Sayonara

Grounded enough to be moved to the psychology forum.

Firstly, your impression of the evolutionary process seems quite unorthodox. There is no ideal state of perfeciton, and while steady states do exist there is no such thing as deteriorative evolution. Secondly, what has deterioration got to do with homosexuality? Show me an ecological or evolutionary causal route that demonstrates it's biologically undesirable. p.s. FYI, homosexuality and "unwillness (Sic) to reproduce" are not synonymous.

This is certainly true, in fact it's come up before in various prior threads. However I'm not convinced Sunspot's posts merit or require such a thorough and efforty response. What many people forget is that while a homosexual may not pass on their genes, on the other hand... they may.

http://www.softscienceforums.net

It's just a dump of the Squid proxy cache's logs. http://www.squid-cache.org/

Warfare is actually a perfect example of natural ecological interactions. "Rape" is a human social concept and does not have any biological differentiation from intercourse other than reduced scope of mate selection. Your analogies are not advancing your argument. Abandon them.

That really ought to read "let back out of the closet", seeing as homosexuality was taboo for a very short period in the West, and has otherwise enjoyed widespread acceptance across the world for all of recorded history. That's not really true though, is it? What you call "perversion" is simply a different manifestation of the same sexual or behavioural oddities exhibited by all of humanity. Picking on one slice of society is special pleading, regardless of the argument. Behaviour according to one's nature is a default explanatory state. To successfully make a claim to the contrary (i.e. that a behavioural pattern is abnormal) you need to provide some compelling evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by this but it looks to me like you might be in some dangerous territory.

I understand that, I just don't see how it's unusual. It happens all the time as communities develop and change.

All areas of society are constantly being modified by internal and external processes, so it's not very surprising to hear someone point that out about the gay community during or after massive changes.

Is that yes or no? Ideally I want to know how it turns out without having to watch it all.

Did that get axed after season one?

The scenario you suggest is not hypothetical, it is fictional. You might as well replace homosexuality in there with chastity or hepatitis infection. Even if the whole world did "embrace" homosexuality, it would not mean we magically lost the ability to reproduce. That's a massive over-simplification. Evolutionary mechanisms are not so forthcoming. At that level of detail, all you can be sure of is that "selective pressures would shift". How so? By your own terms, their views would culturally be in the minority and not sufficient to seriously affect anyone. Biologically, they are not predators, pathogens, parasites, or direct competitors, so they would exert little if any ecological pressure. Which culture is this? I ask because the one I live in has myriad mixed views, which are still very much open to debate from all quarters. a) They didn't go way so you can't really say they were "lost", b) They are not in any way predators, no matter your understanding of the term, c) Homosexuality did not spread or multiply, it was simply a matter of it being more visible due to reduced fear. Likewise you do not have sufficient information to say they were "overpopulated". I suspect there is not much involved here in the way of genetics, so I wouldn't worry about the withdrawal of characteristics. It is far more likely that the bigotry, lack of understanding, isolation and spite that homosexual people feel during their developmental years gives them a better understanding of and grasp over essential social skills such as empathy, listening, humour, altruism, and appreciation of irony.

What would go in there?

Given that "speed alone" (by which I take it you mean no clever shortcuts, e.g. cross-dimensional travel, wormholes etc) is known to have a limitation, it is more likely that they did not see any argument there at all.

You aren't doing yourself any favours by perpetuating this.

Don't forget that if forced to by a lack of conventional energy sources, the pertinent designers will find ways to make lighter and more energy efficient vehicles, to bring that 100 quadrillion BTU global transport energy cost down a bit. Great posts btw joema.

I strongly recommend that you actually read the religion forum before continuing with that approach towards Phi.

That's making controversial posts on a debate forum for you.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that one can view Dino TV by using infra red. I'm suggesting that a population of that nature may cause variations from the norm that would merit the eyes and boots investigation you suggest by the many parties interested in such things.

Oh yeah, those things. /can't count

A point. If it were an "actual" object, it would be a singularity.

Answers in Genesis content can stay where it belongs.

Look here for his humorous account of the "Patent battle" (AKA him being told "no"): http://www.josephnewman.com/History_-_Patent_Battle.html