[TrashMan]

It's science. It's based on quantifiable field data. Observers went out there and did hand counts of offspring for years, for god's sake.

You can't 'not buy it'.

Also, for reference, since I doubt you clicked the link:

I clicked the link and red the article.

I can "not buy it". Quatifiable data? Proven hard facts? HA!

Wishfull thinking and theories. Could be. Might be. I don't consider anything in that article a fact - I see pople trying to make connections, people trying to explain things. We all do it. Very're VERY good at that sort of thing. We have to do it. Observatio nand putting things to gether is what made us humans what we are today after all. But hard science? Nope.

For the record, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate. I don't care if you consider my stance (whatever it may be) foolish or stupid. I don't care to prove anything to you or change your thinking.
What I did state was my (possible) disagreement, and that's the end of that. Take it as you wish.

[Nuclear1]

Translation:

I've got no scientific data or even anything that makes sense to counter what you've given me to (not) read.  So in lieu of that, I'll just troll a bit and try to make you look like an idiot for taking me seriously.

Seriously, are you trying to get monkeyed?  Did you learn anything the last 48748378587 times?  Don't ****ing post for the sake of ****ing posting. 

[General Battuta]

It's science. It's based on quantifiable field data. Observers went out there and did hand counts of offspring for years, for god's sake.

You can't 'not buy it'.

Also, for reference, since I doubt you clicked the link:

I clicked the link and red the article.

I can "not buy it". Quatifiable data? Proven hard facts? HA!

Wishfull thinking and theories. Could be. Might be. I don't consider anything in that article a fact - I see pople trying to make connections, people trying to explain things. We all do it. Very're VERY good at that sort of thing. We have to do it. Observatio nand putting things to gether is what made us humans what we are today after all. But hard science? Nope.

For the record, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate. I don't care if you consider my stance (whatever it may be) foolish or stupid. I don't care to prove anything to you or change your thinking.
What I did state was my (possible) disagreement, and that's the end of that. Take it as you wish.

Let me get this straight. Which one of the following are you denying the existence of?

1. Kin selection
2. Kin-selection-driven altruism
3. Multiple parallel evolution of homosexuality
4. Eusociality
5. Nest-helping behaviors in Florida scrub jays

All you've got is the word 'nope'. That's the best you can pull. Give me a specific, scientific critique of one of these issues, or you've got nothing.

Oh, right. You've got nothing.

[TrashMan]

Translation:

I've got no scientific data or even anything that makes sense to counter what you've given me to (not) read.  So in lieu of that, I'll just troll a bit and try to make you look like an idiot for taking me seriously.

Seriously, are you trying to get monkeyed?  Did you learn anything the last 48748378587 times?  Don't ****ing post for the sake of ****ing posting. 

Your translation skills suxxorz.
And your mental skills aparenlty too. Sicne when is disagreeing with someobody an offense? So I'm not allowed to state my disagreement without submitting in triplicate my reasons, together with links and whatnot?
I'm not trying to push forward a scientific theory. This isn't a science cometee - it's just a general discussion forum.

Get some friggin perspective and chill.

[General Battuta]

Whether you meant to or not, you were trolling.

You asked for scientific evidence to support the claim that homosexuality was evolutionarily important. You got it.

You then rejected it on the grounds that you 'didn't believe it'. You couldn't make a single scientific critique.

You should concede the point and move on.

[NGTM-1R]

So I'm not allowed to state my disagreement without submitting in triplicate my reasons, together with links and whatnot?

Since, you're not submitting a reason at all, even a bad one. You're just saying "that's not so", despite overwhelming evidence that it is so.

You are in other words completely rejecting not only science, but rational argumentation. You will not present evidence or argue on the merits. You will not say why you disagree or explain how you reached that conclusion. You will not engage with the argument at all (which is incidentally the standard definition most people have for trolling).

The only possible conclusion left to me at this point is that you know you're wrong. You are in fact conciously aware that your argument is bad and will be completely demolished if it is exposed. Yet these are not beliefs you hold; they are delusions, because you are incapable of conceding them under any circumstances. Your only defence left is to not expose the arguments, so that they are not demolished, so that you can pretend they would work, though you know that they wouldn't.

But you're not fooling anyone, Trash.

Least of all yourself.

[Nuclear1]

Your translation skills suxxorz.
And your mental skills aparenlty too. Sicne when is disagreeing with someobody an offense? So I'm not allowed to state my disagreement without submitting in triplicate my reasons, together with links and whatnot?

No, you're allowed to state your disagreement.  In fact, you should feel free to tell me, Bat, HT, etc. that we're full of ****.  But here's how that usually goes:

Bat:  My views, with data/information/anecdote to back it up.
Trash:  You're full of ****.
Bat:  Ok, why am I full of ****?
Trash:  Because I said you are!

When it should go like this:

Bat:  My views, with data/information/anecdote
Trash:  You're full of ****, with at least an anecdote telling you why you're full of ****.
Bat:  Retort with more information.
Trash:  Counter-retort with other information.

That's how discussions go.  Otherwise it's like watching Richard Dawkins take on Napoleon Dynamite in a debate.

I'm not trying to push forward a scientific theory. This isn't a science cometee - it's just a general discussion forum.

Keyword: discussion.  Trolling != discussion.

Also, everything ngtm1r said.

[General Battuta]

Y'know, while I totally agree with everything being said here, let's steer clear of another GenDisc firestorm. I would rather have Trashman unmonkeyed and happily contributing to HLP (and everyone else, for that matter.)

Shall we declare a cease-fire on the topic of TrashMan? That includes you, TrashMan.

[Nuclear1]

Fair enough...I vote for a split/lock.

[General Battuta]

Right, then.

TrashMan, go take a course on evolutionary biology. You'll be walked through the equations that promote homosexual behavior in the right circumstances. You'll pore over reams of field data that explain why homosexual genes are selected for, and why the behavior crops up again and again in evolution.

[General Battuta]

Right, junk split out.

Participants in scientific discussion are expected to read science or be disregarded.

Trashman, I've removed your last post for your sake and to keep the thread on course.

You should be aware that no social science or psychology has been cited in this thread, only biology, population biology, evolutionary biology, and hard-earned field research accomplished by genotyping animals, counting offspring, and tracking tagged organisms.

You never once managed to address the topic at hand: eusociality and kin selection. I don't think you even understand what it means.