Pastor Says

[thir]

Leo9
"Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources."

Punish Her
"Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild."

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

[Thorne]

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

No one is saying we are exactly the same now as then. And IF there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a more recent mutation, though we know there were homosexuals existing at least in Biblical times, at least for the last 10,000 years. That's an eye-blink in terms of genetic mutation rates, though.

But not all genetic changes need be slow. Environmental stresses, including overcrowding, can speed changes along far more rapidly than previously believed. Still, you're talking many generations to see even small changes. Not something you will see in a single lifetime.

[Punish_her]

No one is saying we are exactly the same now as then. And IF there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a more recent mutation, though we know there were homosexuals existing at least in Biblical times, at least for the last 10,000 years. That's an eye-blink in terms of genetic mutation rates, though.

But not all genetic changes need be slow. Environmental stresses, including overcrowding, can speed changes along far more rapidly than previously believed. Still, you're talking many generations to see even small changes. Not something you will see in a single lifetime.

there are some documented cases of man on man action in the wild, bonobos are horny monkeys and the men frequently engage in sexual escapades, but even then, the entire population sis considered "bi-sexual" because its more for sex and a social bonding mehcanism

[denuseri]

Leo9
"Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources."

Punish Her
"Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild."

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

It's not so much the genes themselves as the switches being turned on or off to activate them...which can be influenced by environment (and our environment is more than just a matter of climate and general locality IE dessert, arctic etc but also urban and social settings including levels of affluence effecting one's immediate surroundings and it is rapidly changing as we proceed through the modern era).

[thir]

It's not so much the genes themselves as the switches being turned on or off to activate them...which can be influenced by environment (and our environment is more than just a matter of climate and general locality IE dessert, arctic etc but also urban and social settings including levels of affluence effecting one's immediate surroundings and it is rapidly changing as we proceed through the modern era).

But you are still saying hat the genes we have are the same as millions of years ago. According to Darwin this is a rank impossibility - the law of evolution is change according to a mix of random mutations and changing circumstances.

I assume (correct if wrong) that you mean the 'hard-wired' idea that genes in our brain are exactly the same as then, and that they are so detailed that they can decide our behaviour now, with these 'switches'. No one have been able to prove that such 'switches' excist, they are just an idea - in the face of the many seriously working biologist who tear their hair and point out that genes can not express such detailed behaviour.

[denuseri]

But you are still saying hat the genes we have are the same as millions of years ago.


Um...nope I did not.

According to Darwin this is a rank impossibility - the law of evolution is change according to a mix of random mutations and changing circumstances.

Its perhaps more helpful at least in layman's terms if you think of the gene as a line of code...the switches (in combination with a bunch of other things) that are active today make up what you are today...a great deal if not almost all of that old code is still there...it (depending upon what switches were on and off at the time) made up what your ancestors were in the past. With each and every exchange of dna that produces a new offspring tiny little sometimes imperceptible changes do take place (in some cases a variety of factors can cause rampant changes or even a switch being disconnected or miss-connected etc) but the overall line of code (including the old code) for the most part remains.

I assume (correct if wrong) that you mean the 'hard-wired' idea that genes in our brain are exactly the same as then, and that they are so detailed that they can decide our behaviour now, ( oh I didn't say they alone decide...the decision making process of a mind is complex...not so complex we don't know how it works mind you, just complex...and we have found that one's brain chemistry and overall physiological programing play a much larger part in the process than most people are comfortable discussing because they get overwhelmed and tend to think that science is telling us we are just like any machine etc and that our programing and built in responses largely guide our choices and that free will ...may just be illusion after all... its real enough tough...at least from our own perspectives) with these 'switches'. No one have been able to prove that such 'switches' excist, (um actually they did some time ago now...prove they exist...though not at all in the way your portraying them) they are just an idea - in the face of the many seriously working biologist who tear their hair and point out that genes can not express such detailed behaviour.

Like I said...the genes themselves are not expressing the behaviors.