|
On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages.
Type 2 diabetes can/is achieved before reproductive age. Gestational diabetes occurs pretty much during reproductive success and can have negative impact on the child and the mother.
|
Couldnt it be a viable argument to just be more attracted to the same sex rather than opposite?
Much like how your favorite color is blue or red or green. Or what pleasure/pain people prefer.
however i do know some tribes put those african neck rings and lip cups and all that whack shit in because its "beautiful"....
Are people thinking this out way too much?
This is a serious question. People may be attracted to blondes over brunettes, or big butts to small butts. Are all these genetic? Is the building blocks of all this really having to do with DNA and your ancestry, or the way your raised?
|
The point I should be making is that maybe "homosexual tendencies" are just regular dominant tendencies that we have repressed as a society because we ASSUME it's "not natural" or even that strict heterosexuality is the norm. Provide me evidence that heterosexuality is an evolutionary benefit or that occasional homosexuality is maladaptive or unnatural.
|
I dont understand how someone can be born gay? That sounds rediculous to me.
I think it's more logical that some people turn gay because of whatever mark society has left on their psyche, not because its genetic...
For example, some people turn punk rockers to rebel against society based on some previous experience in life, just like many rapists used to be rape victims themselves.
|
On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development...
Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc.
This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic.
|
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter.
|
I wonder if hormone mimics have the potential to influence sexual orientation.
We've found estrogen mimics and inhibitors in several different plastics, and the vast majority have never been tested. The ones we have identified so far (BPA, for instance) we found only by accident because they showed up in laboratory plastics that people studying estrogen-sensitive cells were using. Since all steroid hormones have very similar structures, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that there are a lot of other artificial compounds that may influence the activity of other such hormones. We've only barely scratched the surface of what estrogen itself does.
It's impossible to determine if the rates at which people are predisposed to homosexuality have changed over time though, given all the other societal factors involved. Makes it pretty hard to look for any correlations.
I would wager that if there are "gay gene(s)," they are only correlated to homosexuality because they affect our ability to respond to hormones (both real and otherwise). If there is positive selective pressure for such hormone-associated proteins, it could easily outweigh any negative selective pressure when the right environmental conditions combine to cause a homosexual preference.
|
On November 30 2010 09:36 Deletrious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about.
Seriously, people. Think with your brain.
OH! You're totally right! There is no way that every HUMAN culture across the world could have an environmental influence on homosexual tendencies so obviously it must be genetic! Sarcasm fail, lol. Okay, so according to you every culture in the world, and every environment of every species that also displays homosexuality, share an environmental influence in common that causes homosexuality. What an amazing coincidence, I am surprised no one noticed.
Actually, yes, I am saying that. The fact that there are multiple males in one pack and that there is usually a dominance structure? Isn't that generally true of most populations where homosexual behaviors emerge?
|
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ 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.
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
And you go by the AKA _Darwin_ , Rofl.
I am actually curious about the point brought up: "Homosexuality as an adaptive response to remove competitors from seeking partners of opposite sex (not the case with humans)"
How does this work? Males have sex with other males so that there are less males that go for the females?
|
On November 30 2010 09:39 KaiserJohan wrote:
I dont understand how someone can be born gay? That sounds rediculous to me.
I think it's more logical that some people turn gay because of whatever mark society has left on their psyche, not because its genetic...
For example, some people turn punk rockers to rebel against society based on some previous experience in life, just like many rapists used to be rape victims themselves.
You really think trauma causes homosexuality...? How is that any less ridiculous than ´genes having something to do with what turns you on`?
|
On November 30 2010 09:36 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 MadVillain wrote:
Homosexuality is a maladaptive genetic mutation (as most mutations are) that has persisted in humanities gene pool through mechanisms similar to those found in any maladaptive genetic mutation i.e. genetic disease etc.
Or,
Homosexuality arises from environmental effects, possibly while the fetus is still in the womb. These effects could be physical, for example increased estrogen levels. Or they could be psychological, the absence of a major male influence during pre-pubescent life.
I think its a combination of both, and any genetic factors are likely to be very subtle. Its silly to think that we'll someday isolate a "gay gene."
Needless to say I really don't think there is remotely enough research to make any sound conclusions yet. Proof no one understands heritability. Most mutations which persist are NOT MALADAPTIVE. In fact, most novel genetic mutations dramatically compromise reproductive capacity and then the trait quickly dies off. Just because the mutation is very probable to occur (e.g. Down Syndrome) doesn't mean it is persistent. The people with DS do NOT reproduce, so the trait is constantly re-occurring. The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages. OR Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about. Seriously, people. Think with your brain. Edit: @ Mikado, despite physical differences and the fact that homosexuality is seen across species doesn't necessarily rule out post-birth influences entirely. I still think that the research isn't really focused enough/ there isn't enough of it too make conclusions yet. Since this are big conclusions were all trying to make.
