Carl Nassib

[KanePoster]

Apparently you didn’t read his asinine comments about dem’s head exploding….if you did and agreed then that doesn’t say much for you.

OK, I just did re-read it. And yes, on that ONE post (out of about 15 total), Jerry RETALIATES against Dem's stupidity with anger and vitriol.

Not one intelligent comment by Dem. If there is, show it.

14 intelligent comments by Jerry, and one out of anger. There's no comparison between the earnest effort at discourse between the two posters.

 

[BobPSU92]

Intelligent comments on the interwebs? I don’t get it.

 

[AWS1022]

OK, I just did re-read it. And yes, on that ONE post (out of about 15 total), Jerry RETALIATES against Dem's stupidity with anger and vitriol.

Not one intelligent comment by Dem. If there is, show it.

14 intelligent comments by Jerry, and one out of anger. There's no comparison between the earnest effort at discourse between the two posters.

Just because you agree with something doesn’t necessarily make it intelligent. I didn’t see much intelligence in any of his posts.

 

[demlion]

OK, I just did re-read it. And yes, on that ONE post (out of about 15 total), Jerry RETALIATES against Dem's stupidity with anger and vitriol.

Not one intelligent comment by Dem. If there is, show it.

14 intelligent comments by Jerry, and one out of anger. There's no comparison between the earnest effort at discourse between the two posters.

You have made the terrible mistake of assuming that any of Jerry's homophobic, get-off-my-lawn gibberish in this thread--or yours--is required to be taken seriously as fodder for a respectful discussion.

News flash: it's not.

I would not waste my time responding respectfully to hateful, contemptuous BS from pretentious pseudo-Christians like yourselves. You ain't worth the trouble. In a center of enlightened thought like Kane, I am sure you have myriad opportunities to "debate" your counterfeit wisdom with others of your ilk. Block me and Do It.

 

[KanePoster]

You have made the terrible mistake of assuming that any of Jerry's homophobic, get-off-my-lawn gibberish in this thread--or yours--is required to be taken seriously as fodder for a respectful discussion.

News flash: it's not.

I would not waste my time responding respectfully to hateful, contemptuous BS from pretentious pseudo-Christians like yourselves. You ain't worth the trouble. In a center of enlightened thought like Kane, I am sure you have myriad opportunities to "debate" your counterfeit wisdom with others of your ilk. Block me and Do It.

I'm an atheist, as I've pointed out countless times. As such, my arguments are based on evolutionary biology, not religion.

 

[demlion]

I'm an atheist, as I've pointed out countless times. As such, my arguments are based on evolutionary biology, not religion.

But you come right back to the same weak BS. Remarkable.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

 

[Jerry]

OK, I just did re-read it. And yes, on that ONE post (out of about 15 total), Jerry RETALIATES against Dem's stupidity with anger and vitriol.

Not one intelligent comment by Dem. If there is, show it.

14 intelligent comments by Jerry, and one out of anger. There's no comparison between the earnest effort at discourse between the two posters.

Thank you, Kane.

And even in that one angry post, Chickenman found my "panicked squid" simile to be the most clever he had ever seen on this board. In all modesty, I had to agree with that.

But seriously, when you roll in the mud with a pig, you get up smelling like one. So I'll let Dem have the pigpen to himself. He's clearly right at home there. People of lesser intelligence generally are.

In all fairness, various people on the other side of the debate here have made coherent points and attempted to engage the question honestly. Yeah, sometimes with a little snark but we all do that.

In contrast are those whose entire response consists of sneers, name-calling, and invective. That tactic, amplified by the propaganda organs and reinforced by the Powers That Be, has now become standard with regard to a number of hot-button cultural issues: delegitimize an opposing view by immediately putting a label on it (homophobic, for example), shout it down, cancel it...rinse...repeat. Welcome to America 2021.

 

[Jerry]

What you say about this wise one?

Ben Zobrist lawsuit alleges his pastor had an affair with his wife Julianna and defrauded the former Chicago Cubs player’s charity

Ben Zobrist, the former Chicago Cubs utility player and 2016 World Series MVP, has filed a lawsuit accusing his former minister of having a sexual relationship with his wife Julianna and defrauding Zobrist’s charity foundation.

www.chicagotribune.com

I say it's another example of fallen humanity. People preaching one thing and doing another. Hypocrisy. Dishonesty. Betrayal. A familiar story going back, oh, to the dawn of time and rise of the human race. In other words: in the same category as "water is wet."

I also say it doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand in this thread.

