Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What happens on the FB stays on the FB.

THANK GOD someone fixed the board so it is over. However, I must say that having me eat acorns makes me seem cute and harmless, like a squirrel bird or something. Crappy creative writing skills, what a surprise.

Is it not odd how I am only shrewish to one person? Yeah, it's me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty... What does this mean?

I think it roughly translates to "hey, you two, get a room."

In the vernacular, of course.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think it roughly translates to "hey, you two, get a room."

In the vernacular, of course.

No, no, we're back to out of sight, out of mind. I swear.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, no, we're back to out of sight, out of mind. I swear.

I was translating, not editorializing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, no, we're back to out of sight, out of mind. I swear.

Make it more political and stick around.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I said vestigial organs undermine evolution.

You said, no they don't, they prove the theory because they show that we've evolved.

Vestigial organs show that the environmental pressures that a species is subject to have changed over time and that the species has changed because of those changes in environmental pressues. A vestigial organ shows that the species once needed that for some purpose, but no longer needs it. The species has changed physiologically over time due to changes in its environment.

This is consistent with everything evolution teaches. It does not undermine evolution.

Keep in mind that a survival advantage is only important to the evolution of the species if that survival advantage occurs during the reproductive years. If an organ is no longer necessary, as long as it doesn't impair reproductive abilities, it may take quite some time for any changes to occur.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
A vestigial organ shows that the species once needed that for some purpose, but no longer needs it.

There's a joke about marriage in here somewhere.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
A vestigial organ shows that the species once needed that for some purpose, but no longer needs it.

See, that's the problem with your logic. You've got things turned around. You're using the theory to explain the evidence, not the evidence to explain the theory.

If you can demonstrate that a vestigial organ once had a purpose, then you can use it to contend that under evolution it was selected for. And then you can show that, if there is no longer a need for the organ, and it is disappearing/shrinking, that it is consistent with evolutionary theory. But the existence of a vestigial organ does not prove that it once was needed and, therefore, that evolution is right. That proof is independent of evolutionary theory, and, together with observations about the organ's continued existence, supports the theory of evolution.

It does not necessarily undermine evolution.

With that modification, we are in agreement.

What explains homosexuality?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think it roughly translates to "hey, you two, get a room."

In the vernacular, of course.

I don't know why she keeps stalking me. I've told her its over.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Is it not odd how I am only shrewish to one person? Yeah, it's me.

I still don't know why she stalks me. If you check the threads where we tangle, she's always the aggressor. Then she blames me.

I gotta admit, though, she really makes me grin. Reminds me to shut my mouth when the Mrs. gets on my case at home. You just can't win...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I still don't know why she stalks me. If you check the threads where we tangle, she's always the aggressor. Then she blames me.

I gotta admit, though, she really makes me grin. Reminds me to shut my mouth when the Mrs. gets on my case at home. You just can't win...

Could you pretend you're a chick for a little while? Then it would seem vaguely political. I'm sure it would also boost our page hits.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
See, that's the problem with your logic. You've got things turned around. You're using the theory to explain the evidence, not the evidence to explain the theory.

If you can demonstrate that a vestigial organ once had a purpose, then you can use it to contend that under evolution it was selected for.

I was starting from the premise that the prior function of the vestigial organ was known.

All the available evidence indicates that contrary to popular belief, the appendix is not a vestigial organ. It appears to have first showed up in Old World Monkeys and has become more important as we have evolved. It appears to play an important role in the immunosurveillance of the GI tract.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What explains homosexuality?

That is a tough one, but not something easily explained by creationism, either.

It is possible that there is a survival advantage to children of families in which there were gay adult relatives without children of their own. This would be because if something happened to their own parents, this childless gay relative would be more willing to take care of them. If all the other adults had their own children to take care of, they may be less willing to care for orphans. So maybe there is a survival advantage to having a small percentage of childless adults around.

This link floats a few theories:
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/arc...uscarella_.pdf

Homosexuals aren't incapable of having sexual relationships with the opposite sex and there is no evidence that I have ever seen that they won't engage in these behaviors with the opposite sex just to have children. I know many gay men who married women and have kids with them.

Throughout human history, by and large, whether females reproduced or not was not something that they had much say in. For the bulk of human history, we have been relatively powerless and often times considered property. Whether we reproduced or not was determined by men, not women. So as long as a female homosexual was attractive enough to a male, she would reproduce. That probably was sufficient to keep the genetic determinants of homosexuality alive in the gene pool.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


[homosexuality] is a tough one, but not something easily explained by creationism, either.

It's tough only if you think god hates homosexuals. Oh, wait . . .

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's tough only if you think god hates homosexuals. Oh, wait . . .

Who believes in god?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Who believes in god?

Well evolution disproves her existence.