Denial of evolution IV

[RichW9090]

oh, and just so you know the bird dinosaur is HOTLY disputed and infact to my knowledge there was a 2009 study(I'll go try to find it now for you and link you up) that basically closed the case..

That is not at all true. 95% of those who actually study the evidence, both fossil and molecular, are now in agreement that birds are nestled within the dinosaurs phylogenetically. Yes there are a few vertebrate paleontologists, such as Alan Feduccia, who still do not agree, and who argue for an earlier derivation of birds from a pre-dinosaurian, reptilian stock (the so-called thecodont hypothesis). And while the argument can get acrimonious at times, it is still firmly based on the evidence. I myself have lingered on the thecodont side of the argument for a number of years, but I now find the evidence for the birds-are-dinosuars hypothesis overwhelming. I still think some paleontologists see feathers in way too many places, but evidence will clarify that through time.

Science doesn't involve proof - that is something for whisky and axiomatic systems like law and math. Science works on a preponderance of the evidence, evidence which, piece by piece, either supports or contradicts a given explanation. So no matter what the question, no paper will ever "close the case", with the exception, of course, of certain explanations which are nearly tautologous.

I'd be interested in hearing which 2009 paper you think "closed the case" and demonstrated that birds are not dinosaurs. We can talk about that paper at length.

 

[wellwisher]

Relative to the questions posed by James R, all I was doing was using natural selection to help define natural human behavior. Rather than define specifics in terms of behavior, I was defining this in terms of the efficient way nature does it. This should allow us to narrow it down based on the principles of natural.

For example, apes may be promiscuous, incestuous, and may even show gay behavior. This is natural for apes because this behavior does not require ape medicine as a mop to clean up after the behavior. What nature provides is sufficient, with no man-made additives, such as medicine and condoms required. This is part of natural selection since all is natural and no need for synthetic of manmade. It hold up in terms of survival and mating all on its own.

If we extrapolate this same behavior to humans, we could not let nature run its course, since that would be called cruel. Although similar behavior is being defined as natural for humans, by science, this behavior needs artificial additives like medicine to clean up the STD's, which naturally would be a way to weed out this behavior. This need to compensate for natural selection elimination (weak are given to predictor disease) means is it not natural for humans, even if we change the words and say it is so using the PC template. Natural should hold up within nature without a artificial help, like we see with the apes.

Since science has defined as natural, that which requires synthetic help, science departs from the requirement of natural selection. Natural selection uses only nature to define natural, not artificial. The theory for human instinct being similar to apes is based on DNA similarities. But continuing with the ape behavior can only work if we prop it up with artificial aids, so we can pretend this is natural for humans. Science does not seem to see the error in its logic. This defines natural in a way that denies the template of natural selection.

How do you explain why behavior, that requires artificial additives to avoid decimation, is being called natural by science? Natural selection leading to natural instinct does not show this trend anywhere else. Is this denial of evolution by science or irrational science working in isolation?

 

[wellwisher]

That is not at all true. 95% of those who actually study the evidence, both fossil and molecular, are now in agreement that birds are nestled within the dinosaurs phylogenetically. Yes there are a few vertebrate paleontologists, such as Alan Feduccia, who still do not agree, and who argue for an earlier derivation of birds from a pre-dinosaurian, reptilian stock (the so-called thecodont hypothesis).

Isn't this line in the sand purely arbitrary in terms of where we wish to draw the line? It is not like it is based on the amount of energy or entropy, which is objective. We can draw the line at stripes or no stripes and call that the line. This is more about prestige of who gets to draw the line.

The layman may call something a bird. This may not be sufficient for the bird curator who will pigeon hole the bird into a specific compartment. What we are arguing is it drawer # 1234 or drawer # 1235. This is purely arbitrary based on how you wish to index the entire library or based on the library index we inherit. Some wish to move the stack around others are old school and nothing can change.

This could be like the planet Pluto, where we changed our minds and decided to place the once proud planet into a smaller room since we redefined how we wish to catalog it. The mind often does this in ways that are not always rational. But since biology is so memory intensive, one drawer within the stack out of place get people upset. This may be why using reason looks mysterious, since it ends up with a more universal catalog system based on energy and entropy.

When I was young I was attached to biology but didn't take much in the way of biology because it was too memory intensive of my tastes. I like engineering, since few compact relationships were taught, and then one learned to use ingenuity. The contrast is the swiss army knife versus the large and heavy suit case.

