EPTEvolutionary drive of homosexuality - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
Xog2
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
_Darwin_
United States2374 Posts
No, like many others have said, a person's (in this case mother's) hormone levels are determined by things other than genes. merry-go-round | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote: 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.. Doesn't this stand against everything about evolution? If someone was born having evolved the homosexual trait, they wouldn't reproduce (being attracted to the same gender) and the trait would die out, as often happens in non-optimal evolutionary traits. I only see homosexuality working as an evolutionary trait if it first appeared in a woman, who was later raped and had to give birth to someone who then had the homosexuality trait suppressed by other genes and spread it. | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote: 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 If you cry because idra loses then your genetic makeup probably makes you more susceptible to the extremes of your emotions through differences in hormoe and neurotransmitter levels. In the mean time, why don't you brush up on your fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
@Half All of genetics did in fact arose as a response to external influence. If there's no receptor, there's no stimulus. Exactly, that's my fucking point, that if you generalize this argument to the degree your doing, you've created a frame so large it no longer has any actual relevance. By your logic, we've come full circle to the conclusion that homosexuality is purely due to environmental influences. My point being that your entire line of logic is bad. = 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. Jeeze you're dense. Hormonal levels vary drastically depending on ones environment, showing an environmental influence on ones sexuality. | ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
| ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:00 _Darwin_ wrote: No, like many others have said, a person's (in this case mother's) hormone levels are determined by things other than genes. merry-go-round You like to cut my quotes down to suit your context and then just say no. Mothers' hormone levels are governed by internally set cascades and negative feedback systems, determined by gene interactions, to promote growth of the fetus. There's also a positive feedback loop of hormonal pathway that acts on utero-ovarian endocrine structures. There's also from hypothalmic centers and the pituitary gland. Either my explanation is bullshit or yours. If you can prove that mine is bullshit, I'll sue my medical school lol | ||
|
_Darwin_
United States2374 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:07 mikado wrote: You like to cut my quotes down to suit your context and then just say no. Mothers' hormone levels are governed by internally set cascades and negative feedback systems, determined by gene interactions, to promote growth of the fetus. There's also a positive feedback loop of hormonal pathway that acts on utero-ovarian endocrine structures. There's also from hypothalmic centers and the pituitary gland. Either my explanation is bullshit or yours. If you can prove that mine is bullshit, I'll sue my medical school lol I'm really confused. You don't think hormone levels are determined by anything other than genes? Lack of sleep, obesity etc etc etc have huge impacts on hormone levels. | ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:07 Half wrote: Exactly, that's my fucking point, that if you generalize this argument to the degree your doing, you've created a frame so large it no longer has any actual relevance. By your logic, we've come full circle to the conclusion that homosexuality is purely due to environmental influences. My point being that your entire line of logic is bad. Not at all, it just means that level of discussion that you want to pull it down to (how life started, genes' purpose) has no relevance to what we're discussing here (a major variation in a live organism). How do we come, by my logic, to the above conclusion?. The external influence you're defining is some influence that is free outside the environment; whereas mine is within the mother's womb, carefully orchestrated in an intricate system of genetic interaction. Still no one is responding to this, but where's the common external common denominator affecting all homosexual behavior exhibiting animals of all species around the planet? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:00 Xog wrote: This is why I laugh whenever someone tries to tell me that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice or trained behavior. And that is why we laugh at you. More to the point, frankly this is such a hard and still very clouded area in science that discussions on a SC forum trying to reach any conclusion are funny. So I will just offer my favourite explanation with a disclaimer that it is just a aesthetical preference and I am ready to change my opinion with any scientific data that surface. As far as genetic influences go I definitely think there are some (I think there were some twin studies into hereditary influences) and the reason for their existence is that those gene variants in most cases offer group advatages and do not cause homosexuality. But as with anything in populations it is all about statistics, so those genetic influences are continuum and most beneficial equilibrium is probably so close to the "line" that some just fall on the other side(note that i used "line" since the range of homosexual behaviours is also pretty continuous. | ||
TrueRedemption
