The Great Evolutionary Race!!

originally posted by whobdamandog
itimate argument yet from anyone relating to the topic. with Ush being the exception, however, his argument was quickly stricken down many posts ago.

Well an island of lesbians, or women in general, could survive well enough without whole human males. All they'd need is a sufficiently large sperm bank.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You mean like the Brits...😉

Yes cause we have stereotypes about mass inbreds living in trailer parks... You Fail, Try again....

All this comes down to is you don't want to accept gays... and your trying to use base biology to defend yourself... Seeing as your preach the fact we are not animals as we have emotion why don't you show a little and accept your conman man???

I'll pose an equally morally wrong question... But with Base Biology Its the moral thing to do! To protect our precious society!

Seeing as there is no current cure of Aids/HIV, to save our self the hassle of bothering to find one, and to *cough* save the gene pool... Should we not just kill anyone infected off???

ah, another one of the famous whobdamandog/punker69 passive/aggressive racist/homophobic/christian supremacist threads.

Why don't the both of you just get together and make one thread with the topic-"I hate certain people/ideas, but I don't want to be a dickhole about it"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"You're still missing the ball on this one Ush, the argument presented is not trying to test a man or women's "ability" to procreate, as stated before. "

Listen this time.

By removing the opportunity to procreate you remove the ability to test evolutionary process.

You have made the test unfair and invalid by not giving the homosexuals the ability to procreate.

ANY version of this test that does not give all participants equal access to the opposite sex is invalid.

No matter how many times you say "the test is not about procreation" you do not escape that point. All you would ever prove is not that society cannot survive if the people in it are homosexual, but that they cannot develop if they are all of the same gender. If the 200 men and 200 women on differing islands were all heterosexual, they would be just as doomed as the homosexuals. Hence- pointless test.

You test can only be a fair test if all groups have equal access to procreation, and then you would want to make the assumption that some would choose not to use it.

-

"Not true at all. As I stated in the previous post, the homosexuals are of "gifted" intelligence, while the heterosexuals are only of "average" intelligence. Certainly with all of earth's resources at their disposal and an intellectual advantage, the homosexuals should have no problem finding ways to build a more "evolved" society than the heterosexuals. "

What the hell difference does it make how smart they are? Your original test was about moving to the 'next statge' of evolution. As I told you, and as you ignored, intellect replacing simple mass reproduction as the mmeans of development is a modern phenomenon that can only take place in a world of modern society and technology. You have taken all that away and regressed the societies to a primitive stage where intellect was less important, simply to skew the test in your davour, and also, as I say, making it a totally unrealistic situation by putting a fully homosexual and/or heterosexual group IN such a situation, which does not reflect a genuine evolutionary situation, even if their statuses were digital like that, which they are not. And you thought that last bit was an irrelevant tangent? That goes a long way to show just how completely lacking in understanding you are. Running an argument on a schoolboy level, as you are, shows a lot about your lak of capacity.

Glad to see you are still living in tha tdream world where you think that you have ever, in your life, manage to repudiate anything I have said, whob. That fantasy world where you seem to think the objective of an argument is to convince yourself alone of your own brilliance is the only place you are going ton find any success, after all.

💃
That was beautiful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Listen this time.

It's definitely difficult to listen to words on a message board, however, I will attempt to reread what you've written..here goes..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
By removing the opportunity to procreate you remove the ability to test evolutionary process.

You have made the test unfair and invalid by not giving the homosexuals the ability to procreate.

ANY version of this test that does not give all participants equal access to the opposite sex is invalid.

This argument has already been addressed my friend, and shot down many posts ago.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

But let's say that we were to hypothetically give the homosexuals 100 members of the "opposite sex." How would that take away from the argument any? It would still prove..that the driving force behind the evolution of a society, would be "men and women f*cking."

Even in modern societies, the ability of a doctor to fertilize a women's egg with semen through artificial means, simulates the natural fertilization process that occurs through "heterosexual" intercourse. So quite frankly, even in modern times, "heterosexuality" is still the driving force behind a society's advancement.

Simplistic terms:

Heterosexual intercourse allows for procreation.
Homosexual intercourse does not allow for procreation.

Your argument is a circular one Ush. Regardless of the scenario, heterosexuality will always be the driving force behind a society's advancement, because of this need for procreation.

Don't believe me? Why don't you ask your buddy Darwin then. I believe he defined/termed this evolutionary need for procreation as Natural Selection.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055046

Natural Selection

In natural selection, those variations in the genotype that increase an organism's chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous ones. Evolution often occurs as a consequence of this process. Natural selection may arise from differences in survival, in fertility, in rate of development, in mating success, or in any other aspect of the life cycle. All such differences result in natural selection to the extent that they affect the number of progeny an organism leaves.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What the hell difference does it make how smart they are?

