Miscellaneous comments not having much to do with FrG's bible study

Quote: boymimbo

It does strike me as marvelous that we've evolved, but that evolution was not because of something that humans have done.

No. And, say, Ben Roethlisberger does not have the buidl he has for anything he did. But both humanity and a football player can try to make the most of what they have. That's what counts. That's what's great and amazing. Why would we want to diminish that?

Quote:

A simple asteroid or nuclear armageddon would likely wipe out our civilization and in little over a couple of hundreds of years, that evidence would be wiped from the face of this earth.

If an asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs were to strike Earth today, most of us would die, but civilization would very likely survive.

Quote:

And I don't believe that you're going to hell.

I don't either. But I don't subscribe to a faith that has easy access to revenge fantasies in the afterlife. Or that uses threats for good behavior.

Quote:

And probably Osama's heart was filled by hatred of a Christian God.

I'm told it's the same god as the one he worships. To be fair his god, through a prophet, commanded that the infidels be slayed unless they submit or convert. So who's to say his heart wasn't filled by his god?

I'm also told Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god. If so, that's odd because each iteration of god is radically different.

Quote: thecesspit

Nope. But I believe there is likely to be a MIX of factors... nature and nuture. The genetics here is NOT the younger brother's genes, but the mother's... it may be that some mothers wombs work differently after the firstborn male.

Well ... that's something different. The usual meaning of a "genetic trait" is that, if I have it, and you do not, then my genes are different from yours in some very specific way, that makes that condition show up.

You seem to be suggesting that gayness is not really genetic in the usual sense, but rather a result of something happening to the embryo in the womb.
Well ... I have never heard such a hypothesis before, but I must admit, that, however far fetched, it still seems more likely than the "genetic" theory.

Quote:

Maybe they don't.

Exactly.

Quote:

What I am saying is that there maybe casual link/tendency between the number of older brothers and the chance of being gay.

Yes, I already said that I am not disputing that. I am disputing your interpretation of the existence of that link as evidence of homosexuality being genetic or congenital.
I think, these facts are unrelated, and neither prove nor disprove each other.

Quote:

I don't find that surprising. But what makes one man rejected by a girl turn to the comfort or men, and another a woman hater and another bounce back and the world's greatest Lathario (sp?) in ten years time? All sorts of factors. One's we may never know. I don't fault people for trying to find out though.

I can agree, that it is a combination of factors, that's fine. My problem is only with "black-and-white" division.

If, gayness is, at least in part, environmentally conditioned, that means, that if, for example, one does not want his son to be gay (for whatever reason, maybe, he just wants to have grandchildren), then there may actually be things he can do to decrease the likelihood of that happening (such as, for example, not sending him to a "progressive" school, where they make children role-play "alternative families" and read fairy tales, where a prince meets another prince, and lives happily ever after etc.).

If however, like some people claim, homosexuality is just a genetic condition, and there is nothing that can be done to swing it one way or the other once the genetic cards are dealt, then all of the above paragraph (and much more) is just pure prejudice and bigotry.

I think, that in this sense, it is an important question.
People, insisting on the "nothing you can do" theory are implicitly (sometimes, even explicitly) call me a bigot, and I find it insulting, unfounded, and uncalled for.

I feel kinda like they do when they are told by others they are going to burn in hell.

Quote:

Hmmm, dunno. I just do. Partly because I don't want to sleep with my sister, so on the bare face of it, I would expect any one else to want to (sleep with their sister, clarifying before I make an obvious joke :).

Well, in case, you haven't figured it out yet, my point is that I think that homophobia is a feeling of the same nature as your rejection of incest. It is not very rational if at all, because on the face of it, there is no harm being done to anyone, so why should you care? Yet you do, because that's how evolution programmed you to feel with respect to anything that can be potentially harmful to the reproduction of your species.

Quote:

The outside of societal bounds one is obvious. Because, erm, my cultural society looks down on relationships between brothers and sisters, for various reasons, not least we "know" it can screw up the offspring. What do you think of it?

