Adaptation .vs. Evolution

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Jubatus,

 

As I've said before, while I completely understand where you are coming from, I think these types of discussions often have more effect than we realise - and so I wouldn't give up on people who maybe you have catagorised as 'hopeless' - just yet...

 

The fact is that some people (certainly some regulars on this forum) NEED to hear this stuff and be exposed to these different viewpoints - even if they are venomously opposing them (I assure you, this is more of an indocrinated mental reflex-action than authentic personal opinon)

 

As I metioned before, I used to think in a fundementally religious way. And I'm fairly sure that - at some level - all the rational arguments that I used to dismiss were actually registering at some unconcious level - even if I didn't realise it at the time.

 

So even though you may feel like your banging your head against a brick wall, the fact is you may at least be weakening part of it - which has to be a good start...!

 

So please - let's continue listening to and considering all viewpoints - no matter how 'crazy' or 'ignorant' they may seem to the majority. Sure, it's a pain to have to scroll through the same old circular arguments sometimes. (and really there is no exuse for circular arguments - from either side), but I think the right of free speech needs to be respected here.

 

Not only because everybody has the right to an opinion, but because the second you say someone's opinion is TOTALLY irrelavent, you take one step towards religions main tool - silencing the general populous in favour of the selected 'elite' who simply know better than the rest by default...

 

 

SkinWalker,

 

I personally doubt that homosexuality is genetic, altough I will admit that evidence (as far as I'm aware) is thin on the ground concerning this - hence why I use the word 'belief'...

From the current evidence that I have been exposed to thus far, I personally believe that homosexuality is most likely dependant upon conditions present during early development within the womb - such as levels of testosterone. (which has been conclusively proven to induce homosexual behavoiour in female rats and therefore has a strong chance to be true for humans too...)

 

These 'conditions', in turn, directly alter a very specific part of the brain - the part which determines sexual attraction & preference. (i.e homosexuality or hetrosexuality)

 

I however do not except claims that specifically modern conditions (such as toxins, radiation etc.) are the primary factors, and more homosexual births occur now than at other times in history. If I'm shown ANY evidence with supports this, then of course I'll reconsider. But from where I'm standing, this is just a half-baked idea to catagorise homosexuality as some kind of modern problem (I find the use of the word 'problem' quite offensive)

 

While these conditions may be relatively rare, I believe they occur quite naturally....

 

I guess you might want to split this into a new thread maybe.

I apologise -I guess I find it easier to just hit the 'reply' button and go with the flow of the thread rather than do the right thing and start a new one

[Kurgan]

I would like to point out also that it is a common misconception that people in centuries past believed the world was flat.

 

In the time of the ancient Greeks, at least one guy postulated a round earth (was it Ptolomey? I forget). In fact, apparently most Greeks at the time believed the world was round, but it was a "disk" rather than a sphere. It is generally now thought that the ancient Hebrews postulated a flat earth (surrounded by mountains, with a curtain holding back water.. a "firmament" above) in the time of the old testament events.

 

At the time of Columbus (and here is where people get it wrong) they think that Columbus was this revolutionary who believed the world was round. Sorry, but at that time most people (or most learned people at least) believed the earth was round and a sphere. Otherwise Columbus wouldn't have gotten far, considering he had to have financial backing from the Royal family for his trip and he had to get his crew to go along with it. He was just trying to make a buck anyway and he thought he could take a short cut (which didn't go exactly as he'd planned).

 

There is a site that attempts to reconcile biblical beliefs with modern science without resorting to Young Earth Creationism, it is called http://www.doesgodexist.org. There is the famous "talkorigins" site (sorry, I haven't been there in awhile, but do a search) which has lengthy faqs on debates of this kind.

 

Granted, I disagree with them on some points, and not everything on there is good, but they do have some insightful articles if you look.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Yeah... but he's the only one that will disagree with evolution as a theory.... so if we all come together and nod our collective heads at each other, won't the discussion be boring?

Amen! ...sorry, couldn't help myself.

Perhaps it is just a choice or a "conditioning" that one undergoes through exposure to an unexplained set of environmental criteria.

I think that some of the strongest proof for it [homosexuality] not being a choice has been brought up already - why would someone willingly choose a life filled with discrimination, hatred, and violence?

 

There is strong proof that genetics determines sexual orientation (if not sexual identity). Back when I was in Sociology, we discussed a story about a baby boy back in the 60s who, while being used for a new procedure for circumcision involving lasers, had 75% of his penis burnt off.