 

[fastlax16]

But seriously, when you roll in the mud with a pig, you get up smelling like one. So I'll let Dem have the pigpen to himself. He's clearly right at home there. People of lesser intelligence generally are.

Since you keep bringing up intelligence. A sign of high intelligence is the ability to admit you are wrong, something you utterly lack the capacity to do. Smart people revise their thinking, you don't. You're a simple man and a changing world scares you.

 

[SUPERTODD]

Thank you, Kane.

And even in that one angry post, Chickenman found my "panicked squid" simile to be the most clever he had ever seen on this board. In all modesty, I had to agree with that.

But seriously, when you roll in the mud with a pig, you get up smelling like one. So I'll let Dem have the pigpen to himself. He's clearly right at home there. People of lesser intelligence generally are.

In all fairness, various people on the other side of the debate here have made coherent points and attempted to engage the question honestly. Yeah, sometimes with a little snark but we all do that.

In contrast are those whose entire response consists of sneers, name-calling, and invective. That tactic, amplified by the propaganda organs and reinforced by the Powers That Be, has now become standard with regard to a number of hot-button cultural issues: delegitimize an opposing view by immediately putting a label on it (homophobic, for example), shout it down, cancel it...rinse...repeat. Welcome Thank you, Kane.

And even in that one angry post, Chickenman found my "panicked squid" simile to be the most clever he had ever seen on this board. In all modesty, I had to agree with that.

But seriously, when you roll in the mud with a pig, you get up smelling like one. So I'll let Dem have the pigpen to himself. He's clearly right at home there. People of lesser intelligence generally are.

In all fairness, various people on the other side of the debate here have made coherent points and attempted to engage the question honestly. Yeah, sometimes with a little snark but we all do that.

In contrast are those whose entire response consists of sneers, name-calling, and invective. That tactic, amplified by the propaganda organs and reinforced by the Powers That Be, has now become standard with regard to a number of hot-button cultural issues: delegitimize an opposing view by immediately putting a label on it (homophobic, for example), shout it down, cancel it...rinse...repeat. Welcome to America 2021.

Honestly if you are looking for substantive debate, dimlion is the last person to engage on this board.

 

[jjw165]

 

[Roar More]

I'm an atheist, as I've pointed out countless times. As such, my arguments are based on evolutionary biology, not religion.

Then maybe homosexuality is evolutionary biology's way of addressing the overpopulation issue thereby making homosexuality completely natural.

 

[KanePoster]

Then maybe homosexuality is evolutionary biology's way of addressing the overpopulation issue thereby making homosexuality completely natural.

Of course not. Evolution doesn't have a "mind" - it works basically as follows. If a given characteristic increases the probability of breeding success, it tends to get amplified generation after generation. If a given characteristic lowers the probability of breeding success, it tends to get diminished over generations.

Evolution cannot "know" that the planet is "becoming over-populated".

 

[BBrown]

.

Then maybe homosexuality is evolutionary biology's way of addressing the overpopulation issue thereby making homosexuality completely natural.

 

[BBrown]

Of course not. Evolution doesn't have a "mind" - it works basically as follows. If a given characteristic increases the probability of breeding success, it tends to get amplified generation after generation. If a given characteristic lowers the probability of breeding success, it tends to get diminished over generations.

Evolution cannot "know" that the planet is "becoming over-populated".

An awful lot of plants and vegetation have "evolved" over time to fend of droughts and predators.

 

[fastlax16]

An awful lot of plants and vegetation have "evolved" over time to fend of droughts and predators.

Due to characteristics that made specific plants in the population more successful at surviving said droughts or predators and passing those traits/genetics to subsequent generations.

This isn't to say that homosexuality isn't natural, but evolution would select against it over time as those individuals wouldn't be reproducing as frequently.

 

[Jerry]

Since you keep bringing up intelligence. A sign of high intelligence is the ability to admit you are wrong, something you utterly lack the capacity to do. Smart people revise their thinking, you don't. You're a simple man and a changing world scares you.

No, Dem brought up intelligence. I only responded in kind.

Yes, the world is changing. But the Truth doesn't change...and is not subject to a majority vote.

As for being wrong, if I were, I would certainly admit it. I've been wrong before. The last time was in 1986 if I recall...

 

[KanePoster]

An awful lot of plants and vegetation have "evolved" over time to fend of droughts and predators.

Sure. Grasses develop drought tolerance (or not) based on the need - this happens over generations....as one example.

It is an amazing world!

