|
Mrs. Kerfoops
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: 09:56:51, 21-10-2008 » |
|
By thinking about it, I take it? Practice makes perfect Don Basilio. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruby2
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 11:34:56, 21-10-2008 » |
|
However, to see examples of non-reproducing individuals having arisen through natural selection (and therefore being of benefit to the propagation of the genes of the population, rather than "working against reproduction") you only need to look at bees.
Perhaps it's time some research was conducted into the genetics of people who simply don't ever develop any instinct to reproduce, homosexual or otherwise. I know plenty of straight people who do not now, and never have wanted children. Of course now that we have reasonably reliable methods of contraception, people are more able to execute that choice, but they've been around for long enough now that if that was a straightforward genetic trait it would have died out (or at least lessened) by now. There have to be parallels. You could argue that it's all "nurture" but the need to have children is such a strong instinct in most that it would surprise me if it was possible to subconsciously put someone off in ways that they were unaware of. Nor does the whole "career-focus" argument wash in the two most clear cut cases I'm thinking of. If anyone here is aware of research in that area I'd be interested. A quick search hasn't brought up anything useful. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:50:56, 21-10-2008 by Ruby2 »
|
Logged
|
"Two wrongs don't make a right. But three rights do make a left." - Rohan Candappa
|
|
|
JimD
Gender: 
Posts: 49
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 12:45:18, 21-10-2008 » |
|
Just because a particular kind of behaviour doesn't directly result in reproduction doesn't imply that it's "working against reproduction". No, though the latter might be judged a subset of the former, and even the most sophistical might have difficulty arguing that homosexuality doesn't 'work against reproduction'. I don't agree, and I don't think it requires any sophistry at all. One factor behind the flourishing of a population of organisms (and therefore genes) may be the presence of a certain variability in that population which is of benefit in some way to the population as a whole - even though it might involve some members of the population not reproducing - and therefore that variability itself would be selected for by evolution. Of course it isn't clear what place homosexuality might have in such a scheme, but the factors involved are fantastically complicated. However, to see examples of non-reproducing individuals having arisen through natural selection (and therefore being of benefit to the propagation of the genes of the population, rather than "working against reproduction") you only need to look at bees. a. Worker bees are a member of the set but not (so far as I know) the subset, so it's hard to see how this engages the original point. b. I'd say that an unacknowledged move from 'reproduction' (with its everyday biological meaning clearly in play) to the 'flourishing of a population', in an effort to score a debating point, is textbook sophistry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 12:53:59, 21-10-2008 » |
|
JimD, I'm not trying to "score a debating point" but to engage with your term "working against reproduction", which seems to go further than "not reproducing", but in a way which from your response I seem not to be clear on. Maybe you could explain what exactly this "against" means.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 13:05:23, 21-10-2008 » |
|
This all seems a terribly functionalist view about evolution. There are all sorts of amazing things it throws up for which there is no apparent need, whether human sexuality itself, the male peacocks tail, the snout of the platypus, the legs of the squid and so many more.
And evolution may well be going on, but surely there is value in life now, not just in what we pass on to our descendants. (Or in my case, what you pass on to your descendants.)
It reminds me so much of those nasty lines by Philip Larkin which I can quote by heart, (and have no wish to distress by quoting, the many devoted parents and grandparents among you, that I am so glad to know here):
Man hand on misery to man,
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as quickly as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 13:16:18, 21-10-2008 » |
|
This all seems a terribly functionalist view about evolution. There are all sorts of amazing things it throws up for which there is no apparent need, whether human sexuality itself, the male peacocks tail, the snout of the platypus, the legs of the squid and so many more.
And evolution may well be going on, but surely there is value in life now, not just in what we pass on to our descendants. (Or in my case, what you pass on to your descendants.)
