Considering that we’ve already had that discussion – many times, I can’t work up much enthusiasm. Indeed, the last time I tried to pin you down to a specific topic – the ossicles – you retreated to abiogenesis again. I fell for it, and the source of ‘biological information’ specifically (March 22nd, 2012 | 3:33 pm), but you still wouldn’t come back to the main point. I’m afraid I’m not interested in another round right now.

We can talk about your claim that ‘homosexuality cannot be a product of evolution’, or we can go our separate ways. That’s all I’ve got for you this time.

“in some primitive life form, the correct information was arrived at”

Should have been

“in some primitive pre-life form or some kind of chemical unit, the correct information was arrived at”

because we don’t yet have the machinery necessary for metabolism and reproduction, without which we don’t have “life” yet.

Well, I certainly don’t know as many “just so” stories as Ray. Ray fails to directly address the fundamental problems with the notion that lifeless matter somehow assembled itself into that first reproducing, single-celled life form, problems which I have repeatedly pointed out to him. He responds instead with the unfounded speculation we have seen on this thread.
– harry, July 27th, 2012 | 11:13 am

Or, just possibly… you fail to recognize when I directly address the problems you discuss.
– Ray Ingles, July 27th, 2012 | 12:33 pm

Ray, If one has no idea how to bring about a given phenomenon intentionally …
– harry, July 28th, 2012 | 12:33 pm

That is how it began.
So, tell me, Ray, how is that the information in the coding regions of DNA got there? Whether it be DNA as we now know it, or some form of biological memory that was a predecessor to it, in some primitive life form, the correct information was arrived at and stored in biological memory such that, when accessed by a cellular process, directed that process in the construction of various cellular machinery necessary for metabolism and reproduction. How did that come about? Here is the basic dilemma:

Even if every possible state of memory, at one time or another, hand been mindlessly and accidentally placed in biological memory, the contents of memory in each and every one of those states would have been gibberish, not information, as far as its contents somehow appropriately corresponding to the execution of the cellular process in terms of directing it, before that cellular process existed. How does the contents of memory, regardless of how it is that it keeps changing, ever “evolve” into containing meaningful information in terms of directing a cellular process without a cellular process being in place to which it can correspond?

And how does a cellular process evolve that can be directed in its execution by the contents of biological memory before there is biological memory that somehow meaningfully corresponds to the possible paths of execution the cellular process can take?

Neither the correct contents of biological memory nor the cellular process directed by it can evolve in the absence of the other. And even if you accidentally (miraculously) happened to get such a cellular process going that corresponded to the state of biological memory such that its execution could be directed by the information in memory, that is light years away from the “final destination” where the state of memory is such that it not only can direct the execution of the cellular process, but also directs it such that something useful is constructed, not just directs it such that it has no “output”, or that it constructs useless or possibly destructive “machinery.” The entire process would be tossed by the evolutionary project as a waste of energy long before any benefit was derived from it, if the process ever got going at all.

Do you think you can answer these questions in precise, practical terms, without references to natural nuclear fission reactors or wikipedia pages full of technical jargon that may bamboozle some but do not in any way provide an answer to such questions? Let me explain what I mean. Software evolves from an unstable, “buggy” state into a “solid” state, and concrete goes from a liquid state to a “solid” state, but it would be of little value to explain the evolution of software by presenting in a scholarly way the molecular stages concrete goes through on its way to becoming solid, which is the kind of thing you tend to do instead of directly answering questions. I suspect that is because you don’t have the foggiest idea what the answers to the questions are. Don’t feel bad. Neither does anyone else. The way things stand right now, the ONLY possible answer is the obvious one: an intelligent agent was involved in life coming about.

The discussion turned to the origin of life in response to a remark David made. You know that.

You brought it up in your comment dated “July 28th, 2012 | 12:33 pm” – addressed to me, not David. I specifically pointed out that’s what you were doing at “July 29th, 2012 | 9:29 am”.

The following is from “Where did Viruses Come From” on the Scientific American web site:

“There are a number of viruses that have a similar way of copying themselves—a process that reverses the normal flow of information in cells, which is where the term “retro” comes from—and their central machinery for replication may be a bridge from the original life-forms on this planet to what we know as life today … they may have an ancient origin, possibly as parasitic life-forms that then adapted to the “virus lifestyle.” In fact, viruses may be responsible for significant episodes of evolutionary change, especially in more complex types of organisms. At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure.”

The discussion turned to the origin of life in response to a remark David made. You know that. Your characterization of that as my abruptly announcing out of the blue ‘Well oh yeah? Where did life come from?’ is unfair. You know that, too.

why aren’t there other phenomena consisting of 1/4 or 1/2 or 3/4 of the functional complexity of life?

Is a virus alive?

But that’s a side issue. The discussion was about your claim that homosexuality “can only be an unnatural aberration, not the natural product of evolutionary processes.” That’s a pretty categorical and sweeping statement, don’t you agree? You’re saying that no other possibility exists.

But other possibilities have been pointed out to you. And you respond by saying – so far as I can see – ‘Well oh yeah? Where did life come from?’ I trust you can see why I’d find this non-responsive.