 

[Roar More]

Of course not. Evolution doesn't have a "mind" - it works basically as follows. If a given characteristic increases the probability of breeding success, it tends to get amplified generation after generation. If a given characteristic lowers the probability of breeding success, it tends to get diminished over generations.

And yet, homosexuality is still with us after all these centuries in spite of the efforts of many to destroy it.

 

[Tony '83]

Of course not. Evolution doesn't have a "mind" - it works basically as follows. If a given characteristic increases the probability of breeding success, it tends to get amplified generation after generation. If a given characteristic lowers the probability of breeding success, it tends to get diminished over generations.

Evolution cannot "know" that the planet is "becoming over-populated".

Many of my evolutionary biologist colleagues would disagree, or at least say that it isn't that simple. There is a great deal of experimental evidence that group selection (or multilevel selection, as it's called today) allows for the persistence of traits that are not directly beneficial to an individual, but will benefit that individual's kin or group. Darwin himself brought up this idea in thinking about human evolution, especially in the characteristics of morality and altruism.

How this relates to the prevalence and persistence of homosexuality in humans is a very complicated question, obviously.

 

[KanePoster]

Many of my evolutionary biologist colleagues would disagree, or at least say that it isn't that simple. There is a great deal of experimental evidence that group selection (or multilevel selection, as it's called today) allows for the persistence of traits that are not directly beneficial to an individual, but will benefit that individual's kin or group. Darwin himself brought up this idea in thinking about human evolution, especially in the characteristics of morality and altruism.

How this relates to the prevalence and persistence of homosexuality in humans is a very complicated question, obviously.

Can you give an example of "group selection", where the characteristic benefits the group, but not the individual?

I know nothing about evolution, just what I can reason through myself.

I'm completely willing to be wrong about this.

But if there is a case where the characteristic benefits the group, while NOT BENEFITTING the individual, then I'd like to understand that.

Any idea that the characteristic benefits both the group AND the individual, of course, as a scientist, I will cast an extremely doubtful eye upon. As would any good scientist.

 

[ram2020]

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

It's really just warming to see them celebrate their "truths."

 

[Obliviax]

Can you give an example of "group selection", where the characteristic benefits the group, but not the individual?

I know nothing about evolution, just what I can reason through myself.

I'm completely willing to be wrong about this.

But if there isn't a case where the characteristic benefits the group, while NOT BENEFITTING the individual, then I'd like to understand that.

Any idea that the characteristic benefits both the group AND the individual, of course, as a scientist, I will cast an extremely doubtful eye upon. As would any good scientist.

I don't know all of that but would like to chime in. And my post isn't meant specifically for you.

I think it is DeGrasse that uses the moth to demonstrate that technology has far outstripped life's ability to adapt. His reasoning is that moths pursued light because they are programmed to seek warmth and navigate by the light of the moon. They simply haven't had time to reprogram in the last century to adjust to our useless electrical lights.

So today, people and animals can overcome their programming and thrive. Gay families are a perfect example. One can be gay and still be a parent. The biology involved is now secondary.

 

[Tony '83]

Can you give an example of "group selection", where the characteristic benefits the group, but not the individual?

I know nothing about evolution, just what I can reason through myself.

I'm completely willing to be wrong about this.

But if there isn't a case where the characteristic benefits the group, while NOT BENEFITTING the individual, then I'd like to understand that.

Any idea that the characteristic benefits both the group AND the individual, of course, as a scientist, I will cast an extremely doubtful eye upon. As would any good scientist.

I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph, and in the one before, did you mean "if there is a case"?

I can find the studies describing the experiments when I have time, but here's a nice review describing the concept of multilayer selection. The first couple of pages give the gist of it, if you don't have time to read the whole thing.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/lin...:scds:US:2da94ec9-2107-4ef7-af66-61f7f7eec2a6

 

[KanePoster]

I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph, and in the one before, did you mean "if there is a case"?

I can find the studies describing the experiments when I have time, but here's a nice review describing the concept of multilayer selection. The first couple of pages give the gist of it, if you don't have time to read the whole thing.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/lin...:scds:US:2da94ec9-2107-4ef7-af66-61f7f7eec2a6

Dammit. Yes. If there IS a case. My mistake. I went back and fixed it.

Let me read the link.

 

[Jerry]

It's really just warming to see them celebrate their "truths."

Never in human history has there been a shibboleth so inane and stupid, yet widely and uncritically accepted, as the nostrum that we can all have (and "celebrate") our own "truth."

The logic of this is that nothing can be criticized, condemned, or prohibited -- because nobody has the right to judge another's "truth."

