How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

[FearGod]

Homosexuals were made that way by Allah.

Or by themselves .

 

[jonman122]

Or by themselves .

No, they've found a gay gene so if Allah really did make all people, he's the one who made them how they are.
(EDIT: Okay, maybe not a single gene in and of itself, but they're nigh certain that homosexuality is genetic in nature)

On the note of humans breeding without having children (homosexuality, condoms, birth control, the like):

Humans seem to have this ability to feel pleasure when they get it on with their funky parts (this being due to evolution, so people would get funky more often) Alas, this has led to some interesting behaviour that is also witnessed all across the animal kingdom. A massive amount of animals have sex NOT to procreate, but because it just feels so damn good. I witnessed this myself when one of the farms a ways from my parents house had all male sheep in a fenced area and these all male sheep had no problem being right on each others backs going wild. We're fairly inclined to do things that feel good, or eat things that taste fantastic or do activities that make us happy, and sex happens to be one of these things.

Also notice that with the rise of birth control and condoms you'd think sex would become less common because of less babies being born, there being no point in having sex. It's true, there is no rational reason to have sex without making babies and everyone should take that in to consideration before having sex, (just personal opinion, but single teenage moms with little financial support seems to be on the rise because they don't think about what happens when sex) but it feels so amazing that people do it anyways.(and so we're clear, I'm just promoting knowledge of consequences here not abstinence, thats no fun) Just like people play computer games, read books, play sports.. none of these are evolutionarily required, they are just fun.

 

[FearGod]

No, they've found a gay gene so if Allah really did make all people, he's the one who made them how they are.

On the note of humans breeding without having children (homosexuality, condoms, birth control, the like):

Humans seem to have this ability to feel pleasure when they get it on with their funky parts (this being due to evolution, so people would get funky more often) Alas, this has led to some interesting behaviour that is also witnessed all across the animal kingdom. A massive amount of animals have sex NOT to procreate, but because it just feels so damn good. I witnessed this myself when one of the farms a ways from my parents house had all male sheep in a fenced area and these all male sheep had no problem being right on each others backs going wild. We're fairly inclined to do things that feel good, or eat things that taste fantastic or do activities that make us happy, and sex happens to be one of these things.

Also notice that with the rise of birth control and condoms you'd think sex would become less common because of less babies being born, there being no point in having sex. It's true, there is no rational reason to have sex without making babies and everyone should take that in to consideration before having sex, (just personal opinion, but single teenage moms with little financial support seems to be on the rise because they don't think about what happens when sex) but it feels so amazing that people do it anyways.(and so we're clear, I'm just promoting knowledge of consequences here not abstinence, thats no fun) Just like people play computer games, read books, play sports.. none of these are evolutionarily required, they are just fun.

So sex isn't made for reproduction but to feel pleasure and that is the same for homosexual or hetrosexual.

Good explanation to avoid survival and reproduction as a basic reason for the natural selection but only it happened that sex was pleasurable whether homoseual or hetrosexual,always we can invent answers for each case.

 

[jonman122]

So sex isn't made for reproduction but to feel pleasure and that is the same for homosexual or hetrosexual.

Good explanation to avoid survival and reproduction as a basic reason for the natural selection but only it happened that sex was pleasurable whether homoseual or hetrosexual,always we can invent answers for each case.

If you'd actually read what I said, or understood it, I clearly said the only true PURPOSE of sex is to make babies (reproduction.) We just use it for pleasure because it's something we like.

Sex is absolutely made for reproduction but because of the way we evolved to have pleasurable feelings during sex, it made it viable to have sex without the need to procreate because we just like feeling pleasure.

Try not to misconstrue my words next time.

 

[Looncall]

If you'd actually read what I said, or understood it, I clearly said the only true PURPOSE of sex is to make babies (reproduction.) We just use it for pleasure because it's something we like.

Sex is absolutely made for reproduction but because of the way we evolved to have pleasurable feelings during sex, it made it viable to have sex without the need to procreate because we just like feeling pleasure.

Try not to misconstrue my words next time.

it seems pretty clear that sexual pleasure is about things like pair bonding as well as basic reproduction. With human infants needing prolonged care, anything that keeps parents together is helpful.

Of course, it is fun too!

Self-righteous prudery, on the other hand, is not helpful in any way. Just look at the horrible plight of muslim women who are rape victims: abused by the police, cast out by their families, considered unfit for marriage etc.

 

[FearGod]

If you'd actually read what I said, or understood it, I clearly said the only true PURPOSE of sex is to make babies (reproduction.) We just use it for pleasure because it's something we like.

Sex is absolutely made for reproduction but because of the way we evolved to have pleasurable feelings during sex, it made it viable to have sex without the need to procreate because we just like feeling pleasure.

Try not to misconstrue my words next time.

