MonDie

Maybe the curiousity was whether the bird was edible. Alas, if the peck hurt that bad, it probably would have dropped the bird immediately. It pulled the bird out, so (a) the peck didn't hurt and/or (b) curiosity, ( c) a dislike of corpses, or (d) altruism. Or how about (e) the bear enjoys the birds, so doesn't want them dead. We do see a dead bird that may have drowned previously, but we have to consider selection bias since this is a popular YouTube video. Maybe there was even zoo keeper tampering. Again.

A domesticated bear unaccustomed to live meals sees poultry in the water, pulls it out, gets pecked, gives up and returns to his harmless potato.

What do you mean? Are you saying that secular societies regressed after religion gained power? Were they secular because the citizens were non-religious, or was it just a secular government?

My bad. I was talking about the bear.

I'm looking at that Scandinavian twin study. By the way, Chan, your link broke. Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden (Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, and Paul Lichtenstein) http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/samesex%202010.pdf "From this, we constructed the two variables any lifetime same-sex partner and total number of lifetime same-sex partners (divided into seven categories to minimize the impact of outliers; 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, 11–20, and 21 or more partners) based on prior work (Kirk, Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000). (Langstrom et al)" "In men, the full twin model suggested heritability estimates of 39% for any lifetime same-sex partner (95% CI: 00–59%) and 34% for total number of same-sex partners (95% CI: 00–53%) (Langstrom et al)" The study would have been vastly improved (for our purposes) if they had looked at relative number of same-sex and opposite-sex partners. Instead, they just look at total number of same-sex partners, which is influenced by promiscuity. What if both twins really are gay, but one is choosing abstinence while the other is choosing orgies, or one is far more attractive, or in the closet? "The average number of same-sex sexual partners among those reporting any such partner was 12.86 in men and 3.53 in women, (Langstrom et al)" variance??? Post Edit: (Edited a lot) "Furthermore, while this study focused on same-sex sexual behavior, assessment of sexual attraction or fantasies and even romantic attractions would more fully capture the complexity of sexual orientation. However, both behavioral measures of sexual orientation (any same-sex sexual partner and total number of same-sex partners) correlated strongly with self-reported same-sex sexual attraction (r = .70–.75) upon cross-validation in a contemporary referred sample (n = 555) of age-matched adult men in Toronto, Canada (data available upon request). (Langstrom et al)" The bolding is mine. I'm sure they do correlate, but for our purposes it's useless to distinguish between someone with 3-5 same-sex partners and someone with 21+ since they're both probably gay and know it. One isn't more gay because he's more promiscuous. Alas, I don't know the math. With the right data, they could have corrected their results to approximate sexual preference by giving each category a weighted value, but they don't appear to have even wanted to do this—they're concerned about homosexual behavior. Regardless, the leeway afforded by the less than 1 correlation (r = .70–.75) indicates that twin concordance, and hence both additive genetic influences and common environment influences, may be overestimated or underestimated if one interprets these findings in terms of same-sex attraction (self-reported or actual). Whether genetic influences would be under- or over- estimated depends on the relative size of genetic contributions for traits like promiscuity, attractiveness, closetedness, or anything else that could have influenced the measure. I can't do the math, but if I had to guess... r = 0.70 A = 0.39 ± (0.39 * (1 - 0.70) * ~0.8) therefore CI (confidence interval): 0.30-0.48 with regard to additive genetic influences on self-reported preference (assuming the Canadian sample was alike to the Scandinavian sample in all relevant respects). I want to see the source of this information. Experts disagree about the prevalence of homosexuality among men and women, and their estimates for men alone range from about 6% to 10%, although a larger subsample will report at least one same-sex experience. Interestingly, as compared to androphilic men, gynephilic men may generally be more turned off by the non-preferred sex. See the bottom row of Table 4 on page 114. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233747536_Heterosexuality_Homosexuality_and_Erotic_Age_Preference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a33lKhz8sy8 August 17th

"Ugh, I hate encountering rotten corpses in my pool." It could be a false positive.

Sexual imprinting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_imprinting#Sexual_imprinting Which sex is usually preferred after cross-species imprinting? Closely related species are probably better examples. I wonder whether we're bioprepared (genetically tuned) to learn a particular sexual preference. For wild animals nurtured by their own kind, they may have evolved biopreparedness for sexual preference, but not species-preference.

Is it altruism if you're enjoying it for other reasons? It's not surprising. An animal can become imprinted by members of other species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conditioning#Sexual_imprinting

I'm done with this thread.

Thanks, Nicholas. I'm glad you noticed problems with my post. This is a good post. My previous post diverged from the topic. Whether our localation is average is irrelevant to overall homogeneity. It has occurred to me that homogeneity is ambiguous. If I'm sampling a pond, the pond's boundaries may be an objective feature of the pond, but my sampling scale and my significance threshold are both arbitrary. Which puddle is more homogeneous, puddle one or two? Small scale, high significance Hypothetical Puddle One contains evenly distributed colonies of microbes. Because the colonies are evenly distributed, differences in microbe density fall below statistical significance at low magnification. However, at high enough magnification, one observes regular differences in microbe density with p-values of .999 or higher. Large scale, low significance Hypothetical Puddle Two has a higher concentration of hydronium ions on the south end, but the trend only has a p-value of .85 when the analysis includes every hydronium ion. Statistical significance only becomes irrelevant when any variation is completely patterned and non-random, but even then homogeneity is a continuum, like tallness and shortness. I don't think we can argue that it's absolutely true that the universe is homogeneous.