Of course the same people who propagate this infantile nonsense have no problem condemning any "truth" that is inconvenient for and non-conforming to their agenda.

For example, if your "truth" is that homosexuality should not be celebrated, heads will explode. But don't look for intellectual consistency in people whose main priority is ideology and power.

 

[bourbon n blues]

I realize this is now a minority view here and everywhere, but I don't understand the popular compulsion these days for a person -- gay, straight, or some variety in-between -- to advertise their sexual orientation. Are we supposed to care? Applaud? Fall all over ourselves telling him or her how wonderful and brave they are?

Count me out. I really don't want to know. Just play friggin' football and keep your sex life to yourself.

I'm with you , I'm at the point I don't care. Isn't that how it should be ?

 

[bourbon n blues]

View embedded media

Those kind of studies are what's called bullshit. Surveys that usually aren't reproducible .

 

[bourbon n blues]

When young men and women commit or attempt suicide at alarming rates due to being gay, seeing that there are succesful people "at the top" with the same orientation is important.

Not understanding the importance of such tells me that you are most likely not part of a margenalized community.

Higher rates are associated with that group but it doesn't equate that the higher rates are due to certain folk not accepting them . There are also higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse , promiscuity, mental illness , and domestic violence .
Maybe other factors play a part?

 

[bourbon n blues]

Why be discretionary? Bravery is bravery in all its forms. You can applaud them all, you don’t have to be selective in your appreciation for someone doing the right thing.

How about I don't really care who people with or are attracted to so I won't call this brave.

 

[KanePoster]

I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph, and in the one before, did you mean "if there is a case"?

I can find the studies describing the experiments when I have time, but here's a nice review describing the concept of multilayer selection. The first couple of pages give the gist of it, if you don't have time to read the whole thing.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/lin...:scds:US:2da94ec9-2107-4ef7-af66-61f7f7eec2a6

Well, right off the bat, they say, "The time has come for a careful and forthright reassessment of group selection in evolutionary thinking. The most naive form of group selection—which axiomatically assumes that behaviors evolve for the good of the group—is clearly untenable."

Reading on, I get exactly what they're saying, and I agree that it is theoretically possible that groups of selfish individuals could destroy themselves (as a group), where groups of cooperative individuals could thrive when otherwise they would not.

But it seems pretty much theoretical, and in practice (they say as much, from what I've read), it really doesn't happen very much, and honestly, the hen example is really forced (but it is interesting and I agree that it seems valid).

From a practical standpoint, I think we can safely say that the vast, vast majority of evolution occurs because of individual procreation selection.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Whatever its origins, Christmas is now a totally secularized holiday, and a number of court rulings have reinforced that status.

So you're comparing the observance of a secularized public holiday with the celebration of a sexual orientation. Again: apples and oranges.

But ironically, the very existence of "Pride Month" makes my original point, which is that for some reason it is not enough now to simply respect the rights of gay people (as we should) and protect them under the law.

Now we're also required to celebrate gayness as a sexual orientiation. I find that bizarre and will decline to do so...regardless of presidential proclamations.

You claim that we should respect the rights of gay people but have probably posted over 50 times in this thread about your objection to any public acknowledgement of gay people's existence. Who is forcing you to celebrate pride month? If you do not want to attend a pride parade don't.

Your point about Christians being persecuted is laughable. Many so called Christians have persecuted gays for centuries and now that they are being called out on it they feel that they themselves are being persecuted for not being able to openly discriminate and spout their bigotry.

 

[The Spin Meister]

An awful lot of plants and vegetation have "evolved" over time to fend of droughts and predators.

Are you saying plants and vegetation analyzed certain problems and then planned improvements to overcome them?

 

[BBrown]

Are you saying plants and vegetation analyzed certain problems and then planned improvements to overcome them?

I don't believe I used the word "analyzed" but yes some plants changed and evolved or adapted over time to the environment they were in or predators.

 

[The Spin Meister]

I don't believe I used the word "analyzed" but yes some plants changed and evolved or adapted over time to the environment they were in or predators.

Did they do so with intent?

 

[BBrown]

Did they do so with intent?

Yes, violent intent.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Yes, violent intent.

So vegetation actually evolves with intent. You should write a paper, show the data, propose your theorem. You will be famous and wealthy.

 

[BBrown]

So vegetation actually evolves with intent. You should write a paper, show the data, propose your theorem. You will be famous and wealthy.

Did you not see Jurassic Park?

 

[AWS1022]

How about I don't really care who people with or are attracted to so I won't call this brave.

And the point eludes another one.