Reply With Quote
So OP have you gobbled the dudes cawk yet? How many of those mags did you stuff under your shirt after leaving the bedroom with your other friend?
Evolution cannot occur without reproduction. sexuality obviously precludes reproduction. How can anyone argue, from a scientific standpoint, that sexuality does anything else but take away genes from the pool?
Evolution isn't perfect and actually selects for a species' disintegration is the only argument one can make if sexuality truly has biological roots.
So OP have you gobbled the dudes cawk yet? How many of those mags did you stuff under your shirt after leaving the bedroom with your other friend?
Damn! They almost sound...........HUMAN!...Who would have thought it?
which do you think is higher on the evolutionary chain, asexual reproduction or bisexual reproduction?
"Bisexual" reproduction?
Heard of in vitro fertilization? Artificial insemination? Surrogate pregnancies?
Gay and lesbian couples can actually reproduce using their own sperm and eggs in the process. Might not be the traditional way of reproducing, but it's reproducing nonetheless. And especially if the couple has multiple children where each is a father/mother of one of the children, then both can pass on their genes.
sexuality does not necessarily take away genes from the pool. And sexuality does not necessarily preclude reproduction.
And, the point that was brought up about population growth control is very poignant to an evolution argument. Overpopulation with insufficient resources hurts the entire population. Evolution has a way of trying to control overpopulation. Sometimes it's plague or disease. One could easily argue sexuality is one of evolution's ways of controlling population growth. That's a legitimate reason.
And, back to the religion/Bible issue. mavs>spurs claims that sexuality grosses him out and is against his beliefs and that the Bible is against it. Well, around the same passages in Leviticus of the Old Testament that says sexuality is an abomination, it lists other abominations. They include shaving, getting tattoos, eating s fish like crab or lobster. So I ask sincerely, do those things gross you out too? Have you ever shaved your face? Ever eaten crab or lobster? If so, that was an abomination just like sexuality and you're going to . And, anyone of your loved ones that have too are going to too. So gross.
Don't worry about semantics. Just answer the question, dip .bisexual
7. of, relating to, or involving both sexes, as bisexual reproduction.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved
It can also be argued that humans learning how to use in vitro fertilization can be seen as evolving.
For the half a billion years of life before this century and in all other species than humans, sexuality precludes reproduction, therefore evolution cannot occur and possible 'valuable' genes are lost. One must assume evolution actually selects against traits of sexuality for this very reason. Additionally, evolution operates almost exclusively on natural parameters of attraction.
The couple is hindering evolution, regardless. The combination of their genes is what fuels evolution.And especially if the couple has multiple children where each is a father/mother of one of the children, then both can pass on their genes.
By the majority of all counts, it does. 99.9% type number. The vast majority of sexual creatures will not pass their genes on, and those that do will not do it paired with their partner..sexuality does not necessarily take away genes from the pool. And sexuality does not necessarily preclude reproduction.
There is no such thing as "bisexual reproduction", Blake.
www.dictionary.com proves it.
You obviously don't know much about evolution.
lol "bisexual" reproduction. It's simply sexual reproduction, dumbass.
You're trying to qualify evolution and restrict it. Evolution can happen over a span of a billion years or a span of only a few years. During the industrial revolution, there were white moths that over a very short span evolved into black moths because of industry. That's still evolution, despite the fact that million years prior, there were no black moths among that species. Technology can also cause evolution of a species. It has countless times before. From roads to urban development, man made technology has affected the habitat, behavioral traits, and even physical characteristics of many animals that has brought on evolution.
The fact that gay and lesbian couples can now reproduce with the help of technology and use their own sperm/eggs is absolutely a sign of evolution.
So is a wife cheating on her husband and getting pregnant by another man is hindering the husband's ability to pass his genes.The couple is hindering evolution, regardless. The combination of their genes is what fuels evolution.
Evolution is a dynamic of totality. Probably millions upon millions of years ago, there was an ape like creature who was 0.1% of his species that through some minute fraction of a mutation learned how to stand upright and walk on two feet. Let's not try to argue about 99.9% when evolution actually works by those small percentages that differ from the vast majority. If things continued to go on based on 99.9% of what already is known, there would be no evolution. Everything would stay the same.By the majority of all counts, it does. 99.9% type number. The vast majority of sexual creatures will not pass their genes on, and those that do will not do it paired with their partner..
I don't understand how you never learned to read in your old age. I said that people in general are more open about their sexuality in past generations, not that people didn't have sex or something. Today norms are different and a female is more likely to be the initiator in some cases. Women were probably just as wild and crazy back then but today they don't try to hide it.
Why does every new generation think they invented sex?
One must if we are truly going to study whether or not something occurs because of evolution, of if in fact, those genes are hindering evolution and being selected against.