Biology was too much memory work (all the empirical data) and not enough room for compaction so one could use ingenuity. This is why I invented my free energy approach. My disadvantage is not memorizing enough of the heavy suit case, so my analysis is not entirely complete. But the method works with whatever data I am aware of. As a read and learn from the forum, I evolve.

 

[Billy T]

To Wellwisher:

You have falsely asserted that theory of evolution cannot make any predictions, so cannot be regarded as "scientific" etc. {post 489}. Even saying if one could be confirmed in 10 years you would admit you were wrong, but of course you did not when the one of link below about the evolution of the gene pool of some small fish that laid a few eggs less than one year after they were just an egg because larger fish ate those others of their kind who had genes delaying sexual maturity.

But when the little "early mature, lay a few eggs" fish were moved above the water fall where there were no larger fish they became much larger fish with sexual maturity delayed, laying thousand of eggs and out competed those of their kind still with the original genes. (Genes making fast maturity and only a few eggs) so JUST AS HAD BEEN PREDICTED, the "mature early, lay a few eggs" fish became extinct in the gene pool as was more fully described to you here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2866138&postcount=490

Note this was but one of many controlled experiments in which ToE's predictions were confirmed. You have very likely done several if you ever have taken an anti-biotic. I.e. the 99% of the germs are killed in a few days and you are well feeling /OK/ but ~1% are more resistant to the anti-biotic. If you stop taking it a couple of day after you feel well, soon your body will be full of the germs with a new gene pool that is resistant to that anti-biotic and you will be sick again. (This ToE supporting "experiment" must be done 10,000 times each week somewhere in the world! Your: "Never did ToE make a confirmed prediction" is as silly / stupid as it gets.)

ToE explains (and even predicts this). i.e. Tells you to take the anti-biotic for 10 days, even if "well" after two days. You please explain this with your Gibb's free energy & entropy theory. Don't use circular reasoning like saying: the anti-biotic genes are a higher entropy states because that is what your theory requires. - Tell why those better organized to resist that anti-biotic genes are a higher entropy state. - I'd like to hear you try as normally "better organized" is a LOWER entropy state.

If that is too tough, please give ANY prediction with your Gibb's free energy & entropy theory alternative to ToE that we can confirmed or reject in year or two.

If your Gibb's free energy & entropy theory cannot make predictions like the ToE has done thousands of times, and it is totally useless for predictions,

then SHUT THE F..K UP ABOUT IT while making confirmed prediction is YOUR basis for calling a theory "scientific."

You are trying (unsuccessfully) to apply some thermodynamic laws (which I don't think you even fully understand) to evolution, which being well establish as a random process and thermodynamics being a full deterministic process, DOES NOT APPLY to predictions about evolution.

You should try to apply your Gibb's free energy & entropy theory to predict a sequence of coin flip results - then you may (but I doubt it) understand what nonsense you have been posting.

{post 489}... The current theory {ToE} cannot predict the future with any accuracy, due to its assumptions. This does not fully meet the requirements of a science theory ...

I’m waiting for even one confirmed prediction made by your alternative “Gibb’s free energy and entropy” theory of evolution. To stack up against the thousand of confirmed preditions of the standard ToE. Things like: “Someday a dinosaur with feathers will be found” Or “Someday a set of fossils showing the transition of a land only animal into the ocean only whale will be found.” Or “If you remove the stress of larger fish eating the smaller ones, the tiny fish will delay sexual maturity until bigger and lay >10,000 eggs before they die of old age” instead of just a few eggs less than a year after they were an egg to get some reproduction done before they were eaten.” Etc. Etc. Etc. for more than 1,000 confirmed predictions of standard ToE.

{post 465}... One way to prove me wrong it to make a future prediction with existing evolutionary theory that we can verify in say ten years. ...

Done in post 490 (and more than 1000 other confirmed predictions of ToE) so now admit you are wrong as promised in above post.

 

[James R]

Relative to the questions posed by James R, all I was doing was using natural selection to help define natural human behavior.

Please give me an example of unnatural human behaviour.

For example, apes may be promiscuous, incestuous, and may even show gay behavior. This is natural for apes because this behavior does not require ape medicine as a mop to clean up after the behavior.

Please explain why promiscuity, incestuousness and gay behaviour is not natural for human beings. Also, how do these things require human medicine as a mop etc.? Why is cleaning up necessary? What are you talking about?

What nature provides is sufficient, with no man-made additives, such as medicine and condoms required.

Why are condoms required?

