actually, I know quite a few gay people, I even had an ex girl friend in high school become a lesbin a few months after a broke up with her. I used to go out with my wife with some of her friends (that were gay), my high school principle, who was also a neihbor and close friend of mine, was caught in a sex sting with a 15 year old boy, I baby sat his two grand children for three years (not all at once of course). I have some knowledge.

I'm not saying that the entire US is a safe place for gays, a lot of it isn't. But even in the safe places (like Portland) they still exibit behavoirs that contridict what would accure if it was genetics.

I wouldn't doubt you on that, but if all've you seen is from TV, I'd suggest going as a volunteer to feed the homeless, it can really change how you see them from the TV.

Just like, children growing up in broken or disfuntional families can crave attention and love in other ways from other people, when children have no home and no family, they crave love to fill them, and they will reachout to whatever they can find, and in some cases it can be drugs to give them an escape, and in other cases it can be homosexuality.

I'll write out a sheet to show you, (it's very hard with just words and no figures). I'll post it tomorrow.

Good comment WEB. I completely agree with you.

I have to scan the paper in still, but it is done. The paper (which will be up in about 1 hour), covers animals that are in natural balance (the number that are born is the same number as those that die, so the population remains equall, 2 parents will have 2 offspring that survive to mate). Human "evolution" is far more complicated, because it doesn't follow the laws of evolution (the more "successful" genes don't have any more kids than the "unsuccessful" genes).

What it most likely is, is that they have different hormone componds that attract them and different likes in a mate (which is largely dictated by genes, but that doesn't make it genetic). I'm weak against getting Diabetes, but it's not a genetic disease, it's just a genetic disposition. So one can be genetically positioned to be more likely to be gay, but there isn't a solid "yes" or "no" factor that it could be determined that this 2 month old baby will 100% be gay, or 100% will be straight.

Here are the pages, if they're not working I can try it another way later.

Attached Images

	Genes pg1.pdf (42.0 KB, 3 views)
	Genes pg2.pdf (29.9 KB, 1 views)
	Genes pg3.pdf (25.3 KB, 1 views)
	Genes pg4.pdf (34.4 KB, 2 views)

I object that. Humans are not exempted from evolution. Just the rules are different.

The rule change when effective birth prevention has been invented had huge consequences that have yet to be seen, but even if that would have led to what you claim, that extremely short time would have been of zero consequence to our evolution (perhaps 3 generations if at all). Before birth prevention your argument pretty much evaporates.

Moreover is the human evolution a bit more complex because we have also a cultural evolution that is of far reaching consquences as well but extremely fast in adoption and changes.

Isn't it also the same with being right hander and left hander? I mean that you are only "positioned" to be more likely one or the other genetically and that a very young baby won't be one or the other right from the start?

If that is the case I have the following argument: Have ever read stories about the impacts of forcing a young left hander to make everything with the right hand?

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

We no longer evolve to nature, we don't change to fit the enviroment, we change the enviroment to fit us.

Yes, most certainly I have, I was one of them (thank God for my parents though), it was the teachers that tried to force it the other way. So in turn, I'm left handed for writting, and right handed for sports (actually, I can pretty much do both hands for sports now).

That's the same with just about every non-physical aspect of an individual. That includes one's ability to obsorb knowledge, some people have to try harder, but they're not genetically "dumber."

We adopt the environment, but we also adopt to that environment we created ourselves.

Where in the evolution does it say it has to be nature we adopt to? Living forms adopt to their environment, no matter if thats self created or not. Actually the entire biosphere basis on an environment it created itself. Only very few living forms could live in a prebiotic world.

The only difference is that humans do change the environment deliberately, but thats just adding another facet nothing else.

There are actually lots of examples where we evolved to fit better to the environment we have created ourselves...

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

We have to remember that adapting and evolution are 2 different things. A single animal or human can adapt. I can adapt to moving to a new place. A single living entity cannot evolve, evolution is the genetic change between generations, that is caused by successful genes producing more kids (making more successful genes) and unsuccessful genes not making as many kids (making less unsuccessful genes) so the unsuccessful eventually die out.

I am speaking about evolution not adaption of single individuals without a consequence (I did not know that the usage in English is that specific), humans evolved to fit the environment they created themselves to a far extend.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"