| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2007 03:14:21 PM · #1201 |
The intersection of healing and spirituality can lead to some strange events.
Message edited by author 2007-12-13 15:14:39. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 03:42:18 PM · #1202 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think bipedalism is related to increasing tool-using -- it's hard to throw a spear if you are walking on all fours. Whether increasing bipedalism led to increased tool-making, or whether the increased tool-making/using provided evolutionary pressure towards bipedalism is certainly debatable; it certainly seems to me that those are mutally-reinforcing characteristics. |
GeneralE - I realize that these are your "thoughts" on this matter and not offered as "proof". Have you considered the parrallel between others animals that use tools, or have useable toes/thumbs, etc that did not evolve into humans or even bi-pedal animals. For instance I believe a sea animal (perhaps an otter) uses rocks to assist it with opening abalone shells. My basic question is; If humans evolved to better cope with their enviornment (via survival), then why did not other animals evolve like we did? Or did they, and they are part of our ancestry as well?
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 08:40:58 PM · #1203 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think bipedalism is related to increasing tool-using -- it's hard to throw a spear if you are walking on all fours. Whether increasing bipedalism led to increased tool-making, or whether the increased tool-making/using provided evolutionary pressure towards bipedalism is certainly debatable; it certainly seems to me that those are mutally-reinforcing characteristics. |
I was gonna mention that too. A good speculation would be that walking erect facilitated grasping while walking, that this was reinforced by development of the opposable thumb for better grasping, and that this led to the use of, and eventually the making of, tools.
R. |
Isn't it also theorized that bipedalism is a reason for the development of "bigger brains" both literally and figuratively?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:38:26 AM · #1204 |
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:07:10 AM · #1205 |
| Every action of every individual isn't necessary for the survival of a species. Same-sex partnering is relatively common in many animals, which would appear to contradict the notion of a conscious decision against "normal" behavior. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:15:16 AM · #1206 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Every action of every individual isn't necessary for the survival of a species. Same-sex partnering is relatively common in many animals, which would appear to contradict the notion of a conscious decision against "normal" behavior. |
That is one version.
As you might suspect Here is another version.
The following are excerpts;
"In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:
Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]
...
In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science. "
And then we have This version on it.
Although the homosexual community choses to interpret animal behavior as evidence of "natural" activity, science has far from proven it.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:42:09 AM · #1207 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. |
I'm confused. Can't we say, with equal validity, that "human sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:48:14 AM · #1208 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm confused. Can't we say, with equal validity, that "human sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."?
R. |
Ah, but that's fornication, a pretty serious sin--punishable by stoning to death or something, at least in some theologies ... |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:49:51 AM · #1209 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. |
I'm confused. Can't we say, with equal validity, that "human sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."?
R. |
Sure. And if the homosexual particpant wants to claim that they are engaging for "aspects beyond that of reproduction", which means to deny any promulgation of evolution, and is rooted purely in the sensory fullfillment, then fine. But to argue that it is "natural" and therefore "right", takes it beyond what the evidence supports.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:55:41 AM · #1210 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Sure. And if the homosexual particpant wants to claim that they are engaging for "aspects beyond that of reproduction", which means to deny any promulgation of evolution, and is rooted purely in the sensory fullfillment, then fine. But to argue that it is "natural" and therefore "right", takes it beyond what the evidence supports. |
It's a serious misperception of how natural selection works to argue that every trait of every individual, or class of individuals, must further the cause of individual (or species) survival.
Anyway, if you want to get silly about it, you can argue that homosexuality "evolved" to increase the comfort level of the dominant class, who after all need their interior designers or they can't be truly happy ;-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:42:25 PM · #1211 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Sure. And if the homosexual particpant wants to claim that they are engaging for "aspects beyond that of reproduction", which means to deny any promulgation of evolution, and is rooted purely in the sensory fullfillment, then fine. But to argue that it is "natural" and therefore "right", takes it beyond what the evidence supports. |
It's a serious misperception of how natural selection works to argue that every trait of every individual, or class of individuals, must further the cause of individual (or species) survival.
Anyway, if you want to get silly about it, you can argue that homosexuality "evolved" to increase the comfort level of the dominant class, who after all need their interior designers or they can't be truly happy ;-)
R. |
Robert - there is no silliness intended. I simply, very simply, want those who claim that homosexuality is a natural act, to explain how that promotes evolution? It doesn't. Therefore, homosexuality is not "natural". It might be a fact that some are dispositioned to it. It might be observable as a behavior in some animals. But to argue it is "natural", requires evidence other than the interpretations presented thus far. I might accept interpretations in some instances, primarily when I have multiple sources interpreting the same data the same way, but that is not the case here. Not yet at least.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:50:19 PM · #1212 |
| I can't believe that you are using "it does not advance evolution" as an argument ... :-( |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:52:14 PM · #1213 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I simply, very simply, want those who claim that homosexuality is a natural act, to explain how that promotes evolution? |
It doesn't have to. Are vestigal legs on snakes and whales natural? How about hair color or pinky fingers? Every trait of every individual just not have to further the species. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:53:12 PM · #1214 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I can't believe that you are using "it does not advance evolution" as an argument ... :-( |
At least you're consistent in not believing. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:59:24 PM · #1215 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are vestigal legs on snakes and whales natural? |
Are they?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:02:53 PM · #1216 |
| Is your appendix an unnatural organ ? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:08:49 PM · #1217 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are vestigal legs on snakes and whales natural? |
Are they? |
No, it's a covert government program set up to surgically implant fake body parts in animals all over the world just to spark inane conversation. :-/ |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:45:57 PM · #1218 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are vestigal legs on snakes and whales natural? |
Are they? |
No, it's a covert government program set up to surgically implant fake body parts in animals all over the world just to spark inane conversation. :-/ |
This snide remark comes in the wake of your using vestigal legs to define something as unnatural when replying to a post on the claims of homosexuals that their activities are "natural". Since you cite unnatural occurences as refutation to my point, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that you agree that homosexuality is unnatural. Why did you not just agree with to begin with?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:49:26 PM · #1219 |
| Er... you don't "win" an argument by saying you've won, or by pretending to know what conclusions the other side has drawn. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:03:10 PM · #1220 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Er... you don't "win" an argument by saying you've won, or by pretending to know what conclusions the other side has drawn. |
Hmm â€Â¦ I was under the mistaken impression that you had argued with Flash before â€Â¦
(Joking! Joking!)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:23:46 PM · #1221 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This snide remark comes in the wake of your using vestigal legs to define something as unnatural when replying to a post on the claims of homosexuals that their activities are "natural". |
I didn't say vestigal legs were unnatural (another wild interpretation). I posted several examples of natural things with no apparent survival benefit to demonstrate the pointlessness of your question. The snide remark was an in-kind reply to your questioning of the blindingly obvious... how could they NOT be natural? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 05:11:05 PM · #1222 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
how could they NOT be natural? |
maybe they were designed to be unnatural ? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:33:42 PM · #1223 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Robert - there is no silliness intended. I simply, very simply, want those who claim that homosexuality is a natural act, to explain how that promotes evolution? It doesn't. Therefore, homosexuality is not "natural". It might be a fact that some are dispositioned to it. It might be observable as a behavior in some animals. But to argue it is "natural", requires evidence other than the interpretations presented thus far. I might accept interpretations in some instances, primarily when I have multiple sources interpreting the same data the same way, but that is not the case here. Not yet at least. |
Flash, I love ya but this is ridiculous. There's NO interpretation of "natural selection" that says "if a trait doesn't help us breed it will be lost"...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:05:47 PM · #1224 |
Robert - this is not about "natural selection". This is about a claim in defense of homosexuals that their behavior is "natural". It is within the natural order of things. It is "normal". It is then argued that the animal kingdom has examples of behavior (scalvert has tried this repeatedly) that exhibit this "natural" behavior. Since it is "natural/normal" in the animal world and we evolved from animals, then it is natural/normal for humans to be homosexual.
This argument is patently false. I have posted examples of why this is false, namely quoting both, their very own advocates and opposing researchers views. I have provided links to the original articles, etc. Even one from the National Geographic that was not against their position, but merely concluded it was an interpretation of behavior. The same kind of interpretation that scalvert says is detrimental in scripture, but now when applied to animal behavior is suddenly proof positive that homosexuality is "natural/normal".
It saddens me that you are having difficulty following my reasoning here, as I give your posts considerable weight. I stand by my positions and posts.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:21:16 PM · #1225 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Even one from the National Geographic that was not against their position, but merely concluded it was an interpretation of behavior. The same kind of interpretation that scalvert says is detrimental in scripture, but now when applied to animal behavior is suddenly proof positive that homosexuality is "natural/normal". |
Religion relies on varying interpretations to suit a particular result. While it may be true that observers have interpreted the same-sex pairing of black swans and penguins as homosexual, you didn't (perhaps couldn't) offer a plausible interpretation that would negate that conclusion.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 20:27:34. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 12:49:49 PM EDT.