If we extrapolate this same behavior to humans, we could not let nature run its course, since that would be called cruel. Although similar behavior is being defined as natural for humans, by science, this behavior needs artificial additives like medicine to clean up the STD's, which naturally would be a way to weed out this behavior.

I'm not clear about what you're claiming.

Are you claiming that promiscuity, for example, is not a "natural" behaviour because it requires medicine to "clean up" afterwards? Please explain.

This need to compensate for natural selection elimination (weak are given to predictor disease) means is it not natural for humans, even if we change the words and say it is so using the PC template. Natural should hold up within nature without a artificial help, like we see with the apes.

Are you saying that anything we do in terms of medicine that prolongs life is "unnatural", then? I guess all life-saving surgery is "unnatural" by your definition. So are antibiotics. So is vaccination.

What, exactly, are you advocating?

Since science has defined as natural, that which requires synthetic help, science departs from the requirement of natural selection.

Please list a few of these things that science has defined as natural but which require synthetic help - just so we can understand what you're on about.

Natural selection uses only nature to define natural, not artificial.

How do you distinguish "natural" from "artificial"? Please explain.

The theory for human instinct being similar to apes is based on DNA similarities. But continuing with the ape behavior can only work if we prop it up with artificial aids, so we can pretend this is natural for humans. Science does not seem to see the error in its logic. This defines natural in a way that denies the template of natural selection.

You seem to be arguing that humans want to act like apes for some reason, but to do that we need to "prop it up with artificial aids". Why do you think humans want to pretend to be apes?

Where, exactly, is the error in science? Please explain.

How do you explain why behavior, that requires artificial additives to avoid decimation, is being called natural by science?

Please give some specific examples of behaviours that are called natural by science but which require artificial additives etc.

A few supporting references would be good, too - especially to articles where science calls the behaviours "natural".

 

[Arioch]

@Wellwisher --

My disadvantage is not memorizing enough of the heavy suit case, so my analysis is not entirely complete.

And here I thought your disadvantage was not knowing anything about evolutionary theory period, because it's obvious from your posts that you don't.

But the method works with whatever data I am aware of.

Actually it quite obviously doesn't as it doesn't explain a single thing.

As a read and learn from the forum, I evolve.

It's glaringly obvious from this thread that you haven't learned a single thing, not a one. To the point where you can't even answer questions posed to you, you merely ramble off some non-sequitur about entropy.

 

[RichW9090]

Isn't this line in the sand purely arbitrary in terms of where we wish to draw the line? It is not like it is based on the amount of energy or entropy, which is objective. We can draw the line at stripes or no stripes and call that the line. This is more about prestige of who gets to draw the line.

No, it is not arbitrary at all. It is about the distribution of shared derived characters, which are purely objective. Either a given animal had that character or it did not. But your statement "based on energy or entropy" is entirely mystical and fanciful - there is nothing about it that is objective. Tell me how you propose to define and measure the "energy" of a fossil. Define and tell me the metric you'd use to determine the "entropy" of a fossil. What utter codswallop!

The layman may call something a bird. This may not be sufficient for the bird curator who will pigeon hole the bird into a specific compartment. What we are arguing is it drawer # 1234 or drawer # 1235. This is purely arbitrary based on how you wish to index the entire library or based on the library index we inherit. Some wish to move the stack around others are old school and nothing can change.

This would be comical, if you weren't actually being serious. There is nothing arbitrary about the assignment of a specimen to a species - it is based on the presence of unique derived characters - autapomorphies. Either the bird fossil in question has that unique character or it does not. Nothing arbitrary about it.

This could be like the planet Pluto, where we changed our minds and decided to place the once proud planet into a smaller room since we redefined how we wish to catalog it. The mind often does this in ways that are not always rational. But since biology is so memory intensive, one drawer within the stack out of place get people upset. This may be why using reason looks mysterious, since it ends up with a more universal catalog system based on energy and entropy.

Again, this is most humorous. What is this "universal catalog system based on energy and entropy"? You can't even define those terms, let lone provide a way to measure, and thus compare, them. Biology is memory intensive? Well, it hasn't yet taxed my memory, perhaps it is your memory which is defective?

When I was young I was attached to biology but didn't take much in the way of biology because it was too memory intensive of my tastes. I like engineering, since few compact relationships were taught, and then one learned to use ingenuity. The contrast is the swiss army knife versus the large and heavy suit case.

