Are you an atheist? (13 Viewers)

[The_Doc_Man]

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

First, the LGBT community is pushing for the issue that they don't have a choice in being born as they are. (And I happen to agree with them.) However, they are not all pushing for the issue to be a "gay gene" because that doesn't exist per se.

Second, here is a bit of research for you to ponder. I will not repeat the techie stuff more than necessary to illustrate the point. I will leave it to you to decide whether you can buy into it. This explanation is still being researched. Therefore, I can only present it as still being a working hypothesis for which a lot of data must be collected. Since I'm a chemist, not a physician, the research isn't in my area of fine-grained expertise.

In a study from the 1990s reported in various British medical journals and repeated in many newspapers. some physicians did the work that discovered that the human brain is physiologically different between men and women. I.e. it is no surprise that men and women don't think exactly alike because they are wired differently. The researchers used Positron Emission Tomography (a.k.a. PET scans) to get images of the brain structure. To see their study, use the following phrase for your favorite search engine

brain scan + homosexual

You will find, if you do the reading, that the second stage of their research, using a larger sample size started to find "outliers" - observations that at first glance appeared to be incorrect or inconsistent with their theory - i.e. a male brain structure in a female body and vice-versa. But further studies showed that the findings were explainable. All of the outliers were homosexual. In essence, those persons were gay because they had a mismatch between the plumbing (of their genitalia) and the wiring (of their brain).

When you hear gay folks talking about the feeling that they were born into the wrong body, they might literally be correct. Of course, this finding piqued the curiosity of the researchers, who finally came up with a mechanism.

At a certain point in early gestation, about when the brain stem starts forming, the fetus is highly susceptible to the mother's hormone balance. If it happens that a really bad hormonal event occurs at that time, the brain takes the cue from the predominant hormone in the imbalance. The hormones make it past the umbilical connection so that the mother's problem affects the fetus. We know this happens because addicted children can be born to addicted mothers even though the child has itself never taken a drug.

The genetic element here is a recessive gene (not yet identified) that allows this imbalance to get strong enough to affect brain stem formation. The reason it is hard to find in gay people is that the gene affects the MOTHER and might not even be passed along to the fetus. (Looking for love in all the wrong places?)

But the gene is even harder to find since it is a matter of having this imbalance occur at the right time to cause the plumbing/wiring mismatch. If the imbalance DOESN'T occur then the child born to that mother looks and acts perfectly normal - but carries a recessive gene that didn't interfere with the mother's ability to have the child. I.e. it is not a reproductive deficit for the one who passed along the DNA. If that is so, then it would not be blocked by natural selection.

Now the last part of this puzzle is that the BRAIN is the most powerful sex organ - it is the wiring that drives you, not the plumbing. If you have the brain of a man, you are turned on by beautiful, sexy women. If you have the brain of a woman, you are turned on by handsome, strong men. Your plumbing has nothing to say about what excites you. This means that your gender preference is NOT a choice. It is a birth condition.

The only reason I know as much as I do is that a member of my wife's extended family is gay. We had that little talk about nature/nurture. I did some research and found the 1990s articles.

In conclusion, those who claim that homosexuality must be a choice because it can't possibly be genetic are missing the fact that it well COULD be genetic via the above mechanism. And that oversight shows that they should not be talking about a subject that they know even less about than I do.

The religious zealots forget that by their standards, we are ALL "children of God" and therefore should not blame others for being different. There is a passage that says something to the effect that God knows us before we leave the womb. If so, He must not be bothered by a little difference such as gender preferences.

Further, if you look at the dogma of judgment for early-childhood death cases, it is generally held that a child is blameless (and thus still in a state of grace) for a while after birth. If a child born with Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida or Phocomelia is accepted as a blameless child, why is a child born with the plumbing/wiring mismatch condemned? God made that child as well as any OTHER child. So what's the problem?

