kerpal32: I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

- Its unlikely in any human to be controlled exclusively by a single gene, while this may be the case in some other animals they are almost exclusively linked to genes involved in pheromones. I won't say it is impossible, just unlikely mostly do to the complex social interactions involved in human sexuality.

- Multi-genic. This has the most support given all we know about sexuality in humans as well as the genetics of homosexuality in other animal species. for complex traits multiple genes are usually involved.

- learned behaviour. It depends on how plastic you think human sexuality is, although I would argue that there are probably still background genetic effects at play. Learned homosexual behaviour that we can nail down would be like that in Ancient Greece and other cultures where it is a sort of limited homosexuality and even then certainly not all of the population participated.

- Conditional/Environmental - depends on what you mean by this I suppose. It seems to overlap with biochemically influenced and again, the background genetic influence can't really be discounted.

- Biochemically Influenced - Probably plays some role. But again... genetic background is likely still important

- Personal preference - depends how much personal preference you think it is possible to have that isn't explained by what was already discussed.

It is probably a combination of things in people with multiple genes playing a role (not everyone having the same combination of alleles though). This sets potential/preference but doesn't absolutely dictate anything which leaves room for environment and experience to play a role as well.

kerpal32: KiltedBastich: Your problem is that you are assuming that homosexuality, like sickle cell anemia, is controlled by a single gene. This is almost certainly not the case. The best current understanding of the genetics of human sexuality is that it is multigenomic, and homosexual tendencies are expressed only when the correct set of genes is present in the individual.

The thing is, we also know that it is virtually unheard of for a gene to do only one thing, so all those genes that influence the presence or absence of homosexual behaviors in humans also have other effects. As long as the net benefit of those other effects is positive, then the genes will be conserved.


I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

It is definitely influenced by all of these things. It's very important to remember that our use of the words homosexuality and heterosexuality actually is very misleading, because it creates the perception of a binary dualism, when in fact the reality is much more nuanced. Most people are not in fact 100% either homosexual or heterosexual in terms of strict sexual preferences, but often they are socialized to act as if they were.

That doesn't change the fact that those underlying genetic tendencies have a very strong influence on the sexual preference developed. Allow me to explain a bit more.

There's a concept used a lot in psychology of the 'threshhold'; it applies to a great many things including many forms of mental illness and epilepsy, as well as a great many behavioural idiosyncracies.

The idea is that human psychology is extremely plastic, and that while you are born with a set of tendencies, these are adapted to fit your environment and circumstance. However, the way your psychology expresses itself is then a function of the interaction between the two. Generally, this means that in order for a particular behaviour to emerge, you must be exposed to a sufficient stimulus to cross a threshold for the emergence of that behavior.

This is where genetics comes in. For someone with a low threshold, nearly anything can be enough to trigger the emergence of the behavior in question. Conversely, someone with a very high threshold might never manifest the behavior, because no conceivable stimulus is high enough to overcome the threshold.

This is why twin studies do not disply complete agreement on the development of psychological characteristics, because no matter how similar their genetics and environments, even twins have highly divergent life experiences, and it is those experiences that trigger the emergence of genetically predisposed patterns of behaviour. These can be cultural, physical, biochemical, or just about any other stimulus from the environment.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the emergence of such psychological phenomena are wholly involuntary! No one chooses to become schizophrenic or manic-depressive, but sometimes it happens. Similary, it is almost impossible to choose what to be sexually attracted to. Just ask those poor damned bastards who end up attracted to children. We might loathe them as monsters, but many of them would give anything to change what attracts them, and cannot do so.

Of course, this is an overview, and it's also highly simplified. The important thing to remember is that what we consider free will is often nowhere near as free as we think it is. Sure, you are free to pursue what interests or attracts you, but have you ever stopped to consider why you are interested or attracted in the first place? We have far less choice in terms of what we want to be doing than we realize. I would like to be able to enjoy lobster. Yet every time I try to eat it, I find it distasteful. I have never found manual labor satisfying, I have never been able to appreciate most country music, death metal or rap, and I have never seen a man (that I recognized as such) that I wanted to sleep with.

Choosing to act on your wants and desires is one thing. Choosing your wants and desires is much more difficult.

