What is "natural"?

[sevendogs]

Quote by: Mozart1220 OK, how about the word "normal"? I hear people all the time saying "Homosexuality isn't NORMAL". I say it IS "normal" for homosexuals, but "abnormal" for hetrosexuals. I tried to get a definition for "normal" on another board and the conservative factions shouted it right off the board with "Don't be stupid, you don't need a definition! EVERYONE knows what "normal" means". In other words, they didn't know either.

Of course, the more frequent phenomenon is the more normal it becomes statistically. However, During stone age and earlier, such traits would be also wiped out by natural selection ( may be a hit with a club would put it to an end). Now, we all are well protected by our legal system and a lot of all kind of determined genetically perversive forms of behavior is preserved (consider the qualitative side of the phenomenon). Homosexuality is abnormal biologically, because it does not contribute genetically in future generations and does not help the population to survive. Among wild species it occurs very rarely and, of course, it is wiped out by natural selection. In humans, sexuality became overdeveloped. Humans can breed at any season during a considerable period of individual life. Human sexuality is highly variable individually to the extend of several biologically odd variants. For example, pedophilia is one of them.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: sevendogs Of course, the more frequent phenomenon is the more normal it becomes statistically. However, During stone age and earlier, such traits would be also wiped out by natural selection ( may be a hit with a club would put it to an end). Now, we all are well protected by our legal system and a lot of all kind of determined genetically perversive forms of behavior is preserved (consider the qualitative side of the phenomenon). Homosexuality is abnormal biologically, because it does not contribute genetically in future generations and does not help the population to survive. Among wild species it occurs very rarely and, of course, it is wiped out by natural selection. In humans, sexuality became overdeveloped. Humans can breed at any season during a considerable period of individual life. Human sexuality is highly variable individually to the extend of several biologically odd variants. For example, pedophilia is one of them.

In nature, overpopulation is controlled by disease, starvation, or the increased poplulation of predators.

We humans have doane much to eliminate most of our threats, and thus are overpopulating the planet.


Maybe homosexuality is nature's "new way" to curb our population by "creating" more humans that don't procreate.

And way to add "pedophilia" to a discussion about homosexuality. like the two are related.

And homosexuality is more common in nature than you may think. Ever been to a zoo?

And I say agin, homosexuality may be "abnormal" to YOU, but it is quite "normal" for THEM.

Either way, as the bumper sticker says, "Gay is here to stay" and we can either treat these people with the same dignity and respect we expect for ourselves, or we can continue to persecute them and have history remember us with the same contemt we have for slave owners.


Besides, what is the HARM? I refuse to persecute anyoine unless I see a REAL DANGER, and homosexuality is harmful to NO ONE.

[atheist]

Quote by: sevendogs Homosexuality is abnormal biologically, because it does not contribute genetically in future generations and does not help the population to survive. Among wild species it occurs very rarely and, of course, it is wiped out by natural selection.

Actually, homosexuality helps with population control, so it does, in a way, 'help the population to survive.' Also, even if one is homosexual, one can still procreate. Everyone with normal functioning sex organs can procreate (ie. tube babies, or whatever you call that thing with injecting a woman's egg with another man's sperm, and fertilizing it within a willing womb).

Also, there's proof that goes against that comment that "Among wild species it occurs very rarely and, of course, it is wiped out by natural selection." It is not rare. It is as rare among other speices as it is rare among humans, which is not really rare at all. It occurs in many species of animals, such as dolphins, dogs, penguins, other species of monkeys, etc.

Also, there IS a species of primates, Pan Paniscus (aka bonobos), in which homosexual behavior is a common and often occuring activity. Yet this species still exists. They have sex with their those of the same sex, the opposite sex, with KIDS even....it's a sexually free society. And quite frankly, they are THE most peaceful species of primates currently on this planet. They have NO warfare between individuals, as opposed to humans and our/their close relative, Pan Troglodytes (aka Chimpanzees), who have been documented in partaking in "warfare" like activity (wild chimp groups are known to have gone "hunting," killing off members of other nearby chimp groups). This war like behavior and killing of those of the same species is absent in Bonobos.