United States313 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:55 Sleight wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. Are you serious? Have you even taken a high school level of genetics? Answer me this, is a bacteria more or less likely to develop a resistance to ampicillin or penicillin on an ampacillin plate? Obviously this is oversimplified to prove a point, but I think its clearly one you are missing. They are equally likely to evolve, but you are only looking for the ampicillin so thats all you'll see, the penicillin will die out before you know it existed, but that doesn't make it any less likely to happen. Evolution is the result of changes in the genome of an organism. Those changes can happen through all sorts of mechanisms, but one way it cannot occur is by sensing the outside conditions and intentionally mutating in a specific fashion just to survive the current conditions. For every successful mutation that helps an organism survive better, there are millions which either hurt the organism or don't have any effect. Every example you listed is actually an example of evolution not having a conscious direction. The body's innate immune system reacts in certain ways to malaria, and the exact same changes it may have evolved over time are what make it particularly vulnerable to sickle cell, not because the body wants to be vulnerable to either of them, but because when malaria is killing everyone off, the people who can withstand it best reproduce the most regardless of a not yet exposed vulnerability to sickle cell. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
 | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:03 dudeman001 wrote: Doesn't this stand against everything about evolution? If someone was born having evolved the homosexual trait, they wouldn't reproduce (being attracted to the same gender) and the trait would die out, as often happens in non-optimal evolutionary traits. I only see homosexuality working as an evolutionary trait if it first appeared in a woman, who was later raped and had to give birth to someone who then had the homosexuality trait suppressed by other genes and spread it. Ouch, you have very poor understanding of evolution in populations. First off it is possible to be attracted to the same sex and still have sex with the other. Also it is not necessarily true that the same genetic influences cause male and female homosexuality, I would actually guess that they are different, so a heterosexual woman can have homosexual sons and you need also to consider that genetics does not seem to be the only determining factor(womb environment seems another). | ||
|
jmillz
73 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote: 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. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol | ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:14 Igakusei wrote: I hate it when I type out a thoughtful reply and it gets ignored because people are too busy calling each other names Haha you are right, and i'm sorry that I'm quoting this post but not the other  | ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
Nienordir
98 Posts
On November 30 2010 08:29 emythrel wrote: 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. How can you be sure? It's not like someone actually asked the frog what he thinks about it. Maybe he's yelling "Get off of me you pervert!". ^^ On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote: so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. 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. That doesn't make sense. They're no harm to the species, even if it was a defective gene they don't reproduce, they don't contribute to the future gene pool, therefore it will never become a problem that could endanger the species, which means there is absolutely no biological reason to disallow it. My guess is that it happens because both male/female go through the same embryonal stages and sometimes the correct hormone levels won't get triggered which causes them to be attracted to the same sex. It's simply a sideeffect of this type of reproduction, but not significant enough to make the species go extinct. What would be more interesting to know is why so many homosexuals act over the top gay (double rainbow!!11). I find that rather disturbing, not just because they're attracted to men that act like girls and talk through their nose, but also because it seems so ridiculous and 'forced' as if they're wearing a mask that hides them from everyone (including their partners). I don't think that lesbians show this behavior either, but then again maybe there are much more down to earth guys than media suggests.. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
How do we come, by my logic, to the above conclusion?. The external influence you're defining is some influence that is free outside the environment; whereas mine is within the mother's womb, carefully orchestrated in an intricate system of genetic interaction. Because you keep on parroting this, I'm assuming that I didn't express it properly, as opposed to the alternative, you can't read properly. I hope thats the case. The Hormonal balance in a mothers womb is far from free from outside influences. Her stress levels, diet, and environmental exposure all effect this balance. Amounting to an environmental influence on whether or not the properly hormonal conditions that produce homosexuality is reached. kk? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:14 TrueRedemption wrote: Are you serious? Have you even taken a high school level of genetics? Answer me this, is a bacteria more or less likely to develop a resistance to ampicillin or penicillin on an ampacillin plate? Obviously this is oversimplified to prove a point, but I think its clearly one you are missing. They are equally likely to evolve, but you are only looking for the ampicillin so thats all you'll see, the penicillin will die out before you know it existed, but that doesn't make it any less likely to happen. Evolution is the result of changes in the genome of an organism. Those changes can happen through all sorts of mechanisms, but one way it cannot occur is by sensing the outside conditions and intentionally mutating in a specific fashion just to survive the current conditions. For every successful mutation that helps an organism survive better, there are millions which either hurt the organism or don't have any effect. Every example you listed is actually an example of evolution not having a conscious direction. The body's innate immune system reacts in certain ways to malaria, and the exact same changes it may have evolved over time are what make it particularly vulnerable to sickle cell, not because the body wants to be vulnerable to either of them, but because when malaria is killing everyone off, the people who can withstand it best reproduce the most regardless of a not yet exposed vulnerability to sickle cell. I agree with you, but if I understand him correctly he is trying to say that there is a drive and he means natural selection. And in this case you two are probably not really in a disagreement. If he does mean some real hidden drive than he is wrong  | ||
| ||
