(Post a new comment)

	sorchar 2003-08-14 01:52 am UTC (link)
	The whole thing about evolution amuses me...so, any marriage that is childless is invalid? Riiiiiight. Dude, I'm all for gay marriage. They certainly can't fuck it up any more than we straight folks have. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	telesilla 2003-08-14 02:00 am UTC (link)
	Given my track record of two divorces, one from a straight marriage and one from a lesbian one, I'd say we're all about equal in the fucking relationships up department. (Reply to this)(Parent)

dawnswalker
2003-08-14 02:36 am UTC (link)

That evolution argument gets me too... I mean, it's not as if one couple is going to spawn a child with the Next Big Evolutionary Leap for Mankind. There's a reason why the evolution process takes milions upon millions of years, people... the changes don't just spontaneously happen, it's basically a whole lot of insignificant changes over countless generations that add up.

Then again, the last time I took a biology-related course was in high school, so there's probably a lot more to it than that anyway. ^^

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: sorchar 2003-08-14 02:39 am UTC (link)
	Well, you're still way ahead of P@L in the bio-knowledge department, I'm guessing. (Reply to this)(Parent)

eljuno
2003-08-14 02:49 am UTC (link)

That evolution argument gets me too... I mean, it's not as if one couple is going to spawn a child with the Next Big Evolutionary Leap for Mankind. There's a reason why the evolution process takes milions upon millions of years, people... the changes don't just spontaneously happen, it's basically a whole lot of insignificant changes over countless generations that add up.

Basically, yeah.

Also keep in mind that, unless it was a serious advantage, any major mutation in the child of any one breeding pair, especially over a huge population (I.E. Humans) would, basically, either not breed or breed so diffusely into the standard stock that it'd be gone soon.

This is one of the reasons that its at least theorized that most major changes, especially on the species level, come about when a portion of a species is seperated from the general breeding stock and, with the smaller genepool, mutations start to mean a LOT more.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong, by the way. Evolutionary Biology is nothing more than a hobby for me.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

diamonde
2003-08-14 06:40 am UTC (link)

Or when a selective pressure acts on the entire species to give an advantage to a phenotype that was already present. In humans, say, AIDS immunity in Africa. It seems that it was already there, but it didn't matter before. Now the people with it are much better off, and more likely to reproduce and have their children reach breeding age.

You're right, one single mutation is very unlikely to be beneficial enough to spread through the human population. And if there's only one of it, it'd probably be lost through genetic drift anyway, no matter how neat it was. If there was a mutational hotspot and that mutation cropped up frequently, then we might be onto something.

*delightedly uses labcoat icon. Geek convo!*

(Reply to this)(Parent)

diamonde
2003-08-14 06:47 am UTC (link)

I think one of the big misunderstandings is the idea that evolution is a force pushing us to be better and better, when it's just a word we use to describe adaption to our environment over generations. It's not a consciousness or a cosmic pressure, it's not the Divine Plan. Evolution doesn't do anything, it's just a word for what happens when something else does something. A selective pressure, like a change in the temperature or a new disease that some people are more vulnerable to that others. And we certainly have no way of knowing when one of those things is gonna suddenly crop up and who it'll favour, so we're better off just puttering along and doing our thing without worrying about it.

Some white bigot loony can point at gay guys and say 'evolution will wipe you all out!' and then the ozone layer gets thinner and all us melanin-deprived types die off. Who's laughing then?

And yeah. Waaaaaaay ahead of P@L with the biological knowledge. I don't think she even understood it in high school. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-08-14 08:51 am UTC (link)

Well, they're also completely ignoring the fact that 9 times out of 10, evolution works to specialize an organism moreso than it already is.

And, as history has shown us, specialization can be BADBADBADBADBAD.

Case in point, hooved predators and the Neanderthal man.

People seldom like to think about the fact that there was once a completely genetically distinct race of humans who have become extinct themselves. Especially those damned creationists. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

eljuno
2003-08-14 07:02 pm UTC (link)

People seldom like to think about the fact that there was once a completely genetically distinct race of humans who have become extinct themselves.

Depending on how far back you go, and what you define as "humans", there could be a LOT more than one of them. It seems like, rather than the pinnacle of creation, we're the last little spindly branch of an evolutionary tree that just plain got LUCKY. VERY lucky (SEE: The genetic bottleneck in H. sapiens...I THINK around 100,000 years ago, but I could be WAY off. I also think that "our" numbers are theorized at being around 15,000, but again, I could be off.)

And don't you be dissin' Neanderthal. Neanderthal man's my main man, y'know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

The evolution argument gets me too

karmakaze
2003-08-14 03:58 pm UTC (link)

The evolution argument gets me too, but in a slighly different way. It runs like this:

1) There have been homosexuals in the human population as long as there's been a human population. (See Bible - Old Testament, Ancient Greek Literature, etc.)

2) There are homosexuals in the human population now -and- the human population has been steadily growing throughout pretty much all of recorded history.

Now, if homosexuality were a negative evolutionary trait, wouldn't we have seen it either (a) have been selected out or (b) caused the growth of the human population to slow down?

Evolution is not a law. There are no evolution cops wandering around with whistles going "You! Out of the gene pool!". It's a description of changes in large populations over the course of generations.

I should stop now. It's a peeve of mine and I'm treading close to the wank myself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The evolution argument gets me too darkrose 2003-08-15 08:26 am UTC (link)
	Evolution is not a law. There are no evolution cops wandering around with whistles going "You! Out of the gene pool!". Which is rather a pity, when you think about it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The evolution argument gets me too karmakaze 2003-08-15 03:45 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, I don't know... Imagine what form police brutality might take... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kimera 2003-08-14 04:25 am UTC (link)
	smirk Evolution would CERTAINLY favor a gay marriage over a Jennifer Lopez marriage. Geez. Gay people can raise perfectly normal children who are related to them (thus passing on their genes), through artificial insemination or surrogate moms. Jennifer Lopez probably couldn't raise a plant. Word Wordy McWord. Hee. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	mariagoner 2003-08-14 06:40 am UTC (link)
	What, did you see Gigli too?! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iczer6 2003-08-15 09:22 am UTC (link)
	LOVE the Icon. And yeah it's nice to know that Hollywood is here to assure us that being a lesbian is a passing fad and that all gay people need is some good, ol' fashioned het lovin. Icz (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mariagoner 2003-08-15 08:26 pm UTC (link)
	If there's a negative sterotype to perpetuate, Hollywood is there. (Also: Thanks for the icon love! Though you should really send all praises to the eminently giving Setsuna, who made it.) (Not to mention-- your icon is peculiarly lovable as well. Magical shojo leak indeed!) (Reply to this)(Parent)

ruaki
2003-08-14 08:11 am UTC (link)

Deleted that other comment in a stupid notion cause I meant to say:

Damn. I saw this comic in the paper today and just KNEW it'd have wank following it. ::SNRK:: Nice to see that the populace has delivered--my faith in humanity wankers have been restored.

Today = work keeps old papers and I read them for lack of anything else to do on the lunch hour.

(I apologize to eljuno for spamming their email box. You may spank me, if you are so inclined.)

(Reply to this)

	luna 2003-08-14 10:15 pm UTC (link)
	whether or not it's stale to complain about the staleness of the Kobe jokes. Seriously, for real? I love Aaron & The Boondocks, but I don't even read it anymore because of the Kobe stuff. Someone please make it stop. ::whimper:: (Reply to this)(Thread)

	eljuno 2003-08-15 02:56 am UTC (link)
	Worry not, the Kobe stuff is done with. Well, at least for the moment. He's moved on to gay marriage. (Reply to this)(Parent)