Gays get the bum wrap
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
MrBishop said:
so what is the next Mr. Bish subject?
Hurry, I'm ready to rumble
a13antichrist
New Member
Cirdan said:
I've already addressed this. I wish people would read things to avoid endless rehashing of previous posts.
Evolution has PRECISELY as its goal the increased reproduction of the species.
a13antichrist said:
Cirdan
New Member
a13antichrist said:
Evolution is a description of how changes in genetic code occurs. Natural selection describes how, through increased survival /and or greater reproductive success, the genetic change is promugated throughout the population. Is is not the your definition is wrong, but that it is too limited and focuses on only a part of selection aspect.
Some adaptations can have multiple uses. The result of adatations may lead to greater survival, with the extended period of reproductive opportunity a secondary benefit. Adapatation is the lgoical product of evolution. Reprodutive tactics are subordinate to the adaptation aspect. A species can evolve without improving it's reproductive success. Other species have sacrificed reproductive success for greater adaptability.
It is possible that an adaptation to have less offspring could improve the population overall when resources are declining due to over-population. This is a critical point. It is the effect on the population of heritable changes that matters and not the evolution of single entities.
A goal is something cognizant beings act upon. Theories lack goals, motivation, or will, they just are. The theory of gravity, for example, doesn't have as it's goal, attracting object with mass to one another. It merely describes the causes and effects.
Also, the bit about "genetic error" is funny since the theory requires errant genetic replication (mutagenesis).
Biological Evolution
Oh, and sorry I haven't gotten around to reading all your posts yet.
a13antichrist
New Member
Cirdan said:
It's s true that we have been using the term 'Evolution' in this thread where we should have been using Natural Selection. Evolution is the result of the changes infused into the species through, primarily, the process of natural selection. However by its very nature, natural selection only has one focus and that's the increased reproductive capacity of the organism - the organisms that survive longer are the only ones with that evolutionary advantage to pass on more of their genes to the next generation.
Cirdan said:
If an adaptation has no tangible benefit to the animal's reproductive success, then its subesquent transmission to the next generation will be random and will likely never become a global characteristic of that species. It is the adaptation that is a tool of Reproduction, not the other way round. If the new adaptation has no benefit on reproductive success then the adaptation is not a result of Natural Selection.
Species that may have sacrificed reproductive potential for greater adaptability would nevertheless have done so to advantage the species' reproductive capacity in some way. Natural Selection does not think and 'more babies' is the only way it can have an effect.
Cirdan said:
Evolution refers to changes at the species-level, not the individual level. Natural Selection accounts for these species-wide changes on an individual scale. The overall effect is still on the population.
Cirdan said:
For an inanimate process, goal vs result depends on your perspective. ABS brakes don't have motivation either, but their purpose can be likened to a goal. Makes the language more interesting.
Cirdan said:
All genetic changes leading to evolution through natural selection are "errant genetic replication". That's the fundamental base of the theory - if there were no changes, well there couldn't possibly be any changes, could there?
Cirdan said:Oh, and sorry I haven't gotten around to reading all your posts yet.
It was in this thread.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
I like wrenches...I own a few of them. Time I used one in this thread
CATCH!!!
If evolution/Natural selection is made towards the increase in the potential offspring without secondary effects, what do you make of our reduced 'litter' of children (with twins and triplets being rare), or the increase in the size of the brain cavity (making the skulls larger and more difficult to pass through the cervix). Neither of these two evolutions have increased our chances of propogating more. Human children are very weak and helpless for the first years of their lives, making them vulnereable to death & disease. Seems a more negative aspect of evolution. Modern medicine has alloweed these 'error's in reproduction capabilities' to continue.
We're already overpopulating the planet and our increase in diseases on a global stage seems to be the only way to effectivly reduce our population. Perhaps homosexuality is another overpopulation-check.
**No...I am not trying to like homosexuality with a disease, but perhaps...a cure, for overpopulation**
(I'm tired...just in case I'm not making sence)
CATCH!!!
If evolution/Natural selection is made towards the increase in the potential offspring without secondary effects, what do you make of our reduced 'litter' of children (with twins and triplets being rare), or the increase in the size of the brain cavity (making the skulls larger and more difficult to pass through the cervix). Neither of these two evolutions have increased our chances of propogating more. Human children are very weak and helpless for the first years of their lives, making them vulnereable to death & disease. Seems a more negative aspect of evolution. Modern medicine has alloweed these 'error's in reproduction capabilities' to continue.
We're already overpopulating the planet and our increase in diseases on a global stage seems to be the only way to effectivly reduce our population. Perhaps homosexuality is another overpopulation-check.
**No...I am not trying to like homosexuality with a disease, but perhaps...a cure, for overpopulation**
(I'm tired...just in case I'm not making sence)
Cirdan
New Member
Right, Mr. B. Not all evolution is a simple construct. Secondary characteristics (phenotypes) are often expressed from a seemingly unrelated genotype.
Evoluition still occurs in species that are adequately productive in a purely reproductive capacity.
A possible scenario is that parents and siblings with the hypothetical gay gene might benefit from that person not being burdened by children. This is all during some pre-history environment. The siblings may carry the reccessive trait and by the fact that they have some incremental advantage, satisfy the natural selection requirement.
If you allow that homosexuality is genetic and occurs at a significant rate in the population then you must assume selection for it as a primary recessive trait or as a natural (and exagerated) secondary expression of a non-primary genotype.
Evoluition still occurs in species that are adequately productive in a purely reproductive capacity.
A possible scenario is that parents and siblings with the hypothetical gay gene might benefit from that person not being burdened by children. This is all during some pre-history environment. The siblings may carry the reccessive trait and by the fact that they have some incremental advantage, satisfy the natural selection requirement.
If you allow that homosexuality is genetic and occurs at a significant rate in the population then you must assume selection for it as a primary recessive trait or as a natural (and exagerated) secondary expression of a non-primary genotype.
BeardofPants
New Member
MrBishop said:
Thanks. That saved me from typing it out.
