scrappy

I appreciate your answer. I know it is an arguable position. But if Dawkins and Hamilton hadn't gotten to me so convincingly I might capitulate. Here's my trouble this concept: Genotypes are not additively complicit with the environment to produce the phenotypes. All genes and genotypes can do is survive as best they can from one generation to the next. And their survival is assured when (in k-selection) reproductive success of the host individuals is accomplish. Phenotypes (most of them) don't move as analogs across that fertilization boundary—only their genotypes (digital codes) cross that boundary. I see NS operating precisely at that boundary, because that boundary is where differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population is decided. Therefore, I think NS operates on the code and not on the analog. On learning as evo-devo: Leaning is a gene-limited operation, I think. To me, it's not merely a phenotypical, analog thing. You need good genes to learn well; the phenotypes that permit learning are predisposed by the limits of their genotypes.

But those are real marriages—CU's between one man and one woman. You're mixing your fruit in this comparison. Please keep the apples and the oranges separate. I do. But discrimination is not uncommon to discriminating people. Aren't you discriminating against the DOMA people by way of your opinions? Define "harm." If someone's pride gets abused, is that "harmful"? There's pride all over the place like germs at a daycare center. Whose pride matters more? But you don't care about that. If you did you'd be just as fervent about granting polygamists their "rights,' along with every other minority that holds a self-righteous opinion about its validity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And this isn't trolling?

For me to agree with your drinking-fountain/marriage analogy, I would have to agree that a black man marrying a white woman is somehow identical to a black man marrying a white man. How is that identical? An answer in the context of reality would be very helpful here. No less so than discriminating against sibling marriages, polygamous marriages, pedophilic marriages, and inter-species marriages. Discrimination is not limited to "gay marriages," you know. You can rant all you want about the legitimacy of those "marriages," but please remember that those who might prefer such outlandish marriages have their OPINIONS, too. (And they're just a wrong as yours.) When does it become discriminatory to hold an opinion against a small minority that is supported by the vast majority? Or are we back to deciding between "the tyranny of the majority" v. "the tyranny of a minority"? Would that also include the opinions I've outlined above? Or are my opinions unworthy of respect? (And how would you decide that without invoking your own opinions?)

No, they would decide to be second-class citizens, because nothing in any law would require them to be so. Is walleye a second-class fish if it can't be called a pickerel? (Especially because it isn't a pickerel!) But you already said that the problem with the DOMA people is their pride? Doesn't it work both ways? Isn't that purely a matter of OPINION?

Not bad. I'll have to study on it. Perhaps. Mokele, a question: Do you thing NS "happens" (i.e., the implementation of that agency) at the phenotype level or the genotype level? or is it a chicken-or-egg issue? Here's what M. J. West-Eberhard says about it in her book Developmental Plasicity and Evolution (2003,p. 3): "Here I put the flexible phenotype first, as the product and the object of selection, and examine the consequences for the genetic theory of evolution." Is that statement consistent with your opinions on the matter?

"Gays". Separate but equal is not equal. We have been over this many times both in this thread and the myriad others on the same topic. You mean their pride would be harmed? What else' date=' since they will already have their legalized DPs? Nobody' date=' save for the [b']pride[/b] of certain people who choose to subscribe to a definition of a word which differs from the relevant and applicable legal term. Whose pride matters most? And how would you decide that? The fact that you bring up pride makes my point about emotional arguments.

But aren’t the basic principles of drift served in both cases? Dawkins will tell you that genes do not become phenotypes, instead they code for phenotypes. Dawkins makes a good case for the fact that genes are not stereochemical with their proteins, but instead they require transcription and translation by RNA operators. As such, Dawkins, Hamilton, et al. would discourage the image of a gene as an analog “blueprint” of a protein, but instead it is a digital code for it. I could debate you on the precise meaning of drift, including its mathematical formulations, and on the other functional categories of “drivers” (I prefer “agencies”) of evolution. We could go on about evo-devo, too, and I’m sure I’d learn something from you. But it’s not on topic here. Perhaps you’d like to start a thread on it. Let’s stick to the meaning of “natural selection.” Why do you think fecundity is not one sex’s expression of NS? It’s only different because it can’t be applied to males (in k-selection scenario). I'm sure you can teach me something. I have read a lot of books on evolution, and I have read some of Futuyma, too. What impresses me most is that many authors still disagree on even such an important matter as the precise difference between microevolution and macroevolution. But let's stick to NS on this thread.

