Cyclone Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'll tell you what I don't understand. How you discount the theory I believe by providing links to other theories that are not factual either. That's just dumb... What was your hypothesis? It looked to me like you were admitting a basic ignorance of the subject of evolution, not postulating a hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 What was your hypothesis? It looked to me like you were admitting a basic ignorance of the subject of evolution, not postulating a hypothesis. Thank you for crediting me with it. I'm sure more intelligent people, just like your good self, have had the same thought. We got diverted somewhat onto evolution... Basically, I said I think homosexuality is the result of a flaw in the genes. Genes create many flaws as you will know. I also said their is no definitive answer. Unless of course we can all assume you are the source of all knowledge and facts..?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'll tell you what I don't understand. How you discount the theory I believe by providing links to other theories that are not factual either. That's just dumb... Er, how are they not factual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'll tell you what I don't understand. How you discount the theory I believe by providing links to other theories that are not factual either. That's just dumb... You haven't presented any theories. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Thank you for crediting me with it. I'm sure more intelligent people, just like your good self, have had the same thought. We got diverted somewhat onto evolution... Basically, I said I think homosexuality is the result of a flaw in the genes. Genes create many flaws as you will know. I also said their is no definitive answer. Unless of course we can all assume you are the source of all knowledge and facts..?.. I'm not the source of all knowledge or facts, but that doesn't mean that I don't know more than you about this particular subject.. I think it's already been clearly explained why it is unlikely to be a defect, defects do not increase the chance of breeding (which as you pointed out earlier is the basic criteria for a change to be successful amongst a population). So given the commonality of homosexual behaviour, it appears that it isn't a detrimental trait to a species and so isn't a defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Thank you for crediting me with it. I'm sure more intelligent people, just like your good self, have had the same thought. We got diverted somewhat onto evolution... Basically, I said I think homosexuality is the result of a flaw in the genes. Genes create many flaws as you will know. I also said their is no definitive answer. Unless of course we can all assume you are the source of all knowledge and facts..?.. How is it a flaw? Surely it's only a flaw if natural selection selects against it. And since I have a feeling your next point will be, its a flaw as homosexuals cannot reproduce, then it's worth bearing in mind that natural selection acts on populations as a whole not on individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Do you think that decriminalising it might have not altered the prevalence but have altered whether people hide it or not? Some didn't hide it when it was an offence, I suppose you'd have to look at age groups to see if there is an increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 What is the increase in homosexuality since the introduction of modern chemicals into the environment would be interesting.Has there been an increase or has the proportion remained about the same ?Some didn't hide it when it was an offence, I suppose you'd have to look at age groups to see if there is an increase.Yes you would, so please provide some evidence, this is your point you are trying to make so back it up with some figures. Ok birth control pills were introduced in the sixties - yes they were. There is feminisation of some fish due to hormones leaching into the water - yes there is, it could just be a side effect of the general increase in the female population but we'll be generous and assume it's the birth control pills. Please provide some evidence that this has a link to an increase in people being homosexual, preferably after you've demonstrated there is an actual increase. You can't make statements like this without supporting evidence. This may be idle chatter for you, you may not be seeking to oppress or bully or deny gay people their rights. But these statements you make with no supporting evidence are visible to people who do seek to oppress, bully and deny gay people their rights. These people can then use this as ammunition saying "it's on the web, look it up", an argument I've seen many times on this forum, and the rumour mill runs riot and someone can get hurt, before people track these things down and find they are baseless and it all calms down again. So you may not be actively harming people, but by making these statements in a publication such as this forum, you are enabling those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 That's very generous and trusting of you...and as to understanding it...Well if he's going to quote something I have to assume he's at least read through it and understands what he's reading otherwise, he's not being honest by quoting it to support his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'm not the source of all knowledge or facts, but that doesn't mean that I don't know more than you about this particular subject.. I think it's already been clearly explained why it is unlikely to be a defect, defects do not increase the chance of breeding (which as you pointed out earlier is the basic criteria for a change to be successful amongst a population). So given the commonality of homosexual behaviour, it appears that it isn't a detrimental trait to a species and so isn't a defect. There you have it, "unlikely" this is not a fact. You can't present a theory as fact. I didn't I said looking at all the information I believe it to be a flaw because a species wouldn't purposely create offspring who can't, at the basic level, reproduce the line. We have a bit of a Global Warming thing going on here whereby anyone, I'm talking about scientists, who dared to say that homosexuality was a genetic flaw would be finished. Because, as we are now, as a society, with PC fascists all over the place anyone who dares to mention the negative reasons for homosexuality is immediately dismissed because only positive things are allowed to be said... If homosexuality is not a genetic flaw, why aren't their many more of them? Genetic flaws are evident in humans, there are many. People are born disabled, this is due to a genetic flaw. In terms of the success of the human race homosexuality is a disability...in terms of humans reproducing.. That should keep you all going for a while.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.