I think your problem was your inability to study, and to learn. So you wish to take the easy way out, and construct an artifical classification based on two conepts which have nothing to do with the evolution of two species from a common ancestor, but which you think is easier for you to remember. Science isn't dumbed down so that the simple-minded can grasp it. It requires a modicum of time and effort to learn science, just as it does learning anything else.

Biology was too much memory work (all the empirical data) and not enough room for compaction so one could use ingenuity. This is why I invented my free energy approach. My disadvantage is not memorizing enough of the heavy suit case, so my analysis is not entirely complete. But the method works with whatever data I am aware of. As a read and learn from the forum, I evolve.

Evolution takes place over time, and between generations, not within one individual. So it seems like you do not even understand what evolution is, in the most basic sense. Again, learning anything is too hard for you, you claim. So you invented the "free energy approach".

Scientific knowledge is cumultive. No one individual scientist today memorizes all the available information. But we know how and where to find it, so that it is always at our fingertips. That you are too lazy to do so does not mean that we should reject science. It means that we should reject you.

 

[billvon]

Biology was too much memory work (all the empirical data) and not enough room for compaction so one could use ingenuity. This is why I invented my free energy approach.

"I didn't really understand the concept so I made up a concept that's easier for me to understand" really isn't much of an argument for the validity of that concept.

As a read and learn from the forum, I evolve.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[billvon]

Isn't this line in the sand purely arbitrary in terms of where we wish to draw the line? It is not like it is based on the amount of energy or entropy, which is objective.

Too complex; that's some really tortured logic there.

I have a new simpler theory of evolution. Things evolve when they get higher. Look at the most primitive form of life on the planet - extremophiles in oceanic vents thousands of feet underwater. Look at the most advanced form of life on the planet - man. There are men in orbit, right now! And nothing else but man can live on the peaks of our highest mountains.

Clearly the higher you are, the lower level of gravity. And the lower level of gravity, the less the DNA is smushed and the more advanced it becomes. By lightening it, it is freed from its gravity-imposed prison, and can create more advanced organisms.

It's so simple. Why didn't anyone see this sooner?

 

[Arioch]

@billvon --

Lulz, +1

 

[wellwisher]

The ideas of energy, entropy and free energy are not normally taught in biology. This is more engineering, where a simple set of relationships are applied to even unknown situations.

As an example, during early evolution, when the earth's atmosphere became richer in O2, the enthalpy and free energy defined by everything organic increased drastically. The energy difference between any organic material and O2 is much higher than it was within a reduction environment without O2. Even if I saw no fossil data from that period in evolution, I would have expected a profound change within life due to the simple fact the free energy of life rose drastically for an extended period. It is not magic or based on gambling math; just logic and common sense. It was a sure thing.

Another free energy consideration is the transition from single to multicellular differentation. If we compare a billion bacteria cells, each fully independent, to a billion cells as a simple multicellular organism, one difference are the single cell bacteria define more entropy; degrees of freedom. The multicellular transtion was implicit of a significant loss of cellular entropy, going from independent cells into cellular groupings with more specific centralized order.

 

[wellwisher]

In response to James R and natural human instinct, let me try again to show the logic for my position.

If you look at natural selection, the choice is based on survivability and the ability to reproduce to pass forward genes. Changes in genetics that improve this, tend to be the choice of natural selection. If you have a herd of animals, the sick and weak, tend to be subject to preditors. This is part of the natural selection process, narrowing down the final choice in terms of survivability and reproduction.

In nature, this entire process of natural selection is done without artificial aids, which could allow one to slant the odds based on subjective standards. With enough rersources, humans could turn anything into the choice of natural selection, to get the result we want, since natural selection is also a product of the environment.

Let me give an example, if we had a herd of deer. Naturally, the weak are vulnerable to wolves and other predictors. The final distribution for natural selection is clear. If humans wanted to, they could say this weak deer needs to be the subjective choice of natural selection due to sentiment. We can pump in resources to assure that result, since natural selection is also environmental dependent, whether this be a natural or an artifical environment. By making the environment artificial we can alter the natural result and call it natural selection, therefore this is natural?

What I am saying about natural human instinct is based on a natural environment, without any humans slanting the odds by artificially changing the environment, so any faddish human behavior can pitched as natural. If it only pans out if we alter the environment with artificial additives to slant the odds, this is not natural behavior. Natural does not require anything but nature.

Apes can be behave homosexually, incestuous, and promiscuous without the need for humans to create an artificial environment so this can work. It is done all natural via natural selection. The same behavior in humans, needs many artificial changes to the environment, such as medical resources, to slant the odds, so we can call this natural. Natural needs no artificial to should not be subject to PC word games.

