And it's really lame to reduce my statement to three words from the middle statement and treat it like my complete one. If you have faith in your incorrect view, at least address my entire statement. You have failed to do so, so far. Here it is:

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

...none of which precludes environmental causes. But CasKev's explanation is more plausible.

Of course it precludes environmental causes since Gays mostly come out of Straight environments and mostly Straights come out of "Gay" environments. So, the environments clearly aren't making people Gay or Straight.

Of course it precludes environmental causes since Gays greatly come out of Straight environments and mostly Straights come out of "Gay" environments. So, the environments clearly aren't making people Gay or Straight. — Thanatos Sand

A person's environment is more than just the home in which they are reared.

Michael Ossipoff

Of course it precludes environmental causes since Gays greatly come out of Straight environments and mostly Straights come out of "Gay" environments. So, the environments clearly aren't making people Gay or Straight.
— Thanatos Sand

A person's environment is more than just the home in which they are reared.

Michael Ossipoff

Yes, but it is their primary shaping environment showing even the shaping environment doesn't make people Gay or straight. Considering you havent shown any other environment that overrides those environments to make people Gay or Straight, my point stands as true.

Attributing Gays' sexual preferences to an unproven, unscientific, homophobic "mechanism" that you see as a "bug in the reproductive system" and not just a regular product of the reproductive system that made Gays and their predilections is a value judgment. You are saying that Gays' sexual predilections are not as natural as Straights'. that is an immense value judgment. — Thanatos Sand

Not unless it's intended that way.

Look, one thing for sure is that gay-ness isn't hereditary.

That isn't rocket-science.

If it were hereditary, then, with no one (or many times fewer) to inherit it, then it would soon disappear from the population.

So it isn't hereditary. What other alternatives are there. Well, environment is an obvious one (and not just the home in which one is reared).

CasKev's explanation avoids some of the problems of the environmental explanation.

If you agree that gay-ness wouldn't be propagated and perpetuated by heredity, then you'd agree that another explanation is needed. Environment, &/or the genetic transcription-errors suggested by CasKev are alternative explanations.

Don't make an issue about "natural". What's natural? Without the CT-hit, there'd probably be no humans.

Want "natural"? What could be more natural than Nothing? Nothing can be regarded as the natural state-of-affairs. ...and you'll eventually return to what could be called Nothing, at your end-of-lives. (or at the end of this life, if you assume that there's no reincarnation). And of course it will be Timeless, as opposed to our limited time in life (...limited if you believe either that there's no reincarnation, or those who say that there's inevitably an end to lives, when a person achieves what, in the East, they call "Liberation".)

Much of the variation that makes natural-selection possible is due to mutations. ...instances of cosmic-rays, or radiation from radioactive minerals, altering chromosomes. is it a disparaging value-judgement to suggest that some human attributes could have resulted from those accidental collisions?

Did you know that there's strongly-convincing evidence that we're all the descendants of a pig and a chimpanzee (or someone very similar to a chimpanzee) that had an affair, a relationship, or at least a tryst?

If so, the only reasons why there are humans is because of what happened between that pig and that chimpanzee.

Is that suggestion a disparaging value-judgment about humans?

Michael Ossipoff

Attributing Gays' sexual preferences to an unproven, unscientific, homophobic "mechanism" that you see as a "bug in the reproductive system" and not just a regular product of the reproductive system that made Gays and their predilections is a value judgment. You are saying that Gays' sexual predilections are not as natural as Straights'. that is an immense value judgment. — Thanatos Sand
Not unless it's intended that way. — Michael Ossipoff

It doesn't matter how it's intended; a homophobic statement is still a homophobic statement. That's like saying a racist statement isn't racist if it isn't meant to be. Ridiculous.

.
Selective reproduction is the obvious mechanism of evolution.
. — Michael Ossipoff

For someone who claims to eschew brute facts, your posts are just one big bundle of such.

Look, one thing for sure is that gay-ness isn't hereditary.

That isn't rocket-science.

Look, you have no idea if it isn't hereditary or if Straightness isn't hereditary. And it's not rocket science; its Genetics, a science in which you are clearly uneducated.

If it were hereditary, then, with no one (or many times fewer) to inherit it, then it would soon disappear from the population.

So it isn't hereditary. What other alternatives are there. Well, environment is an obvious one (and not just the home in which one is reared).

This makes absolutely no sense since there have been a consistent amount of Gays who clearly could have, and probably did, inherit it. And you still failed to show what environment can override parental rearing. Thanks for supporting my point again.

CasKev's explanation avoids some of the problems of the environmental explanation.

As I well-showed, Caskev's explanation is unscientific, homophobic nonsense. The fact you buy into it doesn't speak well of you.

If you agree that gay-ness wouldn't be propagated and perpetuated by heredity, then you'd agree that another explanation is needed. Environment, &/or the genetic transcription-errors suggested by CasKev are alternative explanations.

I never agreed to this and you haven't shown that to be true. Heredity is still the best, most scientific explanation.

