|
On November 30 2010 10:58 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:54 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:44 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:42 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:25 Masamune wrote:
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice". Yes most intelligent people in this thread are already aware of the gay uncle theory. Any kind of "hard science" proof besides your intuition based on your cultural perception of gay people. what the hell does this even mean? I left out a question mark >.< on the last sentence. Basically you've presented a relevant theory, and expect us to take it as fact with no evidence but a few intuitive relationships. Where did I say anything should be taken as fact? Not that I disagree with you (I don't have an opinion, as I am not educated enough to have one), but you quoting yourself without anything new does tend to come across as if you think it's the end-all-be-all of the discussion and anyone saying anything else should merely read your post and shut the hell up. At least, that's how it came across to me.
I quoted myself because my post got lost in the shitstorm that was page 7 and because people happen to skim past long posts unless it's quoted.
I think the most important thing to be taken from my post is that homosexuality has a genetic basis and that it really doesn't defy evolution (it can be explained by inclusive fitness theory), not the point about the "gay uncle" theory lol. However, there have been a lot of other theories proposed but I think the gay uncle theory has a lot or merit for other reasons (i.e. studies) I didn't really list.
Anyway, I wish I had the time to talk about it today but I'm busy at the moment so I'll post more if the thread is still alive tomorrow or if you PM me, but if you understand behavioural genetics, homosexuality can be demystified quite a bit.
|
On November 30 2010 11:25 AlexDeLarge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote:On November 30 2010 08:42 L wrote:
The evolutionary drive towards homosexuality is incredibly clear on a genetic level. Past looking statistics show that for the majority of human life, 80% of women pass on their genes, whereas only 40% of men pass on theirs. The resulting glut of young, socially constrained males normally leads to increases in intra-species violence and fighting as a result. Subsequently, forces which reduce and pacify lower level males become a net benefit at the group level as members of the society are removed from the competition to become sexually successful, much like menopause does.
Grandmother effect, in essence. that or you have no idea wtf your talking about. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible. So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha.
I... I have no idea how you finagled that from what he said.
|
On November 30 2010 11:29 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:25 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote:On November 30 2010 08:42 L wrote:
The evolutionary drive towards homosexuality is incredibly clear on a genetic level. Past looking statistics show that for the majority of human life, 80% of women pass on their genes, whereas only 40% of men pass on theirs. The resulting glut of young, socially constrained males normally leads to increases in intra-species violence and fighting as a result. Subsequently, forces which reduce and pacify lower level males become a net benefit at the group level as members of the society are removed from the competition to become sexually successful, much like menopause does.
Grandmother effect, in essence. that or you have no idea wtf your talking about. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible. So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha. I... I have no idea how you finagled that from what he said.
You gotta read the fine print, son.
|
On November 30 2010 07:52 Ramiel wrote:
Homosexual acts are sometimes used in the animal kingdom to:
1. Increase social bonds
2. Help to diffuse heated social interactions
Species that exhibit these traits: A certain species of ram, some primates, big cats, dolphins ext
You misspelled prison-mates.
|
On November 30 2010 11:25 AlexDeLarge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote:On November 30 2010 08:42 L wrote:
The evolutionary drive towards homosexuality is incredibly clear on a genetic level. Past looking statistics show that for the majority of human life, 80% of women pass on their genes, whereas only 40% of men pass on theirs. The resulting glut of young, socially constrained males normally leads to increases in intra-species violence and fighting as a result. Subsequently, forces which reduce and pacify lower level males become a net benefit at the group level as members of the society are removed from the competition to become sexually successful, much like menopause does.
Grandmother effect, in essence. that or you have no idea wtf your talking about. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible. So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha.
I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. He said gays are better looking than straight men, therefore they cannot possibly be the lower level male and means the theory is wrong. I just was saying that looks does not mean someone is higher or lower level. We don't know why someone is homosexual, and it might be there is a negative trait that could be passed down during reproduction that is being taken out that we do not know of, or maybe it is simply there is a homosexual gene and its being taken out and thats what makes them a lower level male, who knows, I don't.
