NintendoAge http://nintendoage.com/forum/ -Sqooner First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-09-21T18:13:22 -05.00 the tall guy 493 First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-05T02:55:37 -05.00 the tall guy 493
"It isn't gay if it isn't in you".

(I spit my drink out laughing when he said it)
]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-05T02:23:30 -05.00 the tall guy 493 First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-05T00:50:12 -05.00 the tall guy 493 ]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-03T13:30:43 -05.00 the tall guy 493 Originally posted by: BigIVIO

Originally posted by: cosmicjim

Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain


I don't think there's evidence for your hypothesis, though it sounds interesting. It may have theoretical problems though, if the amount of potential offspring through males is higher than the potential offspring through females (one man can have many more babies with different women, than one woman can). Even if the girl is very promiscuous, she can't have that many babies. It'd be more advantageous if the girl was a lesbian, and the men more promiscuous. But if that happened, you'd alter the 1:1 ratio, which is shown mathematically, to be the optimal ratio (any deviation from it is less effective).


 

A male can make babies 24/7 for a window 60+ years.  If we look at a cousin like gorillas we already see 1 male spreading offspring to 20+ females in their pack. Is this a process of natural evolution we are moving toward or away from? 

I'm not really sure if this is still in reference to homosexuals (I stopped reading after the first page), but it should be noted that gorillas as well basically every other species of mammal or otherwise on this planet occassionally engage in homosexual activies (please refernces your own dog if you don't believe me) and in some species they have homosexual partners. I had to take a ton of anthropology courses and we studied homosexuality in animals one semester. If you've never heard of a Bonobo you should check those guys out. 
 

Engaging in homosexual behavior and having no attraction to the opposite sex are different things. An animal that has sex with everything that moves will still reproduce even if half the sperm he drops will never see an egg.  ]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-03T11:39:58 -05.00 the tall guy 493 Originally posted by: cosmicjim

Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain


I don't think there's evidence for your hypothesis, though it sounds interesting. It may have theoretical problems though, if the amount of potential offspring through males is higher than the potential offspring through females (one man can have many more babies with different women, than one woman can). Even if the girl is very promiscuous, she can't have that many babies. It'd be more advantageous if the girl was a lesbian, and the men more promiscuous. But if that happened, you'd alter the 1:1 ratio, which is shown mathematically, to be the optimal ratio (any deviation from it is less effective).


 

A male can make babies 24/7 for a window 60+ years.  If we look at a cousin like gorillas we already see 1 male spreading offspring to 20+ females in their pack. Is this a process of natural evolution we are moving toward or away from? 
I'm not really sure if this is still in reference to homosexuals (I stopped reading after the first page), but it should be noted that gorillas as well basically every other species of mammal or otherwise on this planet occassionally engage in homosexual activies (please refernces your own dog if you don't believe me) and in some species they have homosexual partners. I had to take a ton of anthropology courses and we studied homosexuality in animals one semester. If you've never heard of a Bonobo you should check those guys out. 

]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-03T10:51:15 -05.00 the tall guy 493 Originally posted by: cosmicjim

Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain


I don't think there's evidence for your hypothesis, though it sounds interesting. It may have theoretical problems though, if the amount of potential offspring through males is higher than the potential offspring through females (one man can have many more babies with different women, than one woman can). Even if the girl is very promiscuous, she can't have that many babies. It'd be more advantageous if the girl was a lesbian, and the men more promiscuous. But if that happened, you'd alter the 1:1 ratio, which is shown mathematically, to be the optimal ratio (any deviation from it is less effective).


 

A male can make babies 24/7 for a window 60+ years.  If we look at a cousin like gorillas we already see 1 male spreading offspring to 20+ females in their pack. Is this a process of natural evolution we are moving toward or away from? 
I don't think so, and there's no evidence for that.


]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-03T06:32:04 -05.00 the tall guy 493 Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain


I don't think there's evidence for your hypothesis, though it sounds interesting. It may have theoretical problems though, if the amount of potential offspring through males is higher than the potential offspring through females (one man can have many more babies with different women, than one woman can). Even if the girl is very promiscuous, she can't have that many babies. It'd be more advantageous if the girl was a lesbian, and the men more promiscuous. But if that happened, you'd alter the 1:1 ratio, which is shown mathematically, to be the optimal ratio (any deviation from it is less effective).


 
A male can make babies 24/7 for a window 60+ years.  If we look at a cousin like gorillas we already see 1 male spreading offspring to 20+ females in their pack. Is this a process of natural evolution we are moving toward or away from?  ]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-03T01:10:46 -05.00 the tall guy 493 Originally posted by: cosmicjim

I have 2 topics to discuss.

#1 - More babies doesn't equal better survival. It's more complicated than that.  It is to the advantage of a virus to reproduce more slowly.  If it kills it's host too quickly by "making babies too fast", the virus itself dies out faster. If it becomes apparent that the host is affected too quickly because the virus "made babies too fast," other victims will avoid the host and the virus dies out.   Weaker virii proliferate better than strong ones.  The reason we don't have as many terrible plagues isn't completely from modern medicine.  These strains wipe themselves out by being too effective.  When these weaknesses are observed in humans it is immediately thrown out as "maladaptive."

I don't know much about virus evolution and biology. You are right in that it's more complicated than just "make more babies", though you have to think in a more gene-centered way, and not at the individual or group level. The evolution section of the "virulence" article in Wikipedia has very interesting information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulence

Survival of the individual means nothing for evolution, if it doesn't mean leaving more copies of the gene (which is achieved by having more babies/make your few babies survive better). The value of a strategy for leaving more babies depends many times on its relative frequency, with respect to existing alternate strategies, and an equilibrium may be reached. There may also be an optimum unique strategy that can be reached (like the level of virulence of some virus strain).

#2 - The physiology of people:  When looking at sexuality, people tend to completely seperate men and women.  This is the wrong thing to do.   A man and a woman are obviously different, but inherent who they "are" from their parents.  Women have offspring and can have multiple offspring.   If a person's sexuality causes them to seek sex more than others, they can make up for any people with a lack of sex drive.  (This just lead me to realize that celebacy is even more unnatural  than homosexuality and therefore should be legislated against) Now, let's look at a family unit that has 3 children.  Let's say there are 2 brothers and 1 sister.  Now, let's say they inherited a trait that causes all of them to love dick.  As long as the woman has 3 or more children because of her increased love of dick, the trait of loving d...the trait of being attracted sexually to males is still helping the species proliferate.  This is why being gay doesn't lead to a dead end.  The same that makes you "gay" might make your opposite sex sibling or relative have enough babies to more than make up for you.

I don't think there's evidence for your hypothesis, though it sounds interesting. It may have theoretical problems though, if the amount of potential offspring through males is higher than the potential offspring through females (one man can have many more babies with different women, than one woman can). Even if the girl is very promiscuous, she can't have that many babies. It'd be more advantageous if the girl was a lesbian, and the men more promiscuous. But if that happened, you'd alter the 1:1 ratio, which is shown mathematically, to be the optimal ratio (any deviation from it is less effective).


]]> First openly gay active professional athlete http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=101886 2013-05-02T21:51:05 -05.00 the tall guy 493