It reminds me so much of those nasty lines by Philip Larkin which I can quote by heart, (and have no wish to distress by quoting, the many devoted parents and grandparents among you, that I am so glad to know here):
Man hand on misery to man,
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as quickly as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
That's the trouble of combining memory with less than perfect keyboard technique,  : "Man hand s on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early as you can, And don't have any kids yourself." It's by such errors that evolution is driven, is it not? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 13:20:22, 21-10-2008 » |
|
Which I think I can quote...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
Ruby2
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 13:28:44, 21-10-2008 » |
|
It's by such errors that evolution is driven, is it not?
DB's "quickly" would certainly fare better in scrabble.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Two wrongs don't make a right. But three rights do make a left." - Rohan Candappa
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 14:03:02, 21-10-2008 » |
|
This all seems a terribly functionalist view about evolution. There are all sorts of amazing things it throws up for which there is no apparent need, whether human sexuality itself, the male peacocks tail, the snout of the platypus, the legs of the squid and so many more. What I've always found most fascinating about the theory of evolution is that its basic principles are almost unbelievably simple and yet their consequences are so intractably complex. I think one can be fairly sure (in so far as one ever can be) that all of the examples you quote, and indeed any feature which is consistent over time and over an entire population of organisms, has arisen through the operation of natural selection on genetic variation. However this process is taking place at every level between the individual molecules the genes are made up of and the entire environment (including all the other living things it contains) in which the organism in question lives and has evolved. This makes it impossible in all but a relatively few cases to isolate features and trace the influences and necessities behind their coming into being. This in no way invalidates the principle of course, nor does it imply that everything in human existence can be reduced to evolutionary necessity even if it might have its distant origins there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IgnorantRockFan
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 14:34:53, 21-10-2008 » |
|
However, to see examples of non-reproducing individuals having arisen through natural selection (and therefore being of benefit to the propagation of the genes of the population, rather than "working against reproduction") you only need to look at bees.
Perhaps it's time some research was conducted into the genetics of people who simply don't ever develop any instinct to reproduce, homosexual or otherwise. I know plenty of straight people who do not now, and never have wanted children. Of course now that we have reasonably reliable methods of contraception, people are more able to execute that choice, but they've been around for long enough now that if that was a straightforward genetic trait it would have died out (or at least lessened) by now. That's actually... quite brilliant! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Allegro, ma non tanto
|
|
|
|
MT Wessel
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 00:43:17, 22-10-2008 » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:49:48, 22-10-2008 by MT Wessel »
|
Logged
|
lignum crucis arbour scientiae
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 03:29:02, 22-10-2008 » |
|
I like how British society refers to political action groups as 'pressure groups'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 19:00:13, 22-10-2008 » |
|
Heterosexuality is for the unimaginative; homosexuality is a great deal more fun. Every thinking person should participate!
Having been away from the forum for a few days I'm confused about our new member Mrs Kerfoops. Is she a lesbian? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 19:02:58, 22-10-2008 » |
|
I am imagining a touching scene when her youngest son came home from a heavy day working in his antique shop and said in a serious tone "Mother, there is something rather important I have to tell you..."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
JimD
Gender:
Posts: 49
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 23:10:37, 22-10-2008 » |
|
JimD, I'm not trying to "score a debating point" but to engage with your term "working against reproduction", which seems to go further than "not reproducing", but in a way which from your response I seem not to be clear on. Maybe you could explain what exactly this "against" means.
Just everyday usage really. Many messages ago I foolishly made a little joke about evolution finding homosexuality a tricky phenomenon to explain. I had vaguely in mind the Richard "Evolution never knowingly undersold" Dawkins commentary that was later posted. He actually offers some mechanisms, rather than simply pointing out that matters are "fantastically complicated", but judges the stated explanations to be somewhat problematic Memo to self:Don't make jokes on messageboards about Certain Subjects, especially Homosexuality, Religion and Evolution. Further memo to self:Don't get involved in debates on messageboards about Serious Subjects. End of story! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
