My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Robin]

That's like asking for evidence that water is wet.

It is nothing like asking for evidence that water is wet. Quit avoiding the issue.

From the point of view of evolutionary genetics, sex which cannot lead to the production of offspring is a waste of resources, unless you can demonstrate that it is useful for something else, which has not been done in this case.

Simply repeating the claim in no way backs it up.

Your claim is that something is a waste of resources if you cannot prove that it is not a waste of resources. That is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Everybody else here has couched their statements as possibilities, not absolute fact.

You are the only person here who has made a positive scientific claim about this and insisted that it is true, so you are the one who needs to back up your claim or stop spouting pseudo-scientific claptrap.

And is there any particular reason you are afraid to acknowledge the point that I made about too much reproduction being a survival disadvantage in times of scarcity?

 

[Robin]

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone here actually know anything about biology?

I know it doesn't have a planning committee.

Apparently that is one more thing that you know.

 

[Robin]

Sorry, but I just don't see this happening in the real world.

Have you looked?

What I see in the real world is homosexual couples behaving pretty much like heterosexual couples, except for that they cannot actually produce offspring. They do not habitually devote their time to raising other people's children.

Are you suggesting that childless heterosexuals do not spend time helping to raise their siblings' children?

Even in this nuclear family age my heterosexual and childless siblings spend a good deal of time helping me to raise my children. There is no difference with gay siblings from my knowledge. Just because you can't see this doen't mean it doesn't happen. I am as much in the real world as you are.

If anything, they attempt to produce their own by some method, or adopt, exactly like infertile heterosexual couples do.

That seems to suggest that gays have the same nurturing instinct as heterosexuals, wouldn't you say?

And do you rule out that our evolutionary ancestors might also have tried to adopt or act on this nurturing instinct in some other way?

Again, in a position of scarcity which population would have the greater survival benefit - a population with a fast growing population and a greater percentage of children to adults, or a population with a slower growing population with a lesser percentage of children to adults?

 

[Robin]

From the point of view of evolutionary genetics, sex which cannot lead to the production of offspring is a waste of resources, unless you can demonstrate that it is useful for something else, which has not been done in this case.

Let me make it clear why your reasoning is faulty:

From the point of view of evolutionary genetics, sex which cannot lead to the production of offspring is a waste of resources, only if you can demonstrate that those resources might have been otherwise used productively to increase survivability, which has not been done in this case.

Even if something is not useful, that does not imply that it is wasteful.

So in order to justify your claim you have to show that if the resources were used to produce offspring that this would always increase the survival chances of this genetic information.

As I have pointed out this is not necessarily the case, for example in a genetically similar group who's population had increased beyond the capacity of it's environment to sustain it. This situation would probably have arisen many times in our evolutionary history.

 

[quarky]

I'm no homophobe, by way of disclaimer for this:

Lots of homosexuals have had a hetero experience. A gay male 16 year old has a fair chance of hanging out with the smoking babes. Gay guys are less threatening to some young, nubile, hetero women. Stuff happens. Same with lesbians and straight guys. Lesbians get pregnant.

So, homosexuality doesn't exactly rule out reproduction. Some gays give heterosexuality a shot or two. Same with heteros and gay sex.

It wouldn't surprise me if some homosexuals have even had bestiality experiences with the opposite sex, perhaps as a practice run at greater biological significance.

 

[cyborg]

Because it is useful for survival..

Right. This is true.

But you still don't seem to get the point that utility does not imply intent.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Instead of being a drama queen about it, why not simply answer the question: "Is the fact of biological reproduction was pre-planned? "

Because the question makes no grammatical sense?

This thread isn't getting any better...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Have you looked?

Yes, Robin. I live in the Gay Capital of the UK. Every time I go out I see homosexuals - and that's just including the ones that make it obvious.

Are you suggesting that childless heterosexuals do not spend time helping to raise their siblings' children?

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my posts?

Most people spend a certain amount of time looking after the children of siblings or close friends. What I am saying is unsubstantiated, unsupported pseudoscience is the claim that childless homosexuals spend more time doing this than anybody else does. You are among numerous people who have tried to claim that homosexuality exists because it increases the number of available carers in a community. Sorry, but this is something which has come out of the back end of a male cow. People are just making stuff up.

Even in this nuclear family age my heterosexual and childless siblings spend a good deal of time helping me to raise my children. There is no difference with gay siblings from my knowledge. Just because you can't see this doen't mean it doesn't happen. I am as much in the real world as you are.

That seems to suggest that gays have the same nurturing instinct as heterosexuals, wouldn't you say?

I never said they didn't. In fact, I explicitly stated that they DID. That's why they try to adopt, in those countries where it is legal for them to do so.

I see *NO* essential difference between behaviour in heterosexual couples and gay couples apart from that gay couples can't produce their own offspring. It is the people who are proposing these ludicrous pseudoscientific theories that need there to be a difference. They need gay couples to be happy to devote their time to raising other people's children INSTEAD OF WANTING THEIR OWN.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Let me make it clear why your reasoning is faulty:

Even if something is not useful, that does not imply that it is wasteful.