_{/Montreal has some really convincing drag queens.}

KiltedBastich: And if I am wrong, and you are looking for excuses to condemn homosexuality because it is a 'choice' which you can therefore categorize as immoral, let me ask you this, then: When did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose to be attracted to your own sex, even as an experiment? If you can't, why do you assume others can?

It's definitely a choice.


kerpal32: I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

In humans, all kinds of factors come into play, but the "nurture" aspects would seem to mainly be pointed towards societal prevalence. After all, how many of the other "nearly all animals" share the same aspects and degrees of "nurture" that override nature?

In the end, of course, it doesn't matter. Detractors are busy trying to paint it "100% choice" so that it sits right with their scripture, not argue the finer points of which influences affect which individuals/groups/cultures, and to what degree.

It's no great surprise that fundamentalist christians who deny evolution would insist that they understand it. Moderate Christians who believe in the soul probably think they understand cognitive neurobiology, too, and that it's wrong about the material nature of cognition.

entropic_existence: You might want to do some reading on complex multi-locus genetic traits then. It isn't straight forward or clear cut and is much more complex then relatively simple traits like Sickle Cell where carriers have a significant enough advantage.

Yes, you are undoubtably right. With multiple genes contributing as well as closely linked (but otherwise unrelated) alleles on a single chromosome, things get very messy indeed. It seems that it is not only possible but probable to pass along alleles that on their own or in a group may be detrimental to propagating the next generation but because they are closely linked to so many other pro-propogation traits, on average they tend to perpetuate more often than not.

I am forced to conclude that the definition of evolution as described above, in particular point #8, does not adequately describe evolution since it ignores the complexities of genetics.


Bisexual behaviour is very prevalent in the animal kingdom but I was referring to strictly homosexual behaviour. I am aware of at least two very well done studies in both Drosophila and Sheep studying males with an exclusive preference for other males. With drosophila you put them all together and they form conga lines of male flies attempting to mate with other males. These males will totally ignore females, same goes with the sheep. Both of these studies contributed to a whole "gay gene" controversy several years ago when someone suggested that it could lead to a "cure" for homosexuality.

Since human sexual behavior is far more complex than sheep or fruit flies, it seems unlikely there could be a simple genetic "cure" for homosexuality, assuming such a thing would be desirable in the first place.


And BTW, even if the majority of studies were limited to bisexual behaviour (which they aren't) it doesn't actually suggest that it is learned versus acquired behaviour.

However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.


And again we get into whole different ball games when we start talking about animals that live in complex social groups like humans do. Which is where things like the Grandmother Hypothesis and various ideas that account for how sociality impacts evolution, come in to play.

I suspect the human social animal is just to complex to be compared to animal societies. Witness the legions of Farkers who proclaim themselves "child-free" in threads about children. Most of them don't even want to be around their own nieces or nephews, which somewhat deflates the whole Grandmother (or Aunt/Uncle) Hypothesis.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: "Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious."

I agree. But that does not prevent science from coming to conclusions which discredit religious claims.

For example, Scientology doctrine holds that the Universe is many trillions of years old and that the Earth is nearly as old, having been named Teegeeack at the time. Science has, in the course of investigating the age of the universe, discovered this to be false.

Science is not anti-scientologist, yet it has come to a conclusion which discredits Scientologist doctrine simply because that doctrine contradicts reality and science is in the business of investigating reality.

Similarly, the Christian religion holds that human consciousness is separate from the brain or at least extricable in the form of an immortal soul. This contradicts what science has discovered about consciousness, namely that it is a material phenomenon produced by the coordinated interplay between the various specialized portions of our material brains, and that you can no more process conscious thought outside of a brain than you can process computer instructions without a CPU, ram, hard drive (and their coordinated interaction.) Software can indeed be transmitted, but it requires hardware to execute.


If you feel that science has gone too far in this regard, creationists agree, and would probably welcome your contribution to their efforts to have cognitive neurobiology stricken from textbooks.

Persnickety: I am forced to conclude that the definition of evolution as described above, in particular point #8, does not adequately describe evolution since it ignores the complexities of genetics.

The list is meant as a summary of the main points of evolution and a very broad/generalized one at that. That said it isn't really inadequate, it is just geared to a general audience and doesn't attempt to delve into the complexities because, quite frankly the majority of people reading it wouldn't have the foundation necessary for the deeper complexities. But point 8 is still actually correct. As an observation traits that tend to improve the fitness of the individual by making them more likely to have offspring are more likely to be passed on, even in complex multi-locus interactions.

