Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with

[robvalue]

A bit like religion.

*Cough*

[Alex K]

The assumption that this is outweighed by the benefits was implicit in my 2. in which I meant the net effect, but you're right of course, I didn't say that clearly.

The proposition that homosexuals are significantly less likely to engage in reproductive sex may seem intuitive, but it seems to me that may not actually be true under many social conditions.

Also, I am not sure exactly what constitutes, and what other effects flow from the "homosexual gene".   The effect of making the bearer inclined towards homosexuality may well require the combination of several genes.   The individual component may well carry direct reproductive benefits for the bearer, even if combined into the "homosexual combination", the collection might hamper the bearer's chance to reproduce.

In that case, the reduced probability of those carrying the complete set of "homosexual gene" to reproduce may well be more than offset by the increased productive successes of those carrying components of the "homosexual gene", so that homosexuality survives in the population because while, reproductively speaking, the total gene may be less than the sum of its parts, the parts are individually damned advantageous, so the parts will survive and recombine to menifest as homosexuality at more or less constant rate even if full blown homosexuals might seem less able to pass on their genes.

Oh, interesting idea! Instead of having a joint effect of several different (parts of) genes it could also be heterozygous vs. homozygous: it reminds me a bit of the case of selection for Sickle-cell disease genes in regions with Malaria, because having one sickle cell allele makes you immune to Malaria - but having both is fatal. Not that I want to compare homosexuality with a deadly disease, but for purposes of procreation the effect may be similar.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The "naturalness" of a behavior is irrelevant with regards to whether or not the behavior works.  If you don;t teach your kids something, if they don't learn it, obviously natural selection can't act on it...but since we're only discussing those things that they have been taught, that they did learn, of what relevance is an abandoned duckling?  

Lets say you taught your kids how to build a fire.  In a world where your kids are the only kids with the knowledge to start a fire, would it surprise you to find your genes all over the place after a few generations?  Would you think it had something to do with your genes, rather than the fire, and the learned behavior of firestarting, if you did find them all over the place?

Successful learned behaviors help to perpetuate -whatever- genotype they are associated with, even if the learned behavior is not specific to or determined by the genotype of the owners.  Que the natives.

I've not been limiting the discussion to things which have been taught, nor does the OP. I believe the study of animal behavior is important because we share many of their genes, and their apparently instinctive behaviors reveals quite a bit on our own.

Why do you keep on throwing unrealistic non-sequitors at my observations? It seems as if I've touched on a nerve, and that nerve was you, a father, who needs to believe his role in teaching his children actually matters. I'm not saying it doesn't - of course it does, and it matters a lot, but I believe it only makes good sense to question just how plastic and just how blank the human infant really is at birth.

Birds are particularly amazing creatures, in that they don't need to be taught how to weave natural materials together and build nests. Therefore, it doesn't sound altogether farfetched, if never observed, to imagine a child being born with fire-building and fire-making skills. It would be his genes, not his aquired skills which would influence future generations. Unless his peers, not born with the rudimentary skill set, but able to learn from immitation and improvisation to build better fires. All modern humans have this edge over birds of learning through immitation and improvisation, but not all are equal in their inherent proclivity to master mechanical activities, math, or work with materials. Therefore, some are a natural at what they do well, even though they aren't born with the skill, only a strong predisposition to excel at it. Others learn how to stalk and cast a sling to kill their prey because not doing so means they starve, but they do not have any natural athletic prowess. They may even teach their sons to do this too, but they aren't going to pass down the genes which make the skills come easily because they don't have them to pass down!

[The Grand Nudger]

So...."umadbro"....really?  Do you or do you not understand how learned behaviors, regardless of there being any gene that marks them, can affect the genotype? Human beings -aren't- born with those skills, and yet we possess them. If those skills provide a survival advantage -whatever the possessor may carry- in their genes piggybacks along for the ride without those genes being operative. In the same way that genes related to height may piggyback along when natural selection works on eye color. That you choose to interpret -every- advantage natural selection works on as genetic is simply declaring it to be so by fiat. There may be a unified psychology/genetics......but you clearly don't posess that explanation and so prefer to describe any example given to you as a non-sequitur (and unrealistic, no less...despite them being examples from our history....?)........I guess you didn't inherit the genes for correctly identifying logical fallacies or engaging in robust argumentation? Or maybe you didn't inherit the genes that make these things come naturally? Or maybe...just maybe, you're demonstrably wrong.....and your genes aren't to blame.

Let's use another of your examples. You could be born with the most athletic genes in the world, and it won;t help you if your opponent in the game of life was born to a family that knows how to make a gun. You can't outrun a bullet....and making guns isn't genetic. Who's genes do you expect to find better represented in a population over time, all other things being equal? The guy who runs really fast, jumps really high, and never gets winded.....or the guy who learned to make a gun? Bang bang. Now....lets needle in on just that subset. Two gun users, both can make guns. One is a "natural" shooter (wtf that is, lol)...the other has learned to make a significantly better gun..one that requires far less skill to operate. All other things being equal...who's genes do you expect to find better represented in a population over time?

