LIfe in "Conservative Christian" America?

WinterBorn said:
How about Scientific American?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

"Homosexual behavior seems pointedly un-Darwinian. An animal that doesn't pass along genes by mating with the opposite sex at every, well, conceivable opportunity, seems to be at an evolutionary disadvantage. So what’s in it for the 450-plus species that go for same-sex sex?"

"It's been observed a lot," says Nathan Bailey, a post-doctoral researcher at U.C. Riverside and lead study author, of same-sex sexual behavior in animals. "But it took people a long time to put it in an evolutionary context."



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356639,00.html
Click to expand...

What is that now?

...3?

...4 times now?

Ol DimBulb DY sure likes to move the goalposts in order to keep from having to admit he was wrong.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Now comes the "hate" accusations. Tally up all the debate points that I've scored here, and the conclusion is obvious...
Click to expand...

Yes...the conclusion is crystal clear...

You're a spineless little weasel who can't admit when he's been beaten fair and square in a debate.
 
Dumb Yankee is right.

Gays suck.
laughing-guffaw.gif
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Evidence where this exists in nature" obviously requires an original scientific citation, not an article about a debate, and not a discussion with researchers.
Click to expand...

The links provided several researchers stating that it is natural. One article even states that homosexual behavior has been observed in over 450 different species.

That is obviously enough evidence to suffice in this debate. You simply stated it was not natural. It is obviously natural.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Why are you so scared to link to the scientific articles?
Click to expand...

Why are you suddenly only accepting scientific articles? I have shown you ample research done by professionals.

"According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others."

This is a zoologist from the University of Oslo stating that about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling.

"Not every sexual act has a reproductive function," said Janet Mann, a biologist at Georgetown University who studies dolphins (homosexual behavior is very common in these marine mammals). "That's true of humans and non-humans.""

This is a biologist at Georgetown University stating that homosexual behavior is natural for dolphins.

"It's been observed a lot," says Nathan Bailey, a post-doctoral researcher at U.C. Riverside and lead study author, of same-sex sexual behavior in animals. "But it took people a long time to put it in an evolutionary context."

Here we have a post-doctoral researcher saying his study shows it has been observed a lot. That means it is natural.




You are simply refusing to admit you lost this debate.
 
Damn Yankee said:
All you've done is 'appeal to authority'. Why are you so scared to link to the scientific articles?
Click to expand...

I linked articles in Scientific American and National Geographic. If you want pure research articles go find them yourself. I am not responsible for anything beyond basic evidence, which I have provided.
 
WinterBorn said:
"But it took people a long time to put it in an evolutionary context."
Click to expand...

lol, that's probably because homosexuality is an obvious evolutionary dead end....

Here we have a post-doctoral researcher saying his study shows it has been observed a lot. That means it is natural.
Click to expand...
cancer is natural too....that doesn't make cancer cells normal cells.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol, that's probably because homosexuality is an obvious evolutionary dead end....


cancer is natural too....that doesn't make cancer cells normal cells.....
Click to expand...

It is an evolutionary deadend in and of itself. But that does not prevent it from being present in many species as a behavior. As I said (and as was said by the researcher) not all behaviors are related to procreation.

None of these links were provided to show homosexuality is normal. It was that it was natural.
 
WinterBorn said:
It is an evolutionary deadend in and of itself. But that does not prevent it from being present in many species as a behavior. As I said (and as was said by the researcher) not all behaviors are related to procreation.

None of these links were provided to show homosexuality is normal. It was that it was natural.
Click to expand...

so what?........what does "it's natural" accomplish?......alcoholism is natural as well.....we don't encourage alcoholics to drink.....we don't redefine "drunk" to show our acceptance of their problem......
 
Damn Yankee said:
Appeal to authority isn't basic evidence.
Click to expand...

If it had been the logical fallacy you claim, you might have a point.

From the link you have used for logical fallacies:

"Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so."


The Appeal to Authority is only a logical fallacy when the person being quoted has no expertise in the area being debated. That is not the case in the quotes I provided.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so what?........what does "it's natural" accomplish?......alcoholism is natural as well.....we don't encourage alcoholics to drink.....we don't redefine "drunk" to show our acceptance of their problem......
Click to expand...

I have no idea why something being natural or not natural matters. You would have to ask SM that.
 
"Even though" is an optional caveat of appeal to authority. Where's the data that these folks relied on to make their stated conclusions?
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Even though" is an optional caveat of appeal to authority. Where's the data that these folks relied on to make their stated conclusions?
Click to expand...

You stopped reading too soon.

"Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes."



You are having a real issue admitting you were wrong, aren't you?
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Even though" is an optional caveat of appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

SM, even for you that is a surprisingly stupid piece of bullshit. The point of the Appeal to Authority as a logical fallacy is that someone is appealing to authority on a topic about which the person being quoted has no expertise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top