 

[Libre]

I don't see why the question of choice is that important.
Geniuses in science are born with the innate ability to be geniuses - why give them any credit?
Maybe murderers are born with a gene to predispose them to be murders - why condemn them?
Maybe every single thing we do in our life is not really a choice - (no, not "fate") but the necessary outcome of our genetics + upbringing, of which we have little to no ability to control or influence.

We measure people by what they actually do - not what they are capable of doing, and not the innate abilities they were born with.

We generally prefer "attractive" folks to "unattractive" ones, despite the fact that one's appearance is superficial and to an extent beyond our ability to manipulate. We're all the time admiring celebs for their talent - they may have worked hard but we're all working hard, or most of us. They just have a talent + luck + work + connections + being in the right place at the right time.
For some homeless bum - all the above except in the other direction.

Don't you think that Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps were predisposed at birth for great athleticism? Lucky for them, running fast and swimming fast are things people care about (for some reason). But it's likely that they were simply unwitting recipients of beneficial genetics for running and swimming, fortunately born into a conducive environment for these activities - parents and coaches who encouraged them, and so on.
Charles Manson inherited a different set of genes, and probably upbringing.
We put medals on some and imprison others.

To people who find the idea of same-sex relationships repellant, it matters little whether it's a choice. It's become central to the debate but I believe it really is secondary. So what if it's a choice? Don't we support the idea of freedom of choice?
To those who subscribe to the gay life-style - they just want to be able to live the life they want. But we set up this huge question about choice or no choice as though settling it for sure would finally end the debate. Far from it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Choice comes up because the godbotherers' condemnation of homosexuals is based on the erroneous assumption that LGBT individuals CHOSE to be that way; that they somehow made some decision that they wanted to be gay, be abused, be outlawed, hunted, and murdered because they want kinky sex. After all, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, ergo it's a fundamental truth to them that Homosexuality Is Evil, and everyone, in their twisted version of reality, knows and understands that. The godbothers cannot even grasp the concept that anyone can inherently be different than they are, and thus those disgusting gays must have CHOSEN to reject God's teachings and have gay sex out of either sexual deviancy and perversion, willful embrace of evil, or both.

As long as the god-botherers keep screaming about LGBT people 'choosing' to be gay, the argument over choice is going to continue.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy - you beat me to the reply. To those who accept homosexuals as just variations on a theme, there is no problem. It is the hard-nosed religious types who cannot get past their bibble-dribble that paints all homosexuals as willful sinners. My post was at least in part aimed at that crowd - but anyone who doubts the factual nature of the physiological differences should perhaps at least briefly take a look.

I'll separately thank you, Frothy, for your comment.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Libre - the problem about choice or physiological challenge is that too many people in our society treat it as an automatic criminal condemnation.

We are supposed to hold certain truths to be self-evident - that all Men (mankind) are created equal. This is usually taken as "equal before the law" but it isn't always treated that way. Otherwise, why would some states (of which I'm sad to say that Louisiana is one) have laws that treat vaginal, oral, and anal contact as different crimes - and impose different penalties? If husband and wife (traditional marriage) indulge in these different styles, they are just a "kinky couple" - but it took the U.S. Supreme Court in their "Lawrence vs. Texas" decision to keep the states out the bedrooms of consenting (but non-married) adults. It took SCOTUS to dissolve the barriers to same-sex marriages being recognized as a formal relationship.

What equally chills me - and I hope that the US Congress sees the truth before they take it too far - is the First Amendment Defense Act (still being considered in committee) that would allow people to use religious excuses to continue to discriminate against gays with impunity. The Tennessee clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples would not only be able to refuse but could not be punished for not doing her job. The way the law is worded, it would even allow IRS agents to refuse to process tax returns from same-sex couples.

It is THIS kind of religious insanity that HAS to stop. Either we believe that all are equal before the law or we allow the forces of religiously-induced ignorance to rule the world. It isn't just the USA and gay rights. Take a look at how ISIL executes Christians and how Islamic fundamentalists actually punish and terrorize children for daring to try to get a secular education. Religion can't allow itself to be challenged - which is why it HAS to be challenged. Religious extremism - regardless of the denomination - is the greatest threat this planet has to real progress, to real peace, and to real improvement in the human condition.