My definition of natural instinct is instinct that assures survivabilty and reproductive success, without any need for human or artificial change to the envirtonment, to slant the odds to satisfy the needs of a subjective standard so we can call it natural.

The distinction I am making is only between natural and artificial. Huimans have will and choice and can choose either, but they should also know the difference between natural and artificial.

The idea of no artificial additive to be defined as natural raisies emotional objections, such as what about the sick? I am only addressing natural human instinct in the light of choice and willpower. Sickness is not about choice and willpower. One does not choose to have cancer. Instincts do offer choice some of which are natural and others artificial requiring a slant to the environment to compensate for unnatural.

 

[origin]

In response to James R and natural human instinct, let me try again to show the logic for my position.

If you look at natural selection, the choice is based on survivability and the ability to reproduce to pass forward genes. Changes in genetics that improve this, tend to be the choice of natural selection. If you have a herd of animals, the sick and weak, tend to be subject to preditors. This is part of the natural selection process, narrowing down the final choice in terms of survivability and reproduction.

In nature, this entire process of natural selection is done without artificial aids, which could allow one to slant the odds based on subjective standards. With enough rersources, humans could turn anything into the choice of natural selection, to get the result we want, since natural selection is also a product of the environment.

Let me give an example, if we had a herd of deer. Naturally, the weak are vulnerable to wolves and other predictors. The final distribution for natural selection is clear. If humans wanted to, they could say this weak deer needs to be the subjective choice of natural selection due to sentiment. We can pump in resources to assure that result, since natural selection is also environmental dependent, whether this be a natural or an artifical environment. By making the environment artificial we can alter the natural result and call it natural selection, therefore this is natural?

What I am saying about natural human instinct is based on a natural environment, without any humans slanting the odds by artificially changing the environment, so any faddish human behavior can pitched as natural. If it only pans out if we alter the environment with artificial additives to slant the odds, this is not natural behavior. Natural does not require anything but nature.

Apes can be behave homosexually, incestuous, and promiscuous without the need for humans to create an artificial environment so this can work. It is done all natural via natural selection. The same behavior in humans, needs many artificial changes to the environment, such as medical resources, to slant the odds, so we can call this natural. Natural needs no artificial to should not be subject to PC word games.

My definition of natural instinct is instinct that assures survivabilty and reproductive success, without any need for human or artificial change to the envirtonment, to slant the odds to satisfy the needs of a subjective standard so we can call it natural.

The distinction I am making is only between natural and artificial. Huimans have will and choice and can choose either, but they should also know the difference between natural and artificial.

The idea of no artificial additive to be defined as natural raisies emotional objections, such as what about the sick? I am only addressing natural human instinct in the light of choice and willpower. Sickness is not about choice and willpower. One does not choose to have cancer. Instincts do offer choice some of which are natural and others artificial requiring a slant to the environment to compensate for unnatural.

WTF are you talking about? Geeze, I think your entropy stuff even makes more sense than this.:bugeye:

 

[wellwisher]

Let me be direct. Let us compare marriage versus promiscuity as two choices for natural human instinct. Which of these two could hold up better, in a natural environment, without any modern man-made assistance such as medications? The promiscuous needs more medical resources, or else it would look like some African countries with high sickness and death. The marriage holds up better under these close to natural conditions. This means marriage is closer to natural instinct for humans, since it can hold up better in nature requiring much less artificial support.

Why did science pick promiscuous as natural human instinct? One reason is, this is a money maker, since it will require so much extra resources in the free market. It also challenges science to come up with solutions to the new predictor diseases nature genrates to thin this unnatural herd.

How did religion chose the right natural instinct but not science? The reason is simple. The religious choices were made in the days of desolate heritages, where the artificial did not yet exist so they could pretend otherwise. They tried all the behavior, in real life experiements and found the most efficient or closest to natural. It was not about money or the science challenge.

 

[Arioch]

@wellwisher --

This means marriage is closer to natural instinct for humans, since it can hold up better in nature requiring much less artificial support.

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about do you? Perhaps you have the same scriptwriter that Leopold does.

 

[wellwisher]

If promscuous is natural for humans why does it need so much medical support? This. to me. is not natural, since natural means minimal artificial needed. I am not being a creationists, just applying the idea of natural versus artificial environments to the theory of natural selection.