Well, off-spring is out of the picture, remember? Any other reason? Around here, a man can marry any other man in the world, except for his own brother. Why the hell not?

This whole discussion started when ME asked me to explain homophobia outside of religious context.
My explanation is that it is the same kind of feeling as rejection of incest relationships or, for the lack of a better example, perhaps, inter-species breeding etc. We are taught by evolution to have a certain instinctive notion of what is "normal" (good for the species), and what is not, and to feel automatic, by default repulsion toward the latter.

Quote: weaselman

Well, in case, you haven't figured it out yet, my point is that I think that homophobia is a feeling of the same nature as your rejection of incest. It is not very rational if at all, because on the face of it, there is no harm being done to anyone, so why should you care? Yet you do, because that's how evolution programmed you to feel with respect to anything that can be potentially harmful to the reproduction of your species.

Oh your point was very obvious the one you were trying to make. I still think you should answer the same question you asked me for completeness. I did ask it back you know... :)

Quote:

This whole discussion started when ME asked me to explain homophobia outside of religious context.
My explanation is that it is the same kind of feeling as rejection of incest relationships or, for the lack of a better example, perhaps, inter-species breeding etc. We are taught by evolution to have a certain instinctive notion of what is "normal" (good for the species), and what is not, and to feel automatic, by default repulsion toward the latter.

But why, IF homosexuality is a nuture trait can Homophobia also not only be a learnable trait? If Evolution teaches us such a thing, there must be a genetic make up to it, so why for a) homophobia but not for b) homosexuality?

Because, I'd posit, that it's not purely (if at all) an inbred human trait to be reviled by homosexuality (and why only gay men, as it's clearly a male trait to tend to enjoy two hot women go at it), but mainly a product of being told constantly that Normal is a man and a woman.

In fact, we could take the argument you've just used against me (to good effect) and turn it around back at what you are stating.

With any genetic traits that are expressed in ways that show a clear difference between human beings, there's going to be something you can do about it, in some way. Some of those things may not be very healthy. Some you can work at, and some just don't matter.

Quote: weaselman

Genetics is quite an exact science actually

I just thought I'd check with the Doctor I work with whose speciality is Genetic Research... and his answer was "not really, there's too many variables, and it's not that simple... unless maybe you are working with fruit flies". He did say Genomics Research is going that way to be much more precise, but right now... it's not like Chemistry or Physics where results are cleanly repeatable (a hard science).

I did go check. Cheers.

Quote: thecesspit

Oh your point was very obvious the one you were trying to make. I still think you should answer the same question you asked me for completeness. I did ask it back you know... :)

My answer is the same as yours.

Quote:

But why, IF homosexuality is a nuture trait can Homophobia also not only be a learnable trait?

It can. The thing is, I don't see any rational reason for it to exist.

Quote:

If Evolution teaches us such a thing, there must be a genetic make up to it, so why for a) homophobia but not for b) homosexuality?

Because (a) is beneficial to species, and (b) is not.

Quote:

but mainly a product of being told constantly that Normal is a man and a woman.

Well, yeah ... But the question is why are we being constantly told that?

Quote:

With any genetic traits that are expressed in ways that show a clear difference between human beings, there's going to be something you can do about it, in some way. Some of those things may not be very healthy. Some you can work at, and some just don't matter.

Absolutely. One can (and should) suppress his homophobia. There are lots of repulsive instincts that any civilised person learns to suppress and control.

Quote: thecesspit

I just thought I'd check with the Doctor I work with whose speciality is Genetic Research... and his answer was "not really, there's too many variables, and it's not that simple... unless maybe you are working with fruit flies".

Yes, I meant fruit flies.
But if fruit flies work this way, then human beings probably do too. It's just much more complicated, so we cannot find the exact solution to everything yet, but it (the solution) does exist, meaning that if you possess a certain genetic trait, that means that there is a certain specific combination of genes, responsible for that.

There's no reason you couldn't breed people like they do dogs, and try to select for specific results and get rid of ones you don't like and favor ones you do. Physical changes, like a curling tail, seem to have direct relations to behavior.