So far behind the blocks that you can't answer the following double questions, pose by me above?: Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage? Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights and also get to call it "marriage"? Where is the harm in either case? Is there something more than OPINION on this matter that I've missed. And how will this matter ever be decided if not by OPINION? Honestly, this emotional rejection of public opinion is a death wish for those who fear it.

What results from random genetic drift is inbreeding, which can alter allele frequency. There is nothing special about inbreeding that sets it outside the definition of drift. I see it differently. I see the extended phenotype—Dawkins' argument, which I have studied to a fair degree—not as a result of evo-devo, but as an alternative explanation. No, I don't agree. A snake's hox genes may be the same as other vertebrates, but I'm not yet ready to agree that selfish/altruistic genes "strategies" are functionless in your case of snakes. Yes, I, too, am fascinated with crossing over and its implications to genetic alteration and evolution. And I agree that it might affect "vital developmental genes." But does that serve well your position in this debate? You're agreeing, essentially, that developmental genes are the heart of development, which the dispels the need for evo-devo.

Why? Because a same-sex DP does not fit my definition of a "marriage." It may offend the dogma of this forum for me to hold such an opinion, but I have seen no rational arguments here that convince me to change it. I've seen plenty of emotional arguments, though, which are intellectually uncompelling. They might play well in a provincial theater, but they will flop on the big stage where public opinions matter like votes to a politician. What matters most here is reality; it's a cob, but it's all we got. Time to get real.

And I will make it very clear AGAIN: I support DPs for gays because I want to see them get all the legal rights they deserve. I don't support calling a same-sex DP a "marriage," precisely because it is not "marriage" as I define the term. If you define it differently that's OK with me; I won't threaten to shoot you in the face with a pistol or anything like that, because I'm not hysterical about this issue like another poster on this thread. Why is "supporting the status quo means you support inequality, because the status quo does not give equal rights to domestic partnership"? We have no status quo issue at all if gays would accept legalized DPs, when and if they become available, and forget about calling them "marriages." Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage? Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights and also get to call it "marriage"? The answers to these questions are entirely matters of OPINION. I take it that you think your opinion is better than mine. I don't agree. So, where do we go from here? There is only one place to go with this in America: to the courts. Now, here's the difference between us: if the courts decided to legalize same-sex marriage I'll abide with their decision and not say another word about it. BUT, if the courts decide NOT to support the legality of same-sex "marriage" will you abide with their decisions? Or will you say you know better about interpreting the Constitution?

But for me, one who supports same-sex domestic partnerships, the matter of "marriage" is only a titular issue. Everybody thinks I'm against gay DPs when I'm not. I'm only against calling them "marriages." Who gets harmed if we don't call gay DPs "marriages"? Who gets harmed if we do? And whose opinion counts most here on this broad landscape of political reality?

1. Inbreeding is a form of random genetic drift 2. Hybridization and horizontal gene transfer are forms of gene flow. 3. Epigenetics role in evolution is not yet resolved 4. Developmental effects can often be explained genetically* 5. Gene duplication—what is that? Meiosis? Mitosis? Mutation? *I purchased and read Mary Jane West-Eberhard's book Developmental Plasticity and Evolution to learn about evo devo. I found many, many of her assertions to be explainable using the genetics put forth by Richard Dawkins. To me, altruistic and selfish gene theories offer better explanations for her proclaimed evo-devo evolutionary events...but just to me. As such, I'm not a big fan of evo devo

It's a bumper snicker, that all, like "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Some people see laws as fences that restrict their freedoms. Mormons, prostitutes, and nudists certainly do. Doesn't your right to oppose prostitutes or nudes end where there's begin? Don't you care about their freedoms?

Because not everyone believes in the same diversities? Maybe there needs to be a law that requires us all to do that.

Nor is everything in "the modern synthesis" modern. What do you have that's better than neo-Darwinism? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As I said above, rocks can't select, but they can eliminate. You are correct about differentiating r-selection from k-selection. My remarks apply mainly to k-selection. Well, please note that the founder is covered above in #3. What others your could mention that are so "well known"?