An artificial environment can be used to get any result you wish. Let us run an experiment, pick an unnatural or artificial result,and I will suggest an artificial environment to make it happen. Science showed me how this is possible based on its own template.

 

[spidergoat]

Let me be direct. Let us compare marriage versus promiscuity as two choices for natural human instinct. Which of these two could hold up better, in a natural environment, without any modern man-made assistance such as medications? The promiscuous needs more medical resources, or else it would look like some African countries with high sickness and death. The marriage holds up better under these close to natural conditions. This means marriage is closer to natural instinct for humans, since it can hold up better in nature requiring much less artificial support.

Why did science pick promiscuous as natural human instinct? One reason is, this is a money maker, since it will require so much extra resources in the free market. It also challenges science to come up with solutions to the new predictor diseases nature genrates to thin this unnatural herd.

How did religion chose the right natural instinct but not science? The reason is simple. The religious choices were made in the days of desolate heritages, where the artificial did not yet exist so they could pretend otherwise. They tried all the behavior, in real life experiements and found the most efficient or closest to natural. It was not about money or the science challenge.

That would only be true if the promiscuity were not isolated to a specific group of women and a man. Sexual dimorphism (the difference in the size of women vs. men) points to this practice in our ancestors. Men needed to be large to fight off other men from his harem.

 

[Arioch]

@wellwisher --

If promscuous is natural for humans why does it need so much medical support?

From an evolutionary perspective it doesn't, this is just an assumption you made based on your documented ignorance of biology.

Promiscuity may spread disease, but that's actually a good thing from the perspective of evolution. It's another selective pressure to apply to a group of people. However you're looking at this the wrong way. Whether a chosen reproductive strategy is successful or not is not dependent on the health of the species as a whole, it's decided by which strategy will, on average, get you the most offspring. Basically, what happens to you after you procreate is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you die right then and there(as an astronomical number of species do), you've reproduced and that's all you needed to do for your reproductive strategy to succeed.

In humans it's actually neither polygamy(what you would call promiscuity because you're ignorant) nor monogamy, but something called "serial monogamy" in which we will typically stay with one partner until the offspring is capable of taking basic care of itself and then we move on(hence the "seven year itch" that a large percentage of couples experience). Humans opted for an "in-between" option, hence why we suffer more for "promiscuity" than polygamous species do(well that and they tend not to have sex with sick people).

However if what you say is true then we shouldn't find "promiscuous" reproductive strategies anywhere in nature as they're too "unnatural". But this isn't the case at all. Bonobos are not only polygamous but typically bisexual as well and usually use sex to solve their social problems. Dolphins are so "promiscuous" that they'll actually have sex outside of their species and will engage in all sorts of non-reproductive sex(including nasal sex).

This. to me. is not natural, since natural means minimal artificial needed

Well you're wrong.

 

[billvon]

We can pump in resources to assure that result, since natural selection is also environmental dependent, whether this be a natural or an artifical environment. By making the environment artificial we can alter the natural result and call it natural selection, therefore this is natural?

No. We call this "selective breeding." It's how we got chihuahuas from gray wolves.

Apes can be behave homosexually, incestuous, and promiscuous without the need for humans to create an artificial environment so this can work. It is done all natural via natural selection. The same behavior in humans, needs many artificial changes to the environment, such as medical resources, to slant the odds, so we can call this natural.

No it doesn't. Man can be homosexual, incestuous and promiscuous without medical resources. Indeed history proves that this was the case before medical resources were available.

 

[wellwisher]

Natural instinct is species dependent. There is no one size fits all for all species. But what is natural for one species does not necessarily mean it is natural for another or for all. You can not just assume what is natural for apes or dolphins is natural for humans, simply by making up a wish forfillment excuse and then creating an artificial environment.

The way I compare natural to artificial, is to look at the results of the behavior. Natural behavior, as a conseuqnece of evolution, does not require extensive external support to shift the odds so we can pretend. External support is not part of natural evolution. This is why apes can do what they do or dolpins can do what they do. There is no dolphin or ape pharmarcy needed to create an illusion this is natural for them.

Humans are different than apes, such that our instincts should also be different. Human instinct should take into consideration the extras features human have. Pick any animal, whatever its forte is becomes an aspect of its natural instincts. If it can run, climb, stand motionless or abstract think, this become integrated into its instincts. Apes are not as bright as humans and their instincts will reflect this limitation.

The question I posed is why does these natural instincts defined by science need so much artificial support for compensation? What would happen if we eliminated all that support? Would natural selection pick it?