agreed

Certainly, though that is a lame excuse for not willing to exercise your "noodles"!!!

I wonder if this is something that varies with region, or even age. When I lived in san diego a late 30s lesbian friend was dating a transgender person. She was very immersed in the LGBT etc community, extremely knowledgeable and considerate, and I could have sworn that she used the word tranny. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to learn.

But of course, Only members of a group are allowed to use offensive words among themselves, while others should be respectful!

Certainly, the term "transgender" is more plausible... But, regardless of the label you put on a peice of sSHIT, its not going to change its stinking essence (even if its called EXCREMENT)!!!

As William Schackspire put it:

What is the biological advantage of an individual that can't reproduce, pass on it's genes?

Sorry it's another supposed fact that isn't. Animals do discriminate, just think back to your nature videos in school, the plumage on some birds the antlers on bucks etc. Remember also some animals mate with only one and do it for life just as humans do. We like to think of our selves as significantly different form animals. And while there most certainly are large differences there is far less difference that humans generally like to think.

Having sex without CONNDOMS!!!

In addition to the mistaken belief that there are no "gay" non-humans, there is also the hint of a misunderstanding of the ideas behind evolution and natural selection here.
I know there are gay animals, as I had a cat who was quite obviously attracted sexually to other male cats, and not to females. It was easy to see. It was intriguing to me that a very masculine male cat who was also in the neighborhood, absolutely HATED the gay cat, and attacked him often, but left OTHER male cats alone.
As to the idea that traits we HAVE, are within us because natural selection has found them USEFUL to our species, that is NOT what the theory of evolution or the concept of Natural Selection says. A trait or mutation does NOT have to be useful to stay around. Nor does it have to be harmful to go away.
A trait or mutation that causes all who have it to die before giving birth to offspring will tend to go away. What makes someone "Gay" is still not understood, and is most likely involves a large number of factors. My personal theory is that sexuality itself is made up of THOUSANDS of elements, hence the huge variety of sexual interests and "turn-ons." Anyway, all those elements are passed on, but intermixed between the two people who make babies. Just like how hair color can be different between a child and BOTH parents, so too sexuality can be very different.
Thus being gay" comes and goes. It doesn't "stay" a part of our species because it is necessary, just as any particular hair color does not "Stay" with us because it makes us better. All of the elements are passed on, because they don't cause the demise of the species.

You can ask that question of any man or woman that can't conceive or choose not to conceive, MMM.

I just often wonder why......
Why is there homosexuality if there is no biological advandage?

Must have something to do with Over/Under-production of some hormons in the brain{?}

well, not everything we do biologically has clear biological advantages.... what is the advantage in some people enjoying sugar,,,or sweets, instead of everyone just detesting the taste of anything thats not good for them,,,,?

MsHarmony, that is a great example of the circumstance-dependency of 'biological advantages' which I feel I keep harping on.

For our distant ancestors, preferring sweets motivated them to eat the vegetation which had the higher concentrations of human-digestible energy (ie, ripe fruit!). It was basically impossible for them to hurt themselves by following their sweet tooth.

Today, with technology and organized human labors, we can easily produce massive quantities of separated and concentrated sugars - and under these new circumstances our predilection for sweets is now harming us.

Having a sweet tooth is neither a biological advantage nor disadvantage - it depends on the circumstances.

MsHarmony, that is a great example of the circumstance-dependency of 'biological advantages' which I feel I keep harping on.

For our distant ancestors, preferring sweets motivated them to eat the vegetation which had the higher concentrations of human-digestible energy (ie, ripe fruit!). It was basically impossible for them to hurt themselves by following their sweet tooth.

Today, with technology and organized human labors, we can easily produce massive quantities of separated and concentrated sugars - and under these new circumstances our predilection for sweets is now harming us.

Having a sweet tooth is neither a biological advantage nor disadvantage - it depends on the circumstances.


But back to your original point - yes, the theory of evolution does not require that everything be a biological advantage. There is a lot of haphazardness about it, and qualities are propagated simply because they are a side effect of something else which was 'advantageous enough' to be selected for.

MsHarmony, that is a great example of the circumstance-dependency of 'biological advantages' which I feel I keep harping on.

For our distant ancestors, preferring sweets motivated them to eat the vegetation which had the higher concentrations of human-digestible energy (ie, ripe fruit!). It was basically impossible for them to hurt themselves by following their sweet tooth.

Today, with technology and organized human labors, we can easily produce massive quantities of separated and concentrated sugars - and under these new circumstances our predilection for sweets is now harming us.

Having a sweet tooth is neither a biological advantage nor disadvantage - it depends on the circumstances.

MsHarmony, that is a great example of the circumstance-dependency of 'biological advantages' which I feel I keep harping on.

For our distant ancestors, preferring sweets motivated them to eat the vegetation which had the higher concentrations of human-digestible energy (ie, ripe fruit!). It was basically impossible for them to hurt themselves by following their sweet tooth.

Today, with technology and organized human labors, we can easily produce massive quantities of separated and concentrated sugars - and under these new circumstances our predilection for sweets is now harming us.

Having a sweet tooth is neither a biological advantage nor disadvantage - it depends on the circumstances.


But back to your original point - yes, the theory of evolution does not require that everything be a biological advantage. There is a lot of haphazardness about it, and qualities are propagated simply because they are a side effect of something else which was 'advantageous enough' to be selected for.

Oops... multiple posts.

lol,, its ok

Actually, I think FAR too much emphasis is placed on assigning every characteristic and trait to some biological or genetic marker. I think we are mostly creatures of habit and convenience who enjoy pleasurable things(whatever it is that makes us consider them pleasurable).


I find no more mystery in someone being attracted to the same gender than I do in them being attracted to the same hair color,,,its just a preference , as far as Im concerned anyhow.

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the prevalence of this myth that evolutionary theory requires that all qualities that all creatures have must be decidedly, self-evidently, and universally a 'survival advantage' to the creature.

I have seen this straw man argument amongst evolution deniers for a long time, and I accept that some evolution deniers are poorly informed about science and are not motivated to think carefully through the real mechanism/consequences of evolutionary theory.

But it is also very common amongst people who are non-Creationists, and who have some education and interest in science in general and evolution in particular.

Last night, at a social gathering, a heard a group of people discussing how menstruation was incompatible with evolution - using a similar misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Not one person in the group brought up the idea that maybe, just maybe, this was a mis-representation of evolutionary theory.




---

I just realized, my first sentence mentions 'harping on' and then I send multiple posts with the same content. My connection to m2 flaked out, and I couldn't load any pages; I was watching hulu and during commercial breaks kept trying to repost with no way of knowing that previous postings were successful.

dangit massage, I have to admit you kind of lost me ,, but I THINK we just agreed,,lol