Evolution can happen over a span of a billion years or a span of only a few years. During the industrial revolution, there were white moths that over a very short span evolved into black moths because of industry. That's still evolution, despite the fact that million years prior, there were no black moths among that species.
You cite a very common example, and there is one notable fallacy: there WERE indeed black moths, just they were much rarer due to their lesser adapted genes. When the environment changed, black moths suddenly survived at a much higher rate and quickly overwhelmed the white moths for the same resources. This is what you call adaptation - and I'm not sure what place, other than miniscule, it has with sexuals. sexuals aren't being selected against by the environment or even other sexuals since no sexual reproduction can occur which passes on only two sexual partners' genes.
Once again, this is environmental. Technology destroys animals habitats and those animals who are lucky enough to be able to cope and survive do so.Technology can also cause evolution of a species. It has countless times before. From roads to urban development, man made technology has affected the habitat, behavioral traits, and even physical characteristics of many animals that has brought on evolution.
Evolution's 'sign' points the complete opposite way. Since sexuals do not reproduce, evolution cannot occur in any natural sense.The fact that gay and lesbian couples can now reproduce with the help of technology and use their own sperm/eggs is absolutely a sign of evolution.
We have simply found a way to evade evolution entirely, not aid in its progress.
Apples to oranges. A gay man cannot cheat on his gay lover with another gay man and pass his genes on.So is a wife cheating on her husband and getting pregnant by another man is hindering the husband's ability to pass his genes.
I understand you're meaning 'artificial insemination' by this, but artificial insemination avoids evolution entirely for the partners. Evolution, by definition, means selecting the most attractive mates possible and reproducing. Artificial reproduction does not have evolution as any basis; evolution doesn't select for or against certain traits.
And to everyone else, my point wasn't to get into a long drawn out discussion about religion and genetics. I simply do not like gots, if that upsets you then great. Anyway it seems like zosa is doing a great job of owning you guys all by himself. Good day to all you straight people out there and God bless.
and I want to say something: I have nothing, not one thing at all, against gays. I have gay family and friends. It still doesn't change what IMO is a completely human, psychological thing.
zosa argues to argue. that's what you do in your early 20's.
but rest assured he's not standing in your corner.
Not on every issue but on some issues he is. Son are you straight? If so, then God bless and good day.
I just want to know if you think eating crabs, shrimp, lobsters is gross? Because it should also be against your beliefs.
Do you not shave at all because it should be against your beliefs?
Do you think children who curse out their parents should be sentenced to death because that's what the Bible says?
sexuality doesn't gross you out because it's against your beliefs. It grosses you out because you just don't like it. It's not about religion or evolution. That's not why you don't like it or it turns your stomach.
So with that near genius IQ you have, stop using any religion or evolution argument when talking about how you are against sexuality.
fear the beard
Quickly...
sexuality hinders reproduction, but it doesn't hinder evolution. They are two different things. From what we know scientifically, sexuality is not a genetic trait passed on from parent to offspring. A gay parent does not necessarily reproduce a gay child and similarly a straight parent doesn't necessarily reproduce a straight child. So, sexuality is something that hinders reproduction on an individual level. It does not effectively hinder evolution any more than a person who is impotent or sterile hinder evolution or simply a person who voluntarily or involuntarily decide not to have children hinder evolution (say a Catholic priest or nun).
Technology allows for reproduction by gay and lesbian couples and by their own sperm and eggs. That in itself is evolutionary allowing for individuals who may have not been able to otherwise pass their genes on to indeed do that now.
I'm still not really sure how this is evolution. It could be cultural evolution in the sense that if a person figures out how to make a better spear, he will tell his kid how to make a better spear and from generations on, they make better spears. But in a biological sense, I don't quite see it. Did lesbians and gays discover how to artificially create kids because they were spurned on by needs? Was a lesbian or gay born with a larger cranial capacity and thus discovered the science necessary to pass on genes?
10% of the population is gay, supposedly. There is evidence to suggest that some people are born gay, depending on factors like what order in the birth they were etc. There is also part of the population that probably chooses to be gay. But if for the percentage that is born that way, gays may never become extinct.
In any event, bringing up evolution is almost completely moot to the discussion. The appeal to nature fallacy is one that many people fall victim to - what's natural is 'right' and what is unnatural is 'wrong'.
Son after Jesus died, in the New Testament many of the old laws were abolished. These include the rules about shaving, s fish, etc. I don't recall sexuality being one of those things that were done away with.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"Let he without sin cast the first stone"
Can you site the passages in the New Testament abolishing the laws against eating s fish or shaving beards? Where are these New Testament passages abolishing those laws?
Fair. I do think evolution is being misused and inaccurately applied in part.
From what we know from science, sexuality is not a genetic trait that is passed on, as I just mentioned above. And, hindering reproduction does not necessarily hinder evolution.
So I actually do agree that much of the evolution discussion has been moot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