[sevendogs]

Quote by: atheist Actually, homosexuality helps with population control, so it does, in a way, 'help the population to survive.' Also, even if one is homosexual, one can still procreate. Everyone with normal functioning sex organs can procreate (ie. tube babies, or whatever you call that thing with injecting a woman's egg with another man's sperm, and fertilizing it within a willing womb). Possibly this is right, but human population remains the fastest growing single species on earth. Also, there's proof that goes against that comment that "Among wild species it occurs very rarely and, of course, it is wiped out by natural selection." It is not rare. It is as rare among other species as it is rare among humans, which is not really rare at all. It occurs in many species of animals, such as dolphins, dogs, penguins, other species of monkeys, etc. Perhaps, the observers were biased motivated homosexuals themselves. Make at least one serious reference. I am involved with dogs all my life and have many friends, who have and breed dogs. Dog males and sometimes females assume a "homosexual" body language for dominance, but it never becomes act of mating in any way. A very far from humans, in which two or more o the same sex individuals who live together and get their sexual physical satisfaction with the same sex partners. Also, there IS a species of primates, Pan Paniscus (aka bonobos), in which homosexual behavior is a common and often occuring activity. Yet this species still exists. They have sex with their those of the same sex, the opposite sex, with KIDS even....it's a sexually free society. And quite frankly, they are THE most peaceful species of primates currently on this planet. They have NO warfare between individuals, as opposed to humans and our/their close relative, Pan Troglodytes (aka Chimpanzees), who have been documented in partaking in "warfare" like activity (wild chimp groups are known to have gone "hunting," killing off members of other nearby chimp groups). This war like behavior and killing of those of the same species is absent in Bonobos.

This behavior is a very different thing then human homosexuality. Show me a reference, which article did you read, may be I missed something.


Possibly homosexuals and pedophiles help to control the population growth, but I think they are quite repulsive to me and others like me. I also suspect that men with multiple wives, like Mormons do, more then compensate contributing in the population growth.

Speaking of birth control, I think Dr. Phil does more then any one else. A lot of people, who had watched his show, think twice before marrying another person.

[atheist]

Quote by: sevendogs This behavior is a very different thing then human homosexuality. Show me a reference, which article did you read, may be I missed something. Possibly homosexuals and pedophiles help to control the population growth, but I think they are quite repulsive to me and others like me. I also suspect that men with multiple wives, like Mormons do, more then compensate contributing in the population growth. Speaking of birth control, I think Dr. Phil does more then any one else. A lot of people, who had watched his show, think twice before marrying another person.

I actually didn't read an article (more like a textbook + listening to lectures). I go to UC Berkeley and during the summer took an Anthorpology class specializing in Evolution. It's soooo interesting! It's really informative and really clears up a lot of the things high school evolution classes throw at kids. It's like discovering that the Thanksgiving you learn about in kindergarten (where indians and pilgrims supposedly had feasts) isn't really what it's cracked up to be, when you actually take a history class. Anyway, the Bonobos were one of those topics that just -had- to be mentioned.

Also, I remember watching a documentary on these primates a few years back, and there was some really explicit scenes/shots shown between those guys...it was kinda weird. And R rated. Especially the adult/child interaction....kinda strange in a did-i-just-see-what-i-thought-i-saw? way.

But anyway, how did the subject of pedophiles get on this thread? Pedophiles can be heterosexual too. Also, in the past, in various cultures, it's been acknowledged that some men 'married' young girls (as young as 12), taking them as 'wives,' and this was pretty much 'normal' activity within the culture. It's not normal now, but it was back then (btw i am in no way supporting pedophilia, 'cause i agree too that it's very harmful behavior).

[sevendogs]

Quote by: atheist I actually didn't read an article (more like a textbook + listening to lectures). I go to UC Berkeley and during the summer took an Anthorpology class specializing in Evolution. It's soooo interesting! It's really informative and really clears up a lot of the things high school evolution classes throw at kids. It's like discovering that the Thanksgiving you learn about in kindergarten (where indians and pilgrims supposedly had feasts) isn't really what it's cracked up to be, when you actually take a history class. Anyway, the Bonobos were one of those topics that just -had- to be mentioned. Also, I remember watching a documentary on these primates a few years back, and there was some really explicit scenes/shots shown between those guys...it was kinda weird. And R rated. Especially the adult/child interaction....kinda strange in a did-i-just-see-what-i-thought-i-saw? way. But anyway, how did the subject of pedophiles get on this thread? Pedophiles can be heterosexual too. Also, in the past, in various cultures, it's been acknowledged that some men 'married' young girls (as young as 12), taking them as 'wives,' and this was pretty much 'normal' activity within the culture. It's not normal now, but it was back then (btw i am in no way supporting pedophilia, 'cause i agree too that it's very harmful behavior).

