Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

My mate is right handed. One of my daughters is left handed. I have no interest in how she mates. My left handed brother appears to never have mated in his life.

What's next? Size of sex organ in males? Color of eyes? Amount of body hair?

You should know that it doesn't mater which hand you use, your sexual preferences will never be passed on that way. Nor anything else.

You claimed that homosexuality had no advantages, you challenged people to name any advantages and you were given a load.

You can’t accept that so you dig your heels in and repeat your now disproven claims about homosexuality being a disadvantage.

This is just **** going through your head.

It may be someones fashion but Im not aware of any solid research based evidence that such is the case. hes making the argument that sets up some conclusion based on less than a sound batch of :givens" I recall Ganna;s UK study that said there may be a handful of genes that occur that merely display the wide divesrity of our species. Hardly convincing . is there a socialist gene?

Sorta like."Well we all know the moon is made of cheese, so that violates the second law of Thermodynamics"

I don't know enough about genes re gayness to throw in my opinion. I just know that animals will do what they feel like doing and people are no exception.

That was my point, yes.

Instead of making excuses, we need to accept that yes, sometimes we do things that others think is weird or sinful. They must be worshipping a different God than me. Because I remember that all of us are sinful, and it's not a big deal because sins are forgiven.

Animals never apologize for peeing on a couch. Our bedroom behavior is between us and our partner, and possibly our God. God has forgiven many of my sins over the years so that last bit is not a hangup for me.

But it seems to be for the people giving copout explanations like "it's in my genes, I can't help it." Yes, it's in your jeans, alright. A big one-eyed snake tempting you to forbidden fruit.

So your god is homophobic.

They believe they were made in god’s image, so their god’s a right bloody bastard alright.

Unless several here are just playing games, I'm shocked at the number of people who can't grasp the connection between homosexuality and reproductive disadvantage.

And still another **** off to the obvious efforts of some to make this about homophobia instead of logic and science.

Even the stupidest among us knows that homosexuality among people cannot result in a pregnancy. You miss the obvious point that it has not been a hindrance to the species. It in fact could be a plus in that it puts a drag on the destructiveness of overpopulation.

That’s because that **** is just in your head.

Cannibal toads eat so many of their young, they're speeding up evolution
https://www.livescience.com/cane-toads-cannibalism-evolution.html

Are you hard of hearing? Ive said all along that it hasnt had a problem surviving.

And i now conced that there are none here willing or able to even see, let alone argue the point, and so i bid you good afternoon.

If you actually had a point it would be simpler.

I realize there are actual researchers concerned with your question. I just don't see that it has an effect that changes evolution.

about two years ago, layman and Leadfoot were on a bender about "neutral theory" (genotypic changes whose effects are neither positive nor negative on the phenotype or its reproductive success). Today Leadfoot must be suffering from some kind of memory loss cause hes almost arguing against neutral theory.

along with stuff like genetic drift, Its all in the same evolutionary toolbox . I may not be too smart but I think that Leadfoot operates with pre digested conclusions

Basically, my God likes lesbian sex but not gay sex.

Cuz I'm squicked out by two penises going at it, but totally okay with two women scissoring or rubbing their stuff (yes that is the clinical term for the vagina and clitoris, "stuff"), or licking each other.

But I'm not sure "condemn to Hell" is the word. Abomination means "the Lord hates", and no it's not a super-sin category. Sin means to separate from God, things like murder and rape, and such. But gay sex, and only gay not lesbian, is called an abomination. In other words, this is nothing more than God saying "ewww no."

Well what about it the 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? It gets quoted as a justification for homophobia, that none of these sinners are welcome in the Kingdom. But is it?
This is a perfect example of not reading in context. The verses before are about lawsuits. The passage after is careful to tell us that this was how things were, but God washed us clean through Jesus. In other words, these people condemning gays either were woefully ignorant, and never read the passage after that. Or in some cases, they're trolling you, hoping you'll get mad enough to read that next verse that contradicts all that completely.
Then the next part contradicts again, talking about how all things are permitted but not everything is helpful. That is, your choices are really between you and God, and God often forgives you. But human beings may still consdemn you, or if you sleep are with alot of people then your odds of getting STDs going up. It then goes on to say to avoid sexual immorality, which could mean alot of things but basically probably boils down to infidelity and rape. And that people having sex become one flesh, and your body is a temple.
It's basically one big waffling session that ends with whether or not you should get married, or avoid the whole issue of sexual desire.

So, this is Paul, right? He's some seriously indecisive person.

So basically, I've decided that God says hairy gays are not okay, but lesbians are very hot. You must show God (and me) lesbians kissing to show God you love him. Or just because.

So your god is a chameleon, changing for each contingency so it can never be wrong, because when it is proven wrong it becomes something different. That way if public opinion calls for the stoning of gays you can be at the forefront. Oops. Read the preceding passage.