But mostly it seems like a bad idea to me. Taking a whack at some serious diseases seems like enough meddling.

Quote: boymimbo

I also credit my God for my success. To you that's pointless, and maybe it diminishes my actual individual effort for my own success. But you know what, I've had hard times and I've turned to god for help.

I missed the obvious question:

In such occasions, if you fail do you also credit god with your failure?

Quote: weaselman

Well, yeah ... But the question is why are we being constantly told that?


Absolutely. One can (and should) suppress his homophobia. There are lots of repulsive instincts that any civilised person learns to suppress and control.

I wonder if what you are describing is not evolutionary of the human species, but the evolution of human cultures (the meme, rather than the gene).

I think Evolutionary Psychology is in it's infancy, and is also rather controversial (trying to ascertain behaviour to genetics is gonna be tricky as both those sciences are rather hard to create really powerful predictive models). I wouldn't doubt that some of our societal behaviour has biological routes, but I also suspect some has the survival of the society and it's actions, rather than the species.

Just a thought I had.

Quote: rxwine

There's no reason you couldn't breed people like they do dogs, and try to select for specific results and get rid of ones you don't like and favor ones you do.

I think the years 1933 through 1945 would beg to differ.

But I get what you're saying. Just tossing out a reminder. "The mistakes of the past..." and all that.

(this was not a jab equating you with Nazi's)

Quote: Face

I think the years 1933 through 1945 would beg to differ.

But I get what you're saying. Just tossing out a reminder. "The mistakes of the past..." and all that.

(this was not a jab equating you with Nazi's)

I was thinking of that, because we managed to change the behavior of wolves to domestication without knowing any advanced genetics, so not sure what's possible with many generations of humans. If you want to go that route, which I am in agreement is a bad idea.

Quote: rxwine

I was thinking of that, because we managed to change the behavior of wolves to domestication without knowing any advanced genetics, so not sure what's possible with many generations of humans. If you want to go that route, which I am in agreement is a bad idea.

No, I get it. Modern dogs, cats, cows, horses, it makes sense. Hell, it even extends to plants with size, quantity, resistance to disease i.e. better results. I think of the human route too, whether it be these wacky recessive genes causing terrible diseases, or just stuff that sucks, like too-weak backs for bipedal locomotion.

But ideas like that never work, for reasons we could all supply. Just pointing out the obvious.

Quote: thecesspit

I wonder if what you are describing is not evolutionary of the human species, but the evolution of human cultures (the meme, rather than the gene).

Maybe so. I did not actually say "gene", I just said "evolution". (Nareed did imply that she thought things like cultural memory (that she confused with the term I used - "evolutionary memory") do not exist, but you would have to take it up with her ...).
I do remember though reading somewhere about primates attacking their peers whose sexual preferences they did not agree with.
I tried a quick search just now, but could not find the source ... but I'd be quite surprised if research of this kind, even if allowed to complete would find its way to be freely available on the internet.
I think, what happened to "Bell Curve" would pail in comparison to the witch hunt that would start if any credible information like this was ever released.

I don't know how it matters though. Unlike the debate about whether homosexuality is genetic, I don't see any difference whatsoever the resolution of this question would make.

Sorry to interrupt. We could use the help any biblical scholars on the board to contribute to a discussion in the Spanish Word of the Day. The discussion at hand starts about where I linked to, where I asked (in Spanish) who the "Three Marys" are. There is a city in Mexico called Tres Marias, as well as three islands. It came about that there are two sets of the "Three Marys," one at the crucifixion, and one at the Jesus' tomb. I think the only Mary at both events was Mary Magdeline.

Just to warn you, every post in the Spanish Word of the Day must contain at least one word in Spanish. If you don't know any, just say Yo quiero Taco Bell. Hope to see you there.

Bless you my son.....
The city of Tres Marias was renamed so in honor of the three chiquitas who attended to the needs of the Three Amigos during filming. They by coincidence just happened to all be named Mary.

Go now and be fruitful......