Perhaps this could all be so much simpler. Would you describe the relationship of the native americans to my european ancestors as one of genetic or technological inferiority?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

LOL, I doubt we are really having the same discussion - you and I are both dealing with our own pet issues, and talking past each other.

So...."umadbro"....really?  Do you or do you not understand how learned behaviors, regardless of there being any gene that marks them, can affect the genotype?  Human beings -aren't- born with those skills, and yet we possess them.  

We know basic mathematical skills, and some of us can even deal with algebra, trig, and maybe calculus, but most of us don't have the brilliance of Pythagoras. We understand basic Newtonian physics, but most of us couldn't even talk to a modern-day Isaac Newton. Skills which are learned do influence a culture, it leads to selection pressure for those who are good at math and science in a culture which values them, but if I were to have any offspring through a female which is no better at working with numbers than I am, then I would not do much to help my species evolve its innate strengths.

If those skills provide a survival advantage -whatever the possessor may carry- in their genes piggybacks along for the ride without those genes being operative.  In the same way that genes related to height may piggyback along when natural selection works on eye color. 

Not really sure how this relates to the discussion at hand.

    That you choose to interpret -every- advantage natural selection works on as genetic is simply declaring it to be so by fiat. 

Not what I said at all. I said it makes sense, based on the observation of human learning differences to conclude that there are innate differences of strengths which are to some extent natural. I can't define just what that extent is, nor has anyone attempted to because this has been made controversial by the pseudoscientists who have declared, by fiat (to use your term) that culture is completely responsible for shaping the child, without any regard to innate strengths and weaknesses at all. This was believed by the Stalinist Soviets, who thought they could completely reinvent human culture without the nuclear family, and that experiment failed miserably. Yes, I'm going off on a big tangent here, but it's an example of just how plastic the human mind really isn't. In the Western world the SSSM became politically guarded, thereby all science was thrown out the window with social "science". How dare anyone suggest that some individuals have strengths or weaknesses which others don't - that would be "racism"! Science was suffering from the backlash of the radical Genetic Determism which had influenced the Nazis, and it still hasn't quite recovered.

There may be a unified psychology/genetics......

Now we may be getting somewhere - that is exactly what I was suggesting, if you mean that individuals learn by unequal combinations of genetic strength and brute effort. But what you learn with very little natural strength will be hard-taught to your offspring, and theirs will also struggle with that skill in question until one who has it is introduced to your family.

but you clearly don't posess that explanation and so prefer to describe any example given to you as a non-sequitur (and unrealistic, no less...despite them being examples from our history....?)........I guess you didn't inherit the genes for correctly identifying logical fallacies or engaging in robust argumentation?  Or maybe you didn't inherit the genes that make these things come naturally?  Or maybe...just maybe, you're demonstrably wrong.....and your genes aren't to blame.

Because I really don't see how they relate to the argument at hand - I get the feeling we are talking much of the same idea, and mostly in agreement, but still talking straight past each other.

   Let's use another of your examples.  You could be born with the most athletic genes in the world, and it won;t help you if your opponent in the game of life was born to a family that knows how to make a gun.  You can't outrun a bullet....and making guns isn't genetic.  Who's genes do you expect to find better represented in a population over time, all other things being equal?  The guy who runs really fast, jumps really high, and never gets winded.....or the guy who learned to make a gun? Bang bang.  Now....lets needle in on just that subset.  Two gun users, both can make guns.  One is a "natural" shooter (wtf that is, lol)...the other has learned to make a significantly better gun..one that requires far less skill to operate.  All other things being equal...who's genes do you expect to find better represented in a population over time?

    Perhaps this could all be so much simpler.  Would you describe the relationship of the native americans to my european ancestors as one of genetic or technological inferiority?

You are discussing things which influence a culture, and my concern has been with what improves a genotype. Genotypes in the wrong culture have been wiped out. The Tanzanians roamed naked over very cold, blustery, rocky terrain, so they must have been a good physical genotype that they could tolerate such conditions, but without the gun or understanding of European culture, they lost. But I do not see how that argument relates to mine, which is that I may teach a child what I know of math, music, and science, but they aren't going to be become the next Einstein without genes which I don't have.

[The Grand Nudger]

Culture can affect genotype.  We're not talking past each other, or about different things. You;ve ascribed being "the next einstein" to genes. Probably has to do with more than just genes. Get your kid a better education than you had. I wouldn't write em off just because daddys a dummy (no offense, I'm a dummy too). What was Einsteins dad's name...again? That's right, nobody remembers, because he was nobody. His mother....? Nobody.

[Alex K]

What was Einsteins dad's name...again?

Einstein.

I'll get my coat...