Found out one of my friends is......

[z0sa]

Great. Let's go one step further and take the sperm and eggs of the best and brightest people of the world to make the most attractive offspring possible in a science lab.

Society would benefit from that faster than having "nature" run it's course.

Are you being sarcastic? The brightest and best person is once again, a very subjective idea. You can't go by an iq test and a popularity vote. And their offspring's environments will impact them as much as their genes will.

[z0sa]

you are correct, but in the context of the bar scene, women have pretty much always been the same.

way to to take that to the extreme.

I don't really think it's that extreme, because all these things were different 60 years ago too. You'd have to have made your own conclusions to understand that, though.

[Blake]

Are you being sarcastic? The brightest and best person is once again, a very subjective idea. You can't go by an iq test and a popularity vote. And their offspring's environments will impact them as much as their genes will.

exactly. It's why you talking about losing out on 'valuable' genes is ridiculous.

[Blake]

There is no such thing as plagiarism on a messageboard

sure there is. It's what you just did.

[z0sa]

exactly. It's why you talking about losing out on 'valuable' genes is ridiculous.

Life isn't fair. White/Black moth example proves that. When your environment changes, you must be suited for the change as well.

Second, you're arguing a strawman. I never argued that sexual humans have valuable genes that need to be passed on - I argued that is how evolution works. It is a completely random process, but it does have purpose. Additionally, I'm not arguing about sexuals' affects on evolution - I don't think sexuality has much to do with your genetics as it does with your ideals and environment.

[Blake]

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'.

that.

[Blake]

Life isn't fair. White/Black moth example proves that. When your environment changes, you must be suited for the change as well.

apparently you aren't suited for such changes in society.

that's a shame. I guess life isn't fair.

Second, you're arguing a strawman. I never argued that sexual humans have valuable genes that need to be passed on - I argued that is how evolution works. It is a completely random process, but it does have purpose.

lol valuable genes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution doesn't say anything about evolution needing valuable genes to work.

I don't know what you are trying to argue. I don't think you know what you are trying to argue.

[z0sa]

To sum up my thoughts, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

It has very little to do with evolution. Evolution is all about reproduction, not attractive mates.

Since sexuals don't reproduce naturally, their combined traits can't be selected for. Whether or not sexuals reproducing through other means negates this idea is debatable.

[z0sa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution doesn't say anything about evolution needing valuable genes to work.

How valuable your genes are depends on your environment most of the time. When the white moth's genes were selected against, they lost 'value.' Those moths died off, Blake.

Can you prove evolution is selecting for or against artificial insemination?

[boutons_deux]

"Evolution is all about reproduction, not attractive mates"

what a dumb . Mate selection is heavily influenced what the selector considers "attractive".

[z0sa]

"Evolution is all about reproduction, not attractive mates"

what a dumb . Mate selection is heavily influenced what the selector considers "attractive".

In the context of sexuality, dumb . If there's attraction but no reproduction, evolution can't occur.

[Pero]

There's a difference between scientific progress and evolution. We haven't evolved to a stage that even sexuals could make babies, we made scientific discoveries that make this possible. Like we haven't evolved to fly, we discovered aeroplanes to fly with them. Had we evolved to fly, we'd be born with wings. Or a flying superpower.

[Blake]

How valuable your genes are depends on your environment most of the time. When the white moth's genes were selected against, they lost 'value.' Those moths died off, Blake.

Can you prove evolution is selecting for or against artificial insemination?

You are the one claiming valuable genes are lost due to sexuality. Can you prove that valuable genes are lost by using artificial insemination instead of intercourse?

I'll answer for you. "No, because I have no idea what a valuable human gene would be."

I have no idea where you are headed with this. I don't think you have any idea where you are headed with this, especially since you say you have no problem with the gay.

[Blake]

There's a difference between scientific progress and evolution.

There's a difference between biological evolution and scientific, industrial or societal evolution.

Mankind can fly, can reproduce and can now produce clones.

That's evolution.

[Blake]

Since sexuals don't reproduce naturally, their combined traits can't be selected for. Whether or not sexuals reproducing through other means negates this idea is debatable.

No, it's really not debatable.

[z0sa]

We agree to disagree then, Blake.

[rjv]

Life isn't fair. White/Black moth example proves that. When your environment changes, you must be suited for the change as well.

Second, you're arguing a strawman. I never argued that sexual humans have valuable genes that need to be passed on - I argued that is how evolution works. It is a completely random process, but it does have purpose. Additionally, I'm not arguing about sexuals' affects on evolution - I don't think sexuality has much to do with your genetics as it does with your ideals and environment.

aren't these rather metaphysical assumptions ?

[Blake]

aren't these rather metaphysical assumptions ?

agree to disagree

[Pero]

There's a difference between biological evolution and scientific, industrial or societal evolution.

Mankind can fly, can reproduce and can now produce clones.

That's evolution.

Ok, but it's scientific evolution, not human evolution.

[Blake]

Ok, but it's scientific evolution, not human evolution.

an argument can be made that it is human evolution as well.

[Pero]

an argument can be made that it is human evolution as well.

Maybe, but I don't think so.

[mavs>spurs2]

women are the same today as they always have been.

you're just too smart to see that.

Right, society has never changed. Carry on dumbass

[z0sa]

Maybe, but I don't think so.

Me either.

[Whisky Dog]

This thread is still going on? What can you s possibly have to argue about?

[Sisk]

I need to come to the club more often... this thread is hilarious