Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

Of course aids isn't the fault of gays but it sure has been spread by them. Do you remember when the disease was first discovered? For a long time it was found only in gays.

As a HIV researcher it continues to amaze me how many of these myths continue on in our society, decades after they've been disproven. What you wrote above is a perfect example of this (and the basis of a lot of the racist/sexual orientation BS that surrounds AIDS). In actuality HIV/AIDS was spreading through Africa, almost entierly via heterosexual contact, since the mid-1900's (it is estimated that all current strains of HIV arose between the 1930's to late 1950's). The first cases of HIV/AIDS in Africa were identified (although the virus was not) in the 1960's, and the medical literature of those days is full of odd reports we now know were AIDS. Small epidemics occured in various coutries throughout that period; they just never got the attention on the epidemic that has occured in North America.

Basically, HIV/AIDS has been around a long time, it just never got any attention until it entered a developed nation - in this case the USA.

To put into context the homosexual side of HIV - for every gay man out there with the virus there is:

7-15 people who contracted it via heterosexual contact
3-6 people who got it via drugs
2-4 people who were born with it
2-4 people who got it via an unkonwn vector

There is no evidence that these ratios have changed since the virus was first identified.

Of course now it is spread by all sorts of less than wise sexual behavior, behavior related to drug use and of course when those folks give blood and some inocent gets a good dose through transfusion. AIDS like many other diseases is largely a behavior problem. If people would behave for a while it would go away.

Incorrect. On many accounts. Homosexual spread came after heterosexual spread - by 20-30 years. And even if everyone stoped having sex, and stopped using drugs, the epidemic would still continue.

A prominant mode of transmission remains simply being born - as many as 90% of kids born to HIV(+) mothers will contract the disease. Even if the mother and baby is given intense anti-HIV therapy, mother-child infection rates still remain at about 10%. Plus, in many third world nations some HIV infections still appear to be contracted due to improper steralization of medical equipment (perhaps as high as 10%). In fact, homosexual spread was, and still is, a minor part of the world-wide HIV epidemic. We're fortunate enough in the developed world to have HIV enter our populations within limited groups. The rest of the world wasn't as lucky.

I'm no expert on homosexuality but I'm not sure I agree with your points. Who says they don't have a choice?

Almost the entierty of the medical literature on the subject. There are defined differences in the brains of homosexual men which resembe the brain structures of women, as well as other differences in their brains - perhaps a result of maternal hormones or immune responses:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15883379&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15451388&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15724806&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=11735315&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum

There is evidence of genetic linkages; "gay" genes may even have been identified, and homosexuality tends to run in families:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=10405456&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16686347&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16369763&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum

For that matter, homosexuality seems to be fairly common amoung other animals - lesbian monkeys, for example, have been found in Japan. Homosexual contact within birds has been known of for decades - some take it to the extreme of homosexual necrophilia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://www.nmr.nl/DSA8-243.pdf

As it turns out, homosexual may have as much choice in being gay as I have over the colour of my eyes.

Two men can't make children and neither can two women. What about raising children?

You're assuming that the purpose of homosexuality is reproduciton. Given that it is likely genetic (or at least partially genetic) in origin it must have a purpose - otherwise it should be pretty quickly weeded out via evolution. As you point out - homosexuals don't procreate, so unless those genes do something they'd be lost pretty quickly. As for the purpose of it - I don't know. But given how common it is (far more common then many "helpful" genes), and the fact that it exists all across the animal kingdom, there must be something it does.

Bryan

 

[Zingtea]

Humans don't need to reproduce for another couple of centuries, or maybe even a millenium. There are 6.7 billion (rounded) of us, and that is simply too many for the Earth to sustain at the current rate.

Does anyone else want to resume the original topic?

 

[sandjeep]

Warthaug,

I'm still reading these links, however, I don't see how what Mike said is incorrect. Granted, I'm not a medical expert, but it seems to me that risky sexual actions cause quite a few problems. Read that as sex outside marriage. I know that someone will accuse me of being in the dark ages or some other sort of non-sense, however I stand by what the Bible has said.