My point exactly. Regardless of the intellects or the contributions of it's members, a society can not advance if it does not possess the ability to procreate. 😉

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Regardless of the intellects or the contributions of it's members, a society can not advance if it does not possess the ability to procreate. 😉

Fin

It always strikes me as funny how you jump through all these hoops in your own mind and through various posts to pretend that basic sense is your point.

You're pretending that someone on this site has ever said that if a group of adult male homosexuals placed on an island without access to females are going to find some way to reproduce.

Also, as has been said many times, if homosexuals were not capable of having children via heterosexual intercourse, your argument would mean something.

This whole ridiculous thread is your pathetic attempt to indict both homosexuality and evolution. In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality.

May we add, "In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality and also show that you lack any form of common sense, rational thought or a sense of humour.", please?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
May we add, "In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality and also show that you lack any form of common sense, rational thought or a sense of humour.", please?

Indeed. Addition approved.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You're pretending that someone on this site has ever said that if a group of adult male homosexuals placed on an island without access to females are going to find some way to reproduce.

Originally posted by Adam Poe

All along I thought that intellect was the driving force behind the advancement of society. I did not realize that the real driving force behind the advancement of society is men and women ****ing.

Originally posted by Fishy

In 50 years? Nobody will really prosper faster then the other. The Heterosexual groups has the disadvantages of pregnancy's children and overpopulation though

Originally posted by Adam Poe

This scenario also fails to consider that most organisms adapt to better suit their environment, whereas human beings have learned to manipulate the environment to better suit them, making human evolution a much slower process.

Originally posted by PVS

..anyway, its always been a suspicion of mine that perhaps homosexuality is a product of human adaption to overpopulation.

Originally posted by BackFire

This thread is valid because a 50 year period with a predetermined bias is a sound comparison to the actual evolution of the world which has taken million of years.

Originally posted by Bardock

Intellect is the driving force of modern advancemeant...which for us nowadays is the most important form of it. Heterosexual procretion is just a way to keep the human race alive..not advance them.

Using the aforementioned quotes above, I have gone through the trouble of summarizing the positions which support why a homosexual society will evolve quicker than the heterosexual one.

[list]

[*]Intellect is the predominant force used to advance a species, not sexual behavior that allows for procreation. Being superior in intellect, the gifted homosexuals will create an advanced society much quicker than the simple minded heterosexuals, despite the heterosexuals ability to procreate.

[*]Homosexual behavior encourages population control, therefore, the homosexuals would live on..while the heterosexuals would overpopulate and die out.
[/list]

I will now summarize the arguments given as to why this experiment is illogical by a select few within the forum(sic)..😉

[list]
[*] Despite their inability to procreate, 50 years is not enough time for the homosexual societies to evolve. Human beings manipulate the environment to better suit them, which in turn makes human evolution a very slow process.

[*] The homosexual societies should have the ability to procreate using heterosexual means, which in no way supports the initial argument of heterosexual intercourse being the driving force behind a society's evolution.
[/list]

If I missed any pertinent arguments, please let me know.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Also, as has been said many times, if homosexuals were not capable of having children via heterosexual intercourse, your argument would mean something.

Which again..supports the argument of..

Originally posted by Adam Poe

the real driving froce behind the advancement of society is men and women ****ing.

I didn't respond to the rest of your post my friend, seeing as how it was more of an insult, rather than a rational rebuttal. I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed with the majority of your rebuttals. Many of them, have carried little to no substance. However I guess I shouldn't have expected them to have any real substantive information supporting them, particularly since you are arguing against "common sense" and all..😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Using the aforementioned quotes above, I have gone through the trouble of summarizing the positions which support why a homosexual society will evolve quicker than the heterosexual one.

[list]

[*]Intellect is the predominant force used to advance a species, not sexual behavior that allows for procreation. Being superior in intellect, the gifted homosexuals will create an advanced society much quicker than the simple minded heterosexuals, despite the heterosexuals ability to procreate.

[*]Homosexual behavior encourages population control, therefore, the homosexuals would live on..while the heterosexuals would overpopulate and die out.
[/list]

I will now summarize the arguments given as to why this experiment is illogical by a select few within the forum(sic)..😉

[list]
[*] Despite their inability to procreate, 50 years is not enough time for the homosexual societies to evolve. Human beings manipulate the environment to better suit them, which in turn makes human evolution a very slow process.

[*] The homosexual societies should have the ability to procreate using heterosexual means, which in no way supports the initial argument of heterosexual intercourse being the driving force behind a society's evolution.
[/list]

If I missed any pertinent arguments, please let me know.

Which again..supports the argument of..

I didn't respond to the rest of your post my friend, seeing as how it was more of an insult, rather than a rational rebuttal. I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed with the majority of your rebuttals. Many of them, have carried little to no substance. However I guess I shouldn't have expected them to have any real substantive information supporting them, particularly since you are arguing against "common sense" and all..😉

Once again, you assume that my point is sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, when you start a thread that indicts both sexual orientation AND evolution you are not being realistic. No one has ever said that procreation is not a basis for the advancment of a species. (considering to that species' longevity.) You are only pretending that some one has for the sake of your own arguments advancement. Post the entire comment by Adam_POE, in it's original context, and this will be evident to everyone.