His parents were consulted, and they were told of a prominent doctor at Johns Hopkins University (Washington, D.C.) who was working on a project he believed would be helpful.

What the doctor wanted to do was to remove what was left of this boy's (henceforth refered to as "John") genitals and to re-socialize him as a girl. He managed to convince his parents that this was best, and they went along with his recommendation and raised John as a girl.

 

As John got older he got a reputation as a tomboy and just didn't seem interested in the things girls are supposed to do, but his parents just kept up with the charade - taking him to Johns Hopkins once or twice a year to consult with the doctor. Despite John's parents protests, the doctor declared the procedure a complete success and published his findings in journals.

 

Around puberty John's problems came to a head - his voice was deepening, his body changing, he was noticing girls and he became depressed wrestling with the idea of who and what he was. He knew he was not normal, and things continually got worse until he attempted suicide - this was when his parents finally told him the truth.

 

Today he's undergone several surgeries to try and reverse the damage caused, and he is reported to be as normal as can be expected. The point of all this is that despite being socialized and raised as a girl, his natural genetics told him something different. He knew he wasn't supposed to be a girl. It wasn't some choice that he made. He didn't choose to be heterosexual - it was hard coded in his genetics.

 

So why couldn't this be the case for homosexuals?

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Good stories should not be allowed to fade away, but be preserved for their power to teach wisdom.

 

Taking to heart the wisdom and ethics taught by the Bible is one thing, believing in the divinity described therein quite another. To strainingly interpret the miracle of Creation (or other miracles described in the Bible) to accommodate science's (proved) version isn't validation of any of it.

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

(I assure you, this is more of an indocrinated mental reflex-action than authentic personal opinon)

 

You went ahead and said that, not I

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

....but I think the right of free speech needs to be respected here.

 

Indeed, so I'm free to speak my mind about theirs.

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

Not only because everybody has the right to an opinion, but because the second you say someone's opinion is TOTALLY irrelavent, you take one step towards religions main tool - silencing the general populous in favour of the selected 'elite' who simply know better than the rest by default...

 

Never said their oppinion is irrelevant, only that their arguments cannot be validated rationally, and that as long as they argue religious dogma there is in reality no argument worth its effort.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I don't feel that evolutionary theory (macro or micro or whatever you want to say) conflicts with my own religious beliefs.

 

Good post Kurgan. In fact, all the posts I've seen from you in the senate are worthy of special note...

 

In the time of the ancient Greeks, at least one guy postulated a round earth (was it Ptolomey? I forget).

 

I mentioned Archamedies too in an earlier post. And as far as I was aware, he actually theorised that the earth was a sphere rather than a disk (i.e. still flat). But his theories were never circulated at the time.

...but it's certainly possible I'm mistaken about that. I'm going to look into it and double-check my info...

 

At the time of Columbus (and here is where people get it wrong) they think that Columbus was this revolutionary who believed the world was round. Sorry, but at that time most people (or most learned people at least) believed the earth was round and a sphere.

 

Well, this is certainly news to me!

I would be interested in reading more on this.

I found this link

...but unfortunately, there are no links to other documents from here. If you Kurgan (or anybody else) could provide me with more sources on this, I would be grateful.

 

Of course, since the average person in those times did not recieve a decent education, (you had to be relatively rich to recieve even a half-decent education in those times) maybe this also is part of the misconception.

Maybe the statement 'Everyone thought the world was flat back then' should really read 'MOST people thought the world was flat back then'...?

 

There is strong proof that genetics determines sexual orientation (if not sexual identity).

 

I know of the experiment you've mentioned Eldritch, and good job for mentioning it.

 

As far as I was aware - this experiment was centered around the sexual 'identity' of the subject. The theory which the doctor was testing was that of sex neutrality. He theorised that our minds are not inherently built to think like a boy or a girl (even though our bodies are inherently male or female), but are in fact 'neutral' at birth, and that each sex is taught to behave in different ways as they grow, by their social environment. (i.e. girls are given dolls to play with and dresses to wear, so that's what they end up doing - not though any subconcious drive, but because of upbringing)

 

...I'm actually not sure whether sexual orientation is treated as something different to sexual identity by the theory, or if it's simply assumed to be part and parcel of sexual identity. Do you have any more info on this?