There are defined differences in the brains of homosexual men which resembe the brain structures of women, as well as other differences in their brains - perhaps a result of maternal hormones or immune responses:

I'm not picking a fight, but you seem to be saying that homosexuals might be born with some type of brain chemical issue?

interesting...

 

[H2Andy]

Of course aids isn't the fault of gays but it sure has been spread by them.

as well as by heterosexuals:

The characteristics of the first 50,352 cases, reported between 1981 and 1987 to CDC, differ significantly from the characteristics of the 69,151 cases reported a decade later in 1996. The epidemic has become increasingly an epidemic of non-white populations, of women, and of heterosexuals and injecting drug users.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-01-03

that trend has continued.

in Africa, most HIV is spread by heterosexual contact. in the US, it is the second
leading cause of AIDS.

in the US, women have been the fastest growing population contracting HIV for years, and about 78% of them get it through heterosexual contact.

HIV doesn't care what your sexual preferences are

(and please don't bring up Michael Fumento)

 

[sandjeep]

We're really off topic now, however just wondering Andy, whats the leading cause of AIDS in the US?

Back on topic-

There is no known natural process for generating new, more complex, traits. If a reptile changed into a bird, the reptile would have to, along with many other improbable changes, acquire the ability to produce feathers. To get a reptile to produce feathers requires new genes to produce the proteins necessary for the production of feathers. The chance of natural processes creating a new gene coding for a protein fundamentally different to those already present is essentially zero.

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985.

 

[H2Andy]

Andy, whats the leading cause of AIDS in the US?

male to male sexual contact (as indicated by total number of patients)

keep in mind the US is but part of the world, and the picture is different when you look at world trends. for exaple, 85.5 of all AIDS patients live in Africa and Asia.

the US is not typical.

for example:

The Caribbean continues to be the second worst-affected region in the world. HIV transmission occurs largely through heterosexual sex, although sex between men, which is highly stigmatized, is also fuelling the epidemic. AIDS has become the leading cause of death among adults aged 15-44 in the region.

 

[The Chairman]

I am not sure which I find more offensive...

The bigots that try to blame God or Christianity for all the wars and atrocities in the world.

or

The bigots that try to blame homosexuals for the AIDs epidemic.

Words can not begin to express the revulsion I feel when either argument is professed by those who claim to be rational caring human beings.

 

[lamont]

You're assuming that the purpose of homosexuality is reproduciton. Given that it is likely genetic (or at least partially genetic) in origin it must have a purpose - otherwise it should be pretty quickly weeded out via evolution. As you point out - homosexuals don't procreate, so unless those genes do something they'd be lost pretty quickly. As for the purpose of it - I don't know. But given how common it is (far more common then many "helpful" genes), and the fact that it exists all across the animal kingdom, there must be something it does.

Genes don't have to procreate to survive. The runt gene in litters succeeds genetically because in times of plenty the runt of the litter survives to procreate, while in times where there is scarcity the runt in the litter dies, but the gene lives on in the runt's siblings. That's the ultimate sacrifice of the individual in direct contradiction with the need to procreate in order to create a better chance that the siblings might live to procreate.

And the human race has a incredibly large number of ways that people who do not procreate can contribute and contribute to the genetic success of those who do. For example, Issac Newton never procreated, but his impact on the human race was probably far greater than any impact he could have had genetically.

The Bible may command everyone to procreate, but Nature does not drive every single last individual instance of a species to procreate.

 

[lamont]

AIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

sorry, i just had a flashback to Usenet alt.sex circa 1991 and the endless arguments about the heterosexual transmission of AIDS...

 

[AXL72]

Why should God care about us? He probably left Earth millenia ago to build some other galaxy. It's very possible that everything he creates is left on it's own once it's finished, because he has a lot of work/play to do. That would mean that people trying to get God to like them are out of luck because God can't see/hear/smell/feel/taste(?) from that far away.

Zingtea...that is awesome. I could even live with that. That is deep, and I ain't even being my smart allecy self.


You rock, man!!

That argument could get the evolutionists to concede that yeah, maybe God made the start of everything on earth, and left it to its own devices.

Sharp! Pretty dang sharp.