"God" is at least an idea. You're right that defining is easier when concrete objects are available for reference, as with the word "bird". We can directly observe a correlation between different bird-like features. For example, birds have both similar appearances and make similar sounds, which is why a blind person and a deaf person can rely on different definitions of "bird". Note: I think Hume had a term for correlated sensory features, but I can't remember what it was. In contrast, we might have to rely solely on imaginary examples of gods. Unlike concrete objects, ideas tend to have weaker feature-correlation, but we can still derive a reasonable definition from these imaginary examples. There might be feature-correlation if there actually is a concrete referent or if different god-concepts tend to arise from similar cognitive processes, but neither is necessary for a working definition.

Define "god" for us. What are the defining features of a god if not wisdom or creativity?

What's wrong with being a deist?

I don't deserve the +1. Is it a graph? Regardless, they're not "outliers". I was applying the term much too loosely. I hardly know any cosmology. If you understand the logic, that's as far as I can take you.

I might comment on the study once I've read it. However, the twin studies are taking us away from the opening subject. Much to my shame, I assumed heritability (sexual antagonism) implies a genetic cause, and I assumed this contradicted the opening post. Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. (Rice, Friberg, Gavrilets) Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397798 summary of findings on io9.com http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb Their theory is that these epi-marks protect the fetus from androgen fluctuations. These epi-marks are normally erased and replaced with native epi-marks during development in the womb. Sometimes, however, they aren't erased, and non-erased opposite-sex epi-marks may overpower the native epi-marks. Their model suggests that this accounts for most homosexuality. This seems consistent with Mr. Zurich's first subtype, and may even be what he was referring to. My condolences, by the way. I would have said something the first time, but I mysteriously skipped over that part, instead contemplating the "strange" appearance portion, then dismissing it.

Why not instead say it begins when the brain becomes organized and differentiated, when EEG activity commences, or when activity in the neocortex (cognition) commences? All definitions are arbitrary at first, then we come to an agreement. Clearly there's still disagreement about defining "life" in a lifespan context.

How did they measure homosexuality? I recall reading the abstract of a twin study... here it is! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227 They simply asked for orientation, which we all know is a really bad measure of sexual preference. A penile plethysmograph might provide better data. It looks like they compensated for this, but I can't see what the results were after the correction. I'm always critical about how to interpret research findings. I don't think my usage of epigenetic was inconsistent with your definition, but I didn't know that the methylations had to be induced by the environment to be epigenetic.

I would guess that it's because a lot of problems cross over into the sexual arena. I can support each of these hypotheses with some part of the Bible. *It's all KJV to avoid copyright violation. NowakScience points out that sexual contact can be used to establish dominance. The antagonists encountered in Sodom (Genesis 19) aren't homosexuals, but rapists. They demand that Lot release the men so the Sodomites can rape them. This story has been interpretted as a condemnation of homosexuality. Dekan (and Timo) note the societal importance of procreation. Ten Oz suggests control over women. Psalm 127:3-128:3 (KJV) "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate." "128 Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table." Plus sexual intercourse is the most obvious and immediate route for pathogen transmission since our ejaculations can contain pathogens—and our blood too. The importance of cleanliness to health wasn't formally investigated until Florence Nightingale, but Leviticus does coincidentally seem a bit OCD about vectors of disease. Leviticus 15:16-33 (KJV): Handling genital secretions "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. [yadda yadda, Leviticus 15:20-32] And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean." Leviticus 11 (KJV): Handling animal carcasses "And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. [yadda yadda Leviticus 11:3-44. What sorts of camel, swine, bird, fish, insect, etc. you may not eat lest you become unclean; how you should clean them; and how they shouldn't touch other things; because he's the Lord, yadda yadda] For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten." Leviticus 14 (KJV): Handling diseased people "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; [yadda yadda, Leviticus 14:4-53] This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house, And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot: To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy."

That's more or less what this research paper is saying. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377672/ I know this, and I would only say I knew this if that's what I thought. No need to make it explicit.

It's not. The beginning of life is defined arbitrarily.

I doubt a rock can grasp words. We could use an EEG to associate a brain region with that word's sound or text, and the stone wouldn't have that brain region.

For my response, I was looking for one of the powerpoints I viewed previously, then I found this. stat.ufl.edu/~winner/sta6934/surv.ppt It looks a lot more informative. edit2: darn those duckduckgo redirects. Oh, and here's BigNose! Yay!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_hazards_models

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380930/ They investigate the health associations of frequent church attendance by doing a multiple logistic regression and a survival analysis that adjusts for other factors (Cox proportional hazards). In layman's terms, how do survival analyses and logistic regressions proceed? My understanding is that they're related techniques.