 

Anyway, I agree with you Eldritch, the fact this theory didn't pan out certainly provides strong back-up to the idea that such things as sexual identity and sexual orientation are NOT determined by up-bringing, but are inherently detemined from birth.

But please note, all this really suggests is that homosexuality is determined when we are born. But this doesn't automatically mean it's down to genetics. While it COULD certainly mean genetics are the source of homosexuality, another sensible theory would be developmental differences stimulated by conditions in the womb. (Again, note the testosterone experiment on rats mentioned above)

 

A very important point to make also is that just because you are born with a certain sexual orientation, we as humans are prefectly capable of ignoring and going against these urges. This is where issues like homosexuality start to get REALLY complex and controvertial.

In fact, there is only one part of the Mormon documuent posted above which I actually fully agree with. Which is this - it is VERY important to distinguish between homosexual ugres and the act of homosexual intercourse...

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

(I assure you, this is more of an indocrinated mental reflex-action than authentic personal opinon)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You went ahead and said that, not I

 

I can say that with some confidence since I am speaking from personal experience

 

Never said their oppinion is irrelevant, only that their arguments cannot be validated rationally, and that as long as they argue religious dogma there is in reality no argument worth its effort.

 

I totally agree...

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

...I'm actually not sure whether sexual orientation is treated as something different to sexual identity by the theory, or if it's simply assumed to be part and parcel of sexual identity. Do you have any more info on this?

Indeed I do. Here is the transcript from the PBS show that covered the case we discussed in class a while back.

This admittedly is much clearer than my "condensed" version, but I got most of the pertinent facts.

 

It seems more likely to me that homosexuality be caused by genetics than by developmental differences stimulated by conditions in the womb - after all, what are the odds that every homosexual person experienced the same conditions?

 

Perhaps if all the developing babies had some other chemical in common, like thalidomide, which was widely distributed/used back in the 1950s and 60s, it would be easier to see a cause and effect between heterosexual and homosexual babies.

[Kurgan]

Taking to heart the wisdom and ethics taught by the Bible is one thing, believing in the divinity described therein quite another. To strainingly interpret the miracle of Creation (or other miracles described in the Bible) to accommodate science's (proved) version isn't validation of any of it.

 

The point I was trying to make is NOT that the bible is scientifically accurate. I don't claim that it is. The books (yes, books plural) contained in it were written in pre-scientific times. It was not trying to teach us scientific truths, but religious ones. And myths as stories don't have to change, whereas scientific understanding is constantly changing and evolving (hopefully in the right direction).

 

They were NOT (as modern fundamentalists seem to think) written as literal accounts, but rather as myths (I'm speaking here mostly of the Old testament, as we get closer to historically verifiable stuff, we can say there is less mythologization) meant to teach certain lessons, values, etc. There is a similar problem with some Muslims in debates about the scientific accuracy of the Koran. Some people can't seperate ancient teachings about morality and faith from modern scientific methods of understanding the environment.

 

Thus the Bible is the story of a people and contains ethical teachings. Now granted, these can be misused (ie: people using the Bible to say that slavery is okay because Abraham did it, etc.), but that's the whole point of reading things with a critical and discerning eye.

 

Even if you are not a Christian or a Jew, you can still derive value from old stories.

[Kurgan]

I see the thread topic is heading away from the original and towards sexual identity, so this will be my last post on the earlier religious/earth topic unless anyone wants to discuss that further.

 

I found a quote discussing the whole "people thought the world was flat" myth. The book I got it from is called Lies My Teacher Told Me (1996) by James W. Loewen (a really interesting book actually, about a lot of mistakes made in American History textbooks used in grade schools and high schools)

 

Chapter 2, page 56

 

"To make a better myth, American culture has perpetuated the idea that Columbus was boldly forging ahead while everyone else, even his own crew, imagined the world was flat. The American Pageant is the only textbook that still repeats this hoax. "The superstitious sailors...grew increasingly mutinous," according to Pageant, because they were "fearful of sailing over the edge of the world." In truth, few people on both sides of the Atlantic believed in 1492 that the world was flat. Most Europeans and Native Americans knew the world was round. It looks round. It casts a circular shadow on the moon. Sailors see its roundness when ships disappear over the horizon, hull first, then sails.