 

[Libre]

Choice comes up because the godbotherers' condemnation of homosexuals is based on the erroneous assumption that LGBT individuals CHOSE to be that way; ...
As long as the god-botherers keep screaming about LGBT people 'choosing' to be gay, the argument over choice is going to continue.

The point of my post is that there really is no debate about choice.
It's irrelevant - it's just a handy, clearly phrased question that is easy to take a position on - even though most people have no actual knowledge about it.
To prove my point, imagine that definite proof was found that either confirms or dispels the theory that homosexuality is a choice.
Do you think that the arguments would stop, that formerly staunch anti-gays would become supporters, or that gay-rights activists would suddenly renounce the error of their ways?
It has nothing to do with whether it's a choice.
Personally, I have no idea whether it's a choice or it isn't.
Gay people say it's not a choice.
Drug addicts say their affliction is not a choice.
Gambling addicts say their affliction is not a choice.
We can sympathize with them but when a pedophile says their sexual orientation is not a choice we still vilify them and put them on blacklists.

People have no choice about what skin color they have but there is still all kinds of race bias.

The question of whether a behavior is a choice or an innate predilection really doesn't count for much - we just act as though it does. What really matters is if the person's behavior is acceptable to society at large or not. Murder is generally unacceptable - we don't even discuss if a murderer "chooses" his lifestyle - because we don't really care, in that case.

And maybe that's right - who really cares about the inner battles that the killer may have fought with himself? We care about the deceased and their family. But - if we ever want to solve some of these problems or at least understand them, we may need to take a broader view of crime and "abnormal" behavior.

What we do, is we pick our battles and our sides based on the confirmation bias of all our previously stated positions and beliefs, and also what everybody else is saying - people like "US". Then we form a position. Now that we have a position, we look for support. We do this by reinforcing the facts or theories that agree with us, and ignoring or disqualifying the ones that don't. It should be the other way around - hey, I found out this and that, and based on what I've learned I've formed an opinion. But it often works the other way. I have an opinion that reaffirms all my other opinions - now I'll find support for it.
If it were the way it SHOULD be, then people would be willing to change their attitudes when something new is discovered. What happens instead is that, those that agree with the new finding will champion it, those whose positions are weakened by it will disavow it.
Choice of sexual orientation is one of those things.
Our wants and desires may not be a choice (although they may well be).
Our conscious behavior (with whom we are having sexual relations) is usually a choice.
Then the question is really not whether the gay lifestyle is a choice, but the motivation to have it - a very different question.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The difference is that people who hate others based on their skin color or race don't accuse those they hate of CHOOSING to be black, white, Native, or whatever.

You're coming across as trying to argue that LGBT people are the ones bringing choice into the discussion, but the fact is that they are trying to get the bigots to understand that you don't choose to whom you are attracted.

You claim that you don't know if it's a choice or not, but that's easy to determine. Please explain why, where and when you chose to be straight and to find only women attractive.

 

[Libre]

The difference is that people who hate others based on their skin color or race don't accuse those they hate of CHOOSING to be black, white, Native, or whatever.

Exactly my point. They hate them anyway - it doesn't matter that they didn't choose their color. Choice is not at the root of their hatred. Probably the same haters, and for the same reasons - something threatens their conception of how things SHOULD be, or the way it USED TO be - in their minds.

You're coming across as trying to argue that LGBT people are the ones bringing choice into the discussion, but the fact is that they are trying to get the bigots to understand that you don't choose to whom you are attracted.

You claim that you don't know if it's a choice or not, but that's easy to determine. Please explain why, where and when you chose to be straight and to find only women attractive.

Everything we do is a choice at some level.
Even many things we just desire - we chose that desire.
Mind you I'm not saying ALL our attractions are consciously chosen - but I think many are. We desire to actually be who we think we are. We adopt our preferences based on that.
Don't make me out to be some homophobic Kim Davis or Southern Babtist. It has zero to do with whether or not I approve of the gay lifestyle.