I was simply saying that looks does not mean someone is the best reproductive partner.
|
On November 30 2010 11:27 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:58 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 10:54 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:44 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:42 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:25 Masamune wrote:
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice". Yes most intelligent people in this thread are already aware of the gay uncle theory. Any kind of "hard science" proof besides your intuition based on your cultural perception of gay people. what the hell does this even mean? I left out a question mark >.< on the last sentence. Basically you've presented a relevant theory, and expect us to take it as fact with no evidence but a few intuitive relationships. Where did I say anything should be taken as fact? Not that I disagree with you (I don't have an opinion, as I am not educated enough to have one), but you quoting yourself without anything new does tend to come across as if you think it's the end-all-be-all of the discussion and anyone saying anything else should merely read your post and shut the hell up. At least, that's how it came across to me. I quoted myself because my post got lost in the shitstorm that was page 7 and because people happen to skim past long posts unless it's quoted. I think the most important thing to be taken from my post is that homosexuality has a genetic basis and that it really doesn't defy evolution (it can be explained by inclusive fitness theory), not the point about the "gay uncle" theory lol. However, there have been a lot of other theories proposed but I think the gay uncle theory has a lot or merit for other reasons (i.e. studies) I didn't really list. Anyway, I wish I had the time to talk about it today but I'm busy at the moment so I'll post more if the thread is still alive tomorrow or if you PM me, but if you understand behavioural genetics, homosexuality can be demystified quite a bit.
I'm sure I know far less than you do having not attended grad school, but I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on college biology. It's a fascinating subject. I'm also interested in homosexuality because I came from a very conservative Christian background that held a viewpoint that practicing homosexuality was a sin, and a predisposition to do so was simply a spiritual hurdle to be overcome--much like a predisposition to lie, cheat, or steal.
It's always fun to challenge the notions you were raised with when you come across better answers.
|
On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:
I'm going to simplify this for you...
Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene"
Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids
Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters.
THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like:
Mom/Dad have kids
Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile
Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay
Top way = makes sense, your way = does not.
So... do you actually have any evidence proving that this "homosexual gene" actually exists? Because you're taking it for granted when there's no proof.
|
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up.
|
No, the really big issue is that homosexual tendencies are a pretty natural display of dominance in many parts of the animal kingdom. It's only because we were brought up in the 1900s that we think it's "unnatural" for a male to do another male in the butt or that there has to be some genetic reason for it.
|
On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up.
If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread).
Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations.
|
On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations.
Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source.
|
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation...
|
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius.
|
On November 30 2010 11:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:
I'm going to simplify this for you...
Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene"
Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids
Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters.
THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like:
Mom/Dad have kids
Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile
Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay
Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. So... do you actually have any evidence proving that this "homosexual gene" actually exists? Because you're taking it for granted when there's no proof.
He was describing evolutionary mechanism by which it COULD be achieved to show the guy he was responding to that his argument was incorrect. It is good to read things in context. Also there won't be one gene, and it will not make you homosexual just increase the chance other biological factors will do it.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
lol? You started your post declaring yourself a med student to assume for yourself some authority, but then write that? Both physical and psychological behaviors can be significantly affected and effected through outside stimulus. Are you serious?
|
AFAIK homosexuality (in males at least) is caused by a lack of testosterone in the womb and it ends up giving them a female brain somehow, the chances of it happening become higher with every male child a woman has.
|
On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations. Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source.
It's a bit of a semantic argument. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that there is a homosexual gene that works like an on/off switch; I was replying how the person I quoted was discussing the evolution of homosexuality in their terms. You can't talk about evolution without talking about genes.
I have no clue how or why people are predisposed to homosexuality; if I did, I'd be telling people how instead of asking questions in this thread.
|
On November 30 2010 11:55 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
lol? You started your post declaring yourself a med student to assume for yourself some authority, but then write that? Both physical and psychological behaviors can be significantly affected and effected through outside stimulus. Are you serious?
I prefer the: "I'm from a prestigious law firm."-starter
|
On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations. Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source.
There are genes that increase your chances of homosexuality, as there are a number of other measurable things that could tip the scales one way or the other. Problem is, these things only change your chances, it's not a binary thing.
Interestingly enough, certain genes that cause an increase in male homosexuality actually increase fecundity in women. Homosexuality isn't an evolutionary dead end, it's just a side product.
|
On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation...
Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something.
Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
