Meaning of life?

[lastgasp]

Hey Elwood, I thought it was 68?

[The_Ryan]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *

You did not dwell on Lamia’s main point at all.

I most certainly did. Lamia’s main point is that the answer to further’s question was obvious. I showed this to be false.

You did not give a figure for what percentage you felt were homosexuals,

Why would I? I wasn’t dealing with the exact details, but simply showing that Lamia’s simple-minded answer is not enough. If you want to propose a more complicated scenario, we can discuss it, but I believe that I have shown that Lamia’s explanation, as it stands, does not explain how homosexuals can make up a large a proportion of our population as they do.

or even acknowledge the fact that the population with a homosexual gene included heterosexuals.

I think it’s rather premature to refer to it as a “fact”. This issue is still being investigated.

I was assuming that 1% was the advantage that heterosexuals had over actual homosexuals, which it seemed from your post that you were saying.

I have already explained what I meant by it, but in case you still haven’t gotten it: by “advantage of A over B” I mean:
[(percentage of B in initial generation)(percentage of A in next generation)]/[(percentage of A in initial generation)(percentage of B in next generation)]
I have usually then subtracted one from this number to simplify things.
As long as the percentage of those with the homosexual genes who are actually homosexual does not change from generation to generation, the above calculation will yield the exact same number regardless of which of these two groups one uses.

Assuming that 1,000 generations ago there were 50% of the population that had the homosexual gene, of whom 15% (7.5% overall) were actual homosexuals. This means that the reproductive disadvantage of the homosexual-gene population was .01*.15.

Where the heck did you get that number?! Do you think that only one percent of the homosexuals will forego reproduction?

15% of this population, or about 2.7%, will be actual homosexuals.

That’s pretty low, but I suppose it’s barely believable.

Fighting ignorance does not require this.

What is required and what is appropiate are two different things.

oldscratch

Also, neither you nor The Ryan took into account societal pressures and homosexuals having offspring.

We are discussing whether Lamia’s “explanation” works. Since Lamia did not mention societal pressures, they are not relevant to the question of whether or not Lamia is correct.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
I most certainly did. Lamia’s main point is that the answer to further’s question was obvious. I showed this to be false.
**

Thank you for telling me what my point was. I shouldn’t have known that was what it was otherwise, as I thought I had quite a different one.

**
Why would I? I wasn’t dealing with the exact details, but simply showing that Lamia’s simple-minded answer is not enough. If you want to propose a more complicated scenario, we can discuss it, but I believe that I have shown that Lamia’s explanation, as it stands, does not explain how homosexuals can make up a large a proportion of our population as they do.
**

My answer was indeed simple, but I believe there is a difference between “simple” and “simple-minded”. furthur’s question was simple enough: why hasn’t the “gay gene”, if it exists, been bred out since it seems to be detrimental to reproduction? And the simple answer to that simple question is that it ain’t easy to breed out a genetic trait (even one that is detrimental to reproduction) if that trait is recessive or if it requires an environmental trigger. As I said in my earlier post there are other possible explanations, but that is the easiest one.

I did not address the issue of how there can be so many homosexuals partially because that is not what furthur asked and partially because I do not know how many homosexuals there actually are. I doubt that you do either.

**
What is required and what is appropiate are two different things.
**

I don’t think many people would agree that insulting people out of the blue is appropriate, but there you have it.

Oh, and before you bring it up again, I certainly did not intend to insult furthur in my earlier post. From his (her?) response I do not think that he took offense at anything I said. If he did, then I apologize.

[MrMcPlad]

In my religion, the purpose of life is to obtain a physical body and further our progress toward eternal happiness. It’s all part of our Father in Heaven’s plan of salvation. Physical bodies are essential to living with Him for all time.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
furthur’s question was simple enough: why hasn’t the “gay gene”, if it exists, been bred out since it seems to be detrimental to reproduction?

Yes, exactly. The question was “What *is the reason it has not been breed out?” It wasn’t “What might be the reason” or “What are some WAGs as to the reason”, but “What is the reason”.

And the simple answer to that simple question is that it ain’t easy to breed out a genetic trait (even one that is detrimental to reproduction) if that trait is recessive

Says who? You? Your mailman? The guy that sat next to you on the bus? Do you have any scientific support for that statement?

or if it requires an environmental trigger.

As I said before, if environment is important enough to keep the gene from disappearing, then it’s not a primarily genetic trait.

I don’t think many people would agree that insulting people out of the blue is appropriate,

Strange. You seem to implying that I think it is, yet I have done nothing to give you that impression.