dmaiski

i did a quick scan of history, and the numerous descriptions of when humans killed other humans it was really just a guess at how you could explain the prevalence of the trait in terms of kin selection, when applied to humans ive already stated my view on the subject "the "gay gene" is not an accurate descriptor of whatever trait you are trying to study, and/or prove exists" @manfro the brain is a giant cluster or neurons its a big, huge, colossal, immensely complex, biological supercomputer with more processing power then the combined amount of all human technology based processing power made to date and to top it all off, it grown and changes, constantly being said that if you study even the basics of computing you will know that there is software, and hardware on the same hardware (brain) you can run completely different software (thinking) you are trying to say the software the brain runs, is decided by the hardware hardware can limit what you can run, but it dose not stop you from running a different type of the same thing (this section is not for children, Christians, conservative humans, and anyone easily offended) (so obliviously all aforementioned parties will pay close attention to what i say, so seriously, if your under the age of say 7 dont read this) and another thing: google futanari [expletive redacted] you people need to get out more, or at least read a book there's more to human sexuality then white black and grey there’s also red, blue, yellow, green, and he rest of the whole rainbow insert a few [expletive redacted]'s in that text from your mind, discussing sexuality and thinking it is controlled entirely by genetics is just stupid especially in humans, who are by far the second most perverted species that exists in this planet BTW the first is

but larger is better fitting if your larger, you can: eat the smaller ones, are less susceptible to destruction due to damage, have space for redundant systems, simply put have more of everything MEANING you will out compete the smaller organisms its like the arms race: bigger is better smarter is better tougher is better thus it is inevitable if you think about it in terms of natural selection the "fittest" individual will become dominant and being bigger is fitter, simply because the little things cant harm you as much

arete has possibly said the first intelligent, pertinent, and productive, thing in this discussion for the last 20 posts at least kin selection, in humans this would be social behaviour, supports my argument but still i have to question it... humanity is not a hive species, where kin selection is most common its a society, where each individual is generally aiming to kill the one next to them(humans are very violent, or at least the males are) ...it supports the argument, if you assume "gay", or at least bi men avoid competing with straight men the gay trait would be advantageous, since gay men would die/get injured less often, and would be able to reproduce more/be more attractive, also they would be less threatening to women, when compared to the "women! get me beer, manly men" (i know im using generalisations, not supporting it with evidence, and a lot of conjecture. but this actually works (on a logical level), because "gay" men are less threatening to women, don’t compete directly with straight men for mates, and as a result (at least in prehistoric society) survive and prosper, by laying low and keeping their heads down) im sorry i hijacked your point arete, but you gave me an idea

a hypothesis is, at its most basic, a theory it is setting the framework around which you do your experiment an example: i believe pig's can fly to confirm this hypothesis i will observe pigs, throw them off high buildings and see if they can fly a null hypothesis, is a morons idea it helps outline conditions for your experiments failure, but at the most fundamental level it is a redundant step especially if your experiment partially confirms your hypothesis i also believe it was shown to be a fallacy a while back a null hypothesis is only useful for statistical modelling, not actual experimentation, and thus should only be stated in the results section when you are doing some form of quantitative statistical analysis of the obtained results, and should be specific to those statistical tests on the variable that you are measuring in the test

i think you are misinterpreting some things look up length expansion, in relation to relativity the simplest way to explain things is "high energy does weird things to the normal laws of physics" mass dose not increase as you accelerate towards C, rather the amount of energy required to change the objects vector increases this can be described as an increase in mass, but its technically wrong what it actually is, is "length expansion" or in simpler terms the differential between the time that the object(the one being accelerated) and the force are in simply put from your perspective the object is travelling at 90% the speed of light from the objects perspective its travelling and many times faster then the speed of light the theory of relativity, designed to screw with your mind

well if you’ve read Terry Pratchett , you will know that “Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.” ^.^ actually if you have sufficient data and processing power you can perfectly predict the future, but to perfectly predict the future you would need a computer larger then the universe it self kinda lends weight to intelligent design, an intelligent EVIL designer that was like a child with an ant farm, and a magnifying glass, bunch of needles, can of petrol, and a blowtorch but back to serious discussion, if you read all there is to the theory of biological evolution you would know that this eventuality was actually a very likely thing to happen, because evolution likes to build bigger things, until they eventually collapse due to structural failure(like leg bones being too thin to support 100tone bodies) so development of larger organisms is inevitable the only thing that was slightly unlikely was the development of this specific form of chemical metabolism that we use there are lots of other ways to skin that cat

actually increasing intelligence would likely have an adverse effect on the population in the short term we just don’t have the school systems to teach intelligent children, the teachers always end up looking like morons in such cases to increase human intelligence you need to improve education to achieve this you need to scrap the system of public schools which consistently churn out useless trash, every single school year its not the students fault they don’t succeed its the teachers

true that would be simpler... but a lot less fun then engineering killer plants and think all that you would save on insecticides you could probably add nitrogen fixing functions to the plant as well

mmmm it tastes like neurosis

JP55 twin studies have show that there is at least a 60% enviormental factor... you said this yourself i belive >50% enviormental is high, dont you?