Washington Irving wins credit for popularizing the flat-earth fable in 1828. In his bestselling biography of Columbus, Irving described Columbus's supposed defense of his round-earth theory before the flat earth savants at Salamanca University. Irving himself surely knew the story to be fiction. He probably thought it added a nice dramatic flourish and would do no harm. But it does. It invites us to believe that the "primitives" of the world, admittedly including pre-Columbian Europeans, had only a crude understanding of the planet they lived on, until aided by a forward-thinking European. It also turns Columbus into a man of science who corrected our faulty geography.

Intense debunking of the flat-earth legend by professional historians has made an impact. Yet even the eleven textbooks that do not repeat Irving's fiction choose wholly infeffectual words to counter it."

 

And it goes on but you get the idea.

 

This site, while somewhat polemical in tone, does include some other details to support the idea that the flat-earth legend is primarily that.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

 

A philosophy discussion about the topic:

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

 

Site denouncing textbook errors relating to the myth:

http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm

 

Religious site debunking the myth:

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

 

There are many more, just do a google search for

"flat earth" columbus

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Kurgan

The point I was trying to make is NOT that the bible is scientifically accurate. I don't claim that it is. The books (yes, books plural) contained in it were written in pre-scientific times. It was not trying to teach us scientific truths, but religious ones. And myths as stories don't have to change, whereas scientific understanding is constantly changing and evolving (hopefully in the right direction).

 

...............

 

Even if you are not a Christian or a Jew, you can still derive value from old stories.

 

I can see how you would feel wrongfully targeted, but trust that you were not intended for targeting, as I know you to be of a more pragmatic intellect. Rather it was aimed at the socalled Christians. No doubt the Bible contains a vast deal of moral lessons and ethical teachings, as I said, and that is all well (apart from the disagreements I fundamentally hold for much of it, but that's another story).

 

What I find disturbing is the religious types seem to only hold these ethic teachings as true and validated because they came from the divine. I would feel alot better if they found these teachings true and validated because they themselves feel it to be true, and not because it's dictated by holy scripture. It raises the question, that if the divinity of the Bible was proven wrong to them, would they forgo of the moral teachings it speaks of, too? It is a fundamental question of the human nature: Do we only "behave" because we fear the reprisals of not doing so, or do we "behave" because we really want to?

 

Pardon my straying off topic.

[lukeskywalker1]

There are those that would say that "creation" is the easy way out. Seven days, Adam & Eve... Garden of Eden... all in one chapter. The current research on evolutionary biology would fill volumes (and it does). Not really all that easy if you ask me.

 

You missed my point... im not talking about "Seven days, Adam & Eve... Garden of Eden... all in one chapter."

 

Im talking about following, made especially harder when people decide to "bash" you just because you cant give them evidence that they can hold in their hand to prove it true. Then of course, outside influence, and a number of different things. Of course thats a whole lot easier to handle then "were dead, get over it, and its over..." Id say, facing the threat of Hell, is a whole lot tougher to handel than im dead, and thats all... agree?

 

 

Written by the NCV bible

 

2 Timothy 4:3

 

 

3 because the time will come when people will not listen to the true teaching but will find many more teachers who please them by saying the things they want to hear.

 

 

 

You don't want to, but you have to?

 

Dont put words into my mouth, i didnt say "I dont want, but i have to"

 

If homosexuality were a choice, why would so many people choose to be persecuted, ridiculed, spit upon, cursed, beaten, killed, and otherwise oppressed? What is the gain? If the sex is that good, perhaps we (the heterosexuals) are missing something.

 

I used something simular before... lemme rewrite it

 

Why would so many christians choose to be persecuted, ridiculed, spit upon, cursed, beaten, killed, and otherwise oppressed? What is the gain? (youve seen the bashing thread) If the life is better, perhaps we (the non-christians) are missing something.

 

And you know as well as i do, homosexuals CAN change!

 

 

Written by the NCV Bible

2 Timothy 2:11-13

 

11 This teaching is true:

If we die with him, we will also live with him.

12 If we accept suffering, we will also rule with him.

If we refuse to accept him, he will refuse to accept us.

13 If we are not faithful, he will still be faithful,

because he cannot be false to himself.

 

2 Timothy 3:12

 

Everyone who want to live as God desires, in Christ Jesus, will be hurt.