It's very simple: to whom we are attracted may or may not be a choice, whereas conscious, willful behavior - for example with whom we associate - is a choice.
If sleeping with a person is not a choice then neither is murdering someone.
Your confirmation bias is preventing you from understanding what I'm saying.

 

[Mike375]

Adding one extra segment every ten thousand generations, a million years would be more than enough for the thorax to entirely dominate the body. Yet every generation remained fit for its environment with ten thousand generations in between to adapt to the small changes.

Can you see a snake ultimately emerging from what was originally a lizard?

As I posted earlier I can accept your outline as possible and accept the body organs, especially the lung situation to also move along.

However we still have major hurdles and this is in respect of surviving the transition period.

Generally the lizard has a very powerful crushing bite. It tends to take prey size that can fit close enough to its mouth, although length of prey will often exceed length of jaws. The prey is basically crushed to death or sometimes only half dead and swallowed whole. The crocodilians are the same until they reach a considerable size and then things are different.

The snake on the other hand probably has about the lowest bite force of any animal in relation to its size. Most people of course are aware of the venomous snake and the constrictor. Two other methods, one being common with the large family of colubrid snakes. These snakes have saliva that is venomous and they typically eat amphibians and also fish and the venonmous saliva permeates the skin and of course with the frog that is very quick. Other snakes grab prey and because of their head structure the snake basically smothers the animal.

Basically we have two complete opposites. As to the constricting snake I will say that can be matched by the lizard that evolved along the lines you posted.

For the sake of the discussion I will accept your evolving lizard develops the modified saliva to become venom and also develops the fixed fangs as found in the elapid snakes. However, getting to the greatly oversize retractable fangs of the viper would be interesting.

However, I see great problems during transition from the powerful crushing bite to a bite with very little force but of course that very small bite force is not required for the snake.

Accepting your outline of developing the 100s of vertebrae there is something else that needs doing and that is the total change in belly scales. I can tell you from hands on experience the mobility of the snake compared to a similar size legless lizard is like comparing a Formula 1 to a Toyota Corolla.

It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that evolution does not have a goal. So what sort of actions/events etc. would cause a total change in belly scales of the "new lizard" to those of the snake.

I am only guessing but I suspect one solution to surviving the transition period could be the available prey is very easy to take so that a "half lizard half snake" could manage OK and of course their food requirements are very small.

As far as the modern lizard and snake are concerned their efficiency or success rate at catching prey could be dramatically reduced and they would survive with ease. Apart from them having an extremely high success rate in terms of "attempts" Vs "success" they can consume a huge amount in one meal as compared to the mammals.

A lot of evolutionists run on the mutation line so we have an "overnight" change but as you have already mentioned mutations tend to range from useless to bad. However, perhaps 1 in 1,000,000 is enough. As to transition I believe/think that as just mentioned that would need a situation where the prey/food situation was very easy to eat or catch etc. and so a very inefficient animal could survive and especially a cold blooded one whereby total food requirement is very small.

As an aside what are your views on the intelligent design people's pin up star, the Bombardier beetle.

 

[Libre]

I don't think it's really necessary to explain every variation in every species and their ancestors as well as their descendants - as long as the overall process is accepted and comprehended. Getting from one number of belly scales to another - or exactly detailing all the morphological differences between ancestral species and modern ones may be of interest to zoologists and paleontologists, but for most people an understanding of the overall process is what's important. Nothing you've stated about snakes and lizards negates any principles of natural selection so I don't see where it's full of holes.
Another thing - when you speak of "transitional species" - we're all transitional species, undergoing an extremely slow process that can't be observed except through the passage of time, the minuscule variations from generation to generation, and the process of adaptation.