Don't make an issue about "natural". What's natural? Without the CT-hit, there'd probably be no humans.

I didnt' make an issue of "narural;" you and Caskev did with your homophobic "explanation" of homosexuality by presenting it as an unnatural "bug in the system."

Want "natural"? What could be more natural than Nothing? Nothing can be regarded as the natural state-of-affairs. ...and you'll eventually return to what could be called Nothing, at your end-of-lives. (or at the end of this life, if you assume that there's no reincarnation). And of course it will be Timeless, as opposed to our limited time in life (...limited if you believe either that there's no reincarnation, or those who say that there's inevitably an end to lives, when a person achieves what, in the East, they call "Liberation".)

Much of the variation that makes natural-selection possible is due to mutations. ...instances of cosmic-rays, or radiation from radioactive minerals, altering chromosomes. is it a disparaging value-judgement to suggest that some human attributes could have resulted from those accidental collisions?

This is incoherent, irrelevant nonsense that doesn't address anything I said.

Did you know that there's strongly-convincing evidence that we're all the descendants of a pig and a chimpanzee (or someone very similar to a chimpanzee) that had an affair, a relationship, or at least a tryst?

If so, the only reasons why there are humans is because of what happened between that pig and that chimpanzee.

Is that suggestion a disparaging value-judgment about humans?

And this is more irrelevant nonsense having nothing to do with our discussion. Try to stay on point.

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. — CasKev

A very clear explanation of how and why Natural Selection, via it's hold on all things including Nazi Stormtroopers, will seek to eliminate all that is not Natural. It has now gone to a place that is pretty much beyond distasteful. Is this any different from a religious Inquisition? I don't believe so. It is probably worse. Hunduism has it's caste system. All religions fighting to be king of the hill with some supernatural forces like Natural Selection eliminating all that is sinful.

I hasten to add that no one is implying a value-judgement. Just a mechanism. — Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, I didn't expect my statement to be taken as homophobic. It is meant to be anything but; just a plausible alternative as to why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of existence, despite having no direct benefit as far as reproduction is concerned.

Given that homosexuality exists, and those who practice it seem to be merely following their natural instincts, harming no one in the process, there is no reason to criticize it.

Sorry, I didn't expect my statement to be taken as homophobic. It is meant to be anything but; just a plausible alternative as to why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of existence, despite having no direct benefit as far as reproduction is concerned.

It doesnt' matter if your statement wasn't meant to be taken as homophobic. It was homophobic as you presented Gays and homosexuality as a result of a "bug in the reproduction system," making it less natural than being born from the reproduction system functioning normally. As Rich pointed out, the Nazis used to make similar eugenic statements about Jews. We saw how that worked out.

So, stop making homophobic statements like that and you should be fine.

Given that homosexuality exists, and those who practice it seem to be merely following their natural instincts, harming no one in the process, there is no reason to criticize it. — CasKev

Homophobia is a "natural" conclusion for any ideology that is driven by reproduction as fundamental or essential. Once one goes down this path (as the Nazis did) the preferred path of the supernatural force called Natural Selection is inevitable, i.e. weed out.

The scientific explanation of human evolution is not only a silly story for which there is zero evidence (all that survives, survives because of some force called natural selection), it is downright horrific.

It was homophobic as you presented Gays and homosexuality as a result of a "bug in the reproduction system," making it less natural than being born from the reproduction system functioning normally — Thanatos Sand

How is it not less natural in the context of evolution? Continuation of a species requires procreation, and homosexuality removes the desire to couple with the opposite sex. I suppose a 100% homosexual human population could make it work, because we're smart enough to know that we will cease to exist unless we find some way around our lack of sexual desire. However, it is hard to imagine a 100% homosexual dog population deciding to couple with the opposite sex, without the instinctive drive.

As Rich pointed out, the Nazis used to make similar eugenic statements about Jews. — Thanatos Sand

The Nazis used this line of reasoning not only for Jews, but on anyone who stood on land that they wanted, which included 10s of millions of Gypsies, Slavs, Russians, and millions of others who were deemed inferior. The Nazis envisioned themselves as but a tool of the inexorable force called Natural Selection. These outside forces governing our lives can be quite murderous at times.

How is it not less natural in the context of evolution?

It's pretty sad you have to ask. Because you said it Gays an homosexuality was a product of a "bug" in the reproductive system, not the reproductive system acting normally, as opposed to Straights who are products of the reproductive system acting normally.

To show how vile your statement was, imagine saying Blacks are a product of a "bug" in the reproductive system while Whites are products of the system acting normally.

@Thanatos Sand Skin colour doesn't have any direct impact on the ability to reproduce.

Continuation of a species requires procreation, and homosexuality removes the desire to couple with the opposite sex — CasKev

That you and the Nazis are so hung up about the continuation of a species or race is purely an individual issue and desire Some share your obsession and others don't. Some have children, some just adopt. Everyone is different. Is this necessity to continue a species or a race being taught in philosophy, science, or religious classes? It's rather frightening. I hope there are some people who reject it and the the whole concept in favor of a quieter view of life.

