|
On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors 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
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement.
He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religious dogma.
But of course the OP is kind of a pretentious and silly, but for different reasons.
As with every psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
Environment???
|
On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg Good troll. I won't go into how genes influence development of organs and functions thereof via homeostatic pathway regulations at numerous levels (and those in even different levels such as endocrine, neuronal or neuroendcrinal) second messenger coupling system efficiency, and bunch other only someone who studied them would understand.
Don't be a prick. If you're gonna open a thread like this at least be prepared to explain your arguments to people, not just list them in a cute way and hope that they sound complex enough to make people make you as a great mind and take for granted what you say.
If you can't explain what you just wrote in a simpler way to someone not educated in the matter then it seems to me you dont really know it at all.
|
On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this Show nested quote +"As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far.
I'll do this once for the sake of promoting more intelligent discussion but this isn't a thesis committee platform. I'm not going to dig into every article I can get my hands on to and try to gather evidence for what I say for hours. This is an internet discussion, not much to it. (2+2=4? evidence??)
But here you go:
"There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice"
De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17.
Within the article are cited several studies.
Also, have a look at this, cites a lot of studies and journal articles.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
|
On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote: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
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma.
You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined with religion, and no, not their dogmas.
To make religion and a "discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence" mutually exclusive seems a rather bold move, no pun intended, and you're better be prepared to argument why they are so.
|
homosexual behaviour is seen throughout the animal kingdom, the only difference with humans is that our society distinguishes that behaviour from another.
A male frog can have sex with another male frog and all that will happen is no pro-creation. The frog does not have to worry about how the other frogs will judge him, it just happens. Frogs have actually developed a special call for when a another male frog attempts to have sex with it that basically says "you're wasting your time". But it has no social context, it is simply natural behaviour.
Humans need to label everything and disginguish between "normal" and "abnormal" in every aspect of the universe. We recently demoted Pluto to being a dwarf planet and people were appauled, Pluto doesn't care what we call it, we only label things for our own benefit so we can order the universe into groups that we can understand.
200 years ago is was not uncommon for homosexual sex to take place in communal baths, they did not label it as homosexual sex, simply as sex. Times changed and people labeled that behaviour as wrong, so now we live in a society attemtping to correct this decision.
There doesn't need to be an evolutionary reason for homoxsexuality, though there likely is some deep evolutionary process at work. Random genetic variation and mutation is the very basis of evolution and from what most of the credible sources i have come across say, homosexuality is very likely hard coded into your genes. Those who are like myself and bi-sexual also surely have a slightly different genetic variation that may or may not be advantagous to the species. We can not predict the future of our evolution.
The question about homosexuality is one of social evolution and not biological evolution, there has always been gay people else there would have been no reason for ancient cultures to have pointed out the behaviour as "abnormal". I was going to use a religious reference to make a point here, but i think you can see where i was going.
Anyways, I don't see why we have to label anyone as straight, bi or homosexual. I honestly don't think of myself as bi-sexual, only as sexual. If I find someone attractive then why shouldn't I enjoy having sex with them? Why should anyone else care?
|
On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote: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
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas.
Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments?
Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic
If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol.
|
I believe it's more scientific to say we have a "gay gene" than it is to say we have a "selfish gene" 
Seriously tho. I think sexual preference is both genetic and environmental. The environmental causes should be obvious for most, I don't think I need to explain. As for the genetics, from my personal observation. I think many of us will testify (myself included) to have met friends who seemed more feminine than other men since the age of 5 or so. When it's really hard to believe they might have been influenced by environment. And then many years later that friend would turn out to assume being gay indeed. I'm sure I'm not the only one who have seen this happen.
For this reason. If I had to bet, I would put my money that there is some genetic influence on sexual preference.
Pure anecdotal I know. But it's the best I've got. Certainly genetics influence on the amount of male and female hormones we produce. And then maybe those will influence sexual preference. That's probably the best hypothesis I can come up with.
|
On November 30 2010 08:24 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 07:54 w_Ender_w wrote:
Is it seen in species do not copulate for pleasure (beyond the occasional mistaken identity which is common in bees and whatnot)? Yes, some species copulate for pleasure, some species of birds if I'm not mistaken, as do macaques. Sorry, either I wasn't clear or there was some misunderstanding. I meant that I was wondering if you see homosexuality in animals that DO NOT copulate for pleasure. If you don't really see it in species that do not copulate for pleasure, then the evolutionary drive could plausibly be explained as a social or cultural trait among social species. It wouldn't need to deal with procreation at all.