more GM is needed then corn needs more nutrients, birds eat corn i have a solution bird eating corn we cross the corn tree with something like the Venus fly trap, or some kind of vine that snares creatures that get near and digests them, a ready source of nitrates is available in plentiful supply this is the moment where you say "what has science done", or "son, go get the pitchforks and torches" back to a topic of discussion that an ethics board will approve of

the release of endorphins by the spinal cord, happens whenever you pop a joint, its really addictive so don’t do it i have a bad habit of occasionally dislocating my shoulder and wrist joints because of this (lets just say i have bad sleeping habits, and loose joints)

is it not just an explanation of how evolution happened? in other words they are just working to create a description of how "everything" could have evolved the "theory of evolution" is a work in progress, its not really finished and doesn’t explain all events sort of like the "theory of everything" for biologists

@Arete i was talking about how long it would take for a client to get a real noticeable result with the technology to make a cybernetic arm, leg, body, whatnot, takes some design software, the raw materials, and a fabricator (amusing you have the technology to do it in the first place) to make a new organism, or significantly improve a pre-existing one takes 1 generation(the wild type) as your start point a second generation(your prototype) a third generation (your finished product) and a fourth generation (item on the market) (not to mention it would need to be custom made for every single customer(for human enhancement), or tackle the ethics board(the best way to deal with an ethics board is a heavy machine gun in my opinion(they never let you have any fun))) and to evolve into a new species significantly divergent from the original takes a really long time(1 million is just a really big number to get the point across) i was emphasizing the point of convenience of various pipe dreams, and their practicality to implement on a large scale replacing biology with technology wins out by a lot(since it is already widely accepted and considered "safe" by the general public(ie. the angry mob)) also another thing, generally speaking ethics boards consider genetically engineering super humans with green hair "unethical" for some unfathomable reason, they let you do it to bugs, and mice, and monkeys, why not humans. [spits in disgust] those damn speciesists...

@jp55 this is really basics, genes make brain cells, and arrange them in some rough pattern these cells then "boot up" and start discharging every which way, forming connections in the process these connections either strengthen, or weaken, depending on the amount of stimulation they get if these connections are not used at all they will be re-purposed by other circuits from nearby sections its been shown to happen, in everyone. its called learning. if you want studies that show it to the extreme examples of this, look at brain studies of blind people. their visual cortex is re-purposed to "see" sound because it is not in use also if you are going to try throwing those studies showing different sized brains in gay men and lesbian women go google postnatal brain development (you would think that the brain being capable of growing and changing as you age, and use it, was unheard of news to some people)

sexual reproduction using 2 genders is more conducive for multicellular organisms, prokaryotes use horizontal gene transfer as a method of sexual reproduction because its just easier to do when you are single. i would tentatively say protosists have no gender, but reproduce sexually(im not that good on the nuances protosists biology) also reptiles... they have no Y chromosome, "sex" is determined by temperature and plants... natural hermaphrodites(they have both genders) another thing, i would not expect genderless reproduction to persist in nature for long(unless the genderless species was extremely isolated, genetically incompatible, or single celled) sexual reproduction probably arrived in the world 1.2billion years ago near the end of the Mesoproterozoic era so its been around for a long time a trait for gender, once it arose, would be extremely contagious, since it allows the individual to literally screw everyone over, with minimal energy expenditure. its basic maths form that point on: same sex reproduction: 1 offspring per individual per cycle reproduction using a "male" as the genetic contributor and a "female" as the incubator: "male" is capable of fathering 1000 children in the same time period this would result in colonies becoming all male, and dieing out(initially after trait was created) as the trait would spread throughout the genetic structure of the organism this would go on till 1:1 "male" to "female" equilibrium was reached, by isolating the SRY precursor to the Y chromosome precursor, or some other mechanism ofcource this is in the end just a very good educated guess as to what exactly happened, i wasnt around back then(at least not in multicellular form) to record the events

2 weeks old... most babies look the same till they are 1 years old relay nothing to worry about also don’t bully children, they will hate you for it and turn out just how you expect them to. if you expect your child to be a genius, they will be if you expect them to be an evil shit they will be doesn’t mean that the genius cant be an evil shit inside, just the child will show you the fasade that you expect of them

evolution takes 1 million years germline genetic engineering takes 4 generations to get right cybernetics and nanotechnology takes one afternoon a big computer and some raw materials if you simplify it like this you can see where humans will go for a quick fix to all their ails

unfortunately, you don't understand the meaning of sexual reproduction "Sexual reproduction is the creation of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms. There are two main processes during sexual reproduction; they are: meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; and fertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes. During meiosis, the chromosomes of each pair usually cross over to achieve homologous recombination." thank you wikipedia nowhere in that definition dose it say that the 2 individuals must be "male" and "female" in fact most sexual bacteria are all "female" they just reproduce by mixing their DNA together "male" and "female" sexes came about through a rouge mutation, that caused sexual organisms to differentiate into 2 sexes, where 1 was incapable of producing offspring while the other was. since the species was sexual this trait spread to other individuals(and probably killed off a few species in the process, by turning all offspring "male"), this spread was stopped when it was finally locked down to a single chromosome (the Y chromosome, 95% or it cannot recombine at all), and thus "male" and "female" was created

