---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Help from more evolved souls at various points. Basically some of the woo woo stuff commonly dismissed. An example might be, pushing development from going in a more primate direction to a more human direction. Something along these lines. Well, the only comment I can make is that these more evolved souls must have, erm, evolved too! But they are not necessarily "gods", as was Steve's point, I believe. Um, no, I was not trying to slip in the notion of "God" with my comment. And it had nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality. I tend to believe that a various times an intervention occurred to push the progress of mankind in one direction or the other. An intervention from what then? I am intrigued... I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. Here's a thought for you to play with, the idea of an intervention implies a god right? If you are using the presence of homosexuality as proof that god intervened, wouldn't he have done so in the opposite direction? He isn't a notorious gay lover is he... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