I see your point but only a limited number of species observed copulate for pleasure as I understand it.
|
First of all, when taking the evolutionary perspepctive, you must acknowledge that not every behavior must be "necessary" to fitness. Behaviors can also manifest if they are not detrimental to reproduction in a population. It is important o note that I am talking abut a population here since, obviously, homosexuality is detrimental to individual reproduction.
Lets us assume that every person born has the same chance of being homosexual independent of those genetic characteristics that are relevant to reproduction, then you can explain why homosexuality persisted. The question, then, is whether it is possible that sexual preference is independent of most genetic aspects that are relevant to reproductive success.
Alternative idea: maybe sexual preference is not genetic in the classic sense but still innate. Current theories of prenatal development state that a childs sexual development in the uterus is mainly influenced by the amount of estrogen and testosterone it is confronted with. If we assume that the level sof the sexual homrmoes a child is exposed to are random variables and that certain extreme combinations may lead to same-sex-preference one can again conclude that homosexual preferences can remain stable in a population if the prenatal levels of hormones are independent of genetic traits associated with reprodictive success.
tl,dr: If sexual preference is distributed randomly and independent of genetic traits associated with reproductive ssuccess, homosexually is evolutionary stable in a population.
|
On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote: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
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol.
Howhave i 'purposely' misinterpreted (is that even possible?) your arguement?
How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned?
You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take.
|
On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17.
LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times.
"To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality."
- Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995
|
On November 30 2010 08:33 night terrors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote: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
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol. How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned? You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take.
You do realize you can't read?
He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence.
This discussion is purposely framed around questions that can be answered, provided enough information, through the deductive scientific method, its cosmological equivalent being the hard math and observed phenomenon.
|
On November 30 2010 08:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Current theories of prenatal development state that a childs sexual development in the uterus is mainly influenced by the amount of estrogen and testosterone it is confronted with. If we assume that the level sof the sexual homrmoes a child is exposed to are random variables and that certain extreme combinations may lead to same-sex-preference one can again conclude that homosexual preferences can remain stable in a population if the prenatal levels of hormones are independent of genetic traits associated with reprodictive success.
This is actually the theory I was taught- which would indicate that sexual orientation is governed more by prenatal hormones than genetics.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
It is observed in many species of animals other than Humans.
Sexuality is not a chosen preference. Now that I think about it. Could anyone give one example of homosexuality on other animals that is exclusively homosexual and not bisexual? I mean, if you raise two male dogs together they will inevitably hump each other. But if after years of humping each other you introduce a female, they will hump the female as well. I don't remember seeing or hearing about any animal that will specifically only hump males and not females. Which makes me believe that it's indeed a chosen preference due to human social interactions which are not present on other animals.
Or am I wrong?
|
On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995
Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited.
Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said;
The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.
He is an evolutionary biologist.
|
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.
|
On November 30 2010 08:36 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:33 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote: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
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol. How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned? You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take. You do realize you can't read? Show nested quote +He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. This discussion is purposely framed around questions that can be answered, provided enough information, through the deductive scientific method, its cosmological equivalent being the hard math and observed phenomenon.
I contend that exactly what you've quoted of him saying is inadequate. He is saying that it has no place. Im saying that is not so. Religion often has part in this area precisely because the human beings behind that are not machines which execute hard math and are capable of some sort of objecive analysis of the "observed phenomenom". You will find that many times religion has a part in these discussions. Im not saying that this discussion should be headed by religion. Im saying that that statement and a few others along his post make me cringe.
|
I strongly disagree with this new wave motion that every choice people make must be traced back to some Gene, I'm a firm believer in nurture over nature. Who you are is a direct result of the way you were raised and the events in your life and how you chose to deal with/associate them.
|
On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist.
Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
First of all, this thread has no room for religious input; religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it. I'm only interested in scientific schools of thought, in line with the theory of evolution.
This kind of stuff just makes me lol.
OMG NOONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN IS RELIGIOUS. OMG I'M SO SMART. SHEEPLE, THAT'S ALL YOU RELIGIONFAGS ARE. CAN'T YOU OPEN YOUR MIND AND SEE????? CRUSADES INQUISITION SALEM GALILEO!!!1!! OMG RELIGION IS THE CAUSE OF ALL PROBLEMS ON EARTH!!11!1!
And i'm done here. But I just basically capsulating 99% of the internet's "free-thinkers" when it comes to crap like this.
Ps, I know what you were trying to say, which,(I hope) was merely meant to provoke discussion on its evolutionary traits, not turn into a right/wrong thread. It's worded poorly if that is the case though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