It does not matter. Speaking of these things would not bring much of a science. In general, the closer animal species to humans is in evolutionary scale, the more disgusting it is. This is why my favorite animals are dogs, not Primates. Interesting that evolution of lice took place during most recent period of human evolution. Yes, evolution is the most fascinating part of biology. You are on the right track. Good luck to you.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: sevendogs This behavior is a very different thing then human homosexuality. Show me a reference, which article did you read, may be I missed something. Possibly homosexuals and pedophiles help to control the population growth, but I think they are quite repulsive to me and others like me. I also suspect that men with multiple wives, like Mormons do, more then compensate contributing in the population growth. Speaking of birth control, I think Dr. Phil does more then any one else. A lot of people, who had watched his show, think twice before marrying another person.

Minority behavior that exists in a population of any species does not represent survival value. If it did it would be more prevalent. Natural selection has limited homosexuality to a minority of th epopulation because it has no survival value. in the scheme of procreation.

[5010]

Quote by: shunyadragon Minority behavior that exists in a population of any species does not represent survival value.

Survival value does not care whether a behavior is common, but whether it matches a niche or avoids danger. Natural selection sometimes favors the minority. Evolution suggests that mammals were once a minority compared with dinosaurs. Also consider that among ants and bees, the queen's behavior is quite the minority. The majority of members within those species do not reproduce at all. Is the queen's survivability not related to the presence of the support from non-reproducing workers?

One who does not reproduce can be more productive than one who reproduces and raises offspring, thus benefitting the species' present survival. One who reproduces may be less productive in the present society, but the return on the investiment is species' future population.

So, perhaps the species evolves to produce various ratios and natural selection allows the subgroup with the ideal ratio to persist, and a ratio for humans and ants would be different of course due to the difference in niche.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: sevendogs This behavior is a very different thing then human homosexuality. Show me a reference, which article did you read, may be I missed something. Possibly homosexuals and pedophiles help to control the population growth, but I think they are quite repulsive to me and others like me. I also suspect that men with multiple wives, like Mormons do, more then compensate contributing in the population growth. Speaking of birth control, I think Dr. Phil does more then any one else. A lot of people, who had watched his show, think twice before marrying another person.

Way to lump Homosexuals in with pedophiles. Well done. Did you know that the overwhelming majority of child molestors are HETROSEXUAL?

And as much as I hate Mormons, the actual church gave up polygamy a over a hundred years ago.

Our current treatment of gays is nothing more than state supported bigotry. Every time you say "Homosexuals" or "Gays" substitute "Black" or Hispanic" and see how far you get.

Are you against interracial marraige as well?

A friend of mine who had a vasectomy several years ago recently got married. Are you suggesting we not recognise his marraige because they won't be procreating?

Your logic fails at every turn.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: sevendogs Of course, the more frequent phenomenon is the more normal it becomes statistically. However, During stone age and earlier, such traits would be also wiped out by natural selection ( may be a hit with a club would put it to an end). Now, we all are well protected by our legal system and a lot of all kind of determined genetically perversive forms of behavior is preserved (consider the qualitative side of the phenomenon). Homosexuality is abnormal biologically, because it does not contribute genetically in future generations and does not help the population to survive. Among wild species it occurs very rarely and, of course, it is wiped out by natural selection. In humans, sexuality became overdeveloped. Humans can breed at any season during a considerable period of individual life. Human sexuality is highly variable individually to the extend of several biologically odd variants. For example, pedophilia is one of them.

Not to support pedophilia, but it's not that it's "unnatural", it's culturaly repugnant. Girls as young as nine or ten have had babies, which shows that they are "sexually mature", even if our society does not accept them as "emotionally mature". (Another reason I support complete sex education starting about this time) If we were a "wild" society, adult males would breed with girls this age with no problems to the culture. Adult women could be impregnated by ten year old boys and have perfectly healthy offspring. Again, it is our CULTURE that bans this, not NATURE.

Personally, I think the law should keep anyone from having children until they are at least 25, but that's just me I guess.


But either way, comparing Homosexuals to pedophiles is just wrong, an should not be allowed in the argument.

And you never did define "normal".

[atheist]

Quote by: sevendogs It does not matter. Speaking of these things would not bring much of a science. In general, the closer animal species to humans is in evolutionary scale, the more disgusting it is.

The reasoning behind this thinking does not make sense. It's more like: [insert opinion and pretend it's a fact] + [insert opinion] = [something]

Tell me why it doesn't matter.

