintained a fairly constant rate. CF, Down''s syndrome, and hemophilia. There is therefore no reason to buy your fantasy tale.
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'not directly linked or even linked strongly'
Uhm, M, in the equation I wrote can very well be the number of children they have or the propagation rate of the genomes.
Either way, it holds.
As for the 'counter examples' I suggest you read my post to Jimnpatcavell.
They do not disprove natural sexual selection. Yes they're detrimental, but why, are they recessive genes, do they benefit certain populations as a whole?.
That's the whole point.
Stop using red herrings.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1 "“You can derive anything from it at all. Just look at evolutionary psychology" that’s a good point it’s a genius idea, it can stop start from where ever it chooses and whenever it wants, it can be retracted or extended, its just a brilliantly worded story it only requires more words, it’s just a fairy tale with scientific vocab.
1spiders1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
It doesn't prove that validity of such morality (as derived from evolution) anymore than mitochondrial Eve proves the bible.
They're both very common misconceptions.
I'm beginning to use Ad Nausuem:
Homosexuals/bisexuals are adaptive.
Claiming that them being non-adaptive is a moral argument against homosexuality/bisexuality, is fallacious, and factually incorrect.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
And easily disproved given how it's present in all cultures and across history, and very prevalent in the animal kingdom as well.
If homosexuality/bisexuality wasn't adaptive, it would've died out when it first presented itself
That's my point
Non-adaptive behaviors and genetic predispositions tend to die out very quickly
The tattoo analogy is a very poor one, since you need to provide statistical evidence for it's uniformity across cultures. Then we can talk about adaptability
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
You're comparing natural sexual selection techniques and demand an explanation why natural selection hasn't rid us of such maladies.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, we seldom undergo natural selection anymore (we still go through sexual selection).
Was hemophilia as prevalent in history as say, homosexuality?. Was Down syndrome as prevalent also?.
Of course not, they would've died out quite fast.
Homosexuality, hasn't though.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 But the reason homosexuality hasn't died out has nothing to do with how many gay people have children. That's my point. That is, even if no gay person ever had a child homosexuality would still be alive and well. And that defeats your intial argument which was that homosexuals (not simply genes they share with heterosexuals) out-compete hetrerosexuals when their numbers are low. That is rubbish. They don't. And how would they know anyway - advanced gaydar?
DJockovic1 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
'if no gay person ever had a child homosexuality would still be alive and well'
That may be the case, but we really don't know.
We do know however, from ethoecological studies of primates and birds that homosexuals do reproduce, even those who display 'strict homosexuality'.
The argument I gave you was a statistical one. In order for the population to remain constantly uniform statistically across cultures, that must occur.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@DJockovic1
As funny as the gaydar hypothesis is, it does not occur that way.
You're thinking too individualistically, instead of population wise.
If say there were 2 homosexuals in the entire world, chances are... their sexual encounters would be mainly with heterosexuals. Given the ease of social adaptability they have in comparison to heterosexuals, they will out compete them.
If the homosexual population was 40%... then it would drastically lower their reproductive rate.
bluesrockfan36 1 day ago
@bluesrockfan36 So what are you saying that being gay is due to natural selection? And it is over all beneficial for the species in the long run?
1spiders1 1 day ago
@1spiders1
No that's beneficial, but that they propagate due to being either:
a) effective in doing so (hereditary explanation).
b) increases the overall fertility rate (female fertility explanation).
Either way, homosexuality is pretty much favored by evolution, due to the seemingly constant number which it stays across cultures and history.
You simply cannot say, evolution doesn't favor homosexuality. It's not the case.
bluesrockfan36 23 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 I read something some time ago the genes don’t have anything to do with being gay and the matter is disputed and it is weak opinion lacking evidence and that it is simply a choice.
1spiders1 23 hours ago
@1spiders1
That's a rather strong statement, usually you should ask for facts.
There are several ways to disprove that belief however, I'll quote some:
If it was a 'choice' you'll see a great variation across cultures, this is not the case. Even on very socially conservative cultures.
If it was a choice, it wouldn't exist in the animal kingdom, where it's actually very prevalent, almost all mammals display it and birds as well.
It also has the non-adaptive argument against it.
bluesrockfan36 23 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 When you say there is little variation across cultures you seem not to have heard of, eg, the Greeks.
DJockovic1 20 hours ago
@DJockovic1
Uhm, there's a difference between comparing modern cultures and cultures in history.
But what about homosexuality in ancient Greece?, are you gonna imply they had higher numbers of homosexuals with no evidence whatsoever?.
Or you're gonna say they socially tolerated pederasty, which seldom included active homosexual relationships?.
We simply don't have enough statistical evidence to make any claim. There was a strong homophobic movement in ancient Greece as well.
bluesrockfan36 20 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 You say pederrasty seldom included active homosexuality and then you say you have no good statistics. You are just making it up as you go along.
Do you think there is any X which can be derived as morally wrong through evolution? If so, what?
DJockovic1 20 hours ago
@DJockovic1
'you are just making it up as you go along'
Nope, it's easy to find what constituted the commonly referred to 'homosexual' behavior in ancient Greece. And how anal sex was considered, immoral.
We have a lot of records of that period.
Yes, I was talking about comparing cultures. When I mean comparing, I mean actual scientific comparison, you know... with statistics?.
How are you going to compare something with something you have no proof of?.
bluesrockfan36 19 hours ago
@1spiders1
Natural and sexual selection tends to have check and balances to prevent 'evolutionary stupid behaviors' from arising.
If it was culturally accepted to amputate your leg... those people would tend to die out fairly quickly
Even if you assume the premise that it's not genetic at all (which is not really the case), it most definitively affects the propagation of the genes of those who display such behavior
Evolution, hardly ever opts for the suicidal approach to genetic propagation
bluesrockfan36 23 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 1. I love the way you're now citing the female fertility explanation as part of your well-informed argument, when only a few hours ago you told me it was "completely fallacious" when you thought it was a "notion" of mine.
2. If evolution really does favour homosexuality, as you suggest, then it must be easy to derive an anti-hetero morality from evolution.
DJockovic1 21 hours ago
@DJockovic1
1. I was being generous with you in order to demonstrate how the point still stands in spite of that arguement. I never once agreed with it, and the notion that there's a gene that increases female fertility but causes 50% chance of producing homosexual offspring, is beyond ridiculous and fallacious.
2. It's easy to derive an 'anti-hetero'.
Nonsense, false dichotomy much?.
What makes you think heterosexuality is not also favored by nature?. They're separate reproductive strategies.
bluesrockfan36 20 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 So they are favoured absolutely and exactly the same amount? I mean, if one was even slightly more beneficial then in virtue of that fact alone the other must be slightly detrimental by comparison. It seems are you are arguing in reverse order from what you want to be the case to the biologial details rather than vice versa.
DJockovic1 20 hours ago
@DJockovic1
'exactly the same amount'.
You're not showing understanding of evolution nor the equation I posited. First you can't compare degrees of natural 'favor' to draw any type of morality.
Cancer resistant genes are favored slower than cancer predispositional genes... hence we must be for cancer?.
Secondly, go read my equation:
If homosexuals are in number, on their balance statistical point (around 10%) they're equally favored.
If they're below they're more favored, if they're over, less
bluesrockfan36 20 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 I understand that if something is a higher productivity strategy than another then that other is a lower productivity strategy than the first.Thus unless they are identically succesful, we can say that an anti-that one morality can be derived for one from evo.
DJockovic1 20 hours ago
@DJockovic1
'anti-that one morality can be derived from evo'
No it cannot. You're assuming evolution to be static system instead of the dynamic one that it is.
Are you saying that if the population of homosexuals/bisexuals is below 6-7% (when they're more reproductive successful), then it's correct to draw an anti-heterosexual position?. You really aren't making any sense at all.
They're different strategies, you cannot compare them. How many liters are there in a mile?.
bluesrockfan36 19 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 And you were the one who brought up the point that there should be little variation across cultures, but when I showed you variation across cultures, you said it was wrong to compare cultures. How else can we test the variation across cultures without comparing them? You are just making it up. You are saying any old thing.
DJockovic1 20 hours ago
@DJockovic1
Hence I referred to comparing across cultures (modern times) and with history (where data exists), and to primate statistics.
What's so hard to understand that, without information you cannot compare?.
'When i showed you variation'
You didn't, go ahead prove it, the Greek were X% homosexuals for Y amount of generations.
'said it was wrong to compare cultures'
Find that quote for me will you?.
Stop using straw man fallacies.
'any old thing'
That doesn't make any sense.
bluesrockfan36 19 hours ago
@bluesrockfan36 If your point is that no moral judgement of anything, eg, genocide, blowing up the entire world etc, is possible from an evolutionary standpoint then why not just say that rather than making up fanciful statistics as if it made a blind bit of difference what the statistics say. That is, if we cannot derive anything ever from evo then what difference do the staistics make?
DJockovic1 19 hours ago
@DJockovic1
??
Of course you cannot make any form of justifiable moral statement using evolution as it's source. Not unless you're ignorant of evolution's premises.
'fanciful statistics (..) blind bit of difference what statistics say'.
The statistics, directly DISPROVE that an anti-gay or anti-heterosexual position can be drawn from evolution, without again... ignorance about it.
Given that evolution favors both.
bluesrockfan36 19 hours ago