Many people regard natural selection (NS) as the engine that drives Darwinian evolution. Perhaps the metaphor is useful, maybe even helpful, but is it biologically correct? Is it even fair to say that biological evolution has an engine that drives it somewhere? Firstly, let’s define “evolution” in the Darwinian sense: It means “decent with modification,” arising from the Malthusian principle that more offspring are produced by a population than can be sustained by its habitat (or environment). Secondly, lets’ define “natural selection” in the Darwinian sense: It means an occurrence of differential reproductive success amongst the individuals of a population. That’s all it is. And for that reason I think it was a mistake to call it “selection.” Selection implies a proactive inclination, something like intent—almost a deification of “decent with modification.” Maybe that’s where all the ambiguity about Darwinian evolution got started. The word Darwin should have used instead is “elimination”—“natural elimination” (NE)—which I think takes away the suggestion of intent: A portion of a population might be crushed by falling rocks, and we might be more accurate to call it NE than NS, because rocks can eliminate but they can’t select. I don’t see NS (my NE) as the only “driver” of evolution, if the metaphor works. NS is a consequence of something else and plays almost a passive role. Yet NS is very important to many evolutionary processes, if indeed it is a “process.” (Another issue.) There are five “drivers,” if you will, of neo-Darwinian evolution, or decent with modification at the genomic level: 1. genetic mutation—digital disruptions of genetic code 2. gene flow—digit code moving laterally from one genome to another 3. Random genetic drift—bottlenecking and the founder effect 4. Sexual selection—preferential mating 5. Natural selection—differential reproductive success. This thread is proposed to clarify the meaning of NS. (I would have posted this on the "Evolution Confusion" thread, but it seemed to drag it OT.) I would welcome any comments or criticism.

But I'm not the one who is insisting on a likeness between separate-but-equal drinking fountains and separate-but-equal domestic partnership laws. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes. True in all respects.

OK, let’s beak this issue down to is logical parts to see the legal difference between blacks drinking out of the same drinking fountain as whites and gays getting married (i.e., drinking water) in the same marriage institution (i.e., from a drinking fountain) as the straights: Blacks and whites drink water exactly the same way. We all have the same needs for drinking water. We all bend over at the drinking fountain the same way. And we all use our lips, tongues, and throats in the same way. Now, if blacks used their noses instead of their mouths to drink water we might have a different situation. The mouth drinkers might complain about the nose drinkers and want their own fountains. But, thankfully, we are all equal in every respect except skin pigmentation, and, thankfully, the problem with nose-drinkers doesn’t exist (to my knowledge). By way of my analogy, which is as good as anyone can do when people insist on comparing drinking fountains to “gay marriage,” we have a different case. While the whites drink water with their mouths (i.e., they get married in the generally accepted manner) the gays insist on drinking water with their noses (i.e., they insist on same-sex marriage, which is technically unlike that of the straights—for one thing, they would consummate their “marriages" differently. I won’t bother to go into the squishy details). It is impossible for gay couples to practice sex (i.e., consummate a marriage) in the same way as straight couples do it. That is a FACT (I’m a biologist, I ought to know). Therefore, a “gay marriage” (i.e., drinking water from a fountain) is fundamentally different from a straight marriage in that regard. There is no separate-but-equal issue here at all, because America has no drinking fountains (i.e. marriage laws) that prohibit gays from participation. All they have to do is marry a member of the opposite sex to qualify. We don’t prohibit gays from the marriage institutions like we used to prohibit blacks from the drinking fountains. Blacks don’t drink with their noses. So, as soon as the gays stop “drinking with their noses” and come to the marriage institution like straights, they can “drink all the water” they want. The real crux here is that blacks were being discriminated at public drinking fountains because of their race. They couldn’t marry whites, even though they desired heterosexual marriages, which is the central issue of that discrimination. But the gays want access to the straight’s “drinking fountains” and sill “drink through their noses.” If they “drank water” in the conventional manner there wouldn’t be any problem at all. That’s the best I can do for anyone who likens drinking fountains and race to marriage and sexuality. If my reasoning seems odd to you, it’s because the separate-but-equal drinking fountain issue is not in any way like the separate-but equal domestic partnership issue. Be kind. We’re all in this together, separately but equally, until the SCOTUS makes its interpretation of the Constitution. Then we’ll have to separate those who can stand the heat from those who need to get out of the kitchen.