If evolution isn't a science, considering that a lot of experimental research goes on, primarily focusing on species at a biological level,.......well......:eek:

[sevendogs]

Quote by: atheist The reasoning behind this thinking does not make sense. It's more like: [insert opinion and pretend it's a fact] + [insert opinion] = [something] Tell me why it doesn't matter. It does not matter, because human population is growing anyway and nobody can stop it. Even if 50% would go homosexual, the other 50% will double every so many years. If evolution isn't a science, considering that a lot of experimental research goes on, primarily focusing on species at a biological level,.......well......:eek:

Evolution is a scientific theory. This theory is based on entire biology and cannot be understood by reading posts in a forum. One needs to go to basics in biology and then proceed learning evidences in all major areas of biology, from molecular biology to zoo geography and to population genetics, etc.

[atheist]

Quote by: sevendogs Evolution is a scientific theory. This theory is based on entire biology and cannot be understood by reading posts in a forum. One needs to go to basics in biology and then proceed learning evidences in all major areas of biology, from molecular biology to zoo geography and to population genetics, etc.

Evolution is a theory that has yet to be refuted. There is not a single proven scientific hypothesis out there (a valid one that can be tested via other methods of research, and supported that way) that we know of that has been able to disprove of evolution (yet).

Part of data that is gathered to support evolutionary theory has been brought about through experimental research. I'm pretty sure experimental research isn't theory, because it isn't. Experimental research is all about science. It's, like, science-crazy!

For a tidbit about biology and evolution someone can find on a forum, here's a bit of educational information:
Take the human eye, for example. It is so complex, how could it have evolved into so complex an organ? Where's the evidence?
Well, we find evidence in other animals, and observe how their own corresponding organs function. If we can find a more 'primitive' eye out there, it would support the idea that these types of 'primitive' organs once existed, and through evolution were, through other species, able to evolve into more complex/different models of this organ, allowing us to see through the eyes that we do in the here&now.
And we have been able to find such eyes, in which these species' more 'primitive' eyes, unlike human eyes, are only able to sense light (I put 'primitive' in quotes as a relative term, b/c in reality if something exists today, I wouldn't consider it primitive at all, if it's been able to survive up 'til now). We've got pretty cool eyes....we can see in depth, make adequate measurements of how far away or deep something is, see in color, and overall see really clearly in bright light. We've adapted to the day time, that's why our night vision sucks, compared to nocturnal animals.

At a more lab-based scientific level, some experiments have been able to induce evolutionary-like processes. Take for example the fruit fly and Dobzhansky's work. Do a google search about him and fruit flies and you will get a TON of information about evolution at a genetic (molecular) and biological scale.

Not all 'science' happens in labs though. It happens all around us everyday, especially with evolution (one example being the white/black moth used commonly in evolutionary classes). We understand the proccesses under which these moths change though, and it's pretty much as scientific as Dobzhansky's work. Also, take for example human domestication of dogs. Most of those small dogs that you see people carry in their arms here-and-there probably never existed 100 years ago. Today, without human care, they'd probably die in the steets, but they evolved such cute/loyal traits (particularly neoteny) that we love them too much to do that, most of the time. Aw.

[sevendogs]

Quote by: atheist Evolution is a theory that has yet to be refuted. There is not a single proven scientific hypothesis out there (a valid one that can be tested via other methods of research, and supported that way) that we know of that has been able to disprove of evolution (yet). Part of data that is gathered to support evolutionary theory has been brought about through experimental research. I'm pretty sure experimental research isn't theory, because it isn't. Experimental research is all about science. It's, like, science-crazy! For a tidbit about biology and evolution someone can find on a forum, here's a bit of educational information: Take the human eye, for example. It is so complex, how could it have evolved into so complex an organ? Where's the evidence? I have red this story of eye for the first about 20 years ago. It is a favorite example of theologians, not atheists. Evolution is easier to trace by using bones and skeletons, particularly teeth, because they are more often well preserved in fossil materials. Eye is a complex and soft structure never found as fossil. Nevertheless, we can compare eyes of different degree of perfection and complexity of now living organisms. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Well, we find evidence in other animals, and observe how their own corresponding organs function. If we can find a more 'primitive' eye out there, it would support the idea that these types of 'primitive' organs once existed, and through evolution were, through other species, able to evolve into more complex/different models of this organ, allowing us to see through the eyes that we do in the here&now. And we have been able to find such eyes, in which these species' more 'primitive' eyes, unlike human eyes, are only able to sense light (I put 'primitive' in quotes as a relative term, b/c in reality if something exists today, I wouldn't consider it primitive at all, if it's been able to survive up 'til now). We've got pretty cool eyes....we can see in depth, make adequate measurements of how far away or deep something is, see in color, and overall see really clearly in bright light. We've adapted to the day time, that's why our night vision sucks, compared to nocturnal animals. At a more lab-based scientific level, some experiments have been able to induce evolutionary-like processes. Take for example the fruit fly and Dobzhansky's work. Do a google search about him and fruit flies and you will get a TON of information about evolution at a genetic (molecular) and biological scale. Not all 'science' happens in labs though. It happens all around us everyday, especially with evolution (one example being the white/black moth used commonly in evolutionary classes). We understand the proccesses under which these moths change though, and it's pretty much as scientific as Dobzhansky's work. Also, take for example human domestication of dogs. Most of those small dogs that you see people carry in their arms here-and-there probably never existed 100 years ago. Today, without human care, they'd probably die in the steets, but they evolved such cute/loyal traits (particularly neoteny) that we love them too much to do that, most of the time. Aw.

