|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 19:08:26 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, homo erectus is still around, though their range is limited generally to San Francisco.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 19:14:15 GMT -5
kevin-
To build upon your thoughts....
My guess is that homosexuality, like the appendix, is a negative evolutionary mutation that has not yet been removed from the process.
It's an interesting mental exercise though.
If one assumes that a species better ensures its continued existance by a more-or-less continual process of only positive mutations, then how would a mutation that would ultimately result in the guaranteed extinction of the species (barring other related mutations) fit into the grand plan?
As I've said before, I do think that homosexuality is genetic rather than a lifestyle choice, but kevin's questions does call for a bit of mental gymnastics to reconcile.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 8, 2007 19:26:14 GMT -5
My guess is that homosexuality, like the appendix, is a negative evolutionary mutation that has not yet been removed from the process. As I've said before, I do think that homosexuality is genetic rather than a lifestyle choice, If it is indeed genetic then why would gays keep being born, especially since their parents would have to procreate with the opposite sex? Good point.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 8, 2007 19:46:46 GMT -5
If one assumes that a species better ensures its continued existance by a more-or-less continual process of only positive mutations, then how would a mutation that would ultimately result in the guaranteed extinction of the species (barring other related mutations) fit into the grand plan? Hard to say. Is there such an instance? I suppose there are examples aplenty of negative mutations that persist and are fatal. For instance, Huntington's Disease is inherited and fatal, but does not appear until middle age most of the time, so most have had the opportunity to procreate and pass the genes on to the next generation. Slight change of subject. I don't care what anyone says, but microevolution is all but undeniable. How else can several known viruses continue to develop immunities to certain treatments? There is even evidence of microevolution going on inside of the human body. My son gets allergy shots which are basically allergens in a solution. The body builds up resistance to the allergens through persistent exposure, and it does so on a cellular level. Therefore, the cells are mutating and retaining those traits that enable the body to resist the allergens.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 8, 2007 20:12:34 GMT -5
If it is indeed genetic then why would gays keep being born, especially since their parents would have to procreate with the opposite sex? Good point. Look back on my post. If the gene, although likely recessive, is present in both parents, than all you have to do is get out your trusty Punnet square and wala! You have someone with homosexual tendency or at least another person who will continue to carry the gene. Since throughout history homosexuality has been forced "underground", many have reproduced as a means of "keeping up appearances". This may be an instance where behavioral conditions determine the continuance of an attribute that would have been phased out under normal circumstances. Think about this: with the exception of a few anomalies (I had some horses I swear were gay!), do you know of any other animal that has an issue with homosexuality? Do you think there would be a "stigma" among dogs towards homosexuality if it truly existed? Weird question, but if homosexuality -- and I mean strict, not bisexuality -- had developed in a species how long would it last? Here's a link that might interest (or not, depends on you curiosity!): Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate. One big thing I got from this was that the species that did exhibit homosexuality did so as a phase and not a permanent thing. Others were actually bisexual! But there seemed to be no case of strict homosexuality throughout the lifecycle of the animal which lends credence (to me anyways) to the idea that it is indeed strictly behavioral and not a genetic fact of life. Makes you wonder if the supposed genes that result in homosexuality are the same or at least very similar in male and female. That is, instead of the dominant trait of heterosexual preference, there is the attraction to the same sex regardless of the sex.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 23:13:40 GMT -5
Here again, the bacteria, even as it develops immunity to certain drugs, remains a bacteria.
It does not suddenly (or even gradually) become a horse. It doesn't even become a new subspecies of the original bacteria- or at least I don't think science makes a claim that it does.
I'm sure that someone could do the math and figure out how many generations of a given bacteria have lived since Darwin published his theory- millions? billions? more?- yet the bacteria is still a bacteria.
I'll make no claims to be an expert on the subject- even though my wife might hold the record for a person having the most allergies and yet still living- but I don't think the allergy shots do anything more than boost the body's already present immune system. it doesn't cause the body to spontaneously mutate a cell to become an entirely new allergen-fighting cell; it merely causes the body to produce more and perhaps stronger antigens.
I'd think that, if microevolution were truly taking place, the process would involve the pathogens in the allergy shot to cause the body to spontaneously either create a totally new allergen-fighting antibody from a cell with (typically) another use or for the body to cause the pathogen itself to mutate into a harmless cell of some kind.
Forgive me if I have some of the terms and/or concepts wrong- biology class was a long, long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 10, 2007 9:36:42 GMT -5
Mat changed his position on the bill to apologize for slavery. When it was first an issue, he said he was against it because it could lead to more -- like reparations. Yesterday, he said he changed his mind and thought the bill was okay. He admitted he had changed his position.
Is everyone afraid of losing their jobs lately or what?
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 10, 2007 9:59:41 GMT -5
Did he say what made him change his mind? Verbiage he didn't fully comprehend prior to changing his mind? Any clue?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 10, 2007 19:37:50 GMT -5
Yesterday? This is at least a week or more old. Basically, when he found out that the statute of limitations applied, he changed his position. He still thought it was idiotic, but its best to move on.
|
|