[Thaway]

Quote by: gallo Exactly. Those traits arise by mutation which is where the genetic variability in any population of organisms comes from. Some of those traits are more beneficial than others in a given environment and are therefore statistically more likely to be passed on to succeeding generations. When you consider that there are many, many different alleles for any given gene in a genome, some which may be beneficial, some which aren't, and some that may be deleterious, you begin to see that it is a complicated picture.

You will have to forgive me…I'm new at this.

Given your views, please explain for me how you interpret the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality in the human race. If you feel that traits that are not reproductively beneficial would fade into oblivion if they are not included in sexually reproducing people, then homosexuality is either a very recent phenomena (not likely) or an exception (a genetic mutation that never seems to go away…that would be a logical impossibility…because something cannot be both systematic and random).

When you said "statistically more likely" even though that is technically correct, it would be more accurate to say "more probabilistic" since stats are based on probabilities and are merely a form of reporting probabilities...thus stats themselves are not the principle driving the phenomena that certain things are more or less likely to occur.

But nonetheless, you did bring up stats and I would love to talk about them in this context. Do you realize that scientific evidence is all based on the stats they report? Scientific findings are never facts...they are merely probabilistic statements about the likelihood of what was observed in an experiment was due to chance (this is where stats come in). You might say “so what”?

Well, this actually means that all the scientific evidence (which is what it really is...evidence) could be wrong. Though it is EXTREMLY unlikely, it is possible.

Every experiment require human observation…humans are prone to observation errors, just look at eye witness testimony inconsistencies. Every experiment requires humans to design them…this requires forethought and prediction based on theory; a lot of room for error there. People have bias, independent observers are not always consistent, experimental conditions vary across experiments, and many theories can never be directly tested…like evolution. Until we have an experimental earth and control earth and billions of years, science could never verify evolution.

So if you want to rely on scientific evidence to support your beliefs (which they are beliefs, just as the Muslims and the Christians have beliefs) that is fine, just make sure you understand all the faith gaps that exist in your belief system before you go and criticize someone else’s faith based belief system.

You might say "where does science require faith?". Many, many places...that is why science itself acknowledges the possibility it is mistaken, and therefore requires the use of statistics to estimate the likelihood its findings are due to chance.

So, I raised a lot of issues...let me know which ones you would prefer to talk about by responding selectively.

Quote by: gallo And you have put your finger on one primary fact of natural selection that is missed by many, and by most creationists. Natural selection is not "the survival of the fittest." Natural selection requires reproduction.

Again, then explain the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality.