Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

Genes don't have to procreate to survive.

I think I didn't express myself properly. I never meant to suggest that a gene had to enhance survival or reproduciton of an organism inorder for that gene to survive within a population - the thousands of detrimental genes that we have are proof against that.

What I was trying to point out is that homosexuality appears to have a genetic base, and is very common in the human populaiton - far more common then many benificial traits. This suggests a positive selection for homosexuality, which suggests there is some benifit to it. This benifit is obviously not via reproduciton, seeing as homosexuals rarely have children.

If homosexuality were purely detrimental to our population we should see a decrease in the frequency of it; a decrease to a level simular to that of other detrimental genes. We do not see this decrease. This essentially leaves 2 possibilities:

1) Homosexuality has no significant benifit or cost, and the current levels are purely a product of random genetic drift, or

2) Homosexuality has some benifit, and has been positivly selected to the current levels.

Bryan

 

[Zingtea]

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.

I was joking. I don't really believe in God. Sorry

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

To Warthaug

Genes can be beneficial in the heterozygous expression but harmful or fatal in the homozygous expression. Example: sickle cell anemia. We all get two genes for hemoglobin, one from our mother and one from our father. The sickle cell gene codes for a mutant hemoglobin. If a person gets a sickle cell hemoglobin gene from one parent and a normal hemoglobin gene from the other (heterozygous), he or she is said to have sickle cell trait. The person with sickle cell trait does not have significant anemia --- is normal in other words. However, that person is relatively immune to malaria. If a person gets two sickle cell genes (homozygous), however, the result is a potentially lethal anemia. Thus, one "bad" gene is actually good, two is very very bad. However, if the good outweighs the bad, the gene will grow or at least remain stable in terms of expression in the general population despite looking lethal at first glance.

The sickle cell gene is prevalent in Africa, where its benefit as a protection against malaria outweighs, in terms of survival, the much smaller numbers of people with both genes who will likely die young. In other words, nature will throw the homozygotes under the bus to save a larger number of heterozygotes. The Tay-sachs gene may work similarly, protecting heterozygotes from tuberculosis but killing homozygotes in infancy.

Thus, if being gay is genetic, it may still be a neutral or detrimental gene yet remain prevalent or even increase in the population if those people that have only one gay gene (assuming gays have two gay genes) have some selective advantage over those with no gay genes at all. For example, a man heterozygous in the gay locus would be heterosexual but somehow resistant to a life threatening illness, like influenza.

A clue to how the gay gene might be advantageous could be gleaned by where and when gay behavior became prevalent. For example, sickle cell disease is prevalent in Africa because that's where malaria is prevalent. The Tay-Sachs gene is more prevalent in European Jews who were subjected to crowding and had a high incidence of TB. If homsexuality is found to be increasing in modern male populations, it may be because the gay gene protects males from some ailment more common in modern times, such as flu (modern crowding) or cancer (because people now live long enough to get it).

 

[AXL72]

I was joking. I don't really believe in God. Sorry

Umm, who said I did, either.....I ain't commited myself to saying whether I believe either way.:shakehead

And I aint a closet catholic either!!

 

[H2Andy]

Wouldn't hate be just a chemical reaction taking place strictly by chance? How could it be wrong? It just is.

you guys really crack me up, seriously...

you do not need a guy with a white beard sitting on a golden throne for a society to realize "hey, it's not a good idea to be killing each other off... let's.... ah.... make it ... what's the word? illegal!"

those societies, since they are at peace internally, progress faster than socities that are in a constant state of internal upheaval, and eventually take them over.

pretty soon, everybody says "hey, those guys have a good idea going. let's not kill each other.... let's kill THEM!"

so your next step is for societies that NEED each other to do better. they figure out, "Hey, it's not a good idea to kill THEM since we need them. let's make ... ah... what's the word ... a treaty!"

then the two societies that are friends gang up on the single nations, and they kick the crap out of them...

so the other guys go... hey, that's a good idea... let's not kill each other off, let's join together and kill THEM!

and so on....

eventually, we get to where we are today, were Western thought recognizes that individual poeple have individual human rights, and that they should be respected.

whether that is done depends on how much it benefits/costs a particular party to respect/violate those rights

but the bottom line is, you don't need God to come up with some simple rules ("don't kill others in the tribe;" "don't kill others in the country;" "don't kill others in our alliance") and so on.