True, this may be the case but there's no documented external influence of a common denominator that distinguishes why homosexual have the structural/systemic differences that they do, unlike asbestos/lung cancer link; the existence of a common denominator that affects (almost) all the species around the world.
As always more study is definitely needed, of course but the scientific data at present points to only genetic interactions (whether in the blastocys/fetus or between mother and fetus), this is all I'm saying.
Keep in mind, twin studies have also been conducted, with evidence to show that both individuals show the same sexual tendencies.
|
On November 30 2010 09:37 Owarida wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages.
Type 2 diabetes can/is achieved before reproductive age. Gestational diabetes occurs pretty much during reproductive success and can have negative impact on the child and the mother.
So you are wrong and then prove my point. Type 2 diabetes is NOT a single gene disease. It is associated with a huge number of genetic risk factors that are made worse by environment, specifically diet and improper activity. It CAN be achieved before reproductive age, but is not necessarily, and when it does, it DOES impact reproductive advantage. Ever compared the reproductive success of a family predisposed to early onset type 2 diabetes to a healthy one?
Also, Gestational diabetes is largely environmental and has some associated genetics, but is not primarily genetic in origin.
GJ at picking two examples that are strictly dependent on environment to manifest. We are discussing the impact of genetics on reproductive success and you show that, in fact, the only "genetic diseases" that are common are not primarily genetic.
|
On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic.
Hormonal interaction.
|
United States313 Posts
Simple fact of evolution is that there are no drives, evolution is absolutely blind, so to say what is driving evolution to develop or maintain a homosexual tendency is kind of like trying to have a scientific argument regarding intelligent design.
Not to tear the thread further to shreds, but I also have to bring up that everything doesn't lie in genetics, and i'm in a genetics PhD program =P Truth is we don't have a clue what the fundamental neural network remodeling coordinator is, whether its altered transcription levels or protein modification or potentially epigenetic such as DNA methylation, so to look for an evolutionary likelihood for neural network modulation specifically that affects the sexuality of an individual is kind of like asking if a mushroom is edible on a planet a few galaxies over without knowing how you traveled there in the first place.
|
Also, the fact that we have a reward system for orgasm probably has something to do with it.
|
Homosexuality is not necessarily a drawback in the evolutionary sense, as you can propagate your own genes by helping siblings to raise thier children. As witnessed in every animal species that shows homosexual behaviour. I thought this was generally accepted as the most plausible explanation of the homosexuality/evolution conundrum.
|
Actually, yes, I am saying that. The fact that there are multiple males in one pack and that there is usually a dominance structure? Isn't that generally true of most populations where homosexual behaviors emerge?
That is a) not true and b) awful logic.
a) Male-dominated social structures only occur in animals that live in herds or communities and then are only about 60-70% prevalent. Homosexual behavior occurs in a variety of species with many different social structures.
b) You are proposing that it is more likely some unknown but ever-present chemical exists everywhere homosexuality exists and has a direct cause-effect relationship than homosexuality has individually occurring genetic components that have, over time, contributed to the prevalence of homosexual behavior in species otherwise not in communication. So you are saying you believe in Creationism over Evolution. Can't argue with stupid.
|
On November 30 2010 09:48 TrueRedemption wrote:
Simple fact of evolution is that there are no drives, evolution is absolutely blind, so to say what is driving evolution to develop or maintain a homosexual tendency is kind of like trying to have a scientific argument regarding intelligent design.
Not to tear the thread further to shreds, but I also have to bring up that everything doesn't lie in genetics, and i'm in a genetics PhD program =P Truth is we don't have a clue what the fundamental neural network remodeling coordinator is, whether its altered transcription levels or protein modification or potentially epigenetic such as DNA methylation, so to look for an evolutionary likelihood for neural network modulation specifically that affects the sexuality of an individual is kind of like asking if a mushroom is edible on a planet a few galaxies over without knowing how you traveled there in the first place.
Proof you don't understand anything beyond your bacterial and viral micro-evolution, and that only poorly.
Why does antibiotic resistance occur if there is NO drive in evolution? Why is it that genetic conditions prevalent a thousand years ago are now less and less prevalent? Why is that sickle cell and the thalesemias are only highly prevalent where malaria is? Why is feochromotosis only highly prevalent in Scandanavian people and their offspring?
So that is coincidence since there are no drives, huh? GJ.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post.
|
On November 30 2010 09:47 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic. Hormonal interaction.
= genes
unless you can show me a study that has found a common denominator of outside influence that all homosexual behaviour displaying animals are exposed to.
@Half All of genetics did in fact arose as a response to external influence. If there's no receptor, there's no stimulus.
|
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter.
OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