You are the one not knowing what you are saying.

 

[HonestJoe]

Now the homosexual won't have offsprings during the human progress and then according to your logic then the sexual instinct toward the same sex should have not been selected but it is still exist even though it is against the most important role in the natural selection concept and which is survial and reproduction and still homosexual are coming generation after generation.

Genetics aren't that straight forwards.

Assuming homosexuality has a genetic component (which is unproven but seems likely), it won't be a case of a "gay gene" we either have or don't. Any given genetic characteristic will be based upon a combination of genes and as they're passed on to our offspring, those combinations change, via the combination of material from father and mother, the fact genes can effectively be turned on and off and individual mutations.

It seems perfectly possible that there is a combination of genes that influences homosexuality but some of those genes, combined with others, also bring other beneficial characteristics. Natural selection would propagate the beneficial characteristics, bringing the genetic potential for homosexuality along with them.
Of course, there is also the possibility that homosexuality within a small proportion of a species population could be beneficial within itself, especially in a pack environment.

Evolutionist accused religion to be wrong towards the homosexuals because it is genetics and not a bad behaviour,so how it works.

In as much as they exist at all as a group, evolutionists don't say anything about religion. Some individuals may accuse various religions for being wrong in their attitude towards homosexuality and those people may well use evolutionary theory (correctly or otherwise) to support that position but that's not the same thing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

it seems pretty clear that sexual pleasure is about things like pair bonding as well as basic reproduction. With human infants needing prolonged care, anything that keeps parents together is helpful.

Of course, it is fun too!

Not only that, but let's not forget that putting the primary focus on reproduction as the main purpose of sexual intimacy completely ignores much of female sexuality and pleasure. A lot of debate has centered on whether the clitoris identified in many different species is a vestigial organ or is an adaptation, but less and less is it viewed as having significant reproductive purposes. It has been argued that it's relationship between pleasure and reproduction is tenuous at best.

Also, females can become aroused at any time of their reproductive cycle, and not just when they enter into the more fertile phases of their cycles. This includes women who are post-menopausal and are unable to become pregnant, and offers more evidence to the contrary that sex is primarily used for reproduction.

I've maintained for a while that if people simplify sexual intimacy as having purposes for reproduction, that they argue from a male ejaculatory bias. There is much more to consider when one includes female sexuality along with male sexuality, and therefore IMO points to pair-bonding as the primary function of sex.

Pair-bonding also includes other orientations and gender identities in it's consideration. But, again, narrowing the view that pleasure is completely separated from reproduction is a threat to the culturally dominant view on sex and sexuality. However, it supports the existence and viability of different sexual orientations and gender identities.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

......
Yes,genetics otherwise you have no escape from the other choice and which is the work of the creator.

:sarcastic I suppose so. ....aaaannnd given the choice between reasonable theory based upon researched and verifiable genetic variations......vs.......an invisible almighty magic man in the sky saying "Shazam! You sir, are gay!".... I'm gonna go with the genetic possibility first. If that's OK with you. (... and even if its not).

So lets apply this for the instinct behaviour of the homosexual that they have an implanted feeling toward same sex.

During millions of years of human progress the genetics of homosexual still exist and it isn't of benefit for the offsprings.

Now the homosexual won't have offsprings during the human progress and then according to your logic then the sexual instinct toward the same sex should have not been selected but it is still exist even though it is against the most important role in the natural selection concept and which is survial and reproduction and still homosexual are coming generation after generation.

Evolutionist accused religion to be wrong towards the homosexuals because it is genetics and not a bad behaviour,so how it works.

In addition to the many sound answers given above, there is also the (oh so evil and misguided ) 'genetics' once again.
Many areas of your genome are static and unchanging between generations. Those are the areas that get analyzed when the lab is trying to confirm things like paternity testing or linking relationships of two people.
However, some areas of the genome are much more fluid and variable with each egg and sperm produced. Like the matching of antigens when doctors are trying to find an organ donor suitable for a patient.
Genes controlling one's sexual orientation (and its far from as simple as 'straight' vs 'gay') may be in that kind of fluid portion of the genome, with perhaps 5-10% of any of your gametes coded to produce a homosexual offspring, whether you like it or not. :slap: (just look at all of the closetted Republicans, preachers, and their children) :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes i know it is called instinct and which is an act that done without teaching and learning but is implanted in the creature.

So that was my question without using the term instict but describing it in my own words how they have learned without being taught.

Yes,genetics otherwise you have no escape from the other choice and which is the work of the creator.

So lets apply this for the instinct behaviour of the homosexual that they have an implanted feeling toward same sex.

During millions of years of human progress the genetics of homosexual still exist and it isn't of benefit for the offsprings.