“You simply want to ignore basic facts about evolution and sexual reproduction because they don’t fit with harry’s theory of evolution. But we’re dealing with Darwin’s theory here, not harry’s. … you’re adamant about maintaining your own version of evolution rather than the prevailing scientific view.”
– David Nickol

The article at the link Ray provided stated that “No cause for sexual orientation has been demonstrated … Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions” and some indicate there is “no genetic influence” on sexual orientation.

Could it be that you and Ray are pretending the David and Ray theory of evolution is the “prevailing scientific view”?

“I suspect you don’t even really believe in evolution, actually.”
– David Nickol

The big issue to me is not whether a biological process that took place over millions of years resulted in higher forms of life and culminated in humanity. The issue to me is whether lifeless matter, which tends to reach a state of equilibrium and just “sit there,” so to speak, not assemble itself into ever-increasing complexity, but instead tends to disintegrate into its simplest, most likely state, could have mindlessly and accidentally assembled itself into the astounding functional complexity of the nanotechnology of life — which in the simplest single-celled, reproducing life forms is light years beyond any technology of our own — and then mindlessly and accidentally increased in complexity such that higher forms of life up to and including rational beings came about.

There are simply no instances of significant functional complexity coming about mindlessly and accidentally. So why should we believe that the most spectacular instance of functional complexity known to us is a mindless accident? If it was within mindless nature’s abilities to bring about such astounding functional complexity, why aren’t there other phenomena consisting of 1/4 or 1/2 or 3/4 of the functional complexity of life? There aren’t, yet there should be if it was within mindless nature’s abilities to bring about significant functional complexity in spite of lifeless matter’s tendency to disintegrate into simpler, more likely states rather than self-assemble into ever more complex and integrated states.

So, my issue isn’t how life came about, it is whether what we find life to be could have possibly been the result of mindlessness? Common sense answers that question with a resounding “No!” It seems as though nature was intentionally set up to shout to us that there is Someone behind it and responsible for it.

harry,

The reproductive life of honey bees may or may not tell us something about human homosexuality, but it does tell us something about sexual reproduction—namely, that a species can flourish when not all of its members reproduce or even can reproduce. You simply want to ignore basic facts about evolution and sexual reproduction because they don’t fit with harry’s theory of evolution. But we’re dealing with Darwin’s theory here, not harry’s. This really isn’t a discussion about the heritability of homosexuality. It’s about how evolution works, and you’re adamant about maintaining your own version of evolution rather than the prevailing scientific view. I suspect you don’t even really believe in evolution, actually.

I do not deny that genes can have different affects in different situations. What I deny is that speculating that what we know about honey bees (thanks David), frogs and the effects the environment has on babies tells us anything about human homosexuality. It’s all bluff, just like your citing a wikipedia page full of technical jargon as though it explains how the information in DNA is arrived at when it doesn’t at all.

Fact: Evolution is all about heritable mutations that enhance survivability.

Fact: That is not a fact. Evolution is about change in the frequency of genes in a population over time.

In this very discussion I’ve specifically mentioned one mechanism where ‘mutations that don’t enhance survivability’ can spread – can you name it? Then there’s things like sexual selection (which can drive the development of maladaptive traits, linkage disequilibrium (where negative traits can get linked to positive ones, and spread by ‘riding coattails’).

I’m sorry, but I really think you need to study evolution a bit more before you can make confident statements regarding what it’s about.

I am frankly unable to parse the concept of ‘nature’ ‘purging’ a trait from the population ‘via’ homosexuality. This seems to represent a fundamental confusion of ideas. Exactly how would ‘nature’ pick a trait for ‘purging’, and how would it ‘choose’ homosexuality as the mechanism? Can you point to some case where something like this is known to happen? Can you even lay out a mechanism whereby this could happen?

Let me tell you about a simple case where your logic fails. In many species of frogs, the deeper the mating call of the male, the more likely females are to respond and announce their presence. The ladies wait until the frog version of Barry White sings, then they call out and wait for him to come to them.

Naturally, the bigger the frog, the deeper the voice. So there’s strong selection pressure for big, deep-voiced frogs. Over time, genes for smaller males should be weeded out, right?

Not so fast. Literally – because big male frogs are generally not so fast. Smaller frogs can be quicker.

The smaller frogs can hear the ladies call out, too. And often they can get to her before the big guys can, and take advantage of the situation. So, what you get is a situation where a mix of different strategies prevails. There’s no one perfect strategy – in life, there’s never one perfect strategy, really – so you get a mix of guy sizes.

At no point in our discussion have you even attempted to grapple with the idea that genes can have different effects in different situations. Hell, that’s pretty much the normal case for genes – we know that the prenatal and immediate postnatal environment has profound effects on the metabolism and immune system of human babies. It applies later in life, too – girls with absent fathers go into puberty earlier, on average.

You seem to hate the idea that homosexuality may be a side effect of some other trait that’s positive in other situations. But ‘I don’t like that’ and ‘that’s impossible’ aren’t the same thing.