 

[H2Andy]

What would be wrong with hate? against Blacks, Whites, Gays, whomever. I mean after all, under evolutional thought, the weaker species, in this case sub-group, should not survive nor be allowed to right? Didn't Hitler have this same goal in mind?

Next one, why is killing someone wrong? For instance, someone has a set of doubles I want and I kill them. Is it wrong because its against the law or is it wrong in itself regardless of the law?

Final question, is there such a thing as absolute right and wrong? and did it help or hinder man's evolution?

hate to your heart's content, so long as you don't violate anybody's rights doing it.
your life will reflect your hate, and you will be a miserable person. that's up to you if that's how you want to live.

killing is not wrong. we are at war, we are killing people. that is not wrong. we kill people on death row rather frequently. that's not wrong either. self-defense killing is not wrong.

most killings are wrong, as determined by our laws. that is because you are violating someone else's right to live.

absolute right and wrong? depends, again on what you are talking about.

the answer 2+2=4 is absoultey right, unless you re-define the meaning of the symbols being used.

the speed of light can be measured absolutely. so can the gravitational constant, etc.

why? because you can measure it and come up with an answer: yes, correct; or no, incorrect.

if you can't measure somehow, how can you know if you are right or wrong?

when it comes to ideas, "measuring" becomes really difficult. some things you can measure (is it a good idea to stick my finger in an electric outlet?) some you can't (what does it mean to be a good son?) and you are left with competing answers, one of which you chose because it makes more sense to you than the others. but is it
"absolutely" right?

can the question "what does it mean to be a good human being" ever be answered absolutely? hmmm... well.... we can come up with a few good ways, but i doubt it has one absolutely correct answer.

so, when it comes to ideas (what is right? what is love? what is the meaning of life?) i don't think you can ever get absolute certainty.

unless, of course, you decide to put your faith in something you believe is absolutely certain. it's not, but at least you believe it is.

 

[AXL72]

Here is one more post that is fitting to scuba and Steve Irwin. I am justthe messenger. Don't shoot me.

http://jesusandsteve.ytmnd.com/

 

[MikeFerrara]

Can I buy your kids then? [yes, that's a joke in very bad taste, but Deuteronomy 15 and even Jesus (via Timothy, Peter and Corinthians) tell us it is OK]

Bryan

Where in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Cor or 2 Cor does it say that it's ok to sell your Children?

 

[MikeFerrara]

you guys really crack me up, seriously...

you do not need a guy with a white beard sitting on a golden throne for a society to realize "hey, it's not a good idea to be killing each other off... let's.... ah.... make it ... what's the word? illegal!"

those societies, since they are at peace internally, progress faster than socities that are in a constant state of internal upheaval, and eventually take them over.

pretty soon, everybody says "hey, those guys have a good idea going. let's not kill each other.... let's kill THEM!"

so your next step is for societies that NEED each other to do better. they figure out, "Hey, it's not a good idea to kill THEM since we need them. let's make ... ah... what's the word ... a treaty!"

then the two societies that are friends gang up on the single nations, and they kick the crap out of them...

so the other guys go... hey, that's a good idea... let's not kill each other off, let's join together and kill THEM!

and so on....

eventually, we get to where we are today, were Western thought recognizes that individual poeple have individual human rights, and that they should be respected.

whether that is done depends on how much it benefits/costs a particular party to respect/violate those rights

but the bottom line is, you don't need God to come up with some simple rules ("don't kill others in the tribe;" "don't kill others in the country;" "don't kill others in our alliance") and so on.

He didn't ask about rules or laws. He asked about right and wrong.

Do you think legal/illegal is synonymous with right/wrong?

The whole question cracks me up too. The thought of a bunch of chemicals deciding what they think is good for them seems totally out of wack to me. That's really at the heart of the matter though isn't it? Those who believe in God just don't believe that any process absent God can result in anything thinking or caring about anything.

Nevermind how you get rules and laws without God, I don't believe that you can have self awareness without God. Of course, I don't believe that you can get all the non-living stuff without God either.

 

[H2Andy]

He didn't ask about rules or laws. He asked about right and wrong.

Do you think legal/illegal is synonymous with right/wrong?

we need to get specific here.

give me a specific example of what you consider right/wrong, and we'll parse it down

(but let me tell you this, at least for a given jurisdiction we can agree what is legal and illegal; not so easy with right/wrong)