Continuation of a species requires procreation, and homosexuality removes the desire to couple with the opposite sex. I suppose a 100% homosexual human population could make it work, because we're smart enough to know that we will cease to exist unless we find some way around our lack of sexual desire. However, it is hard to imagine a 100% homosexual dog population deciding to couple with the opposite sex, without the instinctive drive.

And now you show your homophobia again by presenting homosexuality as counter to the spreading of the species. The fact Gays and Straights who do not want kids or cant have kids have been with us forever proves they're part of the normal evolution of the species. The fact you can't see that these people, like Alan Turing, don't greatly contribute without procreating--and overpopulation shows its good not everyone is procreating--shows the deficiency of thinking and homophobic bias in the matter.

So, you should stop spouting your homophobia and stay out of evolutionary biology, you clearly are poorly educated, if at all, it it.

@Thanatos Sand Skin colour doesn't have any direct impact on the ability to reproduce.

Not only is that irrelevant to my correct point that your homophobic "bug theory" unjustly and erroneously shows one side as less natural than the others, it shows you forget that humans born not wanting to reproduce, like straights who don't want to reproduce, don't have to come from a "bug" in the system. They can and do just come from the reproduction system naturally.

P.S. Nobody has ever found this "bug" you speak of, so the "science" behind your homophobia is non-existent.

I would say that we have pretty much discovered the implications of Evolution. Good topic.

I do not. I think in words. In what way do I think in any images and how can you know this? — Andrew4Handel

As I already said in the post you responded to, if you think in words, then you think in visual scribbles and sounds, as that is all words are. How did you learn words if you couldn't see or hear prior to learning words?

Harry H.You are conflating the benefits of a feature with a causal explanation.

Saying wings aid survival through flight is for example an explanation in service of evolution not a biochemical theory about the evolution of wings. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not conflating anything. If something is beneficial, it is selected (passed down to subsequent generations). How does a beneficial trait come about? - Mutation. Genes copying themselves make mistakes sometimes. This is expected when there isn't an intelligent designer. Evolution by natural selection is a theory that has an expectation, or prediction, (one could even say an implication) that not every solution would be perfect or final. It is what you would expect from a mindless process. It isn't what you would expect if God did it. That is when you would expect solutions to be final and perfect.

Andrew4Handel, what is learning? Isn't learning mentally/behaviorally adapting to your environment? Doesn't having a mind allow you to adapt much more rapidly to rapid changes in the environment as opposed to adapting your body, which can take generations? Even Darwin understood the implication evolution by natural selection has on the mind.

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history. " - Darwin

But aren't you the one who is disparaging gays, when you say that they're criticizably unnatural if they're the result of an accident?

I described a variety of ways in which all of us are the result of various accidental occurrences.

Michael Ossipoff

For someone who claims to eschew brute facts, your posts are just one big bundle of such. — Rich

Well, I carefully, and at length, explained how natural selection works.

A brute fact is a fact that is posited without an explanation, typically with a claim that it doesn't need one. But natural selection, and its central role in evolution, is very well explained.

Michael Ossipoff

A brute fact is a fact that is posited without an explanation, typically with a claim that it doesn't need one. But natural selection, and its central role in evolution, is very well explained. — Michael Ossipoff

I didn't understand. Well your entire explanation then becomes a brute fact.

I didn't understand. Well your entire explanation then becomes a brute fact. — Rich

We're making progress.

In particular, which part of my explanation didn't you understand? Which statement or conclusion didn't seem supported?

Michael Ossipoff

I understand everything very well. You feel very strongly about something and you explain why you feel strongly about it. It's a belief which you are stating as a fact because you happen to strongly believe in it. Philosophers who believe in truth and believe that they have the truth do it all of the time. Believers of Evolution believe, very strongly so much so it approaches religious dogma, that there is some supernatural force named Natural Selection that is driving evolution. What's more, they may also believe that Natural Selection (which has God-like qualities) is obsessed with reproduction as it strives to survive. Dawkins story about selfish genes it's one example.

I really, really don't know to what to say about this tale.

What's more, they may also believe that Natural Selection (which has God-like qualities) is obsessed with reproduction as it strives to survive. — Rich

Natural Selection isn't a force with a mind or will; it's merely a description of the events that are occurring. Living things reproduce. If a feature is added to a living thing that allows it to live longer and reproduce more, it will eventually replace the version that didn't have that feature.

Nothing "supernatural" about it. It's an obvious consequence of accepted natural events.

For details, I refer you to my explanation of natural-selection.

There's really further nothing to say to you. You've decided what you want to believe, the position that you want to take, and you're going to try to rationalize and justify it no matter what.

There's no possibility of communication with you.

Are you a cliimate-change denier as well as an evolution-denier and, overall, a science-hater?

You must be very proud of our current president.

Maybe you should move to a red-state, and work to ban evolution from textbooks.

Michael Ossipoff

Life does change as is affected by what it learns.