Editing is often the tool of a weaker argument...and mind.

I didn't respond to the rest of your post my friend, seeing as how it was more of an insult, rather than a rational rebuttal. I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed with the majority of your rebuttals. Many of them, have carried little to no substance. However I guess I shouldn't have expected them to have any real substantive information supporting them, particularly since you are arguing against "common sense" and all..

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No one has ever said that procreation is not a basis for the advancment of a species. (considering to that species' longevity.) You are only pretending that some one has for the sake of your own arguments advancement.

Originally posted by Adam Poe

All along I thought that intellect was the driving force behind the advancement of society. I did not realize that the real driving froce behind the advancement of society is men and women ****ing.

Originally posted by Bardock

Intellect is the driving force of modern advancemeant...which for us nowadays is the most important form of it. Heterosexual procretion is just a way to keep the human race alive..not advance them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Societal advancement and cultural evolution is driven by intelligence and innovation.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Post the entire comment by Adam_POE, in it's original context, and this will be evident to everyone.

Ask and ye shall receive..😉

whobdamandog: Did a heterosexual union..produce offspring that was able to engage in such technological achievements?
So Sithsaber is correct..heterosexual sexual activities are indeed the driving force behind a society's advancement..

Adam Poe: All along I thought that intellect was the driving force behind the advancement of society. I did not realize that the real driving froce behind the advancement of society is men and women ****ing.

whobdamandog: Not just men ****ing..men ****ing women and producing "smart" babies...Homosexuals can't **** each other and produce babies..or can they? You tell me bud..

Adam Poe: Irrelevant; the fact remains that the driving force behind the advancement of society is the contribution of its members.

Below is a link to the original exchange between myself and Adam, in it's entirety, it lasted a couple of pages.

Adam Poe presents the argument of "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's evolution.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Ask and ye shall receive..😉

Below is a link to the original exchange between myself and Adam, in it's entirety, it lasted a couple of pages.

Adam Poe presents the argument of "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's evolution.

Not "EVOLUTION" ..."advancment"

Well he is right, intellect has always been more important for the advancement of the human species.

Without brains we could **** and have children all we want, but unless one of them would figure out how to light a fire, create a weel, create weapons to hunt with, create farms, fish and stuff like that the human species will not advance.

What about: one island of 1000 homosexual men of above-average intelligence, who are immortal (Yeah I know...run with it); and,

Another island of 500 heterosexual men and the same number of heterosexual women, who are very stupid.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not "EVOLUTION" ..."advancment"

taken from: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=evolve

evolve
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: progress
Synonyms: advance, derive, disclose, educe, elaborate, emerge, enlarge, excogitate, expand, get, grow, increase, mature, obtain, open, result, ripen, unfold, work out

taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

evolution

n 1: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer" [syn: development] [ant: degeneration] 2: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms [syn: phylogeny, phylogenesis]

Originally posted by Fishy
Well he is right, intellect has always been more important for the advancement of the human species.

Without brains we could **** and have children all we want, but unless one of them would figure out how to light a fire, create a weel, create weapons to hunt with, create farms, fish and stuff like that the human species will not advance.

Well from a Darwinian perspective, the most "intelligent" and advanced society, would frequently engage in sexual activity that encourages procreation...😉

Oh thats just bullshit, the smartest people are not always those with children.

Sex is just a way to make sure that the human species continues to exist or fun for people, it does not ensure the advancement of the human species or that of society in general. Smart people however do. All that heterosexual sex does is ensure the survival of our species nothing more.

And actually thats not entirely true, 100 gay man and 100 gay woman could advance and create children at a fast rate without ever having sex.

Heterosexual sex is kinda absolute in todays society. Funny isn't it? The thing you claim is the most important factor in our lives is completely absolute at this moment in time. Brains however and intelligent human beings are not, they continue to exist, they are still necessary and they will be until the very end of our existance.

A study by psychologists at the Psychology Institute report that "highly-educated women are having fewer children, while less educated women are having many more."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well from a Darwinian perspective, the most "intelligent" and advanced society, would frequently engage in sexual activity that encourages procreation...😉

Again, you and your "definitions" are flawed. The process of Evolution, as in the theory of evolution is not the same as advancment. The advancement of a culture or society is not the same, and can not be compared to, the evolution of a species.

When someone says that "I have evolved a better sense of what is right and wrong" does not mean they are implying that they have developed into a new and different species.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A study by psychologists at the Psychology Institute report that "highly-educated women are having fewer children, while less educated women are having many more."

But a society still needs women to have children, in order for it to continue to have highly-educated women within it. 😉