Theory of evolution can be modified, disproved or enforced only by biologists, not by rhetoric of outsiders and not by theologians. So far any serious attempts to refute it helped only one thing - to make it even stronger.

[pikatore]

Quote by: sevendogs Theory of evolution can be modified, disproved or enforced only by biologists, not by rhetoric of outsiders and not by theologians. So far any serious attempts to refute it helped only one thing - to make it even stronger.

And that is a tragedy? Can theologians really do anything to refute a scientific theory, other than throw in thier five cents' worth?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 5010 Survival value does not care whether a behavior is common, but whether it matches a niche or avoids danger. Natural selection sometimes favors the minority. Evolution suggests that mammals were once a minority compared with dinosaurs. Also consider that among ants and bees, the queen's behavior is quite the minority. The majority of members within those species do not reproduce at all. Is the queen's survivability not related to the presence of the support from non-reproducing workers? One who does not reproduce can be more productive than one who reproduces and raises offspring, thus benefitting the species' present survival. One who reproduces may be less productive in the present society, but the return on the investiment is species' future population. So, perhaps the species evolves to produce various ratios and natural selection allows the subgroup with the ideal ratio to persist, and a ratio for humans and ants would be different of course due to the difference in niche.

I do not think your examples are comperable or even work well. Yes, it is true some minority populations do play spcialist roles in the survival of a species, but these are well defined advantages to the survival of species, but this would not be the case for individuals who are homosexual in a population.

[atheist]

Here's a thought.

Homosexual couples taking care of orphans, adopting them and giving them better lives, thus contributing to the "survival of the species," in the human world.

Kind of like extra care takers, when the heterosexual couple who irresponsibly has a child turns out to be too incompetent to raise offspring.


Who knows? Maybe there's a community out there with a high number of homosexual couples, in which the number of kids with stable homes is exceedingly excellent?


Someone should do a research project on this....make it into some kind of testable hypothesis....it would be so cool.




ADD:

Also, I would like to bring back the example about the Bonobos. It is -because- of their sexual lifestyle (aside from the female bonding/strength-in-numbers thing, which reduces female-male competition for food) that tensions between individuals is so low, and that you rarely find violent activity between this species. Thus, male aggression in the Bonobos is also pretty low, probably because they blow off steam...with one another (heehee), among other things.

Even though homosexuality does not contribute to population growth in a reproductive way, it STILL contributes to the survival of their species. Because of reduced tensions and the relationship ties that sexual activities build among males and males, and females and females, and females and males, you have less bonobos killing one another off, like you see in Chimp populations (what I like to call "chimp hunting").

[sevendogs]

Yes, you are correct. Evolutionary goal for any species is not just numerical success, but rather persistence in time. Many tropical species remain rare, but they are among the oldest and many northern species are represented by huge populations with wide numerical fluctuations and many of them can become extinct. Survival rate of species of lower parts of food chain is usually very low, in some insects it is only .3% to 3% of the total population. However, it is enough to rebound next season or in next couple of years. Majority of fledglings of passerine birds die before the fall migration begins and yet, it is enough to keep population high enough to procreate every year. There are data indicating that survival is selective.

[ZNFYRH]

Success of Species

1. Survival

This includes eliminating or otherwise surviving species that compete for the same resources.

2. Reproduction

This includes conception, gestation, and maturation of new members of the species.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Kamehameha34

I agree there is much misunderstanding of the term unatural, it's positve aspects need to be shown fully.

It is unnatural to allow the weakest to survive. It is definately unnatural to treat anything that fails to fetilise properly.

It is unnatural constrain uranium atoms and prevent them from enjoying the freedom they so rightly deserve

:)