It does in terms of evolutionary biology.

As I have pointed out this is not necessarily the case, for example in a genetically similar group who's population had increased beyond the capacity of it's environment to sustain it. This situation would probably have arisen many times in our evolutionary history.

When this situation arises what happens is what happened on Easter Island. According to your "theory", the Easter Islanders should have all turned homosexual and stopped producing children.

 

[Belz...]

Totally different case, because ant genetics work differently to mammallian genetics. Worker ants actually pass on more genes by serving their queen that they would if they mated themselves (which some ant and bee workers CAN but almost never do).

My point exactly. Non-reproducing members of mammal society can devote their energies in a way that makes the population as a whole more fit to reproduce and care for their offspring.

Pseudoscience. Sociopolitically-motivated theorising based on no evidence.

Who said anything about evidence. All I'm saying is that you are incorrect in saying that homosexuals are useless in nature because they can't reproduce. They CAN perform other functions and we KNOW that non-reproductive members of a species can perform activities that make their population more fit to reproduce and care for their offspring. That's not speculation. That's fact.

None that I can see, regardless of all the unsupported theories being proposed.

Well, that's your incredulity at work.

 

[Belz...]

*bangs head against wall*

Why ? Puppies have large heads.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, that'll mean that paedophilia isn't harmful then.

Huh ?

I applied the adjective "wrong" to a biological process viewed from the POV of human DNA. For the DNA which makes us want to have sex, any sort of sex which has no hope of passing on genes is "wrong." It is a waste of energy, time and biological resources.

I thought you said you knew what you were talking about ?

Reproduction is the KEY characteristic of all living things.

Eunuchs aren't alive ?

 

[cyborg]

According to your "theory", the Easter Islanders should have all turned homosexual and stopped producing children.

You need to bang your head a few more times - you still seem to think there's some sort of intent here.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Huh ?



I thought you said you knew what you were talking about ?



Eunuchs aren't alive ?

This thread is ludicrous.

I remember being 12 years old and sitting in my first ever biology lesson at secondary school. What did they teach us? They taught us how to define "living thing". Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

LUDICROUS.

 

[Hux]

Dont you just yearn for the days when we could be civil and bang out insults about Crystal Palace?

 

[drkitten]

I stated that you cannot assume that a feature is beneficial simply because it is present.

And Orgel's second rule says that you can.

Paedophilia is also widespread but not fixed. Wanna hypothesise that that is beneficial simply on the grounds that it hasn't been selected out?

By Orgel's second rule, yes. Go ahead, disprove Leslie Orgel.

 

[cyborg]

Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

LUDICROUS.

Yes, it is ludicrous that you're worrying about GCSE biology definitions of life. I also remember when I had to do this - some years ago - that there was some discussion of the problems with the definitions especially with respect to viruses.

Of course the definition of life has nothing at all to do with evolution so I fail to see the relevance here still.

 

[RandFan]

It does in terms of evolutionary biology.

A peacock's tale is wasteful and is the result of sexual selection. It's not wrong. It's just the result of evolution. It's a means of the peacock to telagraph his fitness. It could be the peacock would not have survived without its tail. Thing is no other birds require such a tail.

The problem with your judgement is that it isn't scientific. If you were to simply say that homosexuality is maladaptive to reproduction I don't think you would have any problem. If you said that homosexuality isn't normative, again no problem. "Wrong" indicates a judgement. Something that went wrong according to a goal. A preconcived event. Evolution doesn't work that it way. There are simply changes.

As Pinker states, homosexuality is a puzzle because it hasn't been selected against and humans are succesful. We persist inspite of it. And as Orgle has said, evolution is smarter than you are.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

A peacock's tale is wasteful and is the result of sexual selection. It's not wrong. It's just the result of evolution. It's a means of the peacock to telagraph his fitness. It could be the peacock would not have survived without its tail. Thing is no other birds require such a tail.

The peacock's TAIL is the classic example of sexual selection. It is useful because (a) it helps the peahens decide which is the healthiest male and (b) it confuses the hell out of would-be predators - a forest of eyes looking at you. There's plenty of wild peacocks wandering around the British countryside. They do not seem to fall prey to foxes. The peahens, on the other hand, get eaten because they nest on the ground. The result is frustrated (and very loud) peacocks. One once spent a night in a tree right next to a narrowboat I was trying to sleep in. Sounded like somebody was being murdered outside.

The problem with your judgement is that it isn't scientific. If you were to simply say that homosexuality is maladaptive to reproduction I don't think you would have any problem. If you said that homosexuality isn't normative, again no problem. "Wrong" indicates a judgement.

Not in the sense that I was using "wrong." You are straw-manning me again, Randfan. Please stop it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And Orgel's second rule says that you can.



By Orgel's second rule, yes.

In that case I don't have a problem with your position. All I want is consistency instead of arbitrary distinctions based on politics and emotions.

What does Orgel's second rule have to say about suicide?