what i am trying to get across is that there is more choice then there is direct genetics in the "gay gene" and any mental trait (like sexuality) will have a high environmental factor, thus searching for the "GAY GENE" is pointless, because the alleles that make up the "GAY GENE" probably don't code for homosexuality, but rather general sexual attraction, and arousal, or even more likely, stable mental states(ie. they keep you from going insane). if that is true(i have no idea) EVRYONE will have at least some "GAY GENES" and people who lack them will eithere be insane, or asexual. if you want to figure out what causes homosexuality, first work out how the brain works, only then, start working out the more specific things like what genes code [specifically] for homosexuality. we don't know how the brain works(not very well at least) so searching for specific mental traits without any clues will give very inaccurate results these results will then be misinterpreted, and we will have a mess that will need to be cleaned up at some point (this isn't speculation, we are already doing it for a lot of the genes that exist, where someone made a bad guess as to what a gene dose, never confirmed it, and it stuck throwing all subsequent studies off, wasting a lot of research grants in the process) what i mean by "gay gene" is the specific causative genetic agent(s) that result in a predisposition to homo/bi-sexual behaviour what i mean by specific, gene A controls promoter B which regulates signalling pathway C, which controls the development of D, resulting in E which makes you SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be homo/bi-sexual, because E dose F differently to normal F which results in G being initiated incorrectly (i expect A-G to be known values, and how the system works explained) (till then all you are doing is speculating what genes may, or may not cause SOMETHING non-specific to happen that may or may not influence something else non-specific, that through some form of magic results in you being sexualy attracted to the same sex, through some unknown mechanism) in summary: i accept there is a genetic cause for everything, there has to be, we are made by our genes i accept that you can find these causes, isolate them, and figure out how they work i do not accept that you can say something works like this, if you dont know what "this" is there are simply too many unknowns about BASIC brain architecture, to even start going into the specific genetic mechanisms that cause specific subtypes of traits to summarise the summary: you do not know enough to make that association stick (means start crawling before you try to fly)

you are forgetting that to grow corn plants need to photosynthesise, to make sugars so practically speaking you would need to rehash the idea of corn stalks i would go for a "corn tree" so the corn would grow on the bottom branches and the photosynthesis would happen up top, then you would give it ethanol resistance, and grow it like rice, partialy submerged in a fertilizer broth

no its feet and hands the studies that say that we lose most of our heat through our head and face were funded by the military, they were to test the effectiveness of hats, balaclavas and the people were wearing full winter gear some fool of a publicist for a clothes company read the first 3 lines of this and made a commercial of it well yes, if you are planing to spend all day walking bare foot they aren't designed for that what you need in that case is hoofs most sedatory animals, and predators like, Feliformia(cats), Caniformia(dogs, bears), Euarchontoglires(monkeys, humans, bunny wabits) don’t need to travel large distances constantly, they need to move quickly, and be silent when they do it so the bottom of the foot is made of skin, instead of hoof(significantly better mode of transport) simply put, you aren’t meant to hike 40miles a day bare foot, its just silly to do so also our feet are based on primates, they are meant to function as hands ans sensory organs so they have far more nerve endings then general purpose transport feet, (ie a cats paw)

ive personally grown very tired of arguing with creationists my personal argument is this: if you are so certain of creationism, prove it with science we have plenty of evidence, you don’t have a 5000 year old story book its pointless to argue against belief, it doesn’t need evidence, it just is

i did explain my reasoning, it is supported by psychological studies (when they tried to ban gay parents, so these aren't biased) please don't omit the bulk of an argument, its just bad technique on a board where you can scroll back even traits that have very low penetrance, but effect reproduction(and only reproduction) are usually selected out fairly quickly hetrozygote advantage, probably the reason it dose persist is because its useful, or vital, for human survival and i said "predisposed" not "causative agent" this means that that the trait increases the chance of being homo/bi-sexual based on the environment the individual is raised in for a "gay" trait, you would also need a "straight" trait these traits need to be split between male and female(in theory women need to be attracted to men, and men to women?) you already acknowledged that the traits are multifactorial, and cannot be limited only to the Y chromosome and it simply doesn’t have the space for all those traits this is an overly complex a system if it exists, thus I have to opt for the simpler system where there are no specific “gay” genes rather genes for personality, which influence sexuality, through learned behaviour this fits with all the information: the low penetrance, the familial inheritance, genetics, the psychology, and the behavioural studies it can be wrong, but its a far more elegant system then some “gay gene” that makes you more likely to be gay through random chance, magic, and who knows what else

but i was talking about a specific trait at the start of this post, the SRY region, is a “bad” mutation. it dropped the fecundity of the whole species by 50% in a single go. it may not have been deadly, but it certainly didn’t do much good and it was a runaway trait(not Fisherian, closer to a viral trait in the way it spread) on the upside, its estimated that it will completely die out in 100milion years or less yes i am using "viral" in an incorect way, but there is no better way to describe it