 

 

 

And uhh.. i didnt read all of the thread dont plan on writing a whole lot more on this topic, because as you can see, none of this really applied to the topic.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I used something simular before... lemme rewrite it

 

Why would so many christians choose to be persecuted, ridiculed, spit upon, cursed, beaten, killed, and otherwise oppressed? What is the gain? (youve seen the bashing thread) If the life is better, perhaps we (the non-christians) are missing something.

 

And you know as well as i do, homosexuals CAN change!

You're comparing Christians (a huge majority population) to Homosexuals (a minority)? You can't make a comparison like that. It's just not the same thing.

 

Homosexuals can change? Wow, that's one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen.

 

For my full thoughts on the Bible and homosexuality, see the Why is it OK to bash Christianity thread.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Now enter homosexuality. How does it fit with evolution?

 

1. homosexuality is NOT a HUMAN "specialty" ..

 

2. homosexuality has NOTHING to do with evolution in a direct way. it's an "emotional" thing that is an expression of "higher" intelligence abilities.

 

evolution is the "result" of many and long adaption processes.

the church says GOD created the lifeforms as they are and the dont change EVER but this is proven wrong because adaption to an environment is a change already.

 

And since evolution is a long lasting processmit cant be OBSERVED in a direct way but indirectly for instance through archeological digs.

[lukeskywalker1]

You're comparing Christians (a huge majority population) to Homosexuals (a minority)? You can't make a comparison like that. It's just not the same thing.

 

 

No, im not comparing them! Im saying why would christians (and you choose to be a christian) choose to be persecuted? This forum is proof enough of the persecution (why would we choose to be a christian, if we knew this would happen?) Think about that...

 

it had nothing to do with homosexuality..

 

the church says GOD created the lifeforms as they are and the dont change EVER

 

Where does it say they cant change?

 

2. homosexuality has NOTHING to do with evolution in a direct way. it's an "emotional" thing that is an expression of "higher" intelligence abilities.

 

Higher intellegence? can you explain that? I understand emotional... and everything, but not the higher intellegence part..

 

Homosexuals can change? Wow, that's one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen.

 

ummm.... it happens all the time. (mostly when they become a christian)

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

ummm.... it happens all the time. (mostly when they become a christian)

 

I put this paragraph in another thread as well, but just for those that are reading this one, but not that one.....

 

As to the idea that christian organizations can "convert" homosexuals back to heterosexuals, Barry Yeoman of Psychology Today (Mar/Apr 1999) said, "For every person who claims a conversion to heterosexuality, there are several others who fail in their efforts. Two of the founders of Exodus International [a christian program to "convert" homosexuals], Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left the organization after falling in love, and more than a dozen Christian ministries have closed down after their leaders reverted back to homosexuality."

 

Yeoman, Barry Mar/Apr 1999. GAY NO MORE? Psychology Today, Vol. 32, Issue 2

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by RayJones

1. homosexuality is NOT a HUMAN "specialty" .. it's an "emotional" thing that is an expression of "higher" intelligence abilities.

 

What evidence have you of this?

 

I noted two studies in the "Gays and Church" thread that discussed the steriod androgen in prenatal terms as well as one that noted "Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome."

 

The references, respectively are:

Williams, T., et al. Mar 2000. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature 404, 455 - 456.

 

Rahman, Qazi; Wilson, Glenn D.June 2003.

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 34 Issue 8, p1337, 46p

 

Originally posted by RayJones

And since evolution is a long lasting processmit cant be OBSERVED in a direct way but indirectly for instance through archeological digs.

 

Partially true. We can also infer evolution by looking at the genetics of living organisms. The diversity of species or populations within living species is telling of evolution. Evolution is the idea of genetic mutation (mutation meaning "change" not the colloquial "deformity") with favorable mutations surviving from one generation to the next whilst unfavorable ones fail (i.e. the organism dies).

 

Evolution can be observed from one individual to the next, though certainly not on as grand a scale of speciation.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I noted two studies in the "Gays and Church" thread that discussed the steriod androgen in prenatal terms as well as one that noted "Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome."

 

The references, respectively are:

Williams, T., et al. Mar 2000. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature 404, 455 - 456.

 

Rahman, Qazi; Wilson, Glenn D.June 2003.

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 34 Issue 8, p1337, 46p

 

 

NOTICE TO ALL BIGOTS:

 

Please do not attempt to read or take any notice of the two studies mentioned above.

The evidence contained within them may not only educate you, but also - in extreme cases - can induce acceptant and tolerant attitudes...

 

...you have been warned!