Persnickety: Since human sexual behavior is far more complex than sheep or fruit flies, it seems unlikely there could be a simple genetic "cure" for homosexuality, assuming such a thing would be desirable in the first place.

I agree. The latetr point is why it was controversial. As for the former the majority of people reading the news don't know much genetics.

Persnickety: However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.

No one, certainly not I, ever denied that environment plays no role. Kilted provided a good explanation about this above. What most of us were refuting was the learned behaviour/choice description which tends to relegate genetics to a minor/inconsequential role as opposed to a strong one.

Persnickety: I suspect the human social animal is just to complex to be compared to animal societies. Witness the legions of Farkers who proclaim themselves "child-free" in threads about children. Most of them don't even want to be around their own nieces or nephews, which somewhat deflates the whole Grandmother (or Aunt/Uncle) Hypothesis.

I disagree, comparative studies are quite enlightening but then again I was never much for the thought that humans are somehow vastly different from the rest of the living world.

Persnickety: However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.

It's important to remember the context here. They are starting with twins where at least one of the twins is homosexual. So in those cases, in more than half of cases where one of two identical twins is homosexual, so is the other. Fraternal twins had a between one in four and one in five chance of also being homosexual. For same sex adoptive siblings, the rate is about one in ten.

Well, if you do a check of the studies on the general prevalence of homosexuality, the numbers vary between 1% and 35% depending on whether you are talking exclusive homosexual behaviour or else just some incidental homosexual activity, including adolescent experimentation. The wikipedia page has links to a number of excellent sources.

A good number seems to be roughly 4-5% from comparing those studies. So what this means is that identical twins have a chances of having the same sexual orientation more than an order of magnitude higher than any two random people, fraternal twins are five times more likely to share their sexual orientation, and same sex children raised by the same parents are twice as likely to share the same orientation.

This is what I was talking about with thresholds earlier. If you have similar genetic tendencies and have had similar life experiences, you may get similar behavioral expressions. The more similar, the better the chances, but it's never guaranteed. There are simply too many random factors in play that will differentiate any two people, no matter how otherwise similar.

Zamboro: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: "Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious."

I agree. But that does not prevent science from coming to conclusions which discredit religious claims.

For example, Scientology doctrine holds that the Universe is many trillions of years old and that the Earth is nearly as old, having been named Teegeeack at the time. Science has, in the course of investigating the age of the universe, discovered this to be false.

Science is not anti-scientologist, yet it has come to a conclusion which discredits Scientologist doctrine simply because that doctrine contradicts reality and science is in the business of investigating reality.

Similarly, the Christian religion holds that human consciousness is separate from the brain or at least extricable in the form of an immortal soul. This contradicts what science has discovered about consciousness, namely that it is a material phenomenon produced by the coordinated interplay between the various specialized portions of our material brains, and that you can no more process conscious thought outside of a brain than you can process computer instructions without a CPU, ram, hard drive (and their coordinated interaction.) Software can indeed be transmitted, but it requires hardware to execute.


If you feel that science has gone too far in this regard, creationists agree, and would probably welcome your contribution to their efforts to have cognitive neurobiology stricken from textbooks.

I'm unclear on what point you're trying to make that I did not also try to make in my post that you're replying to.

My point in the statement you cite is that science does not intentionally attack religious claims, because it is not equipped to address them. A bit later (it's really not that long a post, I think), I point out that science does arrive at findings and conclusions which contradict some religious holdings on nature, and that while this may be disappointing for some people who hold those religious views, it doesn't make sense to attack science over it, since science is not operating in the same rational realm. If a religious view appears to be contradicted by a scientific finding, then in scientific terms it makes much more sense to redress the religious view rather than the scientific one.

Finally, I point out that the only reason these conflicts arise is because of the unfortunate and probably misguided attempt of some faith traditions to describe nature according to doctrinal precepts. The former can be tested scientifically, the latter not. So when a contradiction arises, most scientists are just going to shrug. Religion would be much wiser to stick to moralism and human philosophy, and stay out of science, an arena they are not equipped to debate in. What some faiths say are examples of science meddling in religion are rationally the opposite.

Yet the same people that champion evolution in this country can't seem to grasp the concept of how this theory applies to economics. Same goes for the other side of the spectrum as well.

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/noplhg
(copy and paste)

entropic_existence: The list is meant as a summary of the main points of evolution and a very broad/generalized one at that. That said it isn't really inadequate, it is just geared to a general audience and doesn't attempt to delve into the complexities because, quite frankly the majority of people reading it wouldn't have the foundation necessary for the deeper complexities. But point 8 is still actually correct. As an observation traits that tend to improve the fitness of the individual by making them more likely to have offspring are more likely to be passed on, even in complex multi-locus interactions.

Hmm, if point 8 stands I should be able to ask this question: Given the assumption that homosexuality is an inherited trait, from a scientific perspective is it a trait that tends to:
A) promote propogation of itself and thus should increase
B) discourage propagation of itself and thus should decrease
C) neither promote nor discourage propogation and thus no change
D) either promote or discourage depending on environmental factors
E) We just don't know yet
F) I missed the boat and am asking the wrong question. :)

As for the former the majority of people reading the news don't know much genetics.

Time to make biology and genetics manditory in high school, I think. How can we expect our elected politicians to make policy about that which they do not understand?

"Such a degree of learning [should be] given to every member of the society as will enable him to read, to judge and to vote understandingly on what is passing." - Thomas Jefferson


Persnickety: I suspect the human social animal is just to complex to be compared to animal societies. Witness the legions of Farkers who proclaim themselves "child-free" in threads about children. Most of them don't even want to be around their own nieces or nephews, which somewhat deflates the whole Grandmother (or Aunt/Uncle) Hypothesis.

I disagree, comparative studies are quite enlightening but then again I was never much for the thought that humans are somehow vastly different from the rest of the living world.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Most animal societies and members can be described with terms like "Guard Bee" or "Alpha Male" or "Helper Aunt". Humans have so many different ways of organizing themselves and have societies and sub societies so many orders of magnitude larger and interconnected that even the individuals themselves don't have a full understanding of where they fit in. Even if those infinite number of monkeys ever did succeed in writing Hamlet, not a one in all their variety would have any hope of understanding it. They would have to evolve into something quite different.

KiltedBastich: Persnickety: However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.

It's important to remember the context here. They are starting with twins where at least one of the twins is homosexual. So in those cases, in more than half of cases where one of two identical twins is homosexual, so is the other.

Would it be fair to say then that since 48% of identical twins have different sexual orientations within a given pair that homosexuality is roughly half genetic and half environmental?

This is what I was talking about with thresholds earlier. If you have similar genetic tendencies and have had similar life experiences, you may get similar behavioral expressions. The more similar, the better the chances, but it's never guaranteed. There are simply too many random factors in play that will differentiate any two people, no matter how otherwise similar.

Since as you say there are thresholds for a certain behavior, are there also thresholds for cessation of that behavior? A simple example: Thumb sucking or nail biting. Something triggers people to start but later, some of those people succeed in stopping those behaviors. A more apropo example: the proverbial LUG, lesbian until graduation. Something about college trips a threshold for lesbianism. Something about graduation trips another threshold that stops it.

BTW, I'm not advocating that anything of the sort should be done about homosexuality. I realize this is a political sacred cow, hot potato and litmus test all rolled into one for both sides. I'm only interested in the scientific side of these questions. I'd hate to live in a world where inquiry and research were halted because it failed to line up with someone's political views.

Persnickety: F) I missed the boat and am asking the wrong question. :)

This one. :) Point 8 is using trait in the sort of pre-modern genetics usage where a trait could be boiled down to a single genetic element. In this case homosexuality isn't one gene but is instead a complex trait that arises out of the interplay of several genes. So 8 really refers to those particular genetic elements that homosexuality arises out of as opposed to homosexuality itself.

Persnickety: Time to make biology and genetics manditory in high school, I think. How can we expect our elected politicians to make policy about that which they do not understand?

I agree, although I'm not sure exactly how much difference it will make. I think it is mandatory for much of school at a basic level. One problem sadly is that not enough talented biologists are attracted to teaching at that level. I once saw statistics on how many high school biology teachers (many of which didn't necessarily specialize in biology at University) where Creationists themselves or just all around poorly educated in some important aspects of biology such as evolution.


"Such a degree of learning [should be] given to every member of the society as will enable him to read, to judge and to vote understandingly on what is passing." - Thomas Jefferson

Its a nice idea, unfortunately I don't think even the citizen of average intelligence can be very well educated on lots of topics today, especially in science. Hopefully though what we should have is every citizen educated enough to have a good base on which to evaluate more complex topics and more importantly, to know what they don't know.

Persnickety: Since as you say there are thresholds for a certain behavior, are there also thresholds for cessation of that behavior? A simple example: Thumb sucking or nail biting. Something triggers people to start but later, some of those people succeed in stopping those behaviors. A more apropo example: the proverbial LUG, lesbian until graduation. Something about college trips a threshold for lesbianism. Something about graduation trips another threshold that stops it.

One problem with this scenario is, that as far as I understand it, female sexuality is actually far more plastic then it is in males, at least on average. At least some good research seems to point in that direction.

I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

Persnickety: C) neither promote nor discourage propogation and thus no change
D) either promote or discourage depending on environmental factors
E) We just don't know yet

Definitely also a lot of E, but some possibilities are themselves a mix of C and D. Note environmental factors for an organism include the prevalence of the trait in relatives and the population overall, and simple Markov-chain based models often have a stable attractor equilibrium (even for non-zero stables). C is also an oversimplification since it neglects accumulation of genetic drift, but that's incidental.

However, I think I may see a point here. The oversimplification is at "an organism's offspring", neglecting that evolution also happens when there is benefit TO RELATIVES, since that may also improve chances for the gene to be passed on to future generations. (Cf. altruism, even when it gets your ass dead.)

So in at least that sense, point 8 oversimplifies. I'll note that for the next revision.

Hairiness creeps into the math quickly in that even with a simple recessive-carrier gene, you have at least five expressions possible (expressed-so-who-cares, carrier with expressed sibling, carrier without expressed sibling, non-carrier with expressed sibling, non-carrier without expressed sibling); and depending on on litter size, the odds on these change. To make matters hairier still, you can consider models where litter size has a range rather than fixed value, whether that range/value is affected by having expressed siblings on either side, to what extent benefit may "stack" from multiple expressed siblings on either side, what alters if male homosexuality is distinct from female and you throw in the option of polygamy....

Persnickety: Time to make biology and genetics manditory in high school, I think. How can we expect our elected politicians to make policy about that which they do not understand?

"Badly?"

Engineering/design is the choosing of goals and evaluation of which choices make achieving the goals most likely, using the understanding of science. For any branch of science, there is usually at least one potential branch of engineering. The limits of the understanding of the science puts limits on the quality of engineering. For anthropology/sociology, the field of engineering is more usually known as "politics".

This also neglects those whose adamant goals require opposition to increasing the median understanding of certain sciences by the population....

GeorgeBurns: I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

Check the Farkives via Google search; you might note ee's more esoteric knowledge is focused more in CompBio and Bioinformatics, while nk is more in the Philosophy and Religious Studies arena.

mizchief: Yet the same people that champion evolution in this country can't seem to grasp the concept of how this theory applies to economics. Same goes for the other side of the spectrum as well.

I'd be interested in hearing your more detailed thoughts on this.

The most successful and widespread complex order on earth after us is Hymenoptera (ants and bees, mostly). Their system is actually very simple: they're organised into families of genetic clones, beholden to helping each other. Functionally, it's this cooperation, not their innate individual qualities, which make them successful.

The earliest hominids had no better a shot at survival than any other species, and there's some belief that we faced extinction under the vagaries of Darwinian competition more than once. It was only our ability to organise and help each other that led to our current dominance -- NOT any inherent better individual qualities. A naked human alone in the wild has a very poor chance of survival, and a group of humans naked and in the wild but not helping each other are as good as alone, with no better chance.

Our success has come from our extended phenotype, the ability to build on each other's strengths. That cooperation is what makes things like Fark possible. Drew Curtis could hardly feed himself, never mind build and run this, without the thousands of years of development behind it, all dependent on cooperation. The harsh reality is that without each other, most of us would die.

So I'll be very interested to hear how evolutionary principles should be successfully applied to economics.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "I'm unclear on what point you're trying to make that I did not also try to make in my post that you're replying to."

Uh oh, perhaps I'd better clarify then.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "My point in the statement you cite is that science does not intentionally attack religious claims, because it is not equipped to address them."

...Except where those claims are testable.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "A bit later (it's really not that long a post, I think), I point out that science does arrive at findings and conclusions which contradict some religious holdings on nature, and that while this may be disappointing for some people who hold those religious views, it doesn't make sense to attack science over it, since science is not operating in the same rational realm."

The suggestion that religion deals with some other, equally valid "rational realm" leads me to wonder whether I missed the post where the existence and validity of this realm was demonstrated.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "If a religious view appears to be contradicted by a scientific finding, then in scientific terms it makes much more sense to redress the religious view rather than the scientific one."

Tell that to the religious. To their credit, moderates eagerly accept evolution but in many cases it's simply a badge they wear that's meant to show off how modern and scientifically concordant they imagine their theological views to be. Most I speak with hadn't even considered that there were doctrinal claims they accepted which still contradict science, and when you bring these contradictions to light they suddenly become far less eager to accommodate science and far more defensive of the supernatural.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "Finally, I point out that the only reason these conflicts arise is because of the unfortunate and probably misguided attempt of some faith traditions to describe nature according to doctrinal precepts."

Is it misguided? Can you honestly say that the authors of the Old Testament did not, with Genesis, intend to describe in historical narrative how the world and life upon it came to be? Why make that argument for one creation myth, but not all the others? Is it impossible to simply conclude that they were wrong, that both the Old and New Testament are riddled with factual errors as a result of the limited knowledge available to their authors? Or must we continue to make excuses such as "anything factually wrong must be metaphorical", "religion operates in a different rational realm" and so on?

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "The former can be tested scientifically, the latter not. So when a contradiction arises, most scientists are just going to shrug. Religion would be much wiser to stick to moralism and human philosophy, and stay out of science, an arena they are not equipped to debate in. What some faiths say are examples of science meddling in religion are rationally the opposite."

Why would 'religion' (as if it were a single entity?) be wise to stick to moralism and human philosophy? If it is a valid path to knowledge and there is any truth at its root, then why shouldn't it be able to provide factual discoveries about nature as well? The subtext here seems to be "Religions have no factual basis and would do well to stick to areas in which they can hide behind the pretense of subjectivity so that none of their claims will be subject to scientific investigation."

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: So I'll be very interested to hear how evolutionary principles should be successfully applied to economics.

They actually have been for awhile now, and vice versa through their shared love of Game Theory. Game Theory has acted as a conduit for bringing ideas from the Game Theory of economics and then having ideas from Game Theory as applied to evolution back to economics. Look into things like evolutionary stable strategies, of which Nash Equilibria are a subset.

GeorgeBurns: I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

ninjakirby: GeorgeBurns: I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

I find that funnier than shiat....

one claims to be a PhD candidate, and the other, well..... no where near that "caliber".

/though I do think ninjakirby is also a couple of other aliases on Fark.

kerpal32: I find that funnier than shiat....

one claims to be a PhD candidate, and the other, well..... no where near that "caliber".

Insult or backhanded compliment. Hmmm. Either way my claim is actually quite verifiable

entropic_existence: Insult or backhanded compliment. Hmmm. Either way my claim is actually quite verifiable

I wasn't insulting you. Just making a comment based on knowledge of someone else. Actually, the same observation applies to a few "someones" on Fark.

And yes, I believe you.

entropic_existence: kerpal32: I find that funnier than shiat....

one claims to be a PhD candidate, and the other, well..... no where near that "caliber".

Insult or backhanded compliment. Hmmm. Either way my claim is actually quite verifiable

BTW - I'm really getting a laugh out of this and similar threads while reading excerpts of Hawking's essay addressing Fermi's paradox and colonizing other planets through the equivalent of intelligent design from his Life in the Universe lecture series. (circa 2007)
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4487687 (pops)

BTW - I'm really getting a laugh out of this and similar threads while reading excerpts of Hawking's essay addressing Fermi's paradox and colonizing other planets through the equivalent of intelligent design from his Life in the Universe lecture series. (circa 2007)

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4487687 (pops)