 

[Mike375]

I don't think it's really necessary to explain every variation in every species and their ancestors as well as their descendants - as long as the overall process is accepted and comprehended. Getting from one number of belly scales to another - or exactly detailing all the morphological differences between ancestral species and modern ones may be of interest to zoologists and paleontologists, but for most people an understanding of the overall process is what's important. Nothing you've stated about snakes and lizards negates any principles of natural selection so I don't see where it's full of holes.
Another thing - when you speak of "transitional species" - we're all transitional species, undergoing an extremely slow process that can't be observed except through the passage of time, the minuscule variations from generation to generation, and the process of adaptation.

The transition is easy enough to accept with animals that remain basically the same. From some form of monkey to human is a journey that is nothing compared to lizard to snake or from spawn to the amniote egg.

Edit: You mention "as long as the overall process is accepted and comprehended". Have you considered the possibility that there is more than one process, that is, evolution might in fact come about by more than the one means that is put forward.

 

[Libre]

You mention "as long as the overall process is accepted and comprehended". Have you considered the possibility that there is more than one process, that is, evolution might in fact come about by more than the one means that is put forward.

I would entertain any rational explanation for pretty much anything.

 

[Galaxiom]

what are your views on the intelligent design people's pin up star, the Bombardier beetle.

A fascinating organism indeed but definitely not a point scorer for creationists.

The intelligent design argument has since been so thoroughly debunked that it is hard to find a creationist site among the vast numbers debunking it. The original proponent couldn't even get the description of the chemistry right and every creationist site I found that went into any detail repeats the same error which had been pointed out at least as early as 1981.

Covered pretty well here.

 

[Mike375]

The intelligent design argument if true would mean a God or gods with limitations.

The only intelligent design argument I could accept would be if God or gods simply laid out the laws of nature then let nature take its course. However, that would still indicate a God with limitations.

In many ways I see evolution as being similar to astronomy before satellites etc. By that I mean it is roughly right but missing a lot of stuff.

 

[Galaxiom]

In many ways I see evolution as being similar to astronomy before satellites etc. By that I mean it is roughly right but missing a lot of stuff.

What kind of things do you have in mind?

Sure there are gaps in evidence for the precise sequences of changes and no doubt there will be more refinement as new genetic and fossil evidence is found but the fundamental concepts of diversification though inheritable mutation and natural selection are rock solid.

These processes are all that are required to explain how life progressed from the first simple replicating molecular structures to what we see today. Adding any further mechanisms is superfluous.

 

[Mike375]

What kind of things do you have in mind?

Sure there are gaps in evidence for the precise sequences of changes and no doubt there will be more refinement as new genetic and fossil evidence is found but the fundamental concepts of diversification though inheritable mutation and natural selection are rock solid.

These processes are all that are required to explain how life progressed from the first simple replicating molecular structures to what we see today. Adding any further mechanisms is superfluous.

Don't really know

As I posted earlier more recent thinking is small theropods descended from flightless birds....quite a change

I can accept in general principle your outline of the lizard getting to 100s of vertebrae. However I just can't see that happening.

As I said before my own feeling is there were many many starting points. I do believe if the conditions for life exist then life will commence. In fact I can't see it not happening. To me it is as simple as placing containers full of petrol all over the place....then a bolt of lighting or whatever will set one off. Actually over time a lot of the containers will catch fire.

In the case of getting from spawn to amniote egg my feeling is that situation did not occur. In other words I don't think the reptile developed from an amphibian. The reptile was on a different railway line.

It has been mentioned that the various life forms whether fish, amphibian, snake, lizard, bird and mammals have an overall similarity. That to me does necessarily indicate a common starting point. Rather, the various species have overall similarities because they are the forms that will exist with conditions provided by the earth.

Think of it like different racing cars such as NASCAR, Indy Car, F1, Sprint Cars, V8 Supercars etc. they all have an overall similarity and that is simply because that is forced on them by the form of racing tracks. However, if we take a Top Fuel dragster it is totally different and that is because of the track where they race. In other words if there were no drag strips then a Top Fuel dragster would not have "evolved" or if it evolved it would die out.

When I was just a teenager my father said to me one day that I would die wondering My maternal grandmother used to call me Doubting Thomas.

