Forums

Darwin And Homosexuality

Page:   1 2 3 4 5
 
 

magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
June 30, 2008, 20:01

*laughs* well Maggie you should have said something! Insted of leaving me floundering trying to explain Darwin


Yeh and see ME floundering at trying to explain things and getting a brain freeze doing it and diverging off the topic 😯 nahhh!!!!! you do it, youre better at it 😉 (j/k)



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 30, 2008, 20:48

Which bits of maths in particular? There aren’t any actual numbers in there so it’s mostly a question of logic as to what happens. I’d be happy to have a go at expanding any particular ideas.


Sorry I just realised that the website you posted is a summary of the article I was talking about and not the actual article. The article in question was done by the university of New South Wales and sets itself apart from studies like the one Anthony posted by actually applying a mathamatical equation to the whole male homosexuality = higher fertility in females from the maternal line.


We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation.


I won’t bother translating that into English because one study on Darwin and homosexuality is probably enough for people but its the mathematical equation and how that relates to the evolutionary findings that I don’t understand. Maths has never been my strong point.


I forgot that it was the summary you had posted and not in fact the article. I am so used to simply going to the dirrect source and ignoring other peoples summaries that it was automatic and I forgot I even did it! 😆 Anyway if you have some time, and a maths brain you might want to take a look, the link to the article is on the page you posted. Don’t feel obligated though, its a tough article to grasp… and I should know!


Yeh and see ME floundering at trying to explain things and getting a brain freeze doing it and diverging off the topic nahhh!!!!! you do it, youre better at it (j/k)


Nice to know I am better at BS’ing my way through something I know nothing about. Its a talent most people pick up during the HSC I think 😆 Your contributions are always appreciated though so don’t hold back.



Link
 
Joined in 2008
July 1, 2008, 02:18

You make a good point, even if it is laregly theoretical.


As an ex-science junkie (mostly nuclear physics, geology, and paleobiology), I’ve learned the hard way that those who claim to be *least* theoretical are, in truth, likely to be the *most* theoretical and simply playing authority-word games.


Just like those who claim to be *most* literal in their use of the Bible are more likely to be *least* literal in following the message of God.


Same very human game.


And it’s least result is the rest of us being fooled by someone else’s arrogance. The worst result is death, destruction, and more caused by people who have “all the facts” to “justify” their grossly sinful pursuits.


Most scientists today remind me more of Romans 1 than anything — they worship the created rather than the Creator. They waste the brains God gave them on trying to arrogantly re-make and control (even if “only” in the defined reality) of God’s created world, rather than humbly, joyfully, and gratefully learning more to function as part of and within God’s created world.


It’s one of the reasons I left science behind. I finally got too disgusted with the *huge* difference between what’s supposedly followed (the scientific method) and what’s actually followed (summarized in the story of the six blind men falsely-describing an elephant, based on the teeny little piece of the beast they were aware of — “The elephant is a snake!”, “No! The elephant is a tree trunk!” Etc). Most of what’s called “science” today is nothing more than a false religion, adhered to by people who claim to have no religion. Very frustrating for those of us who’d like the real thing, instead!


My suggestions for possibilities for why homosexuality would exist were just that, and meant more to inspire scientific imagination than to simply create more pseudo-facts or an opportunity for scientific argument.


If it were to me, I’d spend more time reviewing the *huge* diversity for family-type, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on within God’s animal world, and try that way to discover what God might be up to. For example, what about that species of duck where a family consists of one female, one older male, and one (also non-related) younger male — and while the younger male works within the family, he never ever gets to mate/pass on his genetics?


Seeing this and all the thousands upon thousands of other such variations from what Darwinism says should exist, my first thought would be that I need to throw out Darwin and start looking with new, fresh eyes, if I truly wanted to understand what God may have had in mind with His created work.


As a Christian, I’d also have to accept that there may be no other reason for God to have created something to be some particular way except that it pleased Him to do so!


That’s completely unacceptable to modern science thinking, of course, but that only reveals its built-in arrogance and God-rejection (Romans 1 again).


My larger suggestion is that if we learn to stop letting fundamentalist-religionists define us, but then turn to allowing fundamentalist-scientists to define us instead (which is what most Queer people have done to date, it seems), we’ve simply moved out of the tiger cage and into the lion cage.


How many of us who look to science to justify us, for example, remember science’s role in eugenics (which sought to get rid of homosexuals because we didn’t make science-sense), but also in creating nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, industry that poisons our natural, God-given environment, and so on? There is *nothing* “neutral”, sinless, or “unbiased” in science. Like religion, it simply reveals the inner heart of sinful humanity.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
July 1, 2008, 16:55

I appoligise if my comment on the theoretical nature of your ideas regarding God’s purpose for homosexuality touched a nerve. I was merely implying that the correlation between the reproductive nuances of the animals you mentioned and homosexual human beings is, in fact, a theory. Not enough study has been conducted to confirm, to the degree that ‘science’ is able to confirm anything, what you have said.


However all ideas, the good the bad and the ugly must begin as theories. It was not a judgement one way or the other on whether theory is good or bad, theory tends to denote an innovation and progression in ideas if anything.


As to the rest, *shrugs* I admitt my ignorance on the topic. I have enough trouble trying to understand and evaluate the ‘science’ that exists already… I fear a discussion on the validity of science as a dicipline in its own right is beyond me.


Thankyou for taking the time to share your thoughts and enlighten me, and others I am sure. It’s great to have you here. 😀



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
July 1, 2008, 18:16

I love science but I think it means:


S -omething

C- ompletely

I – ntelligent

E- ngorged

N- onsensically with too much information

C- ompletely

E- nticing confusion


😯 😉



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
July 1, 2008, 21:03

I like that Maggie 😆



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
October 30, 2009, 14:44

Hi Avb


I like your take on it! heehee. 😆


So Sandy, do you work in research? And if you or anyone else you know needs lesbian subjects for more research, this would be a good site to find willing participants. I’ll volunteer.


Ann Maree



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
October 30, 2009, 20:39

Ann Marie,


Hi there by the way I’m not sure if we have crossed paths on here yet. I no longer work in reserarch sadly, those were the good ol’ days when money wasn’t a priority and I could indulge my obsession with books.


Most often university campuses will have anouncements for reserach participants because that’s generally where this type of research is done–at universities. When a very specific demographic is needed though you could also find posters and flyers at regular lesbain hangouts. Keep your eyes open.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
October 31, 2009, 02:53

Hi Sandy


No, this is the first time we’ve crossed paths. Nice to meet you! So what work do you do now?


And thanks for the info about access to research projects too.


Cheers,


Ann Maree



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
October 31, 2009, 09:30

Well at the moment I am studying full-time and working at my universities student support teaching study skills, marking assignments and generally just doing whatever happens to land on my desk.


I think I’m addicted to the university lifestyle. 😆


Page:   1 2 3 4 5
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.079 seconds.