Now the homosexual won't have offsprings during the human progress and then according to your logic then the sexual instinct toward the same sex should have not been selected but it is still exist even though it is against the most important role in the natural selection concept and which is survial and reproduction and still homosexual are coming generation after generation.

Evolutionist accused religion to be wrong towards the homosexuals because it is genetics and not a bad behaviour,so how it works.

It works much in the same way that barren women still exist.

 

[darkendless]

You are the one not knowing what you are saying.

Why do people make threads asking these sort of questions and then berate every sensible opinio there is because their God doesn't like it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Why do people make threads asking these sort of questions and then berate every sensible opinio there is because their God doesn't like it?

They're doing it to avoid examining their own beliefs, thoughts, and ideas.

 

[camanintx]

Why do people make threads asking these sort of questions and then berate every sensible opinio there is because their God doesn't like it?

Don't they have a word for people like this?

 

[dust1n]

They're doing it to avoid examining their own beliefs, thoughts, and ideas.

It's worse than that! We all have to suffer for someone's intense desire to prove themselves right against all odds just to confirm a silly and ultimately pointless.. point.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's worse than that! We all have to suffer for someone's intense desire to prove themselves right against all odds just to confirm a silly and ultimately pointless.. point.

Resistance is futile! The borgs have come to take over... assimilate!

 

[dust1n]

Resistance is futile! The borgs have come to take over... assimilate!

I mean, the only conclusion I can come to is Chicken Bible. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

FearGod, what is more plausible to you - that brooding behavior (sitting on eggs) arose naturally and gave those birds who behaved that way a reproductive advantage, or that God is quietly whispering into the ears of all the world's chickens that they should sit on their eggs?

Chicken reproductive behavior evolved alongside the product of it. If they hadn't been sitting on their eggs, the eggs would not need sitting on. They could be buried, like turtle eggs, or some other process would have emerged.

If at any point there were ever eggs that needed sitting on and chickens that refused to sit on them, we would not have chickens.

 

[FearGod]

FearGod, what is more plausible to you - that brooding behavior (sitting on eggs) arose naturally and gave those birds who behaved that way a reproductive advantage, or that God is quietly whispering into the ears of all the world's chickens that they should sit on their eggs?

Chicken reproductive behavior evolved alongside the product of it. If they hadn't been sitting on their eggs, the eggs would not need sitting on. They could be buried, like turtle eggs, or some other process would have emerged.

If at any point there were ever eggs that needed sitting on and chickens that refused to sit on them, we would not have chickens.

God doesn't whisper to each and every chicken all around the world but they are programmed to do so except if you want to believe that happened by an accident and because it worked then the offsprings were having it.

That can't be done without a decision maker,that can't be done without an intelligent entity,don't believe on god thats up to you,but your logic about randomness and chances without a conscious planner and designer doesn't make sense at all,for the creationists at least and even for some atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes i know it is called instinct and which is an act that done without teaching and learning but is implanted in the creature.

So that was my question without using the term instict but describing it in my own words how they have learned without being taught.

Yes,genetics otherwise you have no escape from the other choice and which is the work of the creator.

So lets apply this for the instinct behaviour of the homosexual that they have an implanted feeling toward same sex.

During millions of years of human progress the genetics of homosexual still exist and it isn't of benefit for the offsprings.

Now the homosexual won't have offsprings during the human progress and then according to your logic then the sexual instinct toward the same sex should have not been selected but it is still exist even though it is against the most important role in the natural selection concept and which is survial and reproduction and still homosexual are coming generation after generation.

Evolutionist accused religion to be wrong towards the homosexuals because it is genetics and not a bad behaviour,so how it works.

FearGod, I wonder if it would help if you had some experience at programming or building robots.

If you did, odds are that you would soon notice that purpose is often more of an appearance than a reality.

Random choices may and do easily lead to stable patterns, and stable patterns, naturally, tend to last more than unstable ones, and eventually to combine into more complex ones.

Likewise, chicken do not need to know or guess at any consequences of their behavior in order to benefit from them. In fact, they probably do not. To this day hatchlings may easily be convinced that the first moving creature that passes by is their mother, after all.

 

[jonman122]

God doesn't whisper to each and every chicken all around the world but they are programmed to do so except if you want to believe that happened by an accident and because it worked then the offsprings were having it.

That can't be done without a decision maker,that can't be done without an intelligent entity,don't believe on god thats up to you,but your logic about randomness and chances without a conscious planner and designer doesn't make sense at all,for the creationists at least and even for some atheists.

It's been explained how it works, NUMEROUS TIMES, and you still don't understand or don't care to. Why do you even try to start these discussions if you can't discuss, you can only throw down everyones opinion but your own? You deny evolution vehemently even when the evidence is overwhelming and has been shared with you dozens of times, only because some website about Islam told you to. I dare you to actually read up on evolution and try your best to understand whats being told, so you don't keep making the same mistake over and over.