Padren, I greatly appreciate your synthesis here. I vote for #2, because I don't see the differentiation in the question as any kind of separate-but-equal issue. To me, it's not like making the blacks use a separate-but-equal drinking fountain. But I might be wrong; I'm not an expert on constitutionality. I'll defer to the courts. It's an issue that can be decided only by a state supreme court, and eventually by the SCOTUS. And that will hinge on its eventual decision on DOMA. We can only guess what that decision will be. (But I have a hunch and twenty bucks to back it up.)

I’m being called a troll by the person who posted this: Never trust a troll who threatens you with a gun. Jesus! The real problem here is the levitation of self-righteous indignation. It doesn’t sell well on the open market. Demands are being made here that most people don’t see the need for. Maybe they’re wrong. Maybe they’re bigots and trolls and all the bad names you can think of. But the core issue is very simple: we don’t agree on the definition of “marriage.” That’s all. It ain’t no big deal. So, are you brave enough to take my test? Here’s a test that goes right to the heart of the matter: When the SCOTUS hears the case on SSM and issues its opinion, will you abide with that opinion? Or will you claim that the SCOUS wrongly interpreted the Constitution and refuse its decision? My answer is yes, I will go along with whatever decision the SCOTUS makes. What’s yours? (Scoring key: a "yes" scores an A and a "no" scores an F.)

I'm trying to picture double penetration. Would I need to bend over for that? And how badly would I be incapacitated?

If I understood this sentence I'd respond to it. Are you saying the law should extend further than the limit of its jurisdiction? Or are you saying that it shouldn't? In either case, what's the point? Why wouldn't fully legalized DPs solve this problem? Why would they need to be called "married" to get help for their incapacitations? I'd drop the "icky" fluff. Nobody cares about the term except the gays. I guess the 94% majority is terribly wrong. I guess we're just an evil non-democracy that has abandoned its Constitution and persecutes the downtrodden minorities for being trivial in their persuits. I agree! The title "domestic partnership" would take care of everything, or at least it should.

...which makes me want to ask: Why would a libertarian even want to have the government involved in an institution like marriage. Doesn't a libertarian want the government to stay out of his wallet, out of his bedroom, and out of his life? The rest is smoke and mirrors, otherwise known as of The Grande Shopping Mall of Opinions. It may not be pretty, it may not be fair, but unless you've got something better it's all there is. It's Rush Limbaugh twittering into one ear and Ellen Degeneres twirping into the other. It takes an adroitly interpreted Constitution to sort this all out. Thanks for trying to do your part.

Firstly, I'm not the one who went trolling for women priests using bad statistics, which, of course, had nothing to do with this thread's topic: "Should the government drop the word "marriage." From your post #138: Well, for starters, if we’re not a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy then I need to sue all my public school teachers for telling me lies. The bastards! And as for minority opinion, this is where your argument shows serious weakness, whether it is due to emotion or bad information I cannot say. Let’s face reality—the reality of living in America in the twenty-first century—and accept the fact that we are a democracy and we make laws by voting, whether it is public voting, legislative voting, or judicial court voting. Majority opinion ALWAYS rules. Given that, then, isn’t it better to know what kind of a horse you’re riding on so as to learn how to steer it in the direction you want to go? There are many, many good things about the gay movement, but emotional arguments and temper tantrums are not among them. I want to see them succeed. Why isn’t my tough love appreciated? There you go again. It is just as illegal to hang a gay man by his balls from an oak tree than it is to do so to scrappy. (Don't play that card; it's worthless.) I’m afraid that the only alternative to the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a minority. Which one would you prefer? I’m trying to be polite with your, but I fail to see any intelligence in this. And who interprets the Constitution? And how do they decide on an issue of constitutionality? They do so by way of opinions and a vote. Please help me out here if I have it wrong. No, I have described the mechanics of the system—the one we both live under—and you just don’t get it. …gosh, you make me struggle to be polite. So, please carry on with your fantasy.