 

[Galaxiom]

As I said before my own feeling is there were many many starting points. I do believe if the conditions for life exist then life will commence. In fact I can't see it not happening. To me it is as simple as placing containers full of petrol all over the place....then a bolt of lighting or whatever will set one off. Actually over time a lot of the containers will catch fire.

You have to remember that what we think of as multicellular life only began about 550 million years ago after a period of about seven times as long where only single cellular organisms existed.

If there were multiple starting points for life those other than the organisms on our tree died out because every living thing including all microorganisms shows a relationship among their genes that indicates they shared a common ancestor. I suspect if there were any alternative branches of life they were abruptly wiped out in the great oxygenation when photosynthesis was introduced.

The giant leap that introduced the possibility of macroscopic organisms was the Eukaryote cell with respiratory system of the mitochondria organelle. This is an evolutionary bottleneck places all macroscopic organisms firmly on the same branch of the tree of life.

To consider that Amphibia and Reptilia had completely different beginnings is a long way from plausible.

 

[Mike375]

To consider that Amphibia and Reptilia had completely different beginnings is a long way from plausible.

You can have them on your tree of life but their starting points were much closer to the root of the tree.

In some ways I see the amphibian as similar to the legless lizard in the sense they are a dead end.

Anyway that will do me for now as I think the time is rapidly approaching for some alcoholic beverages.

All the best to you and yours for the new year.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that evolution does not have a goal.

It IS wrong. Evolution has a goal. It is that things survive. If things don't survive, they don't reproduce and that branch of evolution dies out. Evolution is all about rolling the dice to see which combinations work (better) and which ones don't. The goal? Selection of the best combination of characteristics. It doesn't matter how subtle the differences are between different combinations. The ones that survive better will be selected (actually, HAVE been selected).

However, I have to admit that I allowed a verbal inaccuracy to creep in because otherwise we could never actually talk. Too many people tend to freak out on being excessively precise. So I used colloquial terms first. But now, the pedant steps out...

What is the goal of evolution? Technically, it has no goal - because only sentient beings have goals. Evolution has tendencies or trends or influences. You might ask what is the goal of gravity? Or perhaps what is the goal of the stellar phoenix cycle (stellar fusion) that powers all stars? Do they have goals? No - for they are inanimate forces.

There is also the question as to whether:

evolution might in fact come about by more than the one means

Ah, but technically, that is a problem in reductionism vs. wholism - it is ALL evolution. It is just that multiple mechanisms are involved. Random mutation is a factor - albeit not one of the bigger ones. Subtle differences brought about by "rolling the dice" to just get another combination (a.k.a. genetic shuffling through bisexual reproduction) will find many combinations and will (excruciatingly slowly) purge a species of its bad recessives.

Sometimes, it is changing environment that brings about changes. Do a web search of the NY Times on the Web from about two to three years ago for the evolution of humanity in the form of improved lung capacity for Sherpa mountain guides in the region of the Himalayas. That change has occurred in modern man, brought about by their choice to live in a thin-air environment. Read the article. Don't take my word for it.

 

[Mike375]

Doc

By goals I mean (as I think others do) that buried inside some lizard something says "I need to grow longer and powerful back legs and a longer tail so I can run bipedal at high speed"

Myself and others with similar views don't have any issues with gradual change of species.

In my opinion the mistake people such as yourself and especially Galaxiom is to act as if people like me who have major issues with macro evolution have divine intervention as our answer.

I posted earlier about what I call the "born gain evolutionists" and born again Christians being the same, it's just the words change. The common point is either group appear to have no acceptance of the possibility of an "in between" view or some variation of the theme.

Galaxiom earlier posted an outline of how he thought the lizard thorax could over time change to a snake thorax and said that sounded reasonable. However, he left out the big one and that is the skull/jaws situation. Survival through that transition would be really something.

With respect, you blokes are like someone measuring the size of a brick or a stone using a micrometer As I posted earlier recent thinking is small theropods